COVID-19 Prevention Protocol for an Organised Mass Gathering-An Essential Requisite in Pandemic and Post-Pandemic Phase

Job, Sheen; Kapoor, Mayank; Panda, Prasan Kumar; Mohan, Latika; Ravikant,

doi:10.7860/jcdr/2021/47856.14713

Cited by 4 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the end of this process, 14 articles were included, reporting 11 unique studies (Figure 1). 23–36 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…March 2020, prior to widespread availability of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. 27 A total of 934 people who had travelled from all over India attended the event. Although older adults were advised not to attend, 4.2% of all attendees were over the age of 60 years.…”

Section: Uncontrolled Before-after Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, seven of the 11 studies were rated as 'fair' quality, [23][24][25][26]28,30,33,35,36 and three were rated as 'poor' quality (Table S3). 27,29,31 No study was rated as 'good' quality (the highest quality rating). No formal quality appraisal was conducted for Schade et al as no relevant tool exists.…”

Section: Quality Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine of these 11 studies were uncontrolled, before-after studies, 23,[26][27][28][29]31,33,35,36 one was a randomised controlled trial (RCT), 30 and one was a mechanistic study (Table 3; Table S2). 32,34 Four studies were conducted in the Netherlands, 24,25,35,36 two studies were conducted in Germany 31,32 and one study each was conducted in India, 27 Spain, 30 Saudi Arabia, 23,26,28 the United Arab Emirates 33 and South Korea. 29 The sample size ranged from 934 27 to approximately 8800 participants.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effectiveness of public health measures to prevent the transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 at mass gatherings: A rapid review

Walsh

Tyner

Broderick

et al. 2021

Reviews in Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mass gatherings play an important role in society, but since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, they have generally been restricted in order to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study was to summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of public health measures at preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at mass gatherings, and hence inform guidance on the organisation of these events. A rapid review was undertaken in Cochrane, Embase (OVID), Medline (OVID), Google, Web of Science and Europe PMC from 1 January 2020 to 3 June 2021. Of the identified 1,624 citations, 14 articles referring to 11 unique studies were included. This rapid review found evidence from 11 studies (involving approximately 30,482 participants) that implementing a range of measures may reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission at mass gatherings; however, it is unlikely that this risk can be eliminated entirely. All studies adopted a layered mitigation approach involving multiple measures, which may be more effective than relying on any single measure. The number and intensity of measures implemented varied across studies, with most implementing resource intense measures. Importantly, all included studies were only of 'fair' to 'poor' quality. In conclusion, there is currently limited evidence on the effectiveness of measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission at mass gatherings. As mass gatherings recommence, continued adoption of known mitigation measures is required to limit the risk of transmission, as well as ongoing research and surveillance to monitor the potential impact of these events on the wider population and healthcare system.

show abstract

“…At the end of this process, 14 articles were included, reporting 11 unique studies (Figure 1). 23–36 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Uncontrolled Before-after Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quality Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effectiveness of public health measures to prevent the transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 at mass gatherings: A rapid review

Walsh

Tyner

Broderick

et al. 2021

Reviews in Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All these suggest that W2 is hitting India harder than W1; hence timely action is the need of the hour to accommodate the different demographic distribution of the second wave of COVID infection in India utilizing proper social distancing and sanitizing protocols. 8 The higher levels of SGOT and SGPT values in W2 need to be studied further. In addition, frequent monitoring of routine blood investigations must be done to watch for renal/hepatic/other organ dysfunction, which may add to the list of poor prognostic factors in COVID-19.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing India’s second COVID wave with the first wave – a single-center experience

Kapoor

Singh

Panda

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has resurfaced in India in the form of a hard-hitting second wave. This study aims to compare the clinical profile of the first wave (April-June 2020) and the second wave (March-May 2021) of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a single tertiary care center of India. This will help prioritize the target population group and management strategies in the upcoming third wave if any. Methods In this retrospective observational study, we examined the demographic profile, symptoms at presentation, the severity of illness, baseline investigations, treatments received, underlying comorbidities, and outcomes of the COVID-19 patients belonging to the first (W1) and the second wave (W2) of the pandemic in India. Findings Among 106 patients in W1 and 104 patients in W2, the age group affected most was 37.1 (SD=16.9) years compared with 50.5 (SD=17.7) years respectively. The baseline oxygen saturation is lower in W2, being 84.0 (13.4) % compared with 91.9 (7.4) % in W1. 70.2 % of the cases belonged to the severe category in W2 compared to 37.5% in W1. W2 patients demonstrated higher transaminase levels [SGOT, 108.3 (99.3) v/s 54.6 (69.3); SGPT, 97.6 (82.3) v/s 58.7 (69.7)] with respect to W1. Similarly, the CT severity score for W2 [29.5 (6.7)] was higher than W1 [23.2 (11.5)][All P<0.05]. The proportion of patients requiring oxygen (81.8% v/s 11.2%), high flow nasal cannula (11.4% v/s 5.6%), non-invasive ventilation (41.2% v/s 1.5%), invasive ventilation (24.5% v/s 0.9%), as well as ICU/HDU admissions (56.4% v/s 12.0%) was higher for W2 as compared with W1. The measured case fatality rate varies from 29% for W2 to 9.6% for W1. Interpretation Higher age, oxygen requirement, ventilator requirement, ICU admission, and organ impairment are more prevalent in the admitted COVID-19 cases during the second wave that has hit India compared to the first wave and associated with more fatalities. Strategy for another wave should be planned accordingly.

show abstract

Attending sporting mega events during COVID-19: mitigation and messaging at UK EURO 2020 matches

Purves

Maclean

Rocha

et al. 2023

Health Promotion International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The UEFA EURO 2020 football tournament was one of the largest Sporting Mega Events (SMEs) to take place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mitigating the risk of virus transmission requires a multi-layered approach for any large event, more so in this case due to staging the tournament across eleven host countries. Yet, little is known about COVID-19 risks and mitigation from attending an event of this scale and nature. We examined the implementation of mitigation and messaging at EURO 2020 matches hosted at venues in the UK. The tournament was postponed from the summer of 2020 and played in June and July of 2021. Structured observations were conducted by 11 trained fieldwork-supporters at 10 matches played at Wembley Stadium, London, or Hampden Park, Glasgow. Fieldwork-supporters observed one-way systems and signage, and hand sanitizing stations inside the stadia, but reported significant variation in the implementation of staggered timeslots, testing upon entry, and procedures for exit. Adherence to planned measures by ticket holders and implementation by stewards waned as the tournament progressed culminating in an absence of enforced measures at the final. The non-compliance with COVID-19 mitigation measures was likely to have led to a significantly increased risk of transmission. Future events should consider how COVID-19 mitigation measures could become ‘new norms’ of fan behaviour, learning from what is already known about football fandom. Tournament organizers of SMEs can use these findings to promote clearer messaging on pandemic-driven changes in fan behaviour and best practices in mitigating risk at future sporting and cultural events.

show abstract

COVID-19 Prevention Protocol for an Organised Mass Gathering-An Essential Requisite in Pandemic and Post-Pandemic Phase

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Effectiveness of public health measures to prevent the transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 at mass gatherings: A rapid review

Effectiveness of public health measures to prevent the transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 at mass gatherings: A rapid review

Comparing India’s second COVID wave with the first wave – a single-center experience

Attending sporting mega events during COVID-19: mitigation and messaging at UK EURO 2020 matches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About