COVID-19 control in low-income settings and displaced populations: what can realistically be done?

被引:70
作者
Dahab, Maysoon [1 ]
van Zandvoort, Kevin [2 ]
Flasche, Stefan [2 ]
Warsame, Abdihamid [2 ]
Ratnayake, Ruwan [2 ]
Favas, Caroline [2 ]
Spiegel, Paul B. [3 ]
Waldman, Ronald J. [4 ,5 ]
Checchi, Francesco [2 ]
机构
[1] Kings Coll London, Kings Ctr Global Hlth & Hlth Partnerships, Conflict & Hlth Res Grp, London, England
[2] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Fac Epidemiol & Populat Hlth, Dept Infect Dis Epidemiol, London, England
[3] Johns Hopkins Univ, Ctr Humanitarian Hlth, Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Baltimore, MD USA
[4] George Washington Univ, Dept Global Hlth, Milken Inst, Sch Publ Hlth, Washington, DC USA
[5] Doctors World USA, New York, NY USA
基金
英国科研创新办公室; 加拿大健康研究院; 英国惠康基金;
关键词
EBOLA;
D O I
10.1186/s13031-020-00296-8
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
COVID-19 prevention strategies in resource limited settings, modelled on the earlier response in high income countries, have thus far focused on draconian containment strategies, which impose movement restrictions on a wide scale. These restrictions are unlikely to prevent cases from surging well beyond existing hospitalisation capacity; not withstanding their likely severe social and economic costs in the long term. We suggest that in low-income countries, time limited movement restrictions should be considered primarily as an opportunity to develop sustainable and resource appropriate mitigation strategies. These mitigation strategies, if focused on reducing COVID-19 transmission through a triad of prevention activities, have the potential to mitigate bed demand and mortality by a considerable extent. This triade is based on a combination of high-uptake of community led shielding of high-risk individuals, self-isolation of mild to moderately symptomatic cases, and moderate physical distancing in the community. We outline a set of principles for communities to consider how to support the protection of the most vulnerable, by shielding them from infection within and outside their homes. We further suggest three potential shielding options, with their likely applicability to different settings, for communities to consider and that would enable them to provide access to transmission-shielded arrangements for the highest risk community members. Importantly, any shielding strategy would need to be predicated on sound, locally informed behavioural science and monitored for effectiveness and evaluating its potential under realistic modelling assumptions. Perhaps, most importantly, it is essential that these strategies not be perceived as oppressive measures and be community led in their design and implementation. This is in order that they can be sustained for an extended period of time, until COVID-19 can be controlled or vaccine and treatment options become available.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2020, INT J INFECT DIS, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.IJID.2020.02.060
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2020, LANCET, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30528-6
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2009, EPIDEMIOL INFECT, DOI DOI 10.1017/S0950268808001416
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2011, AM J EPIDEMIOL, DOI DOI 10.1093/AJE/KWR251
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2016, FRONT PUBLIC HEALTH, DOI DOI 10.3389/FPUBH.2016.00222
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2020, SCIENCE, DOI DOI 10.1126/SCIENCE.ABB3221
  • [7] [Anonymous], 2017, B WORLD HEALTH ORGAN, DOI DOI 10.2471/BLT.16.186676
  • [8] [Anonymous], 2005, LANCET, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17741-1
  • [9] [Anonymous], 2020, LANCET INFECT DIS, DOI DOI 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30144-4
  • [10] [Anonymous], 2020, LANCET PLANET HEALTH, DOI DOI 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30008-5