COVID-19 prevention strategies in resource limited settings, modelled on the earlier response in high income countries, have thus far focused on draconian containment strategies, which impose movement restrictions on a wide scale. These restrictions are unlikely to prevent cases from surging well beyond existing hospitalisation capacity; not withstanding their likely severe social and economic costs in the long term. We suggest that in low-income countries, time limited movement restrictions should be considered primarily as an opportunity to develop sustainable and resource appropriate mitigation strategies. These mitigation strategies, if focused on reducing COVID-19 transmission through a triad of prevention activities, have the potential to mitigate bed demand and mortality by a considerable extent. This triade is based on a combination of high-uptake of community led shielding of high-risk individuals, self-isolation of mild to moderately symptomatic cases, and moderate physical distancing in the community. We outline a set of principles for communities to consider how to support the protection of the most vulnerable, by shielding them from infection within and outside their homes. We further suggest three potential shielding options, with their likely applicability to different settings, for communities to consider and that would enable them to provide access to transmission-shielded arrangements for the highest risk community members. Importantly, any shielding strategy would need to be predicated on sound, locally informed behavioural science and monitored for effectiveness and evaluating its potential under realistic modelling assumptions. Perhaps, most importantly, it is essential that these strategies not be perceived as oppressive measures and be community led in their design and implementation. This is in order that they can be sustained for an extended period of time, until COVID-19 can be controlled or vaccine and treatment options become available.

Humanitarian organizations have developed innovative and context specific interventions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic as guidance has been normative in nature and most are not humanitarian specific. In April 2020, three universities developed a COVID-19 humanitarian-specific website (www.covid19humanitarian.com) to allow humanitarians from the field to upload their experiences or be interviewed by academics to share their creative responses adapted to their specific country challenges in a standardised manner. These field experiences are reviewed by the three universities together with various guidance documents and uploaded to the website using an operational framework. The website currently hosts 135 guidance documents developed by 65 different organizations, and 65 field experiences shared by 29 organizations from 27 countries covering 38 thematic areas. Examples of challenges and innovative solutions from humanitarian settings are provided for triage and sexual and gender-based violence. Offering open access resources on a neutral platform by academics can provide a space for constructive dialogue among humanitarians at the country, regional and global levels, allowing humanitarian actors at the country level to have a strong and central voice. We believe that this neutral and openly accessible platform can serve as an example for future large-scale emergencies and epidemics.

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to cause high morbidity and mortality in crisis-affected populations. Delivering COVID-19 treatment services in crisis settings will likely entail complex trade-offs between offering services of clinical benefit and minimising risks of nosocomial infection, while allocating resources appropriately and safeguarding other essential services. This paper outlines considerations for humanitarian actors planning COVID-19 treatment services where vaccination is not yet widely available. We suggest key decision-making considerations: allocation of resources to COVID-19 treatment services and the design of clinical services should be based on community preferences, likely opportunity costs, and a clearly articulated package of care across different health system levels. Moreover, appropriate service planning requires information on the expected COVID-19 burden and the resilience of the health system. We explore COVID-19 treatment service options at the patient level (diagnosis, management, location and level of treatment) and measures to reduce nosocomial transmission (cohorting patients, protecting healthcare workers). Lastly, we propose key indicators for monitoring COVID-19 health services.

Introduction SARS-CoV-2 has spread rapidly across the world yet the first pandemic waves in many low-income countries appeared milder than initially forecasted through mathematical models. Hypotheses for this observed difference include under-ascertainment of cases and deaths, country population age structure, and immune modulation secondary to exposure to endemic parasitic infections. We conducted a country-level ecological study to describe patterns in key SARS-CoV-2 outcomes by country and region and to explore possible associations of the potential explanatory factors with these outcomes. Methods We collected publicly available data at country level and compared them using standardisation techniques. We then explored the association between exposures and outcomes using alternative approaches: random forest (RF) regression and linear (LM) regression. We adjusted for potential confounders and plausible effect modifications. Results Altogether, data on the mean time-varying reproduction number (mean R_t) were available for 153 countries, but standardised averages for the age of cases and deaths and for the case-fatality ratio (CFR) could only be computed for 61, 39 and 31 countries respectively. While mean R_t was highest in the WHO Europe and Americas regions, median age of death was lower in the Africa region even after standardisation, with broadly similar CFR. Population age was strongly associated with mean R_t and the age-standardised median age of observed cases and deaths in both RF and LM models. The models highlighted other plausible roles of population density, testing intensity and co-morbidity prevalence, but yielded uncertain results as regards exposure to common parasitic infections. Conclusions The average age of a population seems to be an important country-level factor explaining both transmissibility and the median age of observed cases and deaths, even after age-standardisation. Potential associations between endemic infections and COVID-19 are worthy of further exploration but seem unlikely, from this analysis, to be key drivers of the variation in observed COVID-19 epidemic trends. Our study was limited by the availability of outcome data and its causally uncertain ecological design, with the observed distribution of age amongst reported cases and deaths suggesting key differences in surveillance and testing strategy and capacity by country and the representativeness of case reporting of infection. Research at subnational and individual level is needed to explore hypotheses further.