The attitude of university students to distance learning in the context of the spread of coronavirus

The article condemns the problem of the attitude of university students to distance learning in the conditions of the spread of coronavirus. It describes the results of a study, the main purpose of which is to show how the attitude of students to the conditions for obtaining education in a distance format is changing. The article indicates that distance learning has become a forced form of student training due to the pandemic and the widespread lockdown in April 2020. Neither teachers nor students had been prepared for distance learning, this caused a negative attitude to the educational process, which could not but affect its results. The article gives the concept of distance learning, briefly describes its history, discusses the advantages and disadvantages. The results of a survey of students in May 2020 and in May 2021 are presented in order to clarify the changes in their attitude to distance learning. The analysis of the questionnaire showed that for many students, adaptation to distance learning was quite difficult. The majority of the surveyed students preferred traditional contact training and with great problems and reluctance studied in a distance format, which has both subjective and objective reasons. In May 2021, a repeated survey of students was conducted, which showed significant changes over the past year in relation to remote technologies. Despite the fact that the value of daily contact with teachers and classmates remains high for students, they do not deny the opportunity to study remotely. The results of the study show that the development of distance learning skills by students affects the attitude to it. The article describes the conditions for the effectiveness of distance learning in the modern realities of education.

Prevalence of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection and vaccination in Irish Hospital Healthcare Workers; changing epidemiology as the pandemic progresses

Background In October 2020 SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among hospital healthcare workers (HCW) of two Irish hospitals was 15% and 4.1% respectively. We compare seroprevalence in the same HCW population six months later, assess changes in risk factors for seropositivity with progression of the pandemic and serological response to vaccination. Methods All staff of both hospitals (N=9038) were invited to participate in an online questionnaire and SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in April 2021. We measured anti-nucleocapsid and anti-spike antibodies. Frequencies and percentages for positive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were calculated and adjusted relative risks for participant characteristics were calculated using multivariable regression analysis. Results 5085 HCW participated. Seroprevalence increased to 21% and 13% respectively; 26% of infections were previously undiagnosed. Black ethnicity (aRR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.2, p<.001), lower level of education (aRR 1.4 for secondary level education, 95% CI 1.1-1.8, p=0.002), living with other HCW (aRR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.4, p=0.007) were significantly associated with seropositivity. Having direct patient contact also carried a significant risk (being a healthcare assistant (aRR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.3, p<.001), being a nurse (aRR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.8, p=0.022), daily contact with COVID-19 patients (aRR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.7, p=0.002), daily contact with patients without suspected or confirmed COVID-19 (aRR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5, p=0.013) Breakthrough infection occurred in 23/4111(0.6%) of fully vaccinated participants; all had anti-S antibodies. Conclusion The increase in seroprevalence reflects the magnitude of the third wave of the pandemic in Ireland. Genomic sequencing is needed to apportion risk to the workplace versus the household/community. Concerted efforts are needed to mitigate risk factors due to ethnicity and lower level of education, even at this stage of the pandemic. The undiagnosed and breakthrough infections call for ongoing infection prevention and control measures and testing of HCW in the setting of close contact. Vaccinated HCW with confirmed infection should be actively assessed, including SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing (WGS), serology testing and assessment of host determinants, to advance understanding of the reasons for breakthrough infection.

Feasibility and acceptability of daily testing at school as an alternative to self-isolation following close contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19: A qualitative analysis

Background Daily testing using a rapid Lateral Flow Device (LFD) has been suggested as an alternative to self-isolation. A randomised trial comparing daily contact testing (DCT) in schools with self-isolation found that SARS-CoV-2 transmission within school was comparable and low in both groups. However, if this approach is to be adopted widely, it is critical that we understand the perspective of those who will be delivering and receiving DCT. The aim of this qualitative process study embedded in the randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to improve understanding of a range of behavioural factors that could influence implementation. Methods Interviews were conducted with 63 participants, including staff, students, and parents of students who had been identified as being in close contact with someone with COVID-19. The topic guide explored perceptions of daily testing, understanding of positive and negative test results, and adherence to guidance. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Results Results were organised under three main headings: (1) factors influencing daily testing (2) interpretation of test results (3) behaviour during testing period. Participants recognized that daily testing may allow students to remain in school, which was viewed as necessary for both education and social needs. Whilst some felt safer as a result of daily testing, others raised concerns about safety. Participants did not always understand how to interpret and respond to test results, and although participants reported high levels of adherence to the guidance, improved communications were desired. Conclusion Daily testing may be a feasible and acceptable alternative to self-isolation among close contacts of people who test positive. However, improved communications are needed to ensure that all students and parents have a good understanding of the rationale for testing, what test results mean, how test results should be acted on, and how likely students are to test positive following close contact. Support is needed for students and parents of students who have to self-isolate and for those who have concerns about the safety of daily testing.

One Health Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Seropositivity among Pets in Households with Confirmed Human COVID-19 Cases—Utah and Wisconsin, 2020

Approximately 67% of U.S. households have pets. Limited data are available on SARS-CoV-2 in pets. We assessed SARS-CoV-2 infection in pets during a COVID-19 household transmission investigation. Pets from households with ≥1 person with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion from April–May 2020. We enrolled 37 dogs and 19 cats from 34 households. All oropharyngeal, nasal, and rectal swabs tested negative by rRT-PCR; one dog’s fur swabs (2%) tested positive by rRT-PCR at the first sampling. Among 47 pets with serological results, eight (17%) pets (four dogs, four cats) from 6/30 (20%) households had detectable SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. In households with a seropositive pet, the proportion of people with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 was greater (median 79%; range: 40–100%) compared to households with no seropositive pet (median 37%; range: 13–100%) (p = 0.01). Thirty-three pets with serologic results had frequent daily contact (≥1 h) with the index patient before the person’s COVID-19 diagnosis. Of these 33 pets, 14 (42%) had decreased contact with the index patient after diagnosis and none were seropositive; of the 19 (58%) pets with continued contact, four (21%) were seropositive. Seropositive pets likely acquired infection after contact with people with COVID-19. People with COVID-19 should restrict contact with pets and other animals.

Modelling the effectiveness and social costs of daily lateral flow antigen tests versus quarantine in preventing onward transmission of COVID-19 from traced contacts

Quarantining close contacts of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 for 10 to 14 days is a key strategy in reducing transmission. However, quarantine requirements are often unpopular, with low adherence, especially when a large fraction of the population has been vaccinated. Daily contact testing (DCT), in which contacts are required to isolate only if they test positive, is an alternative to quarantine for mitigating the risk of transmission from traced contacts. In this study, we developed an integrated model of COVID-19 transmission dynamics and compared the strategies of quarantine and DCT with regard to reduction in transmission and social/economic costs (days of quarantine/self-isolation). Specifically, we compared 10-day quarantine to 7 days of self-testing using rapid lateral flow antigen tests, starting 3 days after exposure to a case. We modelled both incomplete adherence to quarantine and incomplete adherence to DCT. We found that DCT reduces transmission from contacts with similar effectiveness, at much lower social/economic costs, especially for highly vaccinated populations. The findings were robust across a spectrum of scenarios with varying assumptions on the speed of contact tracing, sensitivity of lateral flow antigen tests, adherence to quarantine and uptake of testing. Daily tests would also allow rapid initiation of a new round of tracing from infected contacts.

A cluster randomised trial of the impact of a policy of daily testing for contacts of COVID-19 cases on attendance and COVID-19 transmission in English secondary schools and colleges

Background School-based COVID-19 contacts in England are asked to self-isolate at home. However, this has led to large numbers of missed school days. Therefore, we trialled daily testing of contacts as an alternative, to investigate if it would affect transmission in schools. Methods We performed an open-label cluster randomised controlled trial in students and staff from secondary schools and further education colleges in England (ISRCTN18100261). Schools were randomised to self-isolation of COVID-19 contacts for 10 days (control) or to voluntary daily lateral flow device (LFD) testing for school contacts with LFD-negative contacts remaining at school (intervention). Household contacts were excluded from participation. Co-primary outcomes in all students and staff were symptomatic COVID-19, adjusted for community case rates, to estimate within-school transmission (non-inferiority margin: <50% relative increase), and COVID-19-related school absence. Analyses were performed on an intention to treat (ITT) basis using quasi-Poisson regression, also estimating complier average causal effects (CACE). Secondary outcomes included participation rates, PCR results in contacts and performance characteristics of LFDs vs. PCR. Findings Of 99 control and 102 intervention schools, 76 and 86 actively participated (19-April-2021 to 27-June-2021); additional national data allowed most non-participating schools to be included in the co-primary outcomes. 2432/5763 (42.4%) intervention arm contacts participated. There were 657 symptomatic PCR-confirmed infections during 7,782,537 days-at-risk (59.1/100k/week) and 740 during 8,379,749 days-at-risk (61.8/100k/week) in the control and intervention arms respectively (ITT adjusted incidence rate ratio, aIRR=0.96 [95%CI 0.75-1.22;p=0.72]) (CACE-aIRR=0.86 [0.55-1.34]). There were 55,718 COVID-related absences during 3,092,515 person-school-days (1.8%) and 48,609 during 3,305,403 person-school-days (1.5%) in the control and intervention arms (ITT-aIRR=0.80 [95%CI 0.53-1.21;p=0.29]) (CACE-aIRR 0.61 [0.30-1.23]). 14/886(1.6%) control contacts providing an asymptomatic PCR sample tested positive compared to 44/2981(1.5%) intervention contacts (adjusted odds ratio, aOR=0.73 [95%CI 0.33-1.61;p=0.44]). Rates of symptomatic infection in contacts were 44/4665 (0.9%) and 79/5955 (1.3%), respectively (aOR=1.21 [0.82-1.79;p=0.34]). Interpretation Daily contact testing of school-based contacts was non-inferior to self-isolation for control of COVID-19 transmission. COVID-19 rates in school-based contacts in both intervention and control groups were <2%. Daily contact testing is a safe alternative to home isolation following school-based exposures.

Agents and Agency

The CPC traveling agent was a woman who traveled for several months a year, stopping in small towns on her route to recruit women to sell in their neighborhoods. The traveling agent kept in daily contact with the company in New York, evaluating individual sales reports and earnings, handing out catalogs and sample cases to new recruits, and training women for making sales calls, submitting and receiving orders, and distributing products to customers. A demographic profile of these agents shows that most women were either single or widowed and between the ages of twenty and seventy. An analysis of their work gleaned from company literature, private writing, and the national census shows that most of these women welcomed the independence and opportunity for substantial income beyond what ordinary work offered. This group of women would become the first generation of women managers in the company, overseeing the transition from district to city sales offices in the late 1930s.

One Health Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Seropositivity among Pets in Households with Confirmed Human COVID-19 Cases - Utah and Wisconsin, 2020

Background: Approximately 67% of U.S. households have pets. Limited data are available on SARS-CoV-2 in pets. We assessed SARS-CoV-2 infection in pet cohabitants as a sub-study of an ongoing COVID-19 household transmission investigation. Methods: Mammalian pets from households with >=1 person with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion from April-May 2020. Demographic/exposure information, oropharyngeal, nasal, rectal, and fur swabs, feces, and blood were collected from enrolled pets and tested by rRT-PCR and virus neutralization assays. Findings: We enrolled 37 dogs and 19 cats from 34 of 41 eligible households. All oropharyngeal, nasal, and rectal swabs tested negative by rRT-PCR; one dog's fur swabs (2%) tested positive by rRT-PCR at the first animal sampling. Among 47 pets with serological results from 30 households, eight (17%) pets (4 dogs, 4 cats) from 6 (20%) households had detectable SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. In households with a seropositive pet, the proportion of people with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 was greater (median 79%; range: 40-100%) compared to households with no seropositive pet (median 37%; range: 13-100%) (p=0.01). Thirty-three pets with serologic results had frequent daily contact (>=1 hour) with the human index patient before the person's COVID-19 diagnosis. Of these 33 pets, 14 (42%) had decreased contact with the human index patient after diagnosis and none (0%) were seropositive; of the 19 (58%) pets with continued contact, 4 (21%) were seropositive. Interpretations: Seropositive pets likely acquired infection from humans, which may occur more frequently than previously recognized. People with COVID-19 should restrict contact with animals.