In 2009, influenza A H1N1 caused the first pandemic of the 21st century. Although a vaccine against this influenza subtype was offered before or at the onset of the second epidemic wave that caused most of the fatal cases in Europe, vaccination rates for that season were lower than expected. We propose that the contradiction between high risk of infection and low use of available prevention measures represents a pandemic public health paradox. This research aims for a better understanding of this paradox by exploring the time-dependent interplay among changing influenza epidemiology, media attention, pandemic control measures, risk perception and public health behavior among five European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Spain and the UK). Findings suggest that asynchronicity between media curves and epidemiological curves may potentially explain the pandemic public health paradox; media attention for influenza A H1N1 in Europe declined long before the epidemic reached its peak, and public risk perceptions and behaviors may have followed media logic, rather than epidemiological logic.

Summary Objective  To summarise the major control measures implemented by severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)‐affected countries and to compare distinctive features of the Chinese approach to other affected Asian countries and Canada. Method  Literature review. Results  The realisation in March 2003 that SARS was spreading led affected countries to introduce measures such as rapid dissemination of information, early case detection and isolation, tracing and quarantining of SARS contacts, traveller screening, raising public awareness of risk and institution of stricter infection control in health care settings. SARS became a notifiable disease in China in mid‐April 2003, after which introduction of efficient nationwide control measures led to containment within 2 months. Countries differed in the timeliness of implementing control measures, the mode and extent to which these were enforced and in the resources available to do so. Conclusion  SARS challenged the political and public health systems of all affected countries. It demanded rapid and decisive action to be taken, yet the comparison shows how difficult this was for an unknown new disease. Guangdong reacted rapidly but this pace was not continued by China for some time, which facilitated national and international spread. Once the Chinese government changed its policy, it developed an impressive control strategy involving the public which culminated in containment. The significance of timely information was perhaps the main lesson which the SARS epidemic taught.

BackgroundIncreasing the proportion diagnosed with and on treatment for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is key to the elimination of hepatitis C in Europe. This study contributes to secondary prevention planning in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) by estimating the number of CHC (anti-HCV positive and viraemic) cases among migrants living in the EU/EEA and born in endemic countries, defining the most affected migrant populations, and assessing whether country of birth prevalence is a reliable proxy for migrant prevalence.MethodsMigrant country of birth and population size extracted from statistical databases and anti-HCV prevalence in countries of birth and in EU/EEA countries derived from a systematic literature search were used to estimate caseload among and most affected migrants. Reliability of country of birth prevalence as a proxy for migrant prevalence was assessed via a systematic literature search.ResultsApproximately 11% of the EU/EEA adult population is foreign-born, 79% of whom were born in endemic (anti-HCV prevalence ≥1%) countries. Anti-HCV/CHC prevalence in migrants from endemic countries residing in the EU/EEA is estimated at 2.3%/1.6%, corresponding to ~580,000 CHC infections or 14% of the CHC disease burden in the EU/EEA.The highest number of cases is found among migrants from Romania and Russia (50–60,000 cases each) and migrants from Italy, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland and Ukraine (25–35,000 cases each). Ten studies reporting prevalence in migrants in Europe were identified; in seven of these estimates, prevalence was comparable with the country of birth prevalence and in three estimates it was lower.DiscussionMigrants are disproportionately affected by CHC, account for a considerable number of CHC infections in EU/EEA countries, and are an important population for targeted case finding and treatment. Limited data suggest that country of birth prevalence can be used as a proxy for the prevalence in migrants.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2908-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.