BackgroundSchool closure is a non-pharmaceutical intervention that was considered in many national pandemic plans developed prior to the start of the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic, and received considerable attention during the event. Here, we retrospectively review and compare national and local experiences with school closures in several countries during the A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic. Our intention is not to make a systematic review of country experiences; rather, it is to present the diversity of school closure experiences and provide examples from national and local perspectives.MethodsData were gathered during and following a meeting, organized by the European Centres for Disease Control, on school closures held in October 2010 in Stockholm, Sweden. A standard data collection form was developed and sent to all participants. The twelve participating countries and administrative regions (Bulgaria, China, France, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Serbia, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom, and United States) provided data.ResultsOur review highlights the very diverse national and local experiences on school closures during the A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic. The processes including who was in charge of making recommendations and who was in charge of making the decision to close, the school-based control strategies, the extent of school closures, the public health tradition of responses and expectations on school closure varied greatly between countries. Our review also discusses the many challenges associated with the implementation of this intervention and makes recommendations for further practical work in this area.ConclusionsThe single most important factor to explain differences observed between countries may have been the different public health practises and public expectations concerning school closures and influenza in the selected countries.

P u b l i c h e a lt h P r e P a r e d n e s s f o r t w o m a s s g at h e r i n g e v e n t s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f P a n d e m i c i n f l u e n z a ( h 1 n 1 ) 2 0 0 9 -s e r b i a , J u ly 2 0 0 9

The communicable disease threats and changes that began emerging in south-east Europe in the early 1990s – after a decade of war and while political and health systems region-wide were undergoing dramatic changes – demanded a novel approach to infectious disease surveillance. Specifically, they called for an approach that was focused on cross-border collaboration and aligned with European Union standards and requirements. Thus, the Southeastern European Health network (SEEHN) was established in 2001 as a cooperative effort among the governments of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In 2002, SEEHN initiated a communicable diseases project aimed at strengthening both national and regional surveillance systems with a focus on cross-border collaboration. Over time, SEEHN has nurtured growth of a regional fabric of SEE experts in communicable diseases surveillance and response who are able to discuss emerging issues and best practices at any time and without being constrained by the rigidity of traditional or existing systems. Main achievements to date include joint preparation of influenza pandemic preparedness plans at both national and regional levels and the introduction of molecular techniques into influenza surveillance laboratories region-wide. Here, we describe the history of the SEEHN communicable disease project; major activities and accomplishments; and future sustainability of the regional infectious disease surveillance network that has emerged and grown over the past decade.

No abstract

nema

The course of the COVID-19 pandemic has been critically altered by the availability of vaccines. To assess the risk of COVID-19 in the vaccinated, as compared to the unvaccinated population, as well as the comparative effectiveness of the BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm), BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V) and ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) vaccines in the prevention of clinical infection, we carried out a retrospective study of the incidence of clinical COVID-19 in the Belgrade city municipality of Voždovac among both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals during a 4-month period between 1 July and 31 October 2021. The study included all individuals with a symptomatic infection confirmed by a positive PCR and/or antigen test. Only those who received two vaccine doses were considered as vaccinated. The results showed that of the Voždovac population of 169,567, a total of 81,447 (48%) individuals were vaccinated by the end of the study. Vaccination coverage increased with age, ranging from 1.06% in those below age 18, to even 78.8% in those above 65 years of age. More than one half (57.5%) of all those vaccinated received BBIBP-CorV, while 25.2% received BNT162b2, 11.7% Gam-COVID-Vac and 5.6% ChAdOx1. The overall risk of infection of the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated was 0.53 (95% CI 0.45–0.61). Compared to the incidence of COVID-19 of 8.05 per 1000 in the unvaccinated population, the relative risk in the vaccinated was 0.35 (95% CI 0.3–0.41). The overall VE was 65%, differing widely among age groups and by vaccine. VE was 79% for BNT162b2, 62% for BBIBP-CorV, 60% for ChAdOx1 and 54% for Gam-COVID-Vac. The VE for BBIBP-CorV and BNT162b2 increased with age. The obtained results demonstrate a significant overall effectiveness of anti-COVID-19 vaccination, which, however, varied significantly among the analyzed vaccines, and was the highest for BNT162b2.

Sa`etak. Nau~nu osnovu javnog zdravqa predstavqa epidemiologija, koja ima posebno mesto i u novom javnom zdravqu, jer analizom prikupqenih podataka obezbe|uje dokaze o faktorima rizika koji uti~u na zdravqe populacije.Na tim osnovama je iz-gra|en ceo koncept medicine zasnovane na dokazima i za{tite zdravqa zasnovane na dokazima. Kada se govori o savremenoj epidemiologiji, ne mo`e se napraviti jasna granica izme|u zaraznih i nezaraznih bolesti, {ta-vi{e. utvr|eno je da su pojedini mikroorganizmi direktno odgovorni za pojavu naj-e{}ih hroni~nih nezaraznih bolesti. Posledwih godina aktuelan je sistem epi-demiolo{kog nadzora baziran na laboratorijskoj potvrdi bolesti. Epidemiolo{ki nadzor ne odnosi se samo na zarazne bolesti, ve} i na nezarazne bolesti, povrede, druge po-reme}aje zdravqa, faktore rizika vezane za na~in `ivota, zaga|ewe `ivotne sredine, kao i kori{}ewa prava na zdravstvenu za{titu. Kada je re~ o globalnoj pretwi zdravqu, Svetska zdravstvena organizacija inovirala je Me|unarodni zdravsteni pravilnik sa ciqem i zadatkom da se u svim zemqamã lanicama prevenira, za{titi, kontroli-{e i obezbedi odgovor javnog zdravqa na me-|unarodno {irewe bolesti. Summary. Epidemiology is the scientific basis of public health. That is why it has a special place vvithin new public health; analysis of the collected data does provide evidence about risk factors which influence health of a population. This is the foundation of the complete concept of evidence-based medicine and public health, based on the same postulates. When we talk about the state-of the-art epidemiology, we can not make a clear distinction betvveen infectious and non-infectious diseases. Moreover, it has been proven that certain microorganisms are directly responsible for the occurrence of most frequently seen chronic non-infectious diseases. In recent years, the system of epidemiological surveillance has been based on laboratory confirmation of a disease. This type of surveillance does not refer only to infectious diseases; it encompasses non-infectious ones, injuries, and other health-related conditions, risk factor related to life styles; environmental pollution and utilization of the right to health care. Nowadays, when we have been facing global health threats, VVorld Health Organization has innovated International Health Regulations, with the purpose of preventing, protecting, controlling and providing the response of Public Health to those threats and the threat of intemational spread of diseases. 7 Stru~ni i nau~ni radovi 1 Veqko ]erkovi}, Gradski zavod za javno zdravqe, Beograd 2 B. Tiodorovi}, Institut za javno zdravqe, Ni{ 3 N. @akula, Gradski zavod za javno zdravqe, Beograd 4 P. Kon, Gradski zavod za javno zdravqe Beograd 5 V. [apowi}, Zavod za javno zdravqe, Kraqevo.