scholarly journals Controlling the worldwide chaotic spreading of COVID-19 through vaccinations

Author(s):  
Aldo Bonasera ◽  
hua zheng

The striking differences and similarities between the Spanish-flu of 1918 and the Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) are analyzed. Progress in medicine and technology and in particular the availability of vaccines has decreased the death probability from about 2% of the affected for the Spanish-flu, to about 10-5 in the UK and 10-3 in Italy, USA, Canada, San Marino and other countries for COVID-19. The logistic map reproduces most features of the disease and may be of guidance for predictions and future steps to be taken in order to contrast the virus. We estimate 6.4 107 deaths worldwide without the vaccines, this value decreases to 2.4 107 with the current vaccination rate. In August 2021, the number of deceased worldwide was 4.4 106. To reduce the fatalities further, it is imperative to increase the vaccination rate worldwide to at least 120 millions/day.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Schroeder ◽  
Spyridon Lazarakis ◽  
Rebecca Mancy ◽  
Konstantinos Angelopoulos

Abstract We analyse the dynamic evolution of disease outbreak risk after the main waves of the 1918-19 “Spanish flu” pandemic in the US and in major cities in the UK, and after the 1890-91 “Russian flu” pandemic in England and Wales. We compile municipal public health records and use national data to model the stochastic process of mortality rates after the main pandemic waves as a sequence of bounded Pareto distributions with an exponentially decaying tail parameter. In all cases, we find elevated mortality risk lasting nearly two decades. An application to COVID-19 under model uncertainty shows that in 80% of model-predicted time series, the annual probability of outbreaks exceeding 500 deaths per million is above 20% for a decade, remaining above 10% for two decades.


Author(s):  
Patrik Bachtiger ◽  
Alex Adamson ◽  
Ji-Jian Chow ◽  
Rupa Sisodia ◽  
Jennifer K Quint ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTObjectivesThe objective of this study was to measure the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on acceptance of flu vaccination in the 2020-21 season, including for those newly eligible for the UK National Health Service (NHS) free vaccination programme, extended this year to include an estimated 32.4 million (48.8%) of the UK population. Knowing intended uptake is essential to inform supply and steer public health messaging to maximise vaccination given the combined threats of both flu and Covid-19 — the unknown impact of which on both attitudes and the need for mass uptake yet again create the threat of ill-informed planning resulting in failure to meet necessary public health demand.MethodsAn online questionnaire posing question items on influenza vaccination was administered to registrants of the Care Information Exchange (CIE), the NHS’s largest patient electronic personal health record. This was part of a longitudinal study initiated during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown. This analysis was limited to those who, in line with established NHS criteria, were previously or newly eligible but had not routinely received seasonal influenza vaccination in the past. Groups were stratified by response (yes/no) to intending to receive flu vaccination in 2020-21: Group 1.) Previously eligible now responding ‘yes’, 2.) Previously eligible still responding ‘no’, 3.) Newly eligible responding ‘yes’, and 4.) Newly eligible responding ‘no’. Within these groups, response by health worker status and each group’s inclination to vaccinate school age children was also measured. Summary statistics were reported alongside univariate and multivariable regression. Lastly, a network analysis visualised the frequency and co-occurrence of reasons qualifying response for or against influenza vaccination in 2020/21.FindingsAmong 6,641 respondents, 4,040 (61.1%) had previously routinely received the flu vaccination. 1,624 (24.5%) had been either previously eligible but not vaccinated (945, 58.2%) or newly eligible (679, 41.8%). Among the previously eligible participants who had not routinely received influenza vaccination 536 (56.7%) responded they would in 2020-21, increasing the vaccination rate in the entire previously eligible cohort from 79.6% to 91.2%, and 466 (68.6%) in the newly eligible.Multivariable logistic regression resulted in few substantial changes to effect estimates, with the exception of age, for which all estimates showed a stronger association with intention to receive the flu vaccine. In those who became newly eligible to receive the flu vaccine, there was an association between intention to receive the flu vaccine and increased age (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.12), IMD quintile, and considering oneself at high risk from Covid-19 (OR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.70).Network analysis showed the most frequent themes for previously eligible unvaccinated and newly eligible participants accepting vaccination in 2020/21 were: ‘precaution for myself’ (41.2% and 46.1%) and ‘Covid-19’ (27.4% and 27.1%), where the former was qualified by the latter in 36% and 29.1% of responses. Among the previously and newly eligible not intending to receive vaccination in 2020/21, misinformed themes of ‘makes me unwell’, ‘gives me flu’ and ‘vaccine doesn’t work’ were present across 37.4% and 21.9% of responses, respectively.Among participants with school age children, of those previously eligible who now intend to be vaccinated themselves, 82.5% also intend to vaccinate their children in 2020/21 compared to 25.8% of those who would not accept the influenza vaccine for themselves. Among the newly eligible respondents this was 82.1% and 43.5%, respectively. 49.9% of the previously unvaccinated healthcare workers would continue to decline the vaccine in 2020/21.InterpretationIn this UK-wide observational study, Covid-19 has increased acceptance of flu vaccination in 2020/21 from 79.6% to 91.2% in those previously eligible, and for the 69% of those newly eligible. This high anticipated vaccination rate (to 26 million (80%) of the UK population) requires appropriate planning, but can be further increased with effective messaging campaigns to address negative misconceptions about flu vaccination, which may also help in preparation for future Covid-19 vaccination. It remains of concern that 50% of healthcare professionals who refused it previously still do not intend to have the flu vaccine.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-191
Author(s):  
Dae Jung Kim ◽  
Jung Yeon Heo ◽  
Hyun Soo Kim

It has been a year and half since the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As of July 23, 2021, more than 193 million people worldwide have been confirmed to contract the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), with more than 4.15 million deaths. In Korea, about 185,000 people have been confirmed and 2,066 have died of COVID-19. Korea is in the middle of the fourth wave of trends, and the metropolitan area is in the top stage of social distancing. Since the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination began in the UK in December 2020, the number of people who complete vaccination is only 13.3% around the world, and many low-income countries have less than 5%. In Korea, the first vaccination rate was 32.27%, but only 13% completed the vaccination until July 23. As expected, there has been a lot of confusion, controversy, and even fake news and rumors over the past five months since the vaccination against COVID-19 began in Korea on February 26, 2021. People’s views on vaccination are bound to vary depending on their experience, perspective, and even political stance. In this article, we wanted to introduce the arguments and conflicts that could arise during vaccinations and suggest what we should think about so that many people can get vaccinated without hesitation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-64
Author(s):  
Diana Brahams

This is a personal view from London as the Covid-19 pandemic continues to spread here and the situation changes from day to day. As such it can only be a snapshot caught in time; it is not a diary of events. The Coronavirus Act 2020 gives Government enormous powers and was passed by Parliament in one day of debate immediately before it closed early for the Easter break. In March, the government imposed a “lockdown: the closure of all” but “essential” businesses and people other than essential workers must work from home but are allowed out for exercise and food shopping but must maintain 2 m apart, the “social distancing rule”. The aim is to suppress the spread of the virus, reduce the death toll and “protect the National Health Service (NHS)” which needed time to empty wards and expand its intensive care unit (ICU) capability to deal with an expected influx of thousands of very sick patients. I discuss whether this strategy is working, how and why it has rapidly been altered to respond to criticism. Why was the Government so slow to seek the help of private laboratories to assist with testing? Why was the personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance altered only after criticism? I look at the impact of the lockdown on the UK economy, the changes to practice of medicine and speeding of scientific research. Cooperating with the lockdown has its price; is it harming the health and mental health of children, people living in households with potentially abusive partners or parents and those who are disabled or financially desperate? Is the cure worse than the disease? The Economy is being devastated by the lockdown and each day of lockdown it is worse. Is litigation being seeded even now by the pandemic? Notwithstanding unprecedented Government financial help many businesses are on the edge of collapse, people will lose their jobs and pensioners income. The winners include pharmacies, supermarkets, online food retailers, Amazon, online apps, providers of video games, services, streaming and scientific research laboratories, manufacturers of testing kits, ventilators, hand sanitisers, coffins, undertakers, etc. The British public is cooperating with lockdown but are we less productive at home? Parents with babies and children often child minders, school, grandparents or paid help which is not now available. Will current reliance on video-conferencing and video calls permanently change the way we work and will we need smaller city offices? Will we travel less? Will medical and legal practice and civil and criminal trials be generally carried out remotely? Will social distancing with self-isolation and job losses and business failures fuel depression? Is Covid-19 comparable to past epidemics like the Plague and Spanish flu?


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Schroeder ◽  
Spyridon Lazarakis ◽  
Rebecca Mancy ◽  
Konstantinos Angelopoulos

Abstract We analyse the dynamic evolution of disease outbreak risk after the main waves of the 1918-19 “Spanish flu” pandemic in the US and in major cities in the UK, and after the 1890-91 “Russian flu” pandemic in England and Wales. We compile municipal public health records and use national data to model the stochastic process of mortality rates after the main pandemic waves as a sequence of bounded Pareto distributions with an exponentially decaying tail parameter. In all cases, we find elevated mortality risk lasting nearly two decades. An application to COVID-19 under model uncertainty shows that in 90% of model-predicted time series, the annual probability of outbreaks exceeding 500 deaths per million is above 20% for a decade, remaining above 10% for two decades.


2000 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. R. M. Hay ◽  
T. P. Baglin ◽  
P. W. Collins ◽  
F. G. H. Hill ◽  
D. M. Keeling

2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (4S) ◽  
pp. 476-477
Author(s):  
Freddie C. Hamdy ◽  
Joanne Howson ◽  
Athene Lane ◽  
Jenny L. Donovan ◽  
David E. Neal

2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (4S) ◽  
pp. 210-210
Author(s):  
◽  
Freddie C. Hamdy ◽  
Athene Lane ◽  
David E. Neal ◽  
Malcolm Mason ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 131
Author(s):  
A ZAPHIRIOU ◽  
S ROBB ◽  
G MENDEZ ◽  
T MURRAYTHOMAS ◽  
S HARDMAN ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document