Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1186/s12916-020-01597-8 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1186/s12916-020-01597-8 32375776!7202922!32375776     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       BMC+Med 2020 ; 18 (1): 124 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32375776|t=2020. Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK |pdf=|usr=}}{{32375776}} gab.com Text Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK JO: BMC Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32375776 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: To mitigate and slow the spread of COVID-19, many countries have adopted unprecedented physical distancing policies, including the UK. We evaluate whether these measures might be sufficient to control the epidemic by estimating their impact on the reproduction number (R(0), the average number of secondary cases generated per case). METHODS: We asked a representative sample of UK adults about their contact patterns on the previous day. The questionnaire was conducted online via email recruitment and documents the age and location of contacts and a measure of their intimacy (whether physical contact was made or not). In addition, we asked about adherence to different physical distancing measures. The first surveys were sent on Tuesday, 24 March, 1 day after a "lockdown" was implemented across the UK. We compared measured contact patterns during the "lockdown" to patterns of social contact made during a non-epidemic period. By comparing these, we estimated the change in reproduction number as a consequence of the physical distancing measures imposed. We used a meta-analysis of published estimates to inform our estimates of the reproduction number before interventions were put in place. RESULTS: We found a 74% reduction in the average daily number of contacts observed per participant (from 10.8 to 2.8). This would be sufficient to reduce R(0) from 2.6 prior to lockdown to 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.89) after the lockdown, based on all types of contact and 0.37 (95% CI = 0.22-0.53) for physical (skin to skin) contacts only. CONCLUSIONS: The physical distancing measures adopted by the UK public have substantially reduced contact levels and will likely lead to a substantial impact and a decline in cases in the coming weeks. However, this projected decline in incidence will not occur immediately as there are significant delays between infection, the onset of symptomatic disease, and hospitalisation, as well as further delays to these events being reported. Tracking behavioural change can give a more rapid assessment of the impact of physical distancing measures than routine epidemiological surveillance. Twit Text FOAVip Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK ????BMC Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32375776 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32375776 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32375776}}</ref> Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK #MMPMID32375776 Jarvis CI; Van Zandvoort K; Gimma A; Prem K; Klepac P; Rubin GJ; Edmunds WJ BMC Med 2020[May]; 18 (1): 124 PMID32375776show ga BACKGROUND: To mitigate and slow the spread of COVID-19, many countries have adopted unprecedented physical distancing policies, including the UK. We evaluate whether these measures might be sufficient to control the epidemic by estimating their impact on the reproduction number (R(0), the average number of secondary cases generated per case). METHODS: We asked a representative sample of UK adults about their contact patterns on the previous day. The questionnaire was conducted online via email recruitment and documents the age and location of contacts and a measure of their intimacy (whether physical contact was made or not). In addition, we asked about adherence to different physical distancing measures. The first surveys were sent on Tuesday, 24 March, 1 day after a "lockdown" was implemented across the UK. We compared measured contact patterns during the "lockdown" to patterns of social contact made during a non-epidemic period. By comparing these, we estimated the change in reproduction number as a consequence of the physical distancing measures imposed. We used a meta-analysis of published estimates to inform our estimates of the reproduction number before interventions were put in place. RESULTS: We found a 74% reduction in the average daily number of contacts observed per participant (from 10.8 to 2.8). This would be sufficient to reduce R(0) from 2.6 prior to lockdown to 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.89) after the lockdown, based on all types of contact and 0.37 (95% CI = 0.22-0.53) for physical (skin to skin) contacts only. CONCLUSIONS: The physical distancing measures adopted by the UK public have substantially reduced contact levels and will likely lead to a substantial impact and a decline in cases in the coming weeks. However, this projected decline in incidence will not occur immediately as there are significant delays between infection, the onset of symptomatic disease, and hospitalisation, as well as further delays to these events being reported. Tracking behavioural change can give a more rapid assessment of the impact of physical distancing measures than routine epidemiological surveillance. |*Basic Reproduction Number[MESH] |*Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology/prevention & control/transmission[MESH] |*Pandemics/prevention & control[MESH] |*Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology/prevention & control/transmission[MESH] |*Social Isolation[MESH] |Activities of Daily Living[MESH] |Adult[MESH] |Betacoronavirus[MESH] |COVID-19[MESH] |Contact Tracing[MESH] |Epidemics/*prevention & control[MESH] |Health Policy[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Incidence[MESH] |Interpersonal Relations[MESH] |Models, Theoretical[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |Surveys and Questionnaires[MESH]Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmissi(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing