• Publicationsclose
• Research softwareclose
• Other research productsclose
• 2012-2021close
• FR 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.

Abstract This article analyzes the audio diaries of a Tibetan physician, originally from Amdo (Qinghai Province, China), now living in New York City. Dr. Kunchog Tseten describes his experiences during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, in spring and summer 2020, when Queens, New York—the location where he lives and works—was the “epicenter of the epicenter” of the novel coronavirus outbreak in the United States. The collaborative research project of which this diary is a part combines innovative methodological approaches to qualitative, ethnographic study during this era of social distancing with an attunement to the relationship between language, culture, and health care. Dr. Kunchog’s diary and our analysis of its contents illustrate the ways that Tibetan medicine and Tibetan cultural practices, including those emergent from Buddhism, have helped members of the Himalayan and Tibetan communities in New York City navigate this unprecedented moment with care and compassion.

Background: Serology is a great tool to assess the level of immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in settings with limited access to molecular diagnostics. However, African populations displays a particular immunological profile with massive circulation of infectious agents from different aetiologies that can affect assays performance. Methods: We evaluated the OMEGA Diagnostics COVID-19 ELISA-IgG and the ID Screen® SARS-CoV-2-N IgG Indirect in Senegal using a panel of 636 blood samples covering several African-endemic diseases and healthy donors to determine test sensitivity and specificity. The sensitivity panel of sera includes 461 serum samples collected from 91 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. COVID-19 cases were confirmed by qRT-PCR and samples were collected on an interval of three days until viral clearance. In addition, 272 sera obtained from COVID-19 negative individuals were selected from a well-documented biobank of sera collected before the COVID-19 outbreak. Finding: High-cross reactivity have been found in individuals with a history of exposure to Chikungunya, HIV, malaria (Plasmodium falciparum), rheumatoid factor as well as healthy donors with respective specificities of 55%, 41.8%, 70%, 70% and 75%. ELISA experiments with commercial assays targeting either SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid protein and Spike 2 protein or nucleocapsid protein only suggest that cross-reactivity might be directed against Spike 2 protein and not Nucleocapsid protein. Further samples characterisation reveals that anti-malaria IgG is the leading cause of such poor specificities, but exposure to other diseases contributed as well. Interpretation: We anticipate that COVID-19 seroprevalence can be biased if assays are not contextualized. Since malaria is endemic in African settings, we propose that a particular attention must be given in serological surveillance of COVID-19 or anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies quantification as vaccines are being rolled out.FundingUK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office/Wellcome Trust Joint Initiative for Research in Epidemic Preparedness and Response (JIREP grant number 220764/Z/20/Z). Funding Information: UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office/Wellcome Trust Joint Initiative for Research in Epidemic Preparedness and Response (JIREP grant number 220764/Z/20/Z). Declaration of Interests: JRAF was an employee of Mologic Ltd, which was the development partner of one of the ELISAs adopted in this study. The remaining authors declare no competing interest. Ethics Approval Statement: Pre-COVID-19 samples for malaria (PCR), dengue, yellow fever, Zika, Chikungunya, Influenza A/B, HIV, rheumatoid arthritis and samples tested negative for the same diseases and also Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever, West Nile fever encephalitis and Rift Valley fever were part of national public health surveillance program of the Senegalese Ministry of Social Action and Health performed in collaboration with Institut Pasteur de Dakar. Therefore, consultation with ethics committee was not required. Pre-COVID-19 samples for malaria endemic areas were from a longitudinal cohort survey performed in Dielmo village and approved by the Senegalese National Ethics Committee for Research in Health (reference number 00000007/MSAS/CNERS/Sec 26 January 2021). Samples from COVID-19 RT-PCR positive patients were obtained from a multicentre cohort survey approved by the Senegalese National Ethics Committee for Research in Health (reference number 00000068/MSAS/CNERS/Sec, 10 April 2020).

International audience; The articles in this special issue address the role of computing in battling with the COVID-19 pandemic. We are currently dealing with a third wave of the pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. Cases are spiking in most European countries, Canada, and the United States. The number of reported cases has reached 55 million worldwide, and over 1.3 million people have died.

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

AbstractBackgroundLarge-scale population-based seroprevalence studies of SARS-CoV-2 are essential to characterize the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and to extrapolate the prevalence of presumptive immunity at the population level.ObjectiveThe objective of our survey was to estimate the cumulative population immunity for COVID-19 and to identify individual characteristics associated with a positive serostatus.MethodThis was a clustered cross-sectional study conducted from July 12 to August 20, 2021, in households in the city of Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic. Information regarding demographic characteristics (age, gender, and place of residence), comorbidities (chronic diseases) was collected. A venous blood sample was obtained for each participant to determine the level of total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using a WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA kit.ResultsAll up, 799 participants were surveyed. The average age was 27 years, and 45·8% of the respondents were male (sex ratio: 0.8). The overall proportion of respondents with a positive serostatus was 74·1%. Participants over 20 years of age were twice as likely to have a positive serostatus, with an OR of 2.· ·2 (95% CI: [1·6, 3·1]).InterpretationThe results of this survey revealed a high cumulative level of immunity in Bangui, thus indicating a significant degree of spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the population. The public health implications of this high level of immunity to SARS-CoV-2, particularly on its variants burden, remain to be determined.FundingThis study was funded by the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs through the REPAIR COVID-19-Africa project coordinated by the Pasteur International Network association.

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.

Spanish Abstract: El empleo masivo de datos y decisiones algoritmicas en los procesos de produccion y comercializacion de bienes y servicios y, en su extremo, el uso de Inteligencia Artificial (IA), es una tendencia creciente cuya velocidad se ha disparado durante la crisis sanitaria de la Covid 19 en 2020. Estructuralmente, mas alla de la aceleracion de coyuntura, no es previsible que esa tendencia revierta a niveles precedentes. El grado de integracion de esas tecnologias a los procesos destinados al consumo es tal que, regular cada uno de sus aspectos contingentes (machine learning, IA, etc.) por separado, puede ser insuficiente y hasta atentar contra el exito de los propositos del Derecho de Consumo. La introduccion de la electricidad en el mercado puede servir de analogia: en un momento fue una innovacion particularmente util y peligrosa pero no pareceria, hoy, razonable, a los fines del Derecho del Consumo, distinguir procesos de produccion y comercializacion que la emplean y otros que no; exigir la presencia de un funcionario responsable de la electricidad dentro de la empresa para el caso de utilizarla o una agencia estatal de supervision de productores profesionales que la utilizan. Al contrario, parece mas adecuado regular los sistemas de produccion y comercializacion asumiendo que estaran consustancialmente impregnados y determinados por aquellas tecnologias: tanto la ya antigua electricidad, cuando la novedosa IA. El nivel de complejidad que tales tecnologias introducen en aquellos procesos determina que la estrategia de compliance de Derecho del Consumo, conjuntamente con instrumentos juridicos tradicionales, heteronomos (sanciones penales y administrativas, responsabilidad civil), sea preferible por sobre el desempeno de esos ultimos sin combinacion con la primera. Las conclusiones de la Economia de los Costos de Transaccion y consideraciones conductuales que se apartan del modelo economico Neoclasico abonan la preferibilidad de esta posibilidad. La empresa no es una estructura trasmisora transparente de los incentivos impuestos por los costos privados derivados de las sanciones heteronomas, hacia los individuos que la componen. Esa transmision es imperfecta y asincronica, lo cual puede incrementar significativamente los costos sociales. El momento en que se de el monitoreo de las decisiones empresarias y la posibilidad de influir en esa esfera, los mecanismos de circulacion interna de la informacion y las modalidades de aplicacion de normas de alta indeterminacion resultan factores relevantes, respecto de los cuales las estrategias puramente heteronomas mas tradicionales pueden lidiar solo deficientemente. English Abstract: The massive use of data and algorithmic decisions in processes of production and marketing of goods and services and, ultimately, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), is a growing trend whose speed has skyrocketed during the COVID-19 health crisis in 2020. Beyond the pandemic, the reversion of this trend is not predictable. The degree of integration of these technologies into processes aiming to consumption is such that regulating each of their contingent aspects (machine learning, AI, etc.) may be inappropriate and even, may jeopardize the success of the purposes of consumer law. The introduction of electricity in the market can serve as an analogy: at one time it was a particularly useful and dangerous innovation. However, nowadays it would not seem reasonable, for the purposes of Consumer Law, to distinguish production and marketing that use electricity and others that do not; to require the presence of an official responsible for electricity within the company or a specific consumer agency supervising firms who use electric power in their operation. On the contrary, it seems more appropriate to design the Consumer Law assuming that production and marketing will be inherently impregnated by those technologies: both the old electricity and the new AI. The level of complexity that new data technologies introduce in those processes determines that internal compliance strategies, together with traditional, heteronomous legal instruments (criminal and administrative sanctions, civil liability), is preferable over the performance of the latter without the former. The conclusions of Transaction Cost Economics and behavioral considerations that depart from Neoclassical economic basis support the preferability of this possibility. The firm is not a transparent transmitter of the incentives derived from public sanctions to its officers and employees. This transmission is imperfect and asynchronous, which can significantly increase social costs. The timing of monitoring corporate decisions and the possibility of influencing this sphere, the internal circuits of information and the particulars of application of highly indeterminate rules are relevant factors with respect to which the more traditional heteronomous strategies can cope only poorly.