In: World development: the multi-disciplinary international journal devoted to the study and promotion of world development, Volume 7, Issue 6, p. 581-584
Through the use of case‐control analyses and quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA), relative risks of transmission of cryptosporidiosis have been evaluated (recreational water exposure vs. drinking water consumption) for a Canadian community with higher than national rates of cryptosporidiosis. A QMRA was developed to assess the risk of Cryptosporidium infection through the consumption of municipally treated drinking water. Simulations were based on site‐specific surface water contamination levels and drinking water treatment log10 reduction capacity for Cryptosporidium. Results suggested that the risk of Cryptosporidium infection via drinking water in the study community, assuming routine operation of the water treatment plant, was negligible (6 infections per 1013 persons per day—5th percentile: 2 infections per 1015 persons per day; 95th percentile: 3 infections per 1012 persons per day). The risk is essentially nonexistent during optimized, routine treatment operations. The study community achieves between 7 and 9 log10Cryptosporidium oocyst reduction through routine water treatment processes. Although these results do not preclude the need for constant vigilance by both water treatment and public health professionals in this community, they suggest that the cause of higher rates of cryptosporidiosis are more likely due to recreational water contact, or perhaps direct animal contact. QMRA can be successfully applied at the community level to identify data gaps, rank relative public health risks, and forecast future risk scenarios. It is most useful when performed in a collaborative way with local stakeholders, from beginning to end of the risk analysis paradigm.
Abstract. This paper begins a process of addressing a significant gap in knowledge about people's responses to being caught in rip currents. While rip currents are the primary hazard facing recreational ocean swimmers in Australia, debate exists about the best advice to give swimmers caught in rip currents. Such surf rescue advice – on what to do and how to respond when caught in a rip – relies on empirical evidence. However, at present, knowledge about swimmers reactions and responses to rip currents is limited. This gap is a considerable barrier to providing effective advice to beach goers and to understanding how this advice is utilised (or not) when actually caught in the rip current. This paper reports the findings of a pilot study that focussed on garnering a better understanding of swimmers' experiences when caught in rip currents. A large scale questionnaire survey instrument generated data about rip current survivors' demographics, knowledge of beach safety and their reactions and responses when caught in a rip current. A mix of online and paper surveys produced a total of 671 completed surveys. Respondents were predominantly an informed group in terms of rip current knowledge, beach experience and had a high self-rated swimming ability. Preliminary insights from the survey show that most respondents recalled a "swim across the rip/parallel to the beach" message when caught in the rip and most escaped unassisted by acting on this message. However, while nearly a quarter of respondents recalled a message of "not to panic", short answer responses revealed that the onset of panic inhibited some respondents from recalling or enacting any other type of beach safety message when caught in the rip current. Results also showed that despite the research sample being younger, competent and frequent ocean swimmers, they were more likely to swim at unpatrolled beaches and outside of the red and yellow safety flags. Moreover, they were still caught in a rip current and they panicked. The findings of this study have significant implications for a range of demographic groups of differing beach safety knowledge and swimming ability who may be caught in rip currents behave, we know very little about how beach goers may respond to being caught in them.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.