• Publicationsclose
• Other research productsclose
• English close
• Mémoires en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication close
• Hyper Article en Ligne - Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société close
• COVID-19 close
• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage close

International audience; Purpose of Review We reviewed the occurrence of outbreaks at past Olympics and discuss the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic at the Tokyo Games. Recent Findings Evidence for large respiratory tract infection outbreaks at past Olympics is scant. Nevertheless, in order to control the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak, the Tokyo 2020 Olympics were postponed for 2021. Given the high contagiousness of the disease and the epidemiology of COVID-19 in Japan, this decision was appropriate and important in order to safeguard athletes and the public. However, it is a major problem for Japan, involving massive financial losses and a lost opportunity for athletes, coaches, and instructors. Up-to-date epidemiological data is needed on which to base an appropriate decision regarding the Tokyo 2021 Olympics. The actual effect of cancellations of such events in reducing the spread of COVID-19 needs to be determined.

Article paru dans Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology; International audience; A recommendation – based on reviews by Luca Ferretti and two anonymous reviewers – of the article: Danesh, G., Elie, B., Michalakis, Y., Sofonea, M. T., Bal, A., Behillil, S., Destras, G., Boutolleau, D., Burrel, S., Marcelin, A.-G., Plantier, J.-C., Thibault, V., Simon-Loriere, E., van der Werf, S., Lina, B., Josset, L., Enouf, V. and Alizon, S. and the COVID SMIT PSL group (2020) Early phylodynamics analysis of the COVID-19 epidemic in France. medRxiv, 2020.06.03.20119925, ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Evolutionary Biology. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.03.20119925

In the Economic Impact Payment letter to American citizens in Spring 2020, President Donald Trump wrote that “we wage total war on this invisible enemy.” Trump likely did not intend to explicitly link this to the rich theory about “total war” in military history, but this article examines the American rhetoric surrounding the war on COVID-19 to see whether it corresponds to definitions of total war in military strategic thought. The Clausewitzian origins of the idea of “absolute war” and limited war will also be examined to ascertain their relevance as a framework for understanding the American approach to the conflict with the virus. A total war strategy would have implied either mobilizing the entire population into the health sector or imposing a total national lockdown. This article examines both the strategy outlined by Donald Trump and the reality of what was undertaken by the Federal Government. The military was involved in the war effort against the virus in the U.S., but only in a logistical and financial sense. A national lockdown was never intended due to its potential adverse effects on the economy, and in any case, the Federal Government did not have the authority to impose health policy on individual states and local authorities. The result was a variety of local responses to the crisis with little federal coordination, much like what occurred with the Influenza Epidemic of 1918-19. Despite its military and hyperbolic rhetoric, the Trump Administration did not choose a total war strategy. Instead, it decided to adopt a limited holding strategy that accepted human losses while protecting the economy and waiting for a Government-sponsored vaccine to save the day. Dans la lettre adressée aux citoyens américains au printemps 2020 qui accompagnait un versement censé diminuer l’impact économique de la pandémie, le président Donald Trump écrivait : « nous menons une guerre totale contre cet ennemi invisible. » Trump n'avait probablement pas l’intention d'établir un lien explicite avec la célèbre théorie de la « guerre totale » en histoire militaire, néanmoins cet article examine la rhétorique américaine autour de la guerre contre le COVID-19 pour voir dans quelle mesure elle peut correspondre aux définitions de la « guerre totale » dans la pensée stratégique militaire. Les origines clausewitziennes de la notion de « guerre absolue » et de « guerre limitée » seront également examinées afin de déterminer leur pertinence comme cadre conceptuel pour comprendre l’approche américaine dans sa lutte contre le virus. Une stratégie de guerre totale aurait impliqué soit la mobilisation de l’ensemble de la population dans le secteur de la santé, soit l’imposition d’un confinement national total. Cet article examine la stratégie exposée par Donald Trump et la réalité de ce qui a été entrepris par le gouvernement fédéral. Si l’armée a bien participé à l’effort de guerre contre le virus aux États-Unis, cet effort était uniquement logistique et financier. Un confinement national n’a jamais été envisagé en raison de ses effets négatifs potentiels sur l’économie et, de toutes façons, le gouvernement fédéral n’avait pas le pouvoir d’imposer une politique sanitaire aux différents États et autorités locales. Le résultat a été une variété de réponses locales à la crise avec peu de coordination fédérale, un peu comme ce qui s'est passé avec l’épidémie de grippe de 1918-19. Malgré son discours martial et hyperbolique, l’administration Trump n’a pas choisi une stratégie de guerre totale. Au lieu de cela, elle a adopté une stratégie d’attente limitée, acceptant les pertes humaines, tout en cherchant à protéger l’économie jusqu’à ce qu’un vaccin financé par le gouvernement vienne sauver la situation.

In late 2019, an epidemic of SARS-CoV-2 broke out in central China. Within a few months, this new virus had spread right across the globe, officially being classified as a pandemic on 11 March 2020. In France, which was also being affected by the virus, the government applied specific epidemiological management strategies and introduced unprecedented public health measures. This article describes the outbreak management system that was applied within the French military and, more specifically, analyzes an outbreak of COVID-19 that occurred on board a nuclear aircraft carrier. We applied the AcciMap systemic analysis approach to understand the course of events that led to the outbreak and identify the relevant human and organizational failures. Results highlight causal factors at several levels of the outbreak management system. They reveal problems with the benchmarks used for diagnosis and decision-making, and underscore the importance of good communication between different levels. We discuss ways of improving epidemiological management in military context.

Abstract The global lockdowns brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic forced an immediate change in the way people moved about;namely, travel was slowed from a turbulent river to a trickle In-person meetings, often involving long-distance flights, were either canceled, postponed, or shifted over to virtual modes People who were unfamiliar with online meetings quickly became acquainted with them

International audience; Have negative experiences (in particular, natural disasters) that central bankers’ have known in their early life influenced monetary policy decisions in front of the COVID-19 pandemic? We answer this question using a sample of 19 developing countries. We show that central bankers who experienced episodes of epidemics in their early life lowered interest rates faster and lower during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal experience of decision-makers has contributed strongly to explain their behavior during the crisis.

International audience; Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 caused by SARS-CoV-2, the question of the origin of this virus has been a highly debated issue. Debates have been, and are still, very disputed and often violent between the two main hypotheses: a natural origin through the “spillover” model or a laboratory-leak origin. Tenants of these two options are building arguments often based on the discrepancies of the other theory. The main problem is that it is the initial question of the origin itself which is biased. Charles Darwin demonstrated in 1859 that all species are appearing through a process of evolution, adaptation and selection. There is no determined origin to any animal or plant species, simply an evolutionary and selective process in which chance and environment play a key role. The very same is true for viruses. There is no determined origin to viruses, simply also an evolutionary and selective process in which chance and environment play a key role. However, in the case of viruses the process is slightly more complex because the “environment” is another living organism. Pandemic viruses already circulate in humans prior to the emergence of a disease. They are simply not capable of triggering an epidemic yet. They must evolve in-host, i.e. in-humans, for that. The evolutionary process which gave rise to SARS-CoV-2 is still ongoing with regular emergence of novel variants more adapted than the previous ones. The real relevant question is how these viruses can emerge as pandemic viruses and what the society can do to prevent the future emergence of pandemic viruses.

Author(s): Laffoley, Dan; Baxter, John M; Amon, Diva J; Claudet, Joachim; Hall-Spencer, Jason M; Grorud-Colvert, Kirsten; Levin, Lisa A; Reid, P Chris; Rogers, Alex D; Taylor, Michelle L; Woodall, Lucy C; Andersen, Natalie F

International audience; The SARS-CoV-2 virus is responsible for an epidemic disease called COVID-19, which was initially evidenced in Wuhan, China, and spread very rapidly in China and around the world. In France, the first isolated case seems now to be reported in December 2019, stage 3 of the COVID-19 epidemic was triggered on March 14(th), the start of the planned containment exit from May 11(th). Healthcare services have faced a large influx of patients who may be beyond their capacity to receive and care, particularly in the Large-East and Ile-de-France regions. Some patients show an evolution of the disease never observed before with other coronaviruses and develop in a few days a very important inflammatory reaction, which can lead to death of patients. A working group of the French Society of Clinical Biology (SFBC) was set up with the objective of providing updated information on the current status of the biological prescriptions (focusing on biochemistry ones) and their evolution during the epidemic, and of analyzing the biological parameters associated with comorbidities and patient evolution in order to link biological results with medical events. The expanded working group covers all sectors of medical biology in France and extends to the French-speaking world: hospital sectors (CHU and CH, Army Training Hospitals) and the private sector opening a field of view on the biological situation in establishments for dependent elderly, social establishments and clinical medical institutions. The purpose of this article is the presentation of this working group and its immediate and future actions.; Le virus SARS-CoV-2 est responsable d’une maladie épidémique dénommée COVID-19 initialement mise en évidence à Wuhan (Chine) et qui s’est propagée très rapidement en Chine puis dans le monde entier. En France, le premier cas isolé semble être signalé dès la fin du mois de décembre2019, le stade 3 de l’épidémie a été déclenché le 14 mars 2020 et la sortie progressive du confinement est prévue à partir du 11 mai 2020. Les services de soins ont fait face à un afflux massif de patients pouvant déborder leurs capacités d’accueil et de prise en charge, notamment dans les régions Grand-Est et Ile-de-France. Certains patients présentent une évolution de la maladie encore jamais observée avec les coronavirus et développent en quelques jours une réaction inflammatoire très importante, pouvant mener au décès. Un groupe de travail de la Société française de biologie clinique (SFBC) s’est constitué, ayant pour objectif de faire le point sur les prescriptions biologiques et leur évolution au cours de l’épidémie, d’analyser les paramètres biologiques, avec un focus biochimique, associés aux comorbidités et à l’évolution du patient, dans le but de relier les résultats biologiques avec des évènements du parcours de soins du patient. Ce groupe de travail recouvre tous les secteurs publics (CHU, CH, Hôpitaux d’instruction des armées) et privés de la biologie médicale en France métropolitaine et ultra-marine ; il s’étend également à la francophonie. Il permet une vision large sur la situation biologique en milieu hospitalier, établissements d’hébergements de personnes âgées dépendantes (Ehpad), établissements médicaux sociaux (EMS) et en cliniques. Le but de cet article est la présentation de ce groupe de travail et ses actions immédiates et à venir.