A literature survey of the robotic technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Scientists across disciplines, policymakers, and journalists have voiced frustration at the unprecedented polarization and misinformation around coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Several false dichotomies have been used to polarize debates while oversimplifying complex issues. In this comprehensive narrative review, we deconstruct six common COVID-19 false dichotomies, address the evidence on these topics, identify insights relevant to effective pandemic responses, and highlight knowledge gaps and uncertainties. The topics of this review are: 1) Health and lives vs. economy and livelihoods, 2) Indefinite lockdown vs. unlimited reopening, 3) Symptomatic vs. asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, 4) Droplet vs. aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, 5) Masks for all vs. no masking, and 6) SARS-CoV-2 reinfection vs. no reinfection. We discuss the importance of multidisciplinary integration (health, social, and physical sciences), multilayered approaches to reducing risk (“Emmentaler cheese model”), harm reduction, smart masking, relaxation of interventions, and context-sensitive policymaking for COVID-19 response plans. We also address the challenges in understanding the broad clinical presentation of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. These key issues of science and public health policy have been presented as false dichotomies during the pandemic. However, they are hardly binary, simple, or uniform, and therefore should not be framed as polar extremes. We urge a nuanced understanding of the science and caution against black-or-white messaging, all-or-nothing guidance, and one-size-fits-all approaches. There is a need for meaningful public health communication and science-informed policies that recognize shades of gray, uncertainties, local context, and social determinants of health.

/pdf/covid-19-false-dichotomies-and-a-comprehensive-review-of-the-1r5anrb6eo.pdf

COVID-19 false dichotomies and a comprehensive review of the evidence regarding public health, COVID-19 symptomatology, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, mask wearing, and reinfection.

Introduction: Over the past decade, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) technology has played an important role in molecular diagnostics. Amongst numerous nucleic acid amplification assays, LAMP stands out in terms of sample-to-answer time, sensitivity, specificity, cost, robustness, and accessibility, making it ideal for field-deployable diagnostics in resource-limited regions.Areas covered: In this review, we outline the front-end LAMP design practices for point-of-care (POC) applications, including sample handling and various signal readout methodologies. Next, we explore existing LAMP technologies that have been validated with clinical samples in the field. We summarize recent work that utilizes reverse transcription (RT) LAMP to rapidly detect SARS-CoV-2 as an alternative to standard PCR protocols. Finally, we describe challenges in translating LAMP from the benchtop to the field and opportunities for future LAMP assay development and performance reporting.Expert opinion: Despite the popularity of LAMP in the academic research community and a recent surge in interest in LAMP due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there are numerous areas for improvement in the fundamental understanding of LAMP, which are needed to elevate the field of LAMP assay development and characterization.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14737159.2021.1873769

LAMP Diagnostics at the Point-of-Care: Emerging Trends and Perspectives for the Developer Community.

Importance Controversy remains regarding the transmission routes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Objective To review current evidence on air contamination with SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings and the factors associated with contamination, including viral load and particle size. Evidence Review The MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically queried for original English-language articles detailing SARS-CoV-2 air contamination in hospital settings between January 1 and October 27, 2020. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and culture were described and compared according to the setting, clinical context, air ventilation system, and distance from patients. The SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in copies per meter cubed of air were pooled, and their distribution was described by hospital areas. Particle sizes and SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in copies or median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) per meter cubed were analyzed after categorization as less than 1 μm, from 1 to 4 μm, and greater than 4 μm. Findings Among 2284 records identified, 24 cross-sectional observational studies were included in the review. Overall, 82 of 471 air samples (17.4%) from close patient environments were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, with a significantly higher positivity rate in intensive care unit settings (intensive care unit, 27 of 107 [25.2%] vs non–intensive care unit, 39 of 364 [10.7%];P  1-5 m, 13 of 236 [5.5%];P = .22). The positivity rate was 5 of 21 air samples (23.8%) in toilets, 20 of 242 (8.3%) in clinical areas, 15 of 122 (12.3%) in staff areas, and 14 of 42 (33.3%) in public areas. A total of 81 viral cultures were performed across 5 studies, and 7 (8.6%) from 2 studies were positive, all from close patient environments. The median (interquartile range) SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations varied from 1.0 × 103copies/m3(0.4 × 103to 3.1 × 103copies/m3) in clinical areas to 9.7 × 103copies/m3(5.1 × 103to 14.3 × 103copies/m3) in the air of toilets or bathrooms. Protective equipment removal and patient rooms had high concentrations per titer of SARS-CoV-2 (varying from 0.9 × 103to 40 × 103copies/m3and 3.8 × 103to 7.2 × 103TCID50/m3), with aerosol size distributions that showed peaks in the region of particle size less than 1 μm; staff offices had peaks in the region of particle size greater than 4 μm. Conclusions and Relevance In this systematic review, the air close to and distant from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 was frequently contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA; however, few of these samples contained viable viruses. High viral loads found in toilets and bathrooms, staff areas, and public hallways suggest that these areas should be carefully considered.

/pdf/assessment-of-air-contamination-by-sars-cov-2-in-hospital-4x69d5kd21.pdf

Assessment of Air Contamination by SARS-CoV-2 in Hospital Settings.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may occur through multiple routes. We collected aerosol samples around six patients admitted into mixed acuity wards in April of 2020 to identify the risk of airborne SARS-CoV-2. Measurements were made to characterize the size distribution of aerosol particles, and size-fractionated, aerosol samples were collected to assess the presence of infectious virus in particles sizes of >4.1 µm, 1-4 µm, and 4.1 µm, 1-4 µm, and

/pdf/the-infectious-nature-of-patient-generated-sars-cov-2-16b9cd1asx.pdf

The Infectious Nature of Patient-Generated SARS-CoV-2 Aerosol

Breath-, air- and surface-borne SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals.

Summary The COVID-19 pandemic has brought an unprecedented crisis to the global health sector1. When recovering COVID-19 patients are discharged in accordance with throat or nasal swab protocols using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the potential risk of re-introducing the infection source to humans and the environment must be resolved2,3,4. Here we show that 20% of COVID-19 patients, who were ready for a hospital discharge based on current guidelines, had SARS-CoV-2 in their exhaled breath (∼105 RNA copies/m3). They were estimated to emit about 1400 RNA copies into the air per minute. Although fewer surface swabs (1.3%, N=318) tested positive, medical equipment frequently contacted by healthcare workers and the work shift floor were contaminated by SARS-CoV-2 in four hospitals in Wuhan. All air samples (N=44) appeared negative likely due to the dilution or inactivation through natural ventilation (1.6–3.3 m/s) and applied disinfection. Despite the low risk of cross environmental contamination in the studied hospitals, there is a critical need for strengthening the hospital discharge standards in preventing re-emergence of COVID-19 spread.

https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.31.20115196v1.full.pdf

Kai Zhou

Papers

Breath-, air- and surface-borne SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Exhaled Breath from COVID-19 Patients Ready for Hospital Discharge