No abstract

No abstract

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

Background: As an erratic human behavior, panic buying is an understudied research area. Although panic buying has been reported in the past, it has not been studied systematically in Bangladesh.Aim: This study aimed to explore the characteristics of panic buying episodes in Bangladesh in comparison to current concepts.Methods: A retrospective and explorative search were done using the search engine Google on November 6, 2020, with the search term “panic buying in Bangladesh.” All the available news reports published in the English language were extracted. A thorough content analysis was done focusing on the study objectives.Results: From the initial search, a total of 30 reports were extracted. However, six reports were not included based upon the exclusion criteria, resulting in an analysis of 24 reports. Five panic buying episodes were identified, discussing the precipitating events, responsible factors, goods acquired through panic buying, and prevention measures. Flood, curfew, COVID-19, and export ban were found to be precipitating events. Media reports frequently mentioned prevention strategies, expert opinion, supply chain status, rationing, and government action. The reported goods that were panic bought were items necessary for daily living such as rice, oil, spices, and safety products such as hand sanitizer and masks.Conclusion: The study revealed preliminary findings on panic buying in Bangladesh; however, they are aligned with the current concept of it. Further empirical studies are warranted to see the geographical variation, precise factors, and to test the culturally appropriate controlling measures.

No abstract

Background With the uncertainties of COVID-19, people infected by coronavirus present with diverse psychiatric presentations. Some centers have had to manage their patients with existing protocols, others have had to come up with innovations. We aim to report the challenges and good practices recorded in the management of psychiatric conditions and delirium coexisting with COVID-19 and during the COVID-19 era across continents. Material and Methods Early Career Psychiatrists (ECPs) from across five continents were approached to provide their perspective on the management of psychiatric conditions in patients with COVID-19 and during the current pandemic. Results We collected information about the experiences from ten countries. Commonalities were similar psychiatric presentations and poor preparedness across countries. Differences were varying innovations and adjustments made in the management of psychiatric conditions coexisting with COVID-19. Good practices which can be adopted by other countries are novel approaches such as telepsychiatry, proactive consultation-liaison units and enhanced community services targeted at circumventing challenges faced yet providing mental health services. Conclusions This publication highlights the need for global preparedness in the mental health sector during outbreaks of infectious diseases. With our results we can conclude that there is the need for concerted efforts targeted at global and locally sensitive adaptation of existing protocols and the development of new guidelines for the management of psychiatric conditions for the present pandemic and subsequent occurrences.

No abstract

No abstract