Refine
Document Type
- Article (9)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (10)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (10)
Keywords
- Pandemic (10) (remove)
Purpose: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replicates predominantly in the upper respiratory tract and is primarily transmitted by droplets and aerosols. Taking the medical history for typical COVID-19 symptoms and PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing have become established as screening procedures. The aim of this work was to describe the clinical appearance of SARS-CoV-2-PCR positive patients and to determine the SARS-CoV-2 contact risk for health care workers (HCW).
Methods: The retrospective study included n = 2283 SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from n = 1725 patients with otorhinolaryngological (ORL) diseases performed from March to November 2020 prior to inpatient treatment. In addition, demographic data and medical history were assessed.
Results: n = 13 PCR tests (0.6%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The positive rate showed a significant increase during the observation period (p < 0.01). None of the patients had clinical symptoms that led to a suspected diagnosis of COVID-19 before PCR testing. The patients were either asymptomatic (n = 4) or had symptoms that were interpreted as symptoms typical of the ORL disease or secondary diagnoses (n = 9).
Conclusion: The identification of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients is a considerable challenge in clinical practice. Our findings illustrate that taking a medical history alone is of limited value and cannot replace molecular SARS-CoV-2 testing, especially for patients with ORL diseases. Our data also demonstrate that there is a high probability of contact with SARS-CoV-2-positive patients in everyday clinical practice, so that the use of personal protective equipment, even in apparently “routine cases”, is highly recommended.
Der Ausnahmezustand
(2020)
Wenn wir die Berechtigung der Maßnahmen im Kampf gegen die Corona-Pandemie unterstellen, dann deshalb, weil wir darauf hoffen, dass sie greifen und etwas bewirken, und zwar in nicht allzu ferner Zukunft. Tun sie es, ist alles gut. Aber was, wenn nicht – und wenn der Zustand, der durch sie eintritt, länger und länger dauert, vielleicht ein Ende auch gar nicht absehbar ist? Dazu drei knappe, aber grundsätzliche Bemerkungen aus der Sicht der Staatstheorie, des Verfassungsrechts und der Rechtsphilosophie.
Der Vorstand der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Epileptologie und die Kommission „Epilepsie und Synkopen“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurologie haben die aktuelle Datenlage zur Impfung zur Vorbeugung der Corona-Virus-Krankheit 2019 (COVID-19) sowie zur Impfpriorisierung bei Menschen mit Epilepsie gesichtet, diese zusammengefasst und geben die unten genannten Empfehlungen ab.
The Board of Directors of the German Society of Epileptology and the committee on epilepsy and syncope of the German Society of Neurology have reviewed the current data on vaccination to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and vaccination prioritization in people with epilepsy and provide a summary and recommendations.
The consequences of the current COVID-19 pandemic for mental health remain unclear, especially regarding the effects on suicidal behaviors. To assess changes in the pattern of suicide attempt (SA) admissions and completed suicides (CS) in association with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of a longitudinal study, SA admissions and CS are systematically documented and analyzed in all psychiatric hospitals in Frankfurt/Main (765.000 inhabitants). Number, sociodemographic factors, diagnoses and methods of SA and CS were compared between the periods of March–December 2019 and March–December 2020. The number of CS did not change, while the number of SA significantly decreased. Age, sex, occupational status, and psychiatric diagnoses did not change in SA, whereas the percentage of patients living alone while attempting suicide increased. The rate and number of intoxications as a SA method increased and more people attempted suicide in their own home, which was not observed in CS. Such a shift from public places to home is supported by the weekday of SA, as the rate of SA on weekends was significantly lower during the pandemic, likely because of lockdown measures. Only admissions to psychiatric hospitals were recorded, but not to other institutions. As it seems unlikely that the number of SA decreased while the number of CS remained unchanged, it is conceivable that the number of unreported SA cases increased during the pandemic. Our data suggest that a higher number of SA remained unnoticed during the pandemic because of their location and the use of methods associated with lower lethality.
Background: Predicted increases in suicide were not generally observed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the picture may be changing and patterns might vary across demographic groups. We aimed to provide a timely, granular picture of the pandemic's impact on suicides globally.
Methods: We identified suicide data from official public-sector sources for countries/areas-within-countries, searching websites and academic literature and contacting data custodians and authors as necessary. We sent our first data request on 22nd June 2021 and stopped collecting data on 31st October 2021. We used interrupted time series (ITS) analyses to model the association between the pandemic's emergence and total suicides and suicides by sex-, age- and sex-by-age in each country/area-within-country. We compared the observed and expected numbers of suicides in the pandemic's first nine and first 10-15 months and used meta-regression to explore sources of variation.
Findings: We sourced data from 33 countries (24 high-income, six upper-middle-income, three lower-middle-income; 25 with whole-country data, 12 with data for area(s)-within-the-country, four with both). There was no evidence of greater-than-expected numbers of suicides in the majority of countries/areas-within-countries in any analysis; more commonly, there was evidence of lower-than-expected numbers. Certain sex, age and sex-by-age groups stood out as potentially concerning, but these were not consistent across countries/areas-within-countries. In the meta-regression, different patterns were not explained by countries’ COVID-19 mortality rate, stringency of public health response, economic support level, or presence of a national suicide prevention strategy. Nor were they explained by countries’ income level, although the meta-regression only included data from high-income and upper-middle-income countries, and there were suggestions from the ITS analyses that lower-middle-income countries fared less well.
Interpretation: Although there are some countries/areas-within-countries where overall suicide numbers and numbers for certain sex- and age-based groups are greater-than-expected, these countries/areas-within-countries are in the minority. Any upward movement in suicide numbers in any place or group is concerning, and we need to remain alert to and respond to changes as the pandemic and its mental health and economic consequences continue.
In the face of the worldwide COVIV-19 pandemic, refugees represent a particularly vulnerable group with respect to access to health care and information regarding preventive behavior. In an online survey the Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Scale, self-reported changes in preventive and risk behaviors, knowledge about COVID-19, and psychopathological symptoms (PHQ-4) were assessed. The convenience sample consisted of n = 76 refugees (n = 45 Arabic speaking, n = 31 Farsi speaking refugees) and n = 76 German controls matched with respect to age and sex. Refugees reported a significantly larger fear of infection, significantly less knowledge about COVID-19, and a higher frequency of maladaptive behavior, as compared to the control group. This study shows that refugees are more vulnerable to fear of infection and maladaptive behaviors than controls. Culturally adapted, easily accessible education about COVID-19 may be beneficial in improving knowledge and preventive behaviors related to COVID-19.
Hintergrund: Durch COVID-19 kam es weltweit, insbesondere in den ersten Wochen der Pandemie, zu einer Verschiebung und Absage elektiver Operationen in allen chirurgischen Fachdisziplinen. Eine Beschreibung der spezifischen Situation in gefäßchirurgischen Kliniken in Deutschland während dieser Periode ist bislang nicht erfolgt.
Ziel der Arbeit: Zweck der Befragung war die Erfassung der gefäßchirurgischen Leistungserbringung in der Zeit von März 2020 bis Dezember 2020, sowie von logistischen und infrastrukturellen Veränderungen, die sich durch die pandemische Lage ergeben hatten. Hierbei lag der Fokus der Umfrage auf der möglichst realitätsnahen Abbildung der Versorgungssituation anhand der Einschätzung der leitenden Gefäßchirurg*innen.
Material und Methoden: In Zusammenarbeit mit der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gefäßchirurgie und Gefäßmedizin (DGG) wurde das leitende ärztliche Personal von gefäßchirurgischen Einrichtungen in Deutschland aufgefordert, an der Umfrage teilzunehmen. Die Beantwortung der Fragen erfolgte anonym.
Ergebnisse: Durch COVID-19 und korrespondierende Maßnahmen kam und kommt es zu relevanten Absagen und Verschiebungen von Operationen, Verlust an Kapazitäten und einer gesteigerten Personalbelastung. Es traten im Beobachtungszeitraum verspätete Versorgungen gefäßchirurgischer Krankheitsbilder und ein gehäuftes Auftreten schwererer klinischer Stadien verglichen mit dem entsprechenden Vorjahreszeitraum auf. Betroffen sind alle Versorgungsstufen, größtenteils dauern diese Veränderungen an.
Diskussion: Um der strukturellen Schwächung und den Einschränkungen in der Patientenversorgung zu begegnen, sind klinische Abläufe, Patientenaufklärung und Priorisierung zu optimieren. Neue Konzepte wie z. B. Telemedizin und engmaschigere klinische Kontrolle sind ggf. sinnvoll. Eine erforderliche Infrastruktur für Notfallmanagement (COVID) darf im Alltag nicht die Versorgungsqualität der gefäßchirurgischen Patient*innen negativ beeinflussen.
Angesichts der in Deutschland und anderswo präzedenzlosen Eingrenzung des rechtlich Erlaubten stehen die begrenzenden Rechtsverordnungen, Allgemeinverfügungen und vollziehenden Maßnahmen des Staates im Zentrum grundrechtlicher Aufmerksamkeit. Freiheitsschonendere Alternativen werden in erster Linie durch das Prisma der Erforderlichkeit in den Blick genommen. Sich in einer Pandemielage gegen Beschränkungen zu entscheiden, erscheint grundrechtlich unverdächtig. Doch wäre es das tatsächlich? Im Folgenden werden zwei unterschiedliche Szenarien einer solchen Entscheidung vorgestellt und es wird ein näherer Blick auf die Folgen für den individuellen Grundrechtsgebrauch geworfen. Es zeigen sich Grundrechtsfragen, die im Ergebnis auch für die Beurteilung des beschränkenden Staates aufgeworfen sind.
We develop a novel empirical approach to identify the effectiveness of policies against a pandemic. The essence of our approach is the insight that epidemic dynamics are best tracked over stages, rather than over time. We use a normalization procedure that makes the pre-policy paths of the epidemic identical across regions. The procedure uncovers regional variation in the stage of the epidemic at the time of policy implementation. This variation delivers clean identification of the policy effect based on the epidemic path of a leading region that serves as a counterfactual for other regions. We apply our method to evaluate the effectiveness of the nationwide stay-home policy enacted in Spain against the Covid-19 pandemic. We find that the policy saved 15.9% of lives relative to the number of deaths that would have occurred had it not been for the policy intervention. Its effectiveness evolves with the epidemic and is larger when implemented at earlier stages.