Mexico has been one of the most affected countries in the world by the COVID-19 pandemic. The true impact of the pandemic has probably been underestimated, and President López Obrador, as well as the Ministry of Health, has struggled to lead the country since the beginning. While cases and deaths continue to rise, stronger leadership and unity are needed to limit the impact of COVID-19 on the health of millions of Mexicans.

The emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a novel unknown virus that is challenging whole countries all over the world, has prompted different strategies from various governments. Iran, as one of the first countries to experience the onset of the virus outbreak, made and implemented some policies that should be assessed, so that lessons may be learned for the future. Although some negative actions and policies, such as delays in cancellation of international flights especially from China, not taking the disease seriously and comparing it with seasonal influenza, and the like, are hard to ignore, some impressive actions are also vividly clear. Policies, such as social distancing, dramatically increasing social awareness about preventive actions in terms of public health, and using masks and hand washing, were cost-effective policies that resulted in successful control of the virus in the first onset. While some quite clearly ineffective decisions were made by Iranian authorities, the huge catastrophic effect of sanctions cannot be forgotten. Possibly in level situations with similar countries, Iran will have far better results regarding preparedness for future pandemics like COVID-19.

After the 2003 SARS epidemic, China started constructing a primary-level emergency response system and focused on strengthening and implementation of policies, resource allocation. After 17 years of restructuring, China's primary-level response capabilities towards public health emergencies have greatly improved. During the coronavirus disease 2019 epidemic, primary-level administrative and medical personnel, social organisations, volunteers, etc. have played a significant role in providing professional services utilising the primary-level emergency response system of 17 years. However, China's organisations did not learn their lesson from the SARS epidemic, and certain problems are exposed in the system. By analysing the experience and shortcomings of China's disease prevention and control system at the primary level, we can focus on the development of disease control systems for major epidemics in the future.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted universities across the United States to close campuses in Spring 2020. Universities are deliberating whether, when, and how they should resume in-person instruction in Fall 2020. In this essay, we discuss some practical considerations for the use of 2 potentially useful control strategies based on testing: (1) severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing followed by case-patient isolation and quarantine of close contacts, and (2) serological testing followed by an “immune shield” approach, that is, low social distancing requirements for seropositive persons. The isolation of case-patients and quarantine of close contacts may be especially challenging, and perhaps prohibitively difficult, on many university campuses. The “immune shield” strategy might be hobbled by a low positive predictive value of the tests used in populations with low seroprevalence. Both strategies carry logistical, ethical, and financial implications. The main nonpharmaceutical interventions will remain methods based on social distancing (eg, capping class size) and personal protective behaviors (eg, universal facemask wearing in public space) until vaccines become available, or unless the issues discussed herein can be resolved in such a way that using mass testing as main control strategies becomes viable.

The emergence of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is currently a global concern. In this study, our goal was to explore the changing expression levels of acute-phase reaction proteins (APRPs) in the serum of COVID-19 patients and to elucidate the immunological characteristics of COVID-19. In the study design, we recruited 72 COVID-19 patients, including 22 cases of mild degree, 38 cases of moderate degree and 12 cases of severe degree. We also recruited 20 patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and 20 normal control subjects as a comparison. Fasting venous blood was taken to detect the content of complement 3 (C3), complement 4 (C4), C-reactive protein (CRP), serum amyloid A (SAA) and prealbumin (PA). When compared the COVID-19 group with the CAP and normal control groups, respectively, the mean value of CRP and SAA in the COVID-19 group (including mild, moderate and severe patients) had increased significantly (P < 0.01), whereas the mean values of C3, C4 and PA decreased (P < 0.01). For the asymptomatic or mild symptomatic patients with COVID-19, the actual aggravation of disease may be more advanced than the clinical appearances. Meanwhile, the statistical analyses indicated that the development of COVID-19 brought about a significant increase in the content of CRP and SAA (P < 0.01), and a decline in the content of C3, C4 and PA (P < 0.01). These findings suggested that the changes in the level of APRPs could be used as indicators to identify the degree and progression of COVID-19, and the significant changes might demonstrate the aggravation of disease. This study provided a new approach to improve the clinical management plan and prognosis of COVID-19.

This article discusses the role of European Union (EU) State aid law in the COVID-19 crisis. It contends that different Treaty derogations have played unique roles in addressing the core determinants of the economic risk linked to the pandemic (ie the “exposure” to lockdown measures and the “vulnerability” of certain sectors to them), and in increasing the resilience of national economies. Moreover, this article examines the extent to which EU State aid law has been used to manage and mitigate health risks, by allowing Member States to enhance the preparedness and capacity of their healthcare sector (broadly conceived) to respond to the pandemic. On the whole, this article maintains that State aid control has been used by the European Commission as an important “risk management tool”, and it highlights the role of the Commission as the crisis management authority.

Case fatality rate (CFR) and doubling time are important characteristics of any epidemic. For coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), wide variations in the CFR and doubling time have been noted among various countries. Early in the epidemic, CFR calculations involving all patients as denominator do not account for the hospitalised patients who are ill and will die in the future. Hence, we calculated cumulative CFR (cCFR) using only patients whose final clinical outcomes were known at a certain time point. We also estimated the daily average doubling time. Calculating CFR using this method leads to temporal stability in the fatality rates, the cCFR stabilises at different values for different countries. The possible reasons for this are an improved outcome rate by the end of the epidemic and a wider testing strategy. The United States, France, Turkey and China had high cCFR at the start due to low outcome rate. By 22 April, Germany, China and South Korea had a low cCFR. China and South Korea controlled the epidemic and achieved high doubling times. The doubling time in Russia did not cross 10 days during the study period.

This article reflects on the importance and the impact of scientific publications in the midst of a global health crisis. It aims to raise awareness about the responsibility of accepting manuscripts in such sensitive times and is intended to motivate the production of high-quality papers through a critical vision.