Do you see a capacity for transforming the city, its spaces or the use we make of them in artistic practice? Which public spaces do you use most day to day? Is there hope for the Santa Esperança public laundry? Do you think that Somanyprojects' action has served to reactivate this space and awaken it in the town's collective imaginary? Do you know of any other public space particular to women? What does the perspective of an artist offer us that an architect's doesn't consider when intervening in a space? What does a collaborative art practice consist of? Can an intervention of this type lead to some type of agencement on the part of the community? Would it be viable to consider more alternative uses of water such as public baths? How do you assess artistic practice as a work methodology for participatory urbanism projects? Would you be in favour of other activities being undertaken in public laundries besides washing clothing and the promotion of tourism? Are we very far off on the part of politicians from designing the cities where we want to live based on the needs of the citizens themselves? Do you have any questions for us? Do you have any questions for yourself? ; Performing Public Space
Fin da quando è balzato agli onori della cronaca ed ha suscitato l'interesse degli studiosi , il fenomeno della post-verità ha ricevuto due principali interpretazioni. Alcuni hanno osservato che in esso non c'è nulla di realmente nuovo; altri, al contrario, hanno sottolineato la stretta relazione tra postmodernismo e post-verità. Come è stato di recente sostenuto da Lee McIntyre (2018: 11): «If one looks at the Oxford definition, and how all of this has played out in recent public debate, one gets the sense that post-truth is not so much a claim that truth does not exist as that facts are subordinate to our political point of view» (2018: 11, corsivo originale). Partendo da questa specifica ipotesi - la rilevanza della nozione di post-verità per la sfera pubblica e la sua specifica connotazione politica - cercheremo in primo luogo di ricostruire il più ampio contesto in cui il fenomeno della post-verità si inserisce poiché esso ci aiuterà a definire meglio la sua natura. In seguito, cercheremo di mostrare che, a differenza di quanto si potrebbe ritenere, questo contesto richiede più (e non meno) retorica.
Trace elements produce double-edged effects on the lives of animals and particularly of humans. On one hand, these elements represent potentially toxic agents; on the other hand, they are essentially needed to support growth and development and confer protection against disease. Certain trace elements and metals are particularly involved in humoral and cellular immune responses, playing the roles of cofactors for essential enzymes and antioxidant molecules. The amount taken up and the accumulation in human tissues decisively control whether the exerted effects are toxic or beneficial. For these reasons, there is an urgent need to re-consider, harmonize and update current legislative regulations regarding the concentrations of trace elements in food and in drinking water. This review aims to provide information on the interrelation of certain trace elements with risk of autoimmune disease, with a particular focus on type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis. In addition, an overview of the current regulations and regulatory gaps is provided in order to highlight the importance of this issue for everyday nutrition and human health.
PURPOSE: Fireworks may result in a wide spectrum of injury to the upper extremity ranging from mild burns to amputation. In this cross-sectional study, we describe the epidemiology of upper-extremity injuries in the United States associated with fireworks using the Consumer Product Safety Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). METHODS: The NEISS database was queried between 2011 and 2017 for all injuries of the upper extremity (from shoulder to fingertip) associated with fireworks. There were 806 unique cases, yielding a total weighted estimate of 31,430 national cases presenting to emergency departments in the United States during this time frame. National estimates, standard errors, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using parameters provided by the NEISS database. Significance of trends was determined using adjusted Wald tests, for which P values less than .05 were considered significant. RESULTS: The weighted estimate was 4,490 yearly cases from 2011 until 2017. Trend analysis did not show a significant change in the number of yearly cases during that time frame. Most injuries (62%) occurred around June 27 until July 11. Nearly 50% of those injured were aged 10 to 29 years and were male. Fireworks with low pyrotechnic content such as sparklers, snakes, and poppers resulted in 26% of injuries. Although 83% of patients were treated and released from the emergency department, other injuries were more severe, with a 4.5% rate of amputation, 7% rate of hospital admission, and 8% rate of transfer to another hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Fireworks injuries to the hand and upper extremity continue to represent a serious burden of disease to the United States population and the health care system. Increased awareness, legislation, and targeted public education about the dangers of fireworks should be considered ways to reduce the incidence of these injuries. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic III.
14 pages, 4 figures, 1 table, supplementary data https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151359 ; The metabolism of contemporary industrialized societies, that is their energy and material flows, leads to the overconsumption and waste of natural resources, two factors often disregarded in the global ecological equation. In this Discussion article, we examine the amount of natural resources that is increasingly being consumed and wasted by humanity, and propose solutions to reverse this pattern. Since the beginning of the 20th century, societies, especially from industrialized countries, have been wasting resources in different ways. On one hand, the metabolism of industrial societies relies on non-renewable resources. On the other hand, yearly, we directly waste or mismanage around 78% of the total water withdrawn, 49% of the food produced, 31% of the energy produced, 85% of ores and 26% of non-metallic minerals extracted, respectively. As a consequence, natural resources are getting depleted and ecosystems polluted, leading to irreversible environmental changes, biological loss and social conflicts. To reduce the anthropogenic footprint in the planet, and live in harmony with other species and ourselves, we suggest to shift the current economic model based on infinite growth and reduce inequality between and within countries, following a degrowth strategy in industrialized countries. Public education to reduce superfluous consumption is also necessary. In addition, we propose a set of technological strategies to improve the management of natural resources towards circular economies that, like ecosystems, rely only upon renewable resources ; This study received Portuguese national funds from FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology) through project UID/04326/2020 and the Stimulus of Scientific Employment, Individual Support Call, 2017 (CEECIND/03072/2017). It also received funds from the Centre d'Estudis Antoni de Capmany and the Spanish government through the 'Severo Ochoa Centre of Excellence' accreditation (CEX2019-000928-S). Federico Demaria is a Serra Hunter fellow and acknowledges support from the Maria de Maeztu Unit of Excellence ICTA UAB (CEX2019-0940-M), and the projects 'EnvJustice' (GA 695446) and PROSPERA (GA 947713), both funded by the European Research Council (ERC). Claudia Ofelio is Research Associate at Hamburg University within the framework of the project CUSCO (FKZ:03F0813B). The Thermal Engineering and Energy Systems (GITSE) research group T55_20R received funds from the Aragonese Government (Department of Science, University and Knowledge Society) ; Peer reviewed
Corona virus disease (COVID-19) presents a serious threat to global health. A historical timeline of early molecular diagnostics from government alert (January 22) (D) was presented. After in silico analysis, Brazilian Army Institute of Biology (IBEx-RJ) tested samples in house using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) (fast mode) based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations. First cases from Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, IBEx, and diagnosis team were reported in D36, D44, D66, and D74 respectively. Therefore, after 1300 tests, we recommend N1/N2 primer sets (CDC) for preliminary and Charité protocol confirmation in case of positive results. Moreover, every professional should be tested before starting work, in addition to weekly tests for everyone involved.
United States National Science Foundation (NSF) ; Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) of the United Kingdom ; Max-Planck Society ; State of Niedersachsen/Germany ; Australian Research Council ; Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research ; EGO consortium ; Council of Scientific and Industrial Research of India ; Department of Science and Technology, India ; Science & Engineering Research Board (SERB), India ; Ministry of Human Resource Development, India ; Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad ; Conselleria d'Economia i Competitivitat and Conselleria d'Educacio Cultura i Universitats of the Govern de les Illes Balears ; National Science Centre of Poland ; European Commission ; Royal Society ; Scottish Funding Council ; Scottish Universities Physics Alliance ; Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) ; Lyon Institute of Origins (LIO) ; National Research Foundation of Korea ; Industry Canada ; Province of Ontario through Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation ; National Science and Engineering Research Council Canada ; Canadian Institute for Advanced Research ; Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation ; Russian Foundation for Basic Research ; Leverhulme Trust ; Research Corporation ; Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan ; Kavli Foundation ; Australian Government ; National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy ; Government of Western Australia ; United States Department of Energy ; United States National Science Foundation ; Ministry of Science and Education of Spain ; Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom ; Higher Education Funding Council for England ; National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ; Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago ; Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State University ; Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas AM University ; Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) ; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) ; Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Inovacao ; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ; Collaborating Institutions in the Dark Energy Survey ; National Science Foundation ; MINECO ; Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa ; European Research Council under European Union's Seventh Framework Programme ; ERC ; NASA (United States) ; DOE (United States) ; IN2P3/CNRS (France) ; CEA/Irfu (France) ; ASI (Italy) ; INFN (Italy) ; MEXT (Japan) ; KEK (Japan) ; JAXA (Japan) ; Wallenberg Foundation ; Swedish Research Council ; National Space Board (Sweden) ; NASA in the United States ; DRL in Germany ; INAF for the project Gravitational Wave Astronomy with the first detections of adLIGO and adVIRGO experiments ; ESA (Denmark) ; ESA (France) ; ESA (Germany) ; ESA (Italy) ; ESA (Switzerland) ; ESA (Spain) ; German INTEGRAL through DLR grant ; US under NASA Grant ; National Science Foundation PIRE program grant ; Hubble Fellowship ; KAKENHI of MEXT Japan ; JSPS ; Optical and Near-Infrared Astronomy Inter-University Cooperation Program - MEXT ; UK Science and Technology Facilities Council ; ERC Advanced Investigator Grant ; Lomonosov Moscow State University Development programm ; Moscow Union OPTICA ; Russian Science Foundation ; National Research Foundation of South Africa ; Australian Government Department of Industry and Science and Department of Education (National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy: NCRIS) ; NVIDIA at Harvard University ; University of Hawaii ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Planetary Defense Office ; Queen's University Belfast ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Planetary Science Division of the NASA Science Mission Directorate ; European Research Council under European Union's Seventh Framework Programme/ERC ; STFC grants ; European Union FP7 programme through ERC ; STFC through an Ernest Rutherford Fellowship ; FONDECYT ; Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO) ; NASA in the US ; UK Space Agency in the UK ; Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI) in Italy ; Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia (MinCyT) ; Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnologicas (CONICET) from Argentina ; USA NSF PHYS ; NSF ; ICREA ; Science and Technology Facilities Council ; UK Space Agency ; National Science Foundation: AST-1138766 ; National Science Foundation: AST-1238877 ; MINECO: AYA2012-39559 ; MINECO: ESP2013-48274 ; MINECO: FPA2013-47986 ; Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa: SEV-2012-0234 ; ERC: 240672 ; ERC: 291329 ; ERC: 306478 ; German INTEGRAL through DLR grant: 50 OG 1101 ; US under NASA Grant: NNX15AU74G ; National Science Foundation PIRE program grant: 1545949 ; Hubble Fellowship: HST-HF-51325.01 ; KAKENHI of MEXT Japan: 24103003 ; KAKENHI of MEXT Japan: 15H00774 ; KAKENHI of MEXT Japan: 15H00788 ; JSPS: 15H02069 ; JSPS: 15H02075 ; ERC Advanced Investigator Grant: 267697 ; Russian Science Foundation: 16-12-00085 ; Russian Science Foundation: RFBR15-02-07875 ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Planetary Defense Office: NNX14AM74G ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Planetary Science Division of the NASA Science Mission Directorate: NNX08AR22G ; European Research Council under European Union's Seventh Framework Programme/ERC: 291222 ; STFC grants: ST/I001123/1 ; STFC grants: ST/L000709/1 ; European Union FP7 programme through ERC: 320360 ; FONDECYT: 3140326 ; Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO): CE110001020 ; USA NSF PHYS: 1156600 ; NSF: 1242090 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: Gravitational Waves ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/L000946/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/K005014/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N000668/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/M000966/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/I006269/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/L000709/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/J00166X/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/K000845/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/K00090X/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N000633/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/H001972/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/L000733/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N000757/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/M001334/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/J000019/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/M003035/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/I001123/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N00003X/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/I006269/1 Gravitational Waves ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/N000072/1 ; Science and Technology Facilities Council: ST/L003465/1 ; UK Space Agency: ST/P002196/1 ; This Supplement provides supporting material for Abbott et al. (2016a). We briefly summarize past electromagnetic (EM) follow-up efforts as well as the organization and policy of the current EM follow-up program. We compare the four probability sky maps produced for the gravitational-wave transient GW150914, and provide additional details of the EM follow-up observations that were performed in the different bands.
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.
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.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine hospital services globally. This study estimated the total number of adult elective operations that would be cancelled worldwide during the 12 weeks of peak disruption due to COVID-19. Methods: A global expert response study was conducted to elicit projections for the proportion of elective surgery that would be cancelled or postponed during the 12 weeks of peak disruption. A Bayesian β-regression model was used to estimate 12-week cancellation rates for 190 countries. Elective surgical case-mix data, stratified by specialty and indication (surgery for cancer versus benign disease), were determined. This case mix was applied to country-level surgical volumes. The 12-week cancellation rates were then applied to these figures to calculate the total number of cancelled operations. Results: The best estimate was that 28 404 603 operations would be cancelled or postponed during the peak 12 weeks of disruption due to COVID-19 (2 367 050 operations per week). Most would be operations for benign disease (90·2 per cent, 25 638 922 of 28 404 603). The overall 12-week cancellation rate would be 72·3 per cent. Globally, 81·7 per cent of operations for benign conditions (25 638 922 of 31 378 062), 37·7 per cent of cancer operations (2 324 070 of 6 162 311) and 25·4 per cent of elective caesarean sections (441 611 of 1 735 483) would be cancelled or postponed. If countries increased their normal surgical volume by 20 per cent after the pandemic, it would take a median of 45 weeks to clear the backlog of operations resulting from COVID-19 disruption. Conclusion: A very large number of operations will be cancelled or postponed owing to disruption caused by COVID-19. Governments should mitigate against this major burden on patients by developing recovery plans and implementing strategies to restore surgical activity safely.