Search

This paper describes the process, advantages and limitations of a qualitative methodology for defining and analyzing vulnerabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Implemented in Italy in two sites (Rome and outside Rome, in some small-medium sized municipalities in Latium) in 2021, this investigation employed a mixed digital research tool that was also used simultaneously in four other European countries. Its digital nature encompasses both processes of data collection. Among the most salient is that the pandemic catalyzed new vulnerabilities in addition to exacerbating old ones, particularly economic. Many of the vulnerabilities detected, in fact, are linked to previous situations, such as the uncertainties of labor markets, having in COVID-19 to the greatest negative effects on the most precarious workers (non-regular, part-time, and seasonal). The consequences of the pandemic are also reflected in other forms of vulnerability that appear less obvious, having exacerbated social isolation, not only out of fear of contagion, but because of the psychological challenges posed by containment measures themselves. These measures created not mere discomfort, but behavioral changes characterized by anxiety, fearfulness, and disorientation. More generally, this investigation reveals the strong influence of social determinants throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, creating new forms of vulnerability, as the effects of social, economic, and biological risk factors were compounded, in particular, among already marginalized populations.

Background To understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality, this study investigates overall, sex- and age-specific excess all-cause mortality in 20 countries, during 2020. Methods Total, sex- and age-specific weekly all-cause mortality for 2015–2020 was collected from national vital statistics databases. Excess mortality for 2020 was calculated by comparing weekly 2020 observed mortality against expected mortality, estimated from historical data (2015–2019) accounting for seasonality, long- and short-term trends. Crude and age-standardized rates were analysed for total and sex-specific mortality. Results Austria, Brazil, Cyprus, England and Wales, France, Georgia, Israel, Italy, Northern Ireland, Peru, Scotland, Slovenia, Sweden, and the USA displayed substantial excess age-standardized mortality of varying duration during 2020, while Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Mauritius, Norway, and Ukraine did not. In sex-specific analyses, excess mortality was higher in males than females, except for Slovenia (higher in females) and Cyprus (similar in both sexes). Lastly, for most countries substantial excess mortality was only detectable (Austria, Cyprus, Israel, and Slovenia) or was higher (Brazil, England and Wales, France, Georgia, Italy, Northern Ireland, Sweden, Peru and the USA) in the oldest age group investigated. Peru demonstrated substantial excess mortality even in the Conclusions This study highlights that excess all-cause mortality during 2020 is context dependent, with specific countries, sex- and age-groups being most affected. As the pandemic continues, tracking excess mortality is important to accurately estimate the true toll of COVID-19, while at the same time investigating the effects of changing contexts, different variants, testing, quarantine, and vaccination strategies.

International audience; Objectives: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use of reimbursed contraceptives in France after 15 months of the pandemic, according to age-group and updating previous data only pertaining to the first lockdown (2 months). Study design: We conducted a national register-based study by extracting all reimbursements of oral contraceptives (OC), emergency contraception (EC), intrauterine devices (IUD), and implants from the French National Health Insurance database (SNDS), which includes and covers 99.5% of the French population, in 2018, 2019, 2020 and from January 1, 2021 to April30, 2021. We calculated the expected use of contraceptives in 2020 and 2021 in the absence of the pandemic, based on 2018 and 2019 usage and taking annual trends into account. We assessed the difference between observed and expected dispensing rates by contraceptive type and by age-group (≤18 years old, 18< age ≤25, 25< age ≤35, >35). Results: Dispensing of all contraceptives decreased compared to expect dispensing numbers: −2.0% for OC, −5.3% for EC, −9.5% for LNG-IUS, −8.6% for C-IUD, and −16.4% for implant. This decrease in the dispensing of contraceptives was observed in all age-groups, but mainly concerned women under the age of 18 years (−22% for OC, −10% for EC, −37.2% for LNG-IUS, −36.4% for C-IUD, −26.4% for implant) and those aged 18 to 25 (−5.1% for OC, −11.9% for EC, −18.1% for LNG-IUS, −15.9% for C-IUD, −17.6% for implants). Conclusions: Our study showed that the dispensing of contraceptives in France was markedly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Prescriptions for long-acting contraceptive use and women under the age of 25 years were the most substantially impacted. Ensuring access to contraceptive methods during health emergencies must be a public health policy priority. Implications: The COVID-19 pandemic strongly impacted the dispensing of contraceptives in France with varying degrees of decreased dispensing according to the type of contraceptive, the age-group and the level of pandemic-related restrictions. The impact of these restrictions on unintended pregnancy at the population level remains undetermined.

Objectives In early January 2021, an outbreak of nosocomial cases of COVID-19 emerged in Western France, with RT-PCR tests repeatedly negative on nasopharyngeal samples but positive on lower respiratory tract samples. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) revealed a new variant, currently defining a novel SARS-CoV-2 lineage: B.1.616. In March, WHO classified this variant as ‘under investigation’ (VUI). We analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 cases related to this new variant. Methods Clinical, virological, and radiological data were retrospectively collected from medical charts in the two hospitals involved. We enrolled inpatients with either: i) positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on a respiratory sample; ii) seroconversion with anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM; iii) suggestive symptoms and typical features of COVID-19 on a chest CT scan. Cases were categorized as either: i) B.1.616; ii) variant of concern (VOC); iii) unknown. Results From January 1st to March 24th, 2021, 114 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria: B.1.616 (n=39), VOC (n=32), and unknown (n=43). B.1.616-related cases were older than VOC-related cases (81 years interquartile range [IQR] [73-88], vs 73 years IQR [67-82], P, Graphical abstract Image 1

The COVID-19 outbreak is not the first nor last series of recent real or potential catastrophes - be they natural disasters, terrorist attacks or pandemics - that have taken by surprise governments, globalised firms and the citizenry. 1Yet, due to its near-unprecedented impact on the highly interconnected but vulnerable systems that define the modern world, this pandemic has been testing our ability to govern risk more than any other crisis before. The last time the world responded to a global emerging disease epidemic of the scale of the current novel coronavirus without having access to vaccines was the 1918-1919 H1N1 influenza pandemic. 2Ironically, the measures mobilised today to counter COVID-19 - the so-called “non-pharmaceutical interventions” 3- are essentially the same as those deployed a century ago, and that despite significant social, technological as well as governance differences between 1918 and today. 4

With vaccination against COVID-19 stalled in some countries, increasing vaccine accessibility and distribution could help keep transmission under control. Here, we study the impact of reactive vaccination targeting schools and workplaces where cases are detected, with an agent-based model accounting for COVID-19 natural history, vaccine characteristics, demographics, behavioural changes and social distancing. In most scenarios, reactive vaccination leads to a higher reduction in cases compared with non-reactive strategies using the same number of doses. The reactive strategy could however be less effective than a moderate/high pace mass vaccination program if initial vaccination coverage is high or disease incidence is low, because few people would be vaccinated around each case. In case of flare-ups, reactive vaccination could better mitigate spread if it is implemented quickly, is supported by enhanced test-trace-isolate and triggers an increased vaccine uptake. These results provide key information to plan an adaptive vaccination rollout.

The European response to COVID-19 has revealed an inconvenient truth. Despite having integrated public health concerns across all its policies – be it agriculture, consumer protection, or security –, the Union cannot directly act to save people’s lives. Only member states can do so. Yet when they adopted unilateral measures to counter the spread of the virus, those proved not only ineffective but also disruptive on vital supply chains, by ultimately preventing the flow of essential goods and people across the Union. These fragmented efforts in tackling cross-border health threats have almost immediately prompted political calls for the urgent creation of a European Health Union. Yet this call raises more questions than answers. With the aim to offer a rigorous and timely blueprint to decision-makers and the public at large, this Special Issue of the European Journal of Risk Regulation contextualizes such a new political project within the broader constitutional and institutional framework of EU public health law and policy. By introducing the Special, this paper argues that unless the envisaged Health Union will tackle the root causes of what prevented the Union from effectively responding to COVID-19 – the divergent health capacity across the Union –, it might fall short of its declared objective of strengthening the EU’resilience for cross-border health threats.

International audience; Background: The clinical presentation of European patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection is still unknown. Objective: To study the clinical presentation of COVID-19 in Europe. Methods: Patients with positive diagnosis of COVID-19 were recruited from 18 European hospitals. Epidemiological and clinical data were obtained through a standardized questionnaire. Bayesian analysis was used for analysing the relationship between outcomes. Results: A total of 1,420 patients completed the study (962 females, 30.7% of healthcare workers). The mean age of patients was 39.17 ± 12.09 years. The most common symptoms were headache (70.3%), loss of smell (70.2%), nasal obstruction (67.8%), cough (63.2%), asthenia (63.3%), myalgia (62.5%), rhinorrhea (60.1%), gustatory dysfunction (54.2%) and sore throat (52.9%). Fever was reported by 45.4%. The mean duration of COVID-19 symptoms of mild-to-moderate cured patients was 11.5 ± 5.7 days. The prevalence of symptoms significantly varied according to age and sex. Young patients more frequently had ear, nose and throat complaints, whereas elderly individuals often presented fever, fatigue and loss of appetite. Loss of smell, headache, nasal obstruction and fatigue were more prevalent in female patients. The loss of smell was a key symptom of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients and was not associated with nasal obstruction and rhinorrhea. Loss of smell persisted at least 7 days after the disease in 37.5% of cured patients. Conclusion: The clinical presentation of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 substantially varies according to the age and the sex characteristics of patients. Olfactory dysfunction seems to be an important underestimated symptom of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 that needs to be recognized as such by the WHO.

COVID-19 is a matter of common European interest since its very first detection on the continent. Yet this pandemic outbreak has largely been handled as an essentially national matter.This article makes a first attempt at unpacking how such fragmented, uncoordinated national responses to COVID19 came into being under the EU legal order. To do so, it systematizes the European response into separate stages. Phase 1 – the emergency – has been characterized by the adoption of national emergency risk management measures that, albeit country specific, were inspired by a common objective of pandemic suppression, i.e. to reduce disease transmission and thereby diminishing pressure on health services, under the by now well-known ‘flatten the curve’ imperative. Phase 2 – the lifting – is about the attempt at relaxing some of the national risk responses in a coordinated fashion to avoid creating negative spillovers or distortions – be they sanitary and/or financial – across the Union.The article argues that contrary to conventional wisdom the resulting uncoordinated EU response to Covid-19 shouldn’t be seen as the inevitable consequence of the EU’s limited competence in public health. Against this backdrop, it strives to define the regulatory policy framework that might be governing the next phases of the European risk management response to this pandemic as they will emerge from a widely undefined yet unescapable dialectic between the Union and its member states. Ultimately, it predicts that by testing the outer limits of the EU public health competence COVID-19 is set to go down in history as a major catalyst in the advancement of EU health emergency action.