The Public–Private–People partnership (4P) is a significant element in disaster response. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as a pandemic has been the worst disaster in the last decades in Iran in terms of exposure and magnitude. In order to respond effectively, the Iranian Government needs an extra capacity, which may be provided by the private sector and people. This study aims to collect evidences of 4P pertaining to the COVID-19 response in Iran from February to April 2020. Partnership case studies are classified into 3 categories: (1) Public–private partnerships; (2) public–people partnerships; and (3) private–people partnerships. It was found that the Iranian Government has removed or diminished some of the barriers to cooperation. There was also more cooperation between the people, the private sector, and the public sector than during normal times (vs disasters). People participated in the response procedure through some associations or groups, such as religious and ethnic communities, as well as through non-governmental organizations. It has been shown that 4P is vital in disaster response and, in particular, to epidemics. The government can be more active in partnerships with the private sector and people in emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Enhancing social capital, institutionalization, and developing required infrastructures by the government will improve public–private partnerships.

In many parts of the United States, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cases have reached peak infection rates, prompting administrators to create protocols to resume elective cases. As elective procedures and surgeries get scheduled, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) must implement some form of widespread testing in order to ensure the safety of both the ASC staff and the patients being seen. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently announced the approval of new serological testing for SARS-CoV-2, a test that can indicate the presence of IgM and IgG antibodies in the serum against viral particles. However, the possibility for reinfection raises questions about the utility of this new serological test, as the presence of IgG may not correspond to long-term immunity. SARS-CoV-2 has been known to form escape mutations, which may correspond to a reduction in immunoglobulin binding capacity. Patients who develop more robust immune responses with formation of memory CD8+ T-cells and helper CD4+ T-cells will be the most equipped if exposed to the virus, but, unfortunately, the serology test will not help us in distinguishing those individuals. Given the inherent disadvantages of serological testing, antibody testing alone should not be used when deciding patient care and should be combined with polymerase chain reaction testing.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented demands on health systems, where hospitals have become overwhelmed with patients amidst limited resources. Disaster response and resource allocation during such crises present multiple challenges. A breakdown in communication and organization can lead to unnecessary disruptions and adverse events. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) promotes the use of an incident command system (ICS) model during large-scale disasters, and we hope that an institutional disaster plan and ICS will help to mitigate these lapses. In this article, we describe the alignment of an emergency department (ED) specific Forward Command structure with the hospital ICS and address the challenges specific to the ED. Key components of this ICS include a hospital-wide incident command or Joint Operations Center (JOC) and an ED Forward Command. This type of structure leads to a shared mental model with division of responsibilities that allows institutional adaptations to changing environments and maintenance of specific roles for optimal coordination and communication. We present this as a model that can be applied to other hospital EDs around the country to help structure the response to the COVID-19 pandemic while remaining generalizable to other disaster situations.

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused a global shortage of medical masks, leaving most exposed health personnel without appropriate protection.

Since the beginning of the outbreak, the World Health Organization WHO) has revised several times the recommendations on general use of facemasks. Until recently, WHO recommended to limit the use of facemasks to symptomatic people and advised against off-standard solutions. Moreover, recommendations differ among and within countries, causing public confusion and individual initiative.

There is wide consensus that universal appropriate use of masks may contribute both to contain the epidemic and to reduce the burden on national procurement, if a community production approach is followed. Especially in low-middle income countries, due to the scarce capacity of national industrial production or import, the use of masks produced at community level may become the only viable option. For the purpose ad hoc guidelines will be needed.

Current knowledge and experience call for further and updated review of global and national guidelines to provide clear and consistent criteria to ensure the widest availability and appropriate use of facial protection, bearing in mind populations in socio-economic disadvantaged settings.

The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to physical distancing measures in numerous countries in an attempt to control the spread. However, these measures are not without cost to the health and economies of the nations in which they are enacted. Nations are now looking for methods to remove physical distancing measures and return to full functioning. To prevent a massive second wave of infections, this must be done with a data-driven methodology. The purpose of this article is to propose an algorithm for COVID-19 testing that would allow for physical distancing to be scaled back in a stepwise manner, which limits ensuing infections and protects the capacity of the health care system.

With the ongoing coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, SARS-CoV-2), the entire community of health professionals is working to control disease and investing crores in vaccine development. The present discussion is to bring the focus on various social issues that emerge during outbreak and calls for equal attention as that of other health-care interventions. These issues are summarized in three categories: first, stigmatization due to lack of knowledge about the source of infection; second, speculations and their consequences around lack of knowledge about transmission; and finally, the concern regarding miscommunication during such a crisis. Most of these concerns emerge from press and social media coverage of the episode. The Ebola outbreak response is an example of how social scientists and anthropologists can work with other experts to solve questions of public health importance. Their approach toward the community with the objective to understand the sources, reasons, and circumstances of the infection will help to manage the current outbreak. In this context, we suggest collaboration of diverse scientific community to control and sensitize the people to tackle the misinformation in the affected and non-affected community during the outbreaks.