HOW IS THE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH OF SECOND WAVE OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC COMPARED TO THE FIRST WAVE? CASE STUDY OF ITALY

  1. Mario Coccia

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The main goal of this study is to compare the effects on public health of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to first wave in society. The paper here focuses on a case study of Italy, one of the first European countries to experience a rapid increase in confirmed cases and deaths. Methodology considers daily data from February to November 2020 of the ratio of confirmed cases/total swabs, fatality rate (deaths / confirmed cases) and ratio of individuals in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) / Confirmed cases. Results reveal that the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy had a strong but declining impact on public health with the approaching of summer season and with the effects of containment measures, whereas second wave of the COVID-19 has a growing trend of confirmed cases with admission to ICUs and total deaths having a, to date, lower impact on public health compared to first wave. Although effects of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on public health, policymakers have had an unrealistic optimist behavior that a new wave of COVID-19 could not hit their countries and, especially, a low organizational capacity to plan effective policy responses to cope with recurring COVID-19 pandemic crisis. This study can support vital information to design effective policy responses of crisis management to constrain current and future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic and similar epidemics in society.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.16.20232389: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.16.20232389v1 on medRxiv