Use of medical face masks versus particulate respirators as a component of personal protective equipment for health care workers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic
AbstractCurrently available evidence supports that the predominant route of human-to-human transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 is through respiratory droplets and/or contact routes. The report by the World Health Organization (WHO) Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China supports person-to-person droplet and fomite transmission during close unprotected contact with the vast majority of the investigated infection clusters occurring within families, with a household secondary attack rate varying between 3 and 10%, a finding that is not consistent with airborne transmission. The reproduction number (R0) for the SARS-CoV-2 is estimated to be between 2.2 –2.7, compatible with other respiratory viruses associated with a droplet/contact mode of transmission and very different than an airborne virus like measles with a R0 widely cited to be between 12 and 18. Based on the scientific evidence accumulated to date, our view is that SARS-CoV-2 is not spread by the airborne route to any significant extent and the use of particulate respirators offers no advantage over medical masks as a component of personal protective equipment for the routine care of patients with COVID-19 in the health care setting. Moreover, prolonged use of particulate respirators may result in uni ntended harms. In conjunction with appropriate hand hygiene, personal protective equipment (PPE) used by health care workers caring for patients with COVID-19 must be used with attention...
CONCLUSION: Prevalence of antibiotic use was high not only versus other hospitals in the region but globally including Africa, coupled with significant evidence of sub-optimal prescribing. Swift action is needed to improve future prescribing to reduce AMR. One or two areas should initially be targeted for quality improvement including development of local guidelines, documentation of antibiotic indications and/or stop/review dates. PMID: 33034234 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Publication date: 15 February 2021Source: Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 404, Part AAuthor(s): Zhongyi Zhang, Wen-Xiong Wang, Nengjian Zheng, Yansheng Cao, Hongwei Xiao, Renguo Zhu, Hui Guan, Huayun Xiao
Publication date: Available online 10 October 2020Source: American Journal of Kidney DiseasesAuthor(s): Shreeram Akilesh, Cynthia C. Nast, Michifumi Yamashita, Kammi Henriksen, Vivek Charu, Megan L. Troxell, Neeraja Kambham, Erika Bracamonte, Donald Houghton, Naila I. Ahmed, Chyi Chyi Chong, Bijin Thajudeen, Shehzad Rehman, Firas Khoury, Jonathan E. Zuckerman, Jeremy Gitomer, Parthassarathy C. Raguram, Shanza Mujeeb, Ulrike Schwarze, M. Brendan Shannon
Publication date: Available online 9 October 2020Source: Reumatología Clínica (English Edition)Author(s): Lina María Saldarriaga Rivera, Daniel Fernández Ávila, Wilson Bautista Molano, Daniel Jaramillo Arroyave, Alain Jasaf Bautista Ramírez, Adriana Díaz Maldonado, Jorge Hernán Izquierdo, Edwin Jáuregui, María Constanza Latorre Muñoz, Juan Pablo Restrepo, Juan Sebastián Segura Charry
CONCLUSIONS: This single practice study showed total patient contact was similar over both sample periods, but most contact in 2020 was virtual. Further longitudinal multi-practice studies to confirm these findings and describe future consultation patterns are needed to inform general practice service delivery post-COVID-19. PMID: 33032304 [PubMed - in process]
Publication date: Available online 1 October 2020Source: Academic RadiologyAuthor(s): Neo Poyiadji, Chad Klochko, Jeff LaForce, Manuel L. Brown, Brent Griffith
Curious what people think with pandemic and lack of away rotations.
Publication date: 15 February 2021Source: Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 170Author(s): Brian W. Haas, Fumiko Hoeft, Kazufumi Omura
Publication date: Available online 10 October 2020Source: Academic PediatricsAuthor(s): Bonnie Crume
This study therefore investigated the impacts of RRCC on air pollution based on detailed household heating data obtained from intensive face-to-face interviews in Shandong province, China. The total contributions and specific contributions of coal, stoves, and coal-stove combinations to air pollution were simulated using the WRF-CAMx-PSAT model. The RRCC for heating had a considerable impact on air pollution, contributing 36.1, 9.1, and 16.1% of atmospheric SO2, NOx, and PM2.5 in winter, respectively. Different coal-stove combinations had different impacts on air pollution and mitigation efficiencies. The combination of bi...