The impact of hurricane-related flooding on infectious diseases in the US is not well understood. Using geocoded electronic health records for 62,762 veterans living in North Carolina counties impacted by Hurricane Matthew coupled with flood maps, we explore the impact of hurricane and flood exposure on infectious outcomes in outpatient settings and emergency departments as well as antimicrobial prescribing. Declines in outpatient visits and antimicrobial prescribing are observed in weeks 0-2 following the hurricane as compared with the baseline period and the year prior, while increases in antimicrobial prescribing are observed 3+ weeks following the hurricane. Taken together, hurricane and flood exposure appear to have had minor impacts on infectious outcomes in North Carolina veterans, not resulting in large increases in infections or antimicrobial prescribing

As the curve continues to flatten during the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, and more physicians resume outpatient clinical work, the question arises of how to ensure the safety of the patients and staff while performing cases. Many institutions and health-care offices have turned to screening questionnaires to determine the likelihood of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positivity. However, screening questionnaires are woefully inadequate as studies have shown that roughly 6.4% to 50% of patients may spread this virus without any symptoms. In this study, we have outlined a proposal to restart elective procedures after the curve has flattened in a certain locale, particularly for ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). Until additional data are collected for specific sensitivity and specificity values for PCR testing, we recommend performing 2 consecutive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to minimize false negative rates. The algorithm described in this study can help ASCs begin their practices and provide local public health officials with valuable data that can help establish true sensitivity and specificity rates for these tests.

The Diamond Princess cruise ship, carrying 3711 passengers and crew members, docked at Yokohama Port in Japan on February 3, 2020. A quarantine was immediately instituted because 1 passenger who had disembarked in Hong Kong was confirmed to have tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). After the quarantine began, all passengers and crew were tested using the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction assay on the ship, 696 of whom tested positive. In total, 769 patients, including 696 with COVID-19, required transport to a hospital. The Japan Disaster Medical Assistance Team (DMAT) successfully picked up and safely transported the COVID-19 patients using a novel classification system to prioritize patients. The Japan DMAT transported 203 patients to hospitals in Kanagawa and another 566 patients to hospitals in 15 different prefectures.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected over 1.5 million individuals and led to over 91, 000 deaths in the United States (US) alone as of May 20th, 2020. Minority populations, however, continue to be a high-risk population to contract the SARS-CoV-2 infection. While socioeconomic inequality may help to explain why minority ethnic populations are contracting the SARS-CoV-2 in larger proportions, the reason for elevated mortality rates in African Americans is still unknown. African Americans are less likely than whites to utilize high-quality hospitals, ambulatory care services, and regular primary care providers; this is most likely a result of barriers to accessing high quality treatment, as African Americans have substantially higher uninsured rates. However, previous reports have shown that regardless of insurance status, African Americans are more likely to be directed toward lower quality treatment plans compared to their white counterparts, and that physicians carry implicit biases that negatively impact treatment regimens for these minority populations. While income, education, and access to healthcare should be revised in due time, in the short term physicians should do everything possible to learn about implicit biases that may exist in healthcare, as the first step to minimize implicit biases is to recognize that they exist.

We investigated the adoption of World Health Organization (WHO) naming of COVID-19 into the respective languages among the Group of Twenty (G20) countries, and the variation of COVID-19 naming in the Chinese language across different health authorities. On May 7, 2020, we identified the websites of the national health authorities of the G20 countries to identify naming of COVID-19 in their respective languages, and the websites of the health authorities in mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and Singapore and identify their Chinese name for COVID-19. Among the G20 nations, Argentina, China, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Turkey do not use the literal translation of COVID-19 in their official language(s) to refer to COVID-19, as they retain “novel” in the naming of this disease. China is the only G20 nation that names COVID-19 a pneumonia. Among Chinese-speaking jurisdictions, Hong Kong and Singapore governments follow the WHO’s recommendation and adopt the literal translation of COVID-19 in Chinese. In contrast, mainland China, Macau, and Taiwan refer to COVID-19 as a type of pneumonia in Chinese. We urge health authorities worldwide to adopt naming in their native languages that are consistent with WHO’s naming of COVID-19.

In the U.S., migration has been documented to affect the prevalence of infectious disease. As a mitigation entity, border security has been recorded by numerous scholarly works as being essential to the support of the health of the U.S. population. Consequently, the lack of current health care monitoring of the permeable U.S. border places the U.S. population at risk in the broad sectors of infectious disease and interpersonal violence. Visualizing border security in the context of public health mitigation has significant potential to protect migrant health as well as that of all populations on both sides of the border. Examples of how commonly this philosophy is held can be found in the expansive use of security-focused terms regarding public health. Using tools such as GIS to screen for disease in people before their entrance into a nation would be more efficient and ethical than treating patients once they have entered a population and increased the impact on the healthcare system. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:554–562)

The world’s largest outbreak of Ebola virus disease began in West Africa in 2014. Although few cases were identified in the United States, the possibility of imported cases led US public health systems and health care facilities to focus on preparing the health care system to quickly and safely identify and respond to emerging infectious diseases. In New York City, early, coordinated planning among city and state agencies and the health care delivery system led to a successful response to a single case diagnosed in a returned health care worker. In this article we describe public health and health care system preparedness efforts in New York City to respond to Ebola and conclude that coordinated public health emergency response relies on joint planning and sustained resources for public health emergency response, epidemiology and laboratory capacity, and health care emergency management. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:370–374).

As Ebola has spread beyond West Africa, the challenges confronting health care systems with no experience in managing such patients are enormous. Not only is Ebola a significant threat to a population’s health, it can infect the medical personnel trying to treat it. As such, it represents a major challenge to those in public health, emergency medical services (EMS), and acute care hospitals. Our academic medical center volunteered to become an Ebola Treatment Center as part of the US effort to manage the threat. We developed detailed policies and procedures for Ebola patient management at our university hospital. Both the EMS system and county public health made significant contributions during the development process. This article shares information about this process and the outcomes to inform other institutions facing similar challenges of preparing for an emerging threat with limited resources. The discussion includes information about management of (1) patients who arrive by ambulance with prior notification, (2) spontaneous walk-in patients, and (3) patients with confirmed Ebola who are interfacility transfers. Hospital management includes information about Ebola screening procedures, personal protective equipment selection and personnel training, erection of a tent outside the main facility, establishing an Ebola treatment unit inside the facility, and infectious waste and equipment management. Finally, several health policy considerations are presented. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:558–567)

The current outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) is due to a lack of resources, untrained medical personnel, and the specific contact-mediated type of infection of this virus. In Japan’s history, education and mass vaccination of the native Ainu people successfully eradicated epidemics of smallpox. Even though a zoonotic virus is hard to control, appropriate precautions and personal protection, as well as anti-symptomatic treatment, will control the outbreak of EVD. Ebola virus utilizes the antibody-dependent enhancement of infection to seed the cells of various organs. The pathogenesis of EVD is due to the cytokine storm of pro-inflammatory cytokines and the lack of antiviral interferon-α2. Matricellular proteins of galectin-9 and osteopontin might also be involved in the edema and abnormality of the coagulation system in EVD. Anti-fibrinolytic treatment will be effective. In the era of globalization, interviews of travelers with fever within 3 weeks of departure from the affected areas will be necessary. Not only the hospitals designated for specific biohazards but every hospital should be aware of the biology of biohazards and establish measures to protect both patients and the community. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2014;0:1-5)

During an evolving public health emergency, a simple algorithm for initial patient identification and management is essential for providers on the front lines. This article recommends a 3-pronged system of Identify, Isolate, Inform to describe the actions necessary in the first few minutes of encountering a potential Ebola patient. Application of the “vital sign zero” triage concept of early recognition of potential threats coupled with this novel algorithm will optimize protection of health care workers and the public health while concurrently providing a safe method for individual patient care. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2014;0:1-2)

During public health emergencies of international concern such as the 2014 Ebola event, health care leaders need to educate clinicians on the front lines to make uncomfortable, but real triage decisions that focus on optimization of population health outcomes over individual care. Health care workers must consider their own protection first before direct contact with potentially contagious patients. In an era of globalization and emerging infectious disease, routine triage including evaluation of the standard vital signs must shift to include public health considerations with immediate consequences. A new “vital sign zero” should be taken at the time of initial patient evaluation to assess for risk and exposure to potentially contagious infectious diseases.

Following the intentional dissemination of B.anthracis through the U.S. Postal Service in 2001, use of the term “naturally occurring” to classify some infectious disease outbreaks has become more evident. However, this term is neither a scientific nor an epidemiologic classification that is helpful in describing either the source or the mode of transmission in outbreaks. In this paper, the authors provide examples of how and when the public health community has recognized potentially flawed or misleading taxonomy in the past and taken steps to improve the taxonomy's accuracy and usefulness. We also offer examples of alternative terms for classifying outbreaks since inaccurate descriptions of outbreaks could potentially lead to a flawed or incomplete set of underlying assumptions about the outbreak's causal factors. This, in turn, could lead to implementing a flawed or incomplete intervention or response strategy which could extend the duration of the outbreak, resulting in avoidable morbidity and mortality. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2014;0:1–6)