scholarly journals Perceptions of the Adult US Population regarding the Novel Coronavirus Outbreak

Author(s):  
SarahAnn M. McFadden ◽  
Amyn A. Malik ◽  
Obianuju G. Aguolu ◽  
Kathryn S. Willebrand ◽  
Saad B. Omer

AbstractBackgroundCOVID-19 outbreak is spreading globally. Although the risk of infection in the US is currently low, it is important to understand the public perception of risk and trust in sources of information to better inform public health messaging. In this study, we surveyed the adult US population to understand their risk perceptions about the COVID-19 outbreak.Methods and FindingsWe used an online platform to survey 718 adults in the US in early February 2020 using a questionnaire that we developed. Our sample was fairly similar to the general adult US population in terms of age, gender, race, ethnicity and education. We found that 69% of the respondents wanted the scientific/public health leadership (either the CDC Director or NIH Director) to lead the US response to COVID-19 outbreak as compared to 14% who wanted the political leadership (either the president or the Congress) to lead the response. Risk perception was low (median score of 5 out of 10) with the respondents trusting health professionals and health officials for information on COVID-19. Majority of the respondents were in favor of strict infection prevention policies to control the outbreak.ConclusionGiven our results, the public health/scientific leadership should be at the forefront of the COVID-19 response to promote trust.

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 222-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karla I. Galaviz ◽  
K. M. Venkat Narayan ◽  
Olivia Manders ◽  
Deborah A. McFarland ◽  
Shifalika Goenka ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 003335492110587
Author(s):  
Andrew D. Redd ◽  
Lauren S. Peetluk ◽  
Brooke A. Jarrett ◽  
Colleen Hanrahan ◽  
Sheree Schwartz ◽  
...  

The public health crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic has spurred a deluge of scientific research aimed at informing the public health and medical response to the pandemic. However, early in the pandemic, those working in frontline public health and clinical care had insufficient time to parse the rapidly evolving evidence and use it for decision-making. Academics in public health and medicine were well-placed to translate the evidence for use by frontline clinicians and public health practitioners. The Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium (NCRC), a group of >60 faculty and trainees across the United States, formed in March 2020 with the goal to quickly triage and review the large volume of preprints and peer-reviewed publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 and summarize the most important, novel evidence to inform pandemic response. From April 6 through December 31, 2020, NCRC teams screened 54 192 peer-reviewed articles and preprints, of which 527 were selected for review and uploaded to the NCRC website for public consumption. Most articles were peer-reviewed publications (n = 395, 75.0%), published in 102 journals; 25.1% (n = 132) of articles reviewed were preprints. The NCRC is a successful model of how academics translate scientific knowledge for practitioners and help build capacity for this work among students. This approach could be used for health problems beyond COVID-19, but the effort is resource intensive and may not be sustainable in the long term.


European View ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-163
Author(s):  
Nad’a Kovalčíková ◽  
Ariane Tabatabai

As governments and citizens around the world have struggled with the novel coronavirus, the information space has turned into a battleground. Authoritarian countries, including Russia, China and Iran, have spread disinformation on the causes of and responses to the pandemic. The over-abundance of information, also referred to as an ‘infodemic’, including manipulated information, has been both a cause and a result of the exacerbation of the public health crisis. It is further undermining trust in democratic institutions, the independent press, and facts and data, and exacerbating the rising tensions driven by economic, political and societal challenges. This article discusses the challenges democracies have faced and the measures they have adopted to counter information manipulation that impedes public health efforts. It draws seven lessons learned from the information war and offers a set of recommendations on tackling future infodemics related to public health.


2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 562-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Shickle ◽  
M. Day ◽  
K. Smith ◽  
K. Zakariasen ◽  
J. Moskol ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muneeba Azmat

The pandemic of the 2019 novel Coronavirus has seen unprecedented exponential growth. Within three months, 192 countries have been affected, crossing more than 1 million confirmed cases and over 60 thousand deaths until the first week of April. Decision making in such a pandemic becomes difficult due to limited data on the nature of the disease and its propagation, course, prevention, and treatment. The pandemic response has varied from country to country and has resulted in a heterogeneous timeline for novel Coronavirus propagation. We compared the public health measures taken by various countries and the potential impact on the spread. We studied 6 countries including China, Italy, South Korea, Singapore, United Kingdom(UK), United States(US), and the special administrative region of Hong Kong. All articles, press releases, and websites of government entities published over a five-month period were included. A comparison of the date of the first diagnosed case, the spread of disease, and time since the first case and major public health policy implemented for prevention and containment and current cases was done. An emphasis on early and aggressive border restriction and surveillance of travelers from infected areas, use of information technology, and social distancing is necessary for control of the novel pandemic. Moving forwards, improvement in infrastructure, and adequate preparedness for pandemics is required.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 303-311
Author(s):  
Gundu H. R. Rao

The first human case of COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus, was reported by health officials in the city of Wuhan, China, in December of 2019. The virus was identified as a novel coronavirus in early January 2020, and its genetic sequence was shared publicly on January 11, 2020. The novel virus, previously called 2019-novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), is currently designated as the severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). On January 23, Wuhan was locked down, and the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a “public health emergency of international concern.” The viral genome of SARS-CoV-2 is around 29.8 kilobase, containing six major open reading frames. The most common clinical symptoms were fever, cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, dyspnea, muscle ache, headache, chest pain, vomiting, sore throat, and sputum production. The main mode of transmission is through respiratory particles. The incubation period is 3 to 7 days. Both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients seem to be infectious. Spike (S) proteins of SARS-CoV-2 seem to have a 10- to 20-fold higher affinity to the human angiotensin enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor than that of SARS-CoV. The high affinity of S protein to theACE2 receptor, and the additional advantages offered by the transfection facilitators Furin and Neutropilin-1, likely, contributes to the rapid spreading of this novel virus. Since these receptors are highly expressed on a variety of cells, including vascular endothelial cells and adipose tissue, individuals with compromised function of these tissues drive greater infection and severity in patients with COVID-19. Global health experts estimate that one in five individuals worldwide could be at risk for severe COVID-19, due to underlying health conditions. There is a great need for a rapid, specific, cost-effective test for monitoring the infected individuals. Even though a 15- minute, antigen test was made available by Abbott recently, it seems that the schools, colleges, and business establishments lack the ability to use these tests effectively to keep their businesses open safely. Management of the infected individuals seems to be based on clinical symptoms that manifest as the disease progresses. The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), has created a special emergency program for possible therapies, the Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP). The program uses every available method to move new and emerging treatments as quickly as possible, keeping in mind the safety and efficacy of such therapies. According to the WHO report, there are currently more than 150 COVID-19 vaccine candidates under development. Several vaccines are in Phase 3 clinical trials. In an unprecedented effort, one of the experimental monoclonal antibody cocktails of Regeneron was used for therapeutic purposes when the US president was tested positive for COVID-19. There are no drugs or other therapeutics approved by the US FDA to prevent or treat COVID-19. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) have published interim guidelines for the medical management of COVID-19. In the absence of a cure, the only choice we all have is to follow the best practices recommended by the public health experts—use of face masks (coverings), frequent hand washing with soap, contact tracing of infected individuals, and quarantining COVID-19 positive individuals, till they are free of the highly infectious virus.


2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm Forbes ◽  
Mark Patrick Taylor

AbstractThe public health leadership and management of lead exposure in a lead mining and smelting community in Mount Isa is an ongoing issue. There exists deficiencies in public health and environmental legal frameworks that regulate lead exposure and management in Mount Isa, Queensland. Although some positive practical measures on lead containment have been implemented, evidence suggests they are currently inadequate. Greater investments in public health leadership at a local and state level are required to address the ongoing issue of lead in Mount Isa.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enahoro A. Iboi ◽  
Ariana Richardson ◽  
Rachel Ruffin ◽  
DeAndrea Ingram ◽  
Jailyn Clark ◽  
...  

AbstractThe coronavirus outbreak in the United States continues to pose a serious threat to human lives. Public health measures to slow down the spread of the virus involve using a face mask, social-distancing, and frequent hand washing. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there has been a global campaign on the use of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to curtail the spread of the virus. However, the number of cases, mortality, and hospitalization continue to rise globally, including in the United States. We developed a mathematical model to assess the impact of a public health education program on the coronavirus outbreak in the US. Our simulation showed the prospect of an effective public health education program in reducing both the cumulative and daily mortality of the novel coronavirus. Finally, our result suggests the need to obey public health measures as loss of willingness would increase the cumulative and daily mortality in the US.


Author(s):  
Daniel M. Weinberger ◽  
Ted Cohen ◽  
Forrest W. Crawford ◽  
Farzad Mostashari ◽  
Don Olson ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTBackgroundEfforts to track the severity and public health impact of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, in the US have been hampered by testing issues, reporting lags, and inconsistency between states.Evaluating unexplained increases in deaths attributed to broad outcomes, such as pneumonia and influenza (P&I) or all causes, can provide a more complete and consistent picture of the burden caused by COVID-19.MethodsWe evaluated increases in the occurrence of deaths due to P&I above a seasonal baseline (adjusted for influenza activity) or due to any cause across the United States in February and March 2020. These estimates are compared with reported deaths due to COVID-19 and with testing data.ResultsThere were notable increases in the rate of death due to P&I in February and March 2020. In a number of states, these deaths pre-dated increases in COVID-19 testing rates and were not counted in official records as related to COVID-19. There was substantial variability between states in the discrepancy between reported rates of death due to COVID-19 and the estimated burden of excess deaths due to P&I. The increase in all-cause deaths in New York and New Jersey is 1.5-3 times higher than the official tally of COVID-19 confirmed deaths or the estimated excess death due to P&I.ConclusionsExcess P&I deaths provide a conservative estimate of COVID-19 burden and indicate that COVID-19-related deaths are missed in locations with inadequate testing or intense pandemic activity.RESEARCH IN CONTEXTEvidence before this studyDeaths due to the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, have been increasing sharply in the United States since mid-March. However, efforts to track the severity and public health impact of COIVD-19 in the US have been hampered by testing issues, reporting lags, and inconsistency between states. As a result, the reported number of deaths likely represents an underestimate of the true burden.Added Value of this studyWe evaluate increases in deaths due to pneumonia across the United States and relate these increases to the number of reported deaths due to COVID-19 in different states and evaluate the trajectories of these increases in relation to the volume of testing and to indicators of COVID-19 morbidity. This provides a more complete picture of mortality due to COVID-19 in the US and demonstrates how delays in testing led to many coronavirus deaths not being counted in certain states.Implications of all the available evidenceThe number of deaths reported to be due to COVID-19 represents just a fraction of the deaths linked to the pandemic. Monitoring trends in deaths due to pneumonia and all-causes provides a more complete picture of the tool of the disease.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document