Infodemics, often including rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories, have been common during the COVID-19 pandemic. Monitoring social media data has been identified as the best method for tracking rumors in real time and as a possible way to dispel misinformation and reduce stigma. However, the detection, assessment, and response to rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories in real time are a challenge. Therefore, we followed and examined COVID-19related rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories circulating on online platforms, including fact-checking agency websites, Facebook, Twitter, and online newspapers, and their impacts on public health. Information was extracted between December 31, 2019 and April 5, 2020, and descriptively analyzed. We performed a content analysis of the news articles to compare and contrast data collected from other sources. We identified 2,311 reports of rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories in 25 languages from 87 countries. Claims were related to illness, transmission and mortality (24%), control measures (21%), treatment and cure (19%), cause of disease including the origin (15%), violence (1%), and miscellaneous (20%). Of the 2,276 reports for which text ratings were available, 1,856 claims were false (82%). Misinformation fueled by rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories can have potentially serious implications on the individual and community if prioritized over evidence-based guidelines. Health agencies must track misinformation associated with the COVID-19 in real time, and engage local communities and government stakeholders to debunk misinformation.

Cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported in more than 200 countries. Thousands of health workers have been infected, and outbreaks have occurred in hospitals, aged care facilities, and prisons. The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued guidelines for contact and droplet precautions for healthcare workers caring for suspected COVID-19 patients, whereas the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has initially recommended airborne precautions. The 1- to 2-meter (≈3–6 feet) rule of spatial separation is central to droplet precautions and assumes that large droplets do not travel further than 2 meters (≈6 feet). We aimed to review the evidence for horizontal distance traveled by droplets and the guidelines issued by the WHO, CDC, and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control on respiratory protection for COVID-19. We found that the evidence base for current guidelines is sparse, and the available data do not support the 1- to 2-meter (≈3–6 feet) rule of spatial separation. Of 10 studies on horizontal droplet distance, 8 showed droplets travel more than 2 meters (≈6 feet), in some cases up to 8 meters (≈26 feet). Several studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) support aerosol transmission, and 1 study documented virus at a distance of 4 meters (≈13 feet) from the patient. Moreover, evidence suggests that infections cannot neatly be separated into the dichotomy of droplet versus airborne transmission routes. Available studies also show that SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in the air, and remain viable 3 hours after aerosolization. The weight of combined evidence supports airborne precautions for the occupational health and safety of health workers treating patients with COVID-19.

Introduction Rumors and conspiracy theories, can contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Monitoring online data related to COVID-19 vaccine candidates can track vaccine misinformation in real-time and assist in negating its impact. This study aimed to examine COVID-19 vaccine rumors and conspiracy theories circulating on online platforms, understand their context, and then review interventions to manage this misinformation and increase vaccine acceptance. Method In June 2020, a multi-disciplinary team was formed to review and collect online rumors and conspiracy theories between 31 December 2019–30 November 2020. Sources included Google, Google Fact Check, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, fact-checking agency websites, and television and newspaper websites. Quantitative data were extracted, entered in an Excel spreadsheet, and analyzed descriptively using the statistical package R version 4.0.3. We conducted a content analysis of the qualitative information from news articles, online reports and blogs and compared with findings from quantitative data. Based on the fact-checking agency ratings, information was categorized as true, false, misleading, or exaggerated. Results We identified 637 COVID-19 vaccine-related items: 91% were rumors and 9% were conspiracy theories from 52 countries. Of the 578 rumors, 36% were related to vaccine development, availability, and access, 20% related to morbidity and mortality, 8% to safety, efficacy, and acceptance, and the rest were other categories. Of the 637 items, 5% (30/) were true, 83% (528/637) were false, 10% (66/637) were misleading, and 2% (13/637) were exaggerated. Conclusions Rumors and conspiracy theories may lead to mistrust contributing to vaccine hesitancy. Tracking COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in real-time and engaging with social media to disseminate correct information could help safeguard the public against misinformation.

No abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of pneumonia and secondary bacterial infections during the pandemic of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify relevant literature in which clinical outcomes of pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 infection were described. Published studies (between 01/01/2009 and 05/07/2012) describing cases of fatal or hospitalised A(H1N1)pdm09 and including data on bacterial testing or co-infection.ResultsSeventy five studies met the inclusion criteria. Fatal cases with autopsy specimen testing were reported in 11 studies, in which any co-infection was identified in 23% of cases (Streptococcus pneumoniae 29%). Eleven studies reported bacterial co-infection among hospitalised cases of A(H1N1)2009pdm with confirmed pneumonia, with a mean of 19% positive for bacteria (Streptococcus pneumoniae 54%). Of 16 studies of intensive care unit (ICU) patients, bacterial co-infection identified in a mean of 19% of cases (Streptococcus pneumoniae 26%). The mean prevalence of bacterial co-infection was 12% in studies of hospitalised patients not requiring ICU (Streptococcus pneumoniae 33%) and 16% in studies of paediatric patients hospitalised in general or pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) wards (Streptococcus pneumoniae 16%).ConclusionWe found that few studies of the 2009 influenza pandemic reported on bacterial complications and testing. Of studies which did report on this, secondary bacterial infection was identified in almost one in four patients, with Streptococcus pneumoniae the most common bacteria identified. Bacterial complications were associated with serious outcomes such as death and admission to intensive care. Prevention and treatment of bacterial secondary infection should be an integral part of pandemic planning, and improved uptake of routine pneumococcal vaccination in adults with an indication may reduce the impact of a pandemic.

Background There is widespread hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Objective To identify predictors of willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 in five cities with varying COVID-19 incidence in the US, UK, and Australia. Design Online, cross-sectional survey of adults from Dynata’s research panel in July-September 2020 Participants, Setting Adults aged 18 and over in Sydney, Melbourne, London, New York City, or Phoenix Main outcomes and measures Willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine; reason for vaccine intention Statistical methods To identify predictors of intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, we used Poisson regression with robust error estimation to produce prevalence ratios. Results The proportion willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was 70% in London, 71% NYC, 72% in Sydney, 76% in Phoenix, and 78% in Melbourne. Age was the only sociodemographic characteristic that predicted willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in all five cities. In Sydney and Melbourne, participants with high confidence in their current government had greater willingness to receive the vaccine (PR = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.07-1.44 and PR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.74-1.62), while participants with high confidence in their current government in NYC and Phoenix were less likely to be willing to receive the vaccine (PR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.72 - 0.85 and PR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.76-0.96). Limitations Consumer panels can be subject to bias and may not be representative of the general population Conclusions Success for COVID-19 vaccination programs requires high levels of vaccine acceptance. Our data suggests more than 25% of adults may not be willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but many of them were not explicitly anti-vaccination and thus may become more willing to vaccinate over time. Among the three countries surveyed, there appears to be cultural differences, political influences, and differing experiences with COVID-19 that may affect willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

To determine patterns of mask wearing and other infection prevention behaviours, over two time periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, in cities where mask wearing was not a cultural norm. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of masks and other preventive behaviours in adults aged !18 years was conducted in five cities: Sydney and Melbourne, Australia; London, UK; and Phoenix and New York, USA. Data were analysed according to the epidemiology of COVID-19, mask mandates and a range of predictors of mask wearing. Results: The most common measures used were avoiding public areas (80.4%), hand hygiene (76.4%), wearing masks (71.8%) and distancing (67.6%). Over 40% of people avoided medical facilities. These measures decreased from March-July 2020. Pandemic fatigue was associated with younger age, low perceived severity of COVID-19 and declining COVID-19 prevalence. Predictors of mask wearing were location (US, UK), mandates, age <50 years, education, having symptoms and knowing someone with COVID-19. Negative experiences with mask wearing and low perceived severity of COVID-19 reduced mask wearing. Most respondents (98%) believed that hand washing and distancing were necessary, and 80% reported no change or stricter adherence to these measures when wearing masks. Conclusion: Pandemic mitigation measures were widely reported across all cities, but decreased between March and July 2020. Pandemic fatigue was more common in younger people. Cities with mandates had higher rates of mask wearing. Promotion of mask use for older people may be useful. Masks did not result in a reduction of other hygiene measures.

Manuscript word count 3,662) (Abstract word count 250)Correspondence Abstract Objective In the current absence of vaccine for COVID-19, public health response target breaking the chain of infection by focusing on the mode of transmission. This paper summarizes current evidence-base around the transmission dynamics, pathogenic, and clinical features of COVID-19, to critically identify if there are any gaps in the current IPC guidelines.Methods This study involved a review of global COVID-19 IPC guidelines such as WHO, the CDC, and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Guidelines from two high income countries (Australia and UK) and one middle income country (China) were also reviewed. We searched publications in English on 'Pubmed' and Google Scholars. We extracted information related to COVID-19 transmission dynamics, clinical presentations and exposures that may facilitate the transmission and compared and contrasted these findings with the recommended IPC measures. ResultsThe review findings showed nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health settings through droplet, aerosol and by an oral-fecal or fecal-droplet route. However, the IPC guidelines fail to cover all transmission modes and the recommendations also conflict with each other. Most guidelines recommend surgical masks for healthcare providers during routine care and N95 respirators for aerosol generating procedures. However, recommendations around type of surgical masks varied. In addition, CDC recommends cloth masks when the surgical mask is totally unavailable.