The current pandemic restarts a debate on permanently banning wildlife consumption in an effort to prevent further public health threats. In this commentary, we offer two ideas to enhance the discussion on foodborne zoonotic diseases in food systems.

First, we focus on the probable consequences that the loss of access to wildlife could cause to the status of food and nutrition security of many people in developing countries that rely on bushmeat to subsist. Second, we argue that all animal-based food systems, especially the ones based on intensive husbandry, present food safety threats.

To ban the access to bushmeat without a rational analysis of all human meat production and consumption in the global animal-based food system will not help us to prevent future outbreaks.

Adults with CHD are known to greatly benefit from a prompt access to continuous expert care. On the other hand, coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has determined a dramatic worldwide reconfiguration of the healthcare systems, with rapid redeployment of resources towards this emergency. Italy was the first Western country affected by a large-scale spread of coronavirus disease 2019. The aim of our study is to analyse the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak on in-hospital care of patients with CHD in an Italian tertiary centre.

We retrospectively reviewed data on CHD hospital admissions in our centre since 1 March, 2020, when the adoption of a strict infection containment policy throughout the country resulted in limited access of patients to routine hospital care and resources reallocation to the care of infected patients. Comparison with data from the previous year was performed in order to identify any relevant differences attributable to the outbreak. Despite cancellation of all elective procedures, the overall number of urgent hospital admission remained stable throughout the period of study. Patients admitted during the pandemic had greater disease complexity (p = 0.001) with longer length of in-hospital stay (p = 0.01). No adverse events or positive swabs were reported among CHD patients who were admitted to hospital or medical personnel caring for these patients.

Data from our early experience suggest that coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic did not impact significantly on the provision of urgent care to adult patients with CHD.

The COVID-19 pandemic has required a rapid and evolving response in order to enable the continued delivery of radiotherapy, whilst effectively managing the risk of infection to patients and staff. In early March 2020, we were presented with the challenge of achieving safe delivery of care in clinical practice for a group of patients that are already at higher risk of morbidity from COVID-19 with only limited guidance.

This article outlines the adjustments made at The Christie at Oldham satellite centre in order to promote optimal care to our patients receiving radiotherapy, and to mitigate infection risk at the department for both patients and staff.

We share insight into some of the evolving processes that our team have developed since March 2020 in promoting optimal care to patients receiving radiotherapy at The Christie at Oldham satellite centre. These include changes to the department floor, paper flow, supportive care and staffing.

As we continue to progress through this pandemic, we accept that there will be an ongoing journey of learning with adjustments to practice and evolving ‘new norm’, thereby ensuring we keep our patients and team safe and well. We also hoped that our experience would support radiotherapy-related practices in surges of the pandemic in other parts of the world or in case of the second wave.

During previous pandemic outbreaks, medical staff have reported high levels of psychological distress. The aim of the current study was to report a snapshot of the psychological impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its correlated factors on medical staff in Guangdong, China.

On the 2nd and 3rd February 2020, soon after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we surveyed medical staff at four hospitals in Guangdong, China, to collect demographic characteristics, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-14), and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) scores.

Complete responses were received from 1045 medical staff. Respondents were divided into high- and low-risk groups according to their working environment of contacting with potential or confirmed COVID-19 cases. The proportion of staff with anxiety (55.4% v. 43.0%, p < 0.001) or depression (43.6% v. 36.8%, p = 0.028) was significantly higher in the high-risk group than the low-risk group. The percentage of staff with severe anxiety was similar in the two groups. Doctors were more susceptible to moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms. The high-risk group had higher levels of clinical insomnia (13.5% v. 8.5%, p = 0.011) and were more likely to be in the upper quartile for stress symptoms (24.7% v. 19.3%, p = 0.037) than the low-risk group. Additionally, work experience negatively correlated with insomnia symptoms.

It is important for hospitals and authorities to protect both the physical and psychological health of medical staff during times of pandemic, even those with a low exposure risk.

To describe the pattern of transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during 2 nosocomial outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with regard to the possibility of airborne transmission.

Contact investigations with active case finding were used to assess the pattern of spread from 2 COVID-19 index patients.

A community hospital and university medical center in the United States, in February and March, 2020, early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Two index patients and 421 exposed healthcare workers.

Exposed healthcare workers (HCWs) were identified by analyzing the electronic medical record (EMR) and conducting active case finding in combination with structured interviews. Healthcare coworkers (HCWs) were tested for COVID-19 by obtaining oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal specimens, and RT-PCR testing was used to detect SARS-CoV-2.

Two separate index patients were admitted in February and March 2020, without initial suspicion for COVID-19 and without contact or droplet precautions in place; both patients underwent several aerosol-generating procedures in this context. In total, 421 HCWs were exposed in total, and the results of the case contact investigations identified 8 secondary infections in HCWs. In all 8 cases, the HCWs had close contact with the index patients without sufficient personal protective equipment. Importantly, despite multiple aerosol-generating procedures, there was no evidence of airborne transmission.

These observations suggest that, at least in a healthcare setting, most SARS-CoV-2 transmission is likely to take place during close contact with infected patients through respiratory droplets, rather than by long-distance airborne transmission.