PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to develop a simple deterministic model that quantifies previously adopted preventive measures driven by the trend of the reported number of deaths in both Italy and India. In addition, the authors forecast the spread based on some selected quantified preventive measures. The optimal exiting policy is derived using the inverse dynamics of the model. Furthermore, the model developed by the authors is dependent on the daily number of deaths; as such, it is sensitive to the death rate but remains insensitive to trends in deaths.Design/methodology/approachIn the wake of COVID-19, policymakers and health professionals realized the limitations and shortcomings of current healthcare systems and pandemic response policies. The need to revise global and national pandemic response mechanisms has been thrust into the public spotlight. To this end, the authors devise an approach to identify the most suitable governmental non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) policies, previously adopted in a community, country or region that serve as the foundation for most pandemic strategies.FindingsLeveraging Italy, the authors compare the aftermath by considering three scenarios: (a) recently adopted preventive measures, (b) strictest preventive measures previously adopted, and (c) the optimal exiting policy. In comparison to the second scenario, the authors estimate about twice the number of recoveries and deaths within five months under the first scenario and about 80 times more under the optimal scenario. Whereas in India, the authors applied one scenario of recently adopted preventative measures to showcase the rapid turnaround of their model. According to the new timeline, almost 90% of all deaths in India could have been prevented if the policies implemented in April 2021 were put in place three months prior, i.e. in January 2021.Originality/valueThe novelty of the proposed approach is in the use of inverse dynamics of a simple deterministic model that allows capturing the trend of contact rate as a function of adopted NPIs, regardless of pandemic type.

Introduction: There is lack of universal agreement on the management of COVID-19. Intravenous high dose vitamin C (HDVC), remdesivir (RDV), and favipiravir (FPV) have been suggested as part of the treatment regimens and only RDV is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) so far. There is no study in Lebanon that addresses the descriptive cohort of HDVC and antiviral therapy amongst COVID-19 inpatients. Our goal was to highlight such a cohort. Methodology: A retrospective electronic chart review of COVID-19 inpatients was done over a period of 10 months (August 2020 to April 2021). Comparative data analysis was performed between HDVC and non-HDVC (NHDVC) groups, and RDV and FPV groups. Results: Among HDVC patients, 70.1% (p = 0.035) and 67.2% (p = 0.008) had dyspnea and desaturation respectively. Patients on HDVC were less likely to remain in hospital for more than 20 days (p = 0.003). HDVC patients were more likely to be on oxygen therapy with 74.7% (p = 0.002). RDV patients were more likely to be on other COVID-19-related medications during hospitalization including the use of tofacitinib, baricitinib, tocilizumab, and anticoagulation as recommended in the guidelines. Statistical significance was noted for the status on discharge as 90.1% of the patients that received RDV were discharged after clinical improvement, compared to the 74.2% of the FPV patients. Conclusions: Further research is needed to establish local guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19. A significant role of HDVC and FPV might resurface if randomized control trials are conducted.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is a recent pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCW) are at high risk of acquiring the infection and transmitting it to others. Seroprevalence for COVID-19 among HCW varies between countries, hospitals in the same country and even among different departments in the same hospital. In this study, we aim to determine the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibodies and the seroconversion among the HCW in our hospital. A total of 203 HCW were included. The rate of conversion to seropositive was 19.7% in total, with a rate of 13.4% in female versus 25% in male. The seropositivity in the House keeping group was 83%, followed by 45% in the COVID Floor while the seropositivity in the Anesthesia was 4% and the Infection Control 0%. The highest seropositivity rate in the COVID floor, and in the intensive care unit was explained by the long time spent with the patients. While in the inhalation team and the anesthesia, the lower rates of seropositivity was due to the N95 mask wearing the whole time. Seropositivity for COVID-19 in HCW is a major public health concern. Policies should be implemented to better protect HCWs.