Current epidemiological situation of COVID-19 in the Republic of Belarus: characteristics of the epidemic process, sanitary and anti-epidemic measures

  1. Ala M Dashkevich
  2. Natalia D Kolomiets
  3. Veronika S Vysotskaya
  4. Iryna N Hlinskaya
  5. Anzhela L Skuranovich
  6. Aliaksandr A Tarasenka
  7. Inna A Karaban
  8. Elena L Gasich

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

This is an analysis of the features of the COVID-19 pandemic the population of the Republic of Belarus from February 2020 to January 2022, the characteristics of sanitary and anti-epidemic measures carried out in the country, assessment of study the safety (tolerance) of the vaccines used the epidemiological efficacy of the vaccination.

A retrospective analysis of COVID-19 cases in the Republic of Belarus from the beginning of registration (February 28, 2020) to January, 3, 2022 was performed. Vaccine safety (tolerance) and efficacy were assessed in an observational study. Safety (tolerance) was assessed by presence/absence of adverse reactions: general (fever, malaise, headache, muscle pain, runny nose, nausea, vomiting, sore throat, etc) and local ones (redness, swelling, soreness at the injection place).

The COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Belarus is characterized by successive development stages: from no cases in early 2020 to detected cases where most individuals had no history of contact with COVID-19 patients; periods of rising and falling incidence

Vaccines against COVID-19 (Gam-COVID-Vac (Russia), inactivated vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 (Vero Cell) Sinopharm / BIBP (China) demonstrated a high safety profile in mass vaccination of the population of the Republic of Belarus.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.10.22271815: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The data were processed using the Excel 2010 statistical software suite.
    Excel
    suggested: None
    The analysis of the obtained data was carried out using the kromsatel bioinformatic software [https://github.com/masikol/kromsatel] – a tool for separating “raw” reads into non-chimeric fragments in accordance with the primer scheme described in the ARTIC V3 protocol; Bowtie2 is a program for aligning the obtained nucleotide sequences with respect to the reference file; samtools and bcftools are software packages for processing alignment files and building a consensus sequence.
    Bowtie2
    suggested: (Bowtie 2, RRID:SCR_016368)
    samtools
    suggested: (SAMTOOLS, RRID:SCR_002105)

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2022.03.10.22271815v1 on medRxiv