SARS-CoV-2 Biochemistry, Transmission, Clinical Manifestations, and Prevention

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.

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 157-159
Author(s):  
P. Dehgani-Mobaraki ◽  
A. Kamber Zaidi ◽  
J.M. Levy ◽  

Over the past several months, an increasing volume of infor- mation has expanded awareness regarding the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus associated with COVID-19. Following the pandemic declaration by the World Health Orga- nization (WHO), global authorities immediately took measures to reduce the transmission and subsequent morbidity associa- ted with this highly contagious disease. However, despite initial success in “flattening the curve” of viral transmission, many areas of the world are currently experiencing an increase in com- munity transmission, threatening to replicate the early public health emergencies experienced by Italy (1,2). In addition, the possibility of contact tracing through geosocial applications and public service platforms have been met with variable interest (3). Given current spread and the upcoming influenza season, it is essential that we use our voices as experts in upper airway health and disease to educate and encourage all communities to adopt appropriate protective measures, including the routine use of facemasks.


Author(s):  
Ramesh Verma ◽  
Vinod Chayal ◽  
Meenakshi Kalhan ◽  
Rohit Dhaka ◽  
Ginni Agrawal ◽  
...  

Coronavirus disease is caused by a novel virus belonging to the family of corona viruses similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and  name given to the novel virus as SARS Coronavirus- 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the disease was named as COVID-19 on 11th February 2020 by World Health Organization (WHO). First case of this infection was reported in December 2019 in Wuhan city of China and after that it spread globally.3 On 30th January 2020, WHO declared this disease as Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and on 11th March 2020, WHO declared it as a pandemic when the infection was reported from all six WHO regions.


Author(s):  
Nur Hidayah Che Ahmat ◽  
Syafiqah Rahamat ◽  
Susan Wohlsdorf Arendt

The novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) first appeared in December 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei Province China before emerging in neighbouring countries in early 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic when the spreading of the virus started accelerating in many parts of the world and killing thousands of people. As of 22nd May 2021, there were more than 166 million confirmed cases with more than 147 million recovered and nearly 3.5 million deaths (Worldometers, n.d.). According to the WHO (2020) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020), the virus easily spreads through coughing and sneezing. Therefore, many countries implemented social distancing between individuals and various other restriction orders or recommendations (e.g., stay-at-home policies, closure of non-essential businesses) to help curb virus spread. How governments in each country reacted to control the spread of the virus appeared crucial to mitigate public health and economic impacts. Keywords: Foodservice, Hospitality, Hotel, Malaysia, Pandemic


Author(s):  
Hui Yang ◽  
Yingying Lyu ◽  
Fajian Hou

Abstract The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak began in December 2019, causing the illness known as the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The virus spread rapidly worldwide to become a global public health emergency. As of 15 November 2020, more than 53 million confirmed cases and over one million deaths worldwide have been reported (World Health Organization, 2020). The SARS-CoV-2 genome was sequenced and studies are ongoing to further understand the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, etiological structure, cellular receptor angiotensin II converting enzyme (ACE2), and intracellular replication process of the virus. Currently, thousands of clinical trials related to SARS-CoV-2 are underway (https://clinicaltrials.gov/). However, no vaccines or drugs have yet been approved, until very recently, for direct treatment or prevention of COVID-19 and only supportive treatment has been applied clinically. This review will discuss the possible mechanism of the innate immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and provide insight into the development of related therapeutics.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (39) ◽  
pp. 3508-3510
Author(s):  
Saramma Mini Jacob ◽  
Kanagasabai Sivasangeetha ◽  
Durairaj Anitha ◽  
Singaram Kaplana

In early January 2020, China had started raising concerns of a new contagious disease caused by new strains of coronavirus, Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeCoronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020, had declared the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak a global pandemic. COVID-19 was transmitted from person to person through respiratory droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes, breathing or through contact with a surface that has been contaminated 1 and through aerosols-airborne microdroplets.2 The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 represents a wide spectrum of disease ranging from mild to severe respiratory syndrome influenza-like illness with mainly lower respiratory tract symptoms, complicated by pneumonia and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), high fever, and headache. In many cases, loss of taste and smell and severe gastrointestinal symptoms were reported, as are cardiac problems, with the latter being perhaps secondary to a cytokine storm such as is seen in the more severely affected patients. 3 WHO COVID-19 dashboard on June 25th 2021 showed 179, 686, 071 confirmed cases worldwide.


2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2021-107763
Author(s):  
Nancy S Jecker ◽  
Derrick K S Au

Since the World Health Organization (WHO) first declared the novel coronavirus a pandemic, diverse strategies have emerged to address it. This paper focuses on two leading strategies, elimination and mitigation, and examines their ethical basis. Elimination or ‘Zero-COVID’ dominates policies in Pacific Rim societies. It sets as a goal zero deaths and seeks to contain transmission using stringent short-term lockdowns, followed by strict find, test, trace and isolate methods. Mitigation, which dominates in the US and most European nations, sets targets for community transmission and lifts restrictions once targets are met. This approach takes calculated risks and regards a certain amount of disease and death as ethically justified. Section I examines different societal responses to risk that underlie these different policy approaches. Section II focuses on ethical arguments favouring Zero-COVID and raises health equity objections. Section III proposes a long-term strategy that balances the twin goals of promoting population health and health equity.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Mboowa

On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) upgraded the status of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak from epidemic to a global pandemic. This infection is caused by a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. Several rapid diagnostic tests have been developed at an astonishing pace; however, COVID-19 requires more highly specific rapid point-of-care diagnostic tests. This review describes the currently available testing approaches, as well as the available test assays including the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test (takes ~45 min) and Abbott ID COVID-19 test (5 min) as easy to use point-of-care tests for diagnosis of novel COVID-19 that have so far received the US Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorizations clearance. This review is correct as of the date published and will be updated as more diagnostic tests come to light.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document