A novel infectious respiratory disease was recognized in Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) in December 2019. In February 2020, the disease was named “coronavirus disease 2019” (COVID-19). COVID-19 became a pandemic in March 2020, and, since then, different countries have implemented a broad spectrum of policies. Thailand is considered to be among the top countries in handling its first wave of the outbreak—12 January to 31 July 2020. Here, we illustrate how Thailand tackled the COVID-19 outbreak, particularly the effects of public health interventions on the epidemiological spread. This study shows how the available data from the outbreak can be analyzed and visualized to quantify the severity of the outbreak, the effectiveness of the interventions, and the level of risk of allowed activities during an easing of a “lockdown.” This study shows how a well-organized governmental apparatus can overcome the havoc caused by a pandemic.

A novel infectious respiratory disease was recognized in Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) in December 2019. In February 2020, the disease was named "coronavirus disease 2019" (COVID-19). COVID-19 became a pandemic in March 2020, and, since then, different countries have implemented a broad spectrum of policies. Thailand is considered to be among the top countries in handling its first wave of the outbreak -- 12 January to 31 July 2020. Here, we illustrate how Thailand tackled the COVID-19 outbreak, particularly the effects of public health interventions on the epidemiological spread. This study shows how the available data from the outbreak can be analyzed and visualized to quantify the severity of the outbreak, the effectiveness of the interventions, and the level of risk of allowed activities during an easing of a "lockdown." This study shows how a well-organized governmental apparatus can overcome the havoc caused by a pandemic.

Background Dengue has been an important health issue in southern Thailand. However, this area has only a surveillance-prevention system, without step-by-step guidelines on dengue treatment for patients admitted from households to primary care units (PCUs) and district hospitals. Therefore, this study were to develop and use a dengue patient care guideline (DPCG), and to evaluate knowledge, attitude, practice (KAP) of dengue patient care. Methods 26 health care providers (13 nurses, and 13 public health officials) from eight PCUs and the district hospital developed the DPCG. The study design was based on the community participatory action research that integrated the Iowa model involving the following steps: preparation, guideline development, use and monitoring, evaluation and conclusion, and referring technology. We assessed the improvement between before and after using the DPCG regarding the participants' KAP on patient care and preparedness of equipment. McNamara's test was used to compare the changing results before and after using the DPCG. Qualitative data collection was performed in two meeting discussions with six open-end items. Using a thematic analysis technique, we extracted conclusions and suggested solutions. Results The guideline included four steps for patients' care provision at households, PCUs, outpatient departments, emergency rooms, and inpatient departments. After using the DPCG in 39 dengue patients of which 30 patients were admitted to the inpatient department 1 and two patients were referred to the tertiary care hospital without mortality. The overall participants' knowledge and attitude, two of six aspects of patients' care, and three of eight types of equipment management were significantly improved ( p < 0.05) . Eleven themes were evaluated which were associated with the quantitative data. Conclusion The DPCG instructed dengue patient's care for health care providers from households to the PCUs and district hospital. All participants improved KAP, and equipment management. Step-by-step of DPCG use and participation of all stakeholders are needed.