During the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway, the testing criteria and capacity changed numerous times. In this study, we aim to assess consequences of changes in testing criteria for infectious disease surveillance. We plotted the proportion of positive PCR tests and the total number of PCR tests for different periods of the pandemic in Norway. We fitted regression models for the total number of PCR tests and the probability of positive PCR tests, with time and weekday as explanatory variables. The regression analysis focuses on the time period until 2021, i.e. before Norway started vaccination. There were clear changes in testing criteria and capacity over time. In particular, there was a marked difference in the testing regime before and after the introduction of self-testing, with a drastic increase in the proportion of positive PCR tests after the introduction of self-tests. The probability of a PCR test being positive was higher for weekends and public holidays than for Mondays-Fridays. The probability for a positive PCR test was lowest on Mondays. This implies that there were different testing criteria and/or different test-seeking behaviour on different weekdays. Though the probability of testing positive clearly changed over time, we cannot in general conclude that this occurred as a direct consequence of changes in testing policies. It is natural for the testing criteria to change during a pandemic. Though smaller changes in testing criteria do not seem to have large, abrupt consequences for the disease surveillance, larger changes like the introduction and massive use of self-tests makes the test data less useful for surveillance.

UNASSIGNED: The COVID-19 pandemic devastated many countries worldwide by causing large numbers of fatalities. In our research, we wanted to answer the question: Why was there such a large difference in the mortality rate between South Korea and the United States? This is because many East Asian countries, such as Korea, had a lower mortality rate than many countries, including developed ones, across the world - the mortality rate of South Korea was about five times lower than the United States.
UNASSIGNED: This study comprehensively compares strategies used to address the COVID-19 pandemic in two different countries: South Korea and the United States. The various aspects of these two countries\' responses are examined, including initial response, information dissemination and public compliance, mitigation strategies, and vaccine rollout and their impacts.
UNASSIGNED: Early and widespread testing, rigorous contact tracing, the clear release of government information, and an organized vaccine rollout powered a proactive approach in South Korea. The United States had a contrasting response consisting of delayed and more decentralized measures, where testing lagged due to varying policies and the political controversies facing vaccine distribution.
UNASSIGNED: We signify the gravity of rapid response and testing, clear communication, and efficient vaccine distribution, as we believe this could correlate with a lower mortality rate. In addition, we discuss future directions, including the need for a specific health infrastructure and protocol against highly infectious outbreaks.
Main findings: The study suggests strategies that may be effective ways to reduce fatalities during a pandemic through a comparative analysis of COVID-19 responses in South Korea and the United States.Added knowledge: This review further consolidates the importance of an effective defense strategy involving testing, contact tracing, information dissemination, and vaccine rollouts.Global health impact for policy and action: There is a need for the development of a specific pandemic response infrastructure against fast-spreading and fatal viruses involving effective policies that take into account both the freedom and health of citizens.

The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed significant challenges on global health, emphasizing the persistent threat of large-scale infectious diseases in the future. This study addresses the need to enhance pooled testing efficiency for large populations. The common approach in pooled testing involves consolidating multiple test samples into a single tube to efficiently detect positivity at a lower cost. However, what is the optimal number of samples to be grouped together in order to minimize costs? i.e. allocating ten individuals per group may not be the most cost-effective strategy. In response, this paper introduces the hierarchical quotient space, an extension of fuzzy equivalence relations, as a method to optimize group allocations. In this study, we propose a cost-sensitive multi-granularity intelligent decision model to further minimize testing costs. This model considers both testing and collection costs, aiming to achieve the lowest total cost through optimal grouping at a single layer. Building upon this foundation, two multi-granularity models are proposed, exploring hierarchical group optimization. The experimental simulations were conducted using MATLAB R2022a on a desktop with Intel i5-10500 CPU and 8G RAM, considering scenarios with a fixed number of individuals and fixed positive probability. The main findings from our simulations demonstrate that the proposed models significantly enhance the efficiency and reduce the overall costs associated with pooled testing. For example, testing costs were reduced by nearly half when the optimal grouping strategy was applied, compared to the traditional method of grouping ten individuals. Additionally, the multi-granularity approach further optimized the hierarchical groupings, leading to substantial cost savings and improved testing efficiency.

At present, COVID-19 remains a public health concern due to the ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2 and its prevalence in particular countries. This paper provides an updated overview of the epidemiology and pathogenesis of COVID-19, with a focus on the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and the phenomenon known as \'long COVID\'. Meanwhile, diagnostic and detection advances will be mentioned. Though many inventions have been made to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, some outstanding ones include multiplex RT-PCR, which can be used for accurate diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. ELISA-based antigen tests also appear to be potential diagnostic tools to be available in the future. This paper also discusses current treatments, vaccination strategies, as well as emerging cell-based therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2 underscores the necessity for us to continuously update scientific understanding and treatments for it.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patients with COVID-19 disease who will deteriorate can be useful to assess whether they should receive intensive care, or whether they can be treated in a less intensive way or through outpatient care. In clinical care, routine laboratory markers, such as C-reactive protein, are used to assess a person\'s health status.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of routine blood-based laboratory tests to predict mortality and deterioration to severe or critical (from mild or moderate) COVID-19 in people with SARS-CoV-2.
METHODS: On 25 August 2022, we searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, encompassing searches of various databases such as MEDLINE via PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, medRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We did not apply any language restrictions.
METHODS: We included studies of all designs that produced estimates of prognostic accuracy in participants who presented to outpatient services, or were admitted to general hospital wards with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and studies that were based on serum banks of samples from people. All routine blood-based laboratory tests performed during the first encounter were included. We included any reference standard used to define deterioration to severe or critical disease that was provided by the authors.
METHODS: Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study, and independently assessed the methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies tool. As studies reported different thresholds for the same test, we used the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operator Curve model for meta-analyses to estimate summary curves in SAS 9.4. We estimated the sensitivity at points on the SROC curves that corresponded to the median and interquartile range boundaries of specificities in the included studies. Direct and indirect comparisons were exclusively conducted for biomarkers with an estimated sensitivity and 95% CI of ≥ 50% at a specificity of ≥ 50%. The relative diagnostic odds ratio was calculated as a summary of the relative accuracy of these biomarkers.
RESULTS: We identified a total of 64 studies, including 71,170 participants, of which 8169 participants died, and 4031 participants deteriorated to severe/critical condition. The studies assessed 53 different laboratory tests. For some tests, both increases and decreases relative to the normal range were included. There was important heterogeneity between tests and their cut-off values. None of the included studies had a low risk of bias or low concern for applicability for all domains. None of the tests included in this review demonstrated high sensitivity or specificity, or both. The five tests with summary sensitivity and specificity above 50% were: C-reactive protein increase, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio increase, lymphocyte count decrease, d-dimer increase, and lactate dehydrogenase increase. Inflammation For mortality, summary sensitivity of a C-reactive protein increase was 76% (95% CI 73% to 79%) at median specificity, 59% (low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity was 78% (95% CI 67% to 86%) at median specificity, 72% (very low-certainty evidence). For the combined outcome of mortality or deterioration, or both, summary sensitivity was 70% (95% CI 49% to 85%) at median specificity, 60% (very low-certainty evidence). For mortality, summary sensitivity of an increase in neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was 69% (95% CI 66% to 72%) at median specificity, 63% (very low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity was 75% (95% CI 59% to 87%) at median specificity, 71% (very low-certainty evidence). For mortality, summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count was 67% (95% CI 56% to 77%) at median specificity, 61% (very low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count was 69% (95% CI 60% to 76%) at median specificity, 67% (very low-certainty evidence). For the combined outcome, summary sensitivity was 83% (95% CI 67% to 92%) at median specificity, 29% (very low-certainty evidence). For mortality, summary sensitivity of a lactate dehydrogenase increase was 82% (95% CI 66% to 91%) at median specificity, 60% (very low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity of a lactate dehydrogenase increase was 79% (95% CI 76% to 82%) at median specificity, 66% (low-certainty evidence). For the combined outcome, summary sensitivity was 69% (95% CI 51% to 82%) at median specificity, 62% (very low-certainty evidence). Hypercoagulability For mortality, summary sensitivity of a d-dimer increase was 70% (95% CI 64% to 76%) at median specificity of 56% (very low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity was 65% (95% CI 56% to 74%) at median specificity of 63% (very low-certainty evidence). For the combined outcome, summary sensitivity was 65% (95% CI 52% to 76%) at median specificity of 54% (very low-certainty evidence). To predict mortality, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio increase had higher accuracy compared to d-dimer increase (RDOR (diagnostic Odds Ratio) 2.05, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.24), C-reactive protein increase (RDOR 2.64, 95% CI 2.09 to 3.33), and lymphocyte count decrease (RDOR 2.63, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.46). D-dimer increase had higher accuracy compared to lymphocyte count decrease (RDOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.80), C-reactive protein increase (RDOR 1.31, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.65), and lactate dehydrogenase increase (RDOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.90). Additionally, lactate dehydrogenase increase had higher accuracy compared to lymphocyte count decrease (RDOR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.49). To predict deterioration to severe disease, C-reactive protein increase had higher accuracy compared to d-dimer increase (RDOR 1.76, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.50). The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio increase had higher accuracy compared to d-dimer increase (RDOR 2.77, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.84). Lastly, lymphocyte count decrease had higher accuracy compared to d-dimer increase (RDOR 2.10, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.07) and lactate dehydrogenase increase (RDOR 2.22, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.26).
CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory tests, associated with hypercoagulability and hyperinflammatory response, were better at predicting severe disease and mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 compared to other laboratory tests. However, to safely rule out severe disease, tests should have high sensitivity (> 90%), and none of the identified laboratory tests met this criterion. In clinical practice, a more comprehensive assessment of a patient\'s health status is usually required by, for example, incorporating these laboratory tests into clinical prediction rules together with clinical symptoms, radiological findings, and patient\'s characteristics.

Antibody pairs-based immunoassay platforms served as essential and effective tools in the field of pathogen detection. However, the cumbersome preparation and limited detection sensitivity of antibody pairs challenge in establishment of a highly sensitive detection platform. In this study, using COVID-19 testing as a case, we utilized readily accessible nanobodies as detection antibodies and further proposed an accurate design concept with a more scientific and efficient screening strategy to obtain ultrasensitive antibody pairs. We employed nanobodies capable of binding different antigenic epitopes of the nucleocapsid (NP) or receptor-binding domain (RBD) antigens sandwich as substitutes for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) sandwich in fast detection formats and utilized time-resolved fluorescence (TRF) microspheres as the signal probe. Consequently, we developed a multi-epitope nanobody sandwich-based fluorescence lateral flow immunoassay (FLFA) strip. Our results suggest that the NP antigen had a detection limit of 12.01pg/mL, while the RBD antigen had a limit of 6.51 pg/mL using our FLFA strip. Based on double mAb sandwiches, the values presented herein demonstrated 4 to 32-fold enhancements in sensitivity, and 32 to 256-fold enhancements compared to commercially available antigen lateral flow assay kits. Furthermore, we demonstrated the excellent characteristics of the proposed test strip, including its specificity, stability, accuracy, and repeatability, which underscores its the prospective utility. Indeed, these findings indicate that our established screening strategy along with the multi-epitope nanobody sandwich mode provides an optimized strategy in the field of pathogen detection.

UNASSIGNED: Rapid testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was an essential step in reducing the spread of the virus and monitoring pandemic development. Most mandatory standard pandemic testing in Germany has been performed in schools and daycare facilities. We investigated the influence of behavioral and attitudinal characteristics of children and caregivers on their acceptance of (i) antigen-based nasal swab rapid and (ii) oral saliva-based pooled Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests.
UNASSIGNED: Conducted through a cross-sectional survey between November and December 2021, with 1962 caregivers and 581 children/adolescents participating, the study evaluated the acceptability of each testing method on a six-point scale. Participants scored one test method conducted on their child at one of six levels with 1 and 6 denoting \"excellent\" (1) and \"inadequate\" (6), respectively. We considered demographic variables, vaccination status, child mental health (measured by the SDQ-questionnaire), and facility type (kindergarten, primary school, secondary school) as covariates.
UNASSIGNED: Results reveal a preference for saliva-based PCR tests over nasal swabs by about one grade, particularly among parents of unvaccinated children, especially if their child expressed future vaccination reluctance. Testing acceptance was lower among children with mental health issues, primary school-aged, and those with less-educated parents. Perception of test accuracy and convenience influenced attitudes, favoring saliva-based PCR tests. Moreover, children with mental health issues felt less secure during testing.
UNASSIGNED: To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the influence of different testing methods on testing acceptance for SARS-CoV-2 in children and caregivers. Our study identifies predictors of lower acceptance of public health surveillance measures and enables the development of educational programs on testing and vaccination tailored to the needs of specific target groups. Moreover, we demonstrate that test acceptance in vulnerable groups can be enhanced by careful choice of an appropriate testing method.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to analyze the effect of swabs on nasal mucosa.
METHODS: Since May 2020, our department was responsible for screening coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among the employees of a company that continued its activity during the pandemic. The screening protocol consisted of two swabs per week. The samples were analyzed through objective endoscopic and subjective clinical evaluations with sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT Test) at three time points (T0, T1 - three months, T2 - six months).
RESULTS: 23.76% of patients showed an increase in the SNOT score at T1, and the score decreased at T2. This could be due to the phenomenon of \"adaptation\" of the nasal mucosa. Endoscopic control showed that at T1, secretion, hyperemia, and edema are the most common signs. At T2, however, the crusts accounted for 52.94% of all damage. It is evident that at T1 the endoscopically detected signs of \"acute\" damage were more represented than at T2, while the signs of \"chronic\" damage increased as the number of swabs increased.
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that mucosal damage and perceived symptoms were absolutely acceptable compared to the diagnostic advantage obtained with serial screening.

The common cold, the flu, and the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have many symptoms in common. As such, without testing for severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is difficult to conclude whether or not one is infected with SARS-CoV-2. The aim of the current study was to compare the presence and severity of COVID-19-related symptoms among those who tested positive or negative for the beta variant of SARS-CoV-2 (B.1.351) and identify the clinical presentation with the greatest likelihood of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. n = 925 individuals that were tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Dutch mass testing sites (i.e., test streets) were invited to complete a short online survey. The presence and severity of 17 COVID-19-related symptoms were assessed. In addition, mood, health correlates, and quality of life were assessed for the week before the test. Of the sample, n = 88 tested positive and n = 837 tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 reported experiencing a significantly greater number, as well as greater overall symptom severity, compared to individuals who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. A binary logistic regression analysis revealed that increased severity levels of congestion, coughing, shivering, or loss of smell were associated with an increase in the odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, whereas an increase in the severity levels of runny nose, sore throat, or fatigue were associated with an increase in the odds of testing negative for SARS-CoV-2. No significant differences in mood or health correlates were found between those who tested positive or negative for SARS-CoV-2, except for a significantly higher stress score among those who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. In conclusion, individuals that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 experienced a significantly greater number and more severe COVID-19-related symptoms compared to those who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Experiencing shivering and loss of smell may be the best indicators for increased likelihood of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Chatbots can effect large-scale behaviour change because they are accessible through social media, flexible, scalable, and gather data automatically. Yet research on the feasibility and effectiveness of chatbot-administered behaviour change interventions is sparse. The effectiveness of established behaviour change interventions when implemented in chatbots is not guaranteed, given the unique human-machine interaction dynamics. We pilot-tested chatbot-based behaviour change through information provision and embedded animations. We evaluated whether the chatbot could increase understanding and intentions to adopt protective behaviours during the pandemic. Fifty-nine culturally and linguistically diverse participants received a compassion intervention, an exponential growth intervention, or no intervention. We measured participants\' COVID-19 testing intentions and measured their staying-home attitudes before and after their chatbot interaction. We found reduced uncertainty about protective behaviours. The exponential growth intervention increased participants\' testing intentions. This study provides preliminary evidence that chatbots can spark behaviour change, with applications in diverse and underrepresented groups.