Coronavirus disease 2019 or COVID‐19 caused by novel coronavirus/severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2 or 2019‐nCoV) is an ongoing pandemic that has emerging global effects and requires rapid and reliable diagnostic testing. Quantitative reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (q‐RT‐PCR) is the gold standard method for SARS‐CoV‐2 detections. On the other hand, new approaches remedy the diagnosis difficulties gradually. Reverse transcription loop‐mediated isothermal amplification (RT‐LAMP) as one of these novel approaches may also contribute to faster and cheaper field‐based testing. The present study was designed to evaluate this rapid screening diagnostic test that can give results in 30–45 min and to compare the effectiveness of LAMP to the q‐RT‐PCR. The 30 randomly chosen patient samples were generated by nasopharyngeal swabs with a portion of the SARS‐CoV‐2 nucleic sequence. The sample of quantification cycle (Cq) values was tested using RT‐LAMP as well as by conventional q‐RT‐PCR. The patient samples were tested with four different kits (SENSObiz COVID‐19 [SARS‐CoV‐2] LAMP Assay, the QIAseq DIRECT SARS‐CoV‐2 kit, Biospeedy SARS‐CoV‐2 Variant Plus kit, and CoVirion‐CV19‐2 SARS‐CoV‐2 OneStep RT‐PCR kit) and two different PCR devices (GDS Rotor‐Gene Q Thermocycler and Inovia Technologies GenX series). Based on 30 patient samples, the positive/negative ratio (P/N) was 30/0 as Biospeedy and Covirion (positivity 100%), 28/2 as Qiagen kit (positivity 93.3%) for the samples studied on the Inovia device while the same samples on the Rotor‐Gene device were 30/0 as Biospeedy and Covirion (positivity 100%), 29/1 as Qiagen kit at the first day (96.7%). On the fifth day, the samples were studied in the Inovia device and the respective results were obtained: 27/3 as Biospeedy (positivity 90%), 16/14 as Qiagen (positivity 53.3%), 28/2 as Covirion kit (positivity 93.3%). When these samples were studied in the Rotor‐Gene device, it was 29/1 in Biospeedy and Covirion (positivity 96.7%), 19/11 in the Qiagen kit (positivity 63.3%). When these samples were compared with the LAMP method it was found to be 19/11 (positivity 63.3%) on the first day and 18/12 (positivity 60%) on the fifth day. SARS‐CoV‐2 test studies will contribute to a proactive approach to the development of rapid diagnosis systems. The LAMP approach presents promising results to monitor exposed individuals and also improves screening efforts in potential ports of entry.

Rapid and reliable detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 mutations are significant to control the contagion and spread rate of the virus. We aimed to evaluate the N501Y mutation rate in randomly chosen positive patients with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The evaluation and analysis of the data with a retrospective approach in cases with mutations, in terms of public health, will contribute to the literature on the global pandemic that affects our society. Public health authorities will take the necessary precautions and evaluate the current situation. The N501Y mutation was detected in patients with positive Covid‐19 PCR test results. The positive samples were examined based on the 6‐carboxy‐fluorescein (FAM) channel in reverse transcription PCR (RT‐PCR) quantitation cycle (Cq) values as low Cq (<25), medium Cq (25–32), and high Cq (32–38) groups. In the study, 2757 (19.7%) of 13 972 cases were detected as mutation suspects and 159 (5.8%) of them were found to have mutations. The ages of the cases with mutations ranged from 1 to 88 years (mean age of 40.99 ± 17.55). 49.7% (n = 79) of the cases with mutations were male, and 50.3% (n = 80) were female. When the RT‐PCR‐Cq results were examined, it was seen that it varied between 11.3 and 35.03, with an average of 20.75 ± 3.32.

Disaster is defined as the holistic state of natural or human-induced events that develop suddenly, whose controllability requires a systematic approach, which interrupts or stops social life and causes loss of life, property and often cannot be overcome with local capacity. Biological disasters can be human-induced as well as naturally infectious diseases and epidemiological emergencies. Considering the potential of the 21st century, biological disasters have played a role in influenza infections such as Swine Flu (H1N1), Bird Influenza (H5N1), and the Coronavirus family. Considering the disasters in which medical CBRN agents are effective, we evaluated the data in this study to determine the risk management of biological disasters. Since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the first 15 countries are included in the list based on the total cumulative order of the cases and the 12-week case of SARS-CoV-2 in the first quarter of 2021. We tried to evaluate the analysis of data, mortality rates, and the point reached in vaccination within this timeline to provide an overview of 2021 in this research study.

In late 2019 on 11th March 2020 a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 causing Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appeared in Wuhan, China and World Health Organisation declared it to have developed pandemic status. Although there are many detection techniques for the disease to control the pandemic such as RT-PCR, serological methods, or fast antigen tests, the actual problem is the prevention of the disease. The nasal cavity and rhino pharynx are key sites of the initial replication of SARS-CoV-2. In this article, the effectiveness of destrovir spray was investigated by creating a mechanical barrier in the nasal and oral mucosa, which are the entry points of the virus into the body, and to destroy the virus that comes into contact with this barrier. In the presented study, quantitation cycle (Cq) and irradiation values ​​(RFU) of 12 different high-positive patients (Cq≤25) after application of both RT-PCR and destrovir spray were determined at different concentrations (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%) aimed to evaluate its effectiveness. According to the results obtained by comparing the effectiveness of disinfectant with 70% ethyl alcohol on the 46 patient samples with Cq<20, 46 patient samples with Cq values ​​between 20-25, and 46 patient samples with Cq≥25 including different variants are examined. A total of 138 COVID-19 patient samples were treated with 5% and 10% ratios of destrovir spray. Its effectiveness on Cq values ​​and RFU was evaluated and it was aimed to compare the effectiveness of this evaluation with 96% ethyl alcohol used in the same samples.

Introduction and Objectives: Man-made disasters can be grouped as technology and violence origin such disasters occur as a result of conscious or unconscious mistakes where chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats are used. It has become significant for hospitals to prepare a plan, which includes information and practical actions, including all situations that require urgency and actions to be taken in emergencies that may occur in workplaces. Coronaviruses are a diverse group of viruses that infect many different animals and can cause mild to severe respiratory infections in humans. Two highly pathogenic coronaviruses of zoonotic origin, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), emerged in humans in 2002 and 2012, respectively. At the end of 2019, the emergence of a new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, in the Chinese city of Wuhan caused an unusual viral pneumonia epidemic. In this study, hospital emergency management plan is examined to the currently effective pandemic element of COVID-19 disease. Methods: It reviews the current situation and recommended actions to improve the preparedness of hospitals in five critical hospital roles during disasters: executing planning and coordination, maintaining disaster capacity, training and disaster drills with the broader health and public safety communities, protection hospital and staff, and surveillance as showing. In this context, coranavirus (SARS-CoV-2) COVID-19 hospital disaster emergency plan system model has been tried to be created. While creating the system method, it proposes a model of how the primary diagnosis and intermediate treatments will be handled in the risk method for the emergency room cases and the clinic, by handling confirmed and suspected cases through both the healthcare personnel and the medical supply system. Results and Conclusions: As a result, the hospital emergency management plan can ease the emergency department workload, protect healthcare personnel, and control cross infection during the COVID-19 outbreak. Each hospital needs to create an emergency plan suitable for its own conditions. Hospitals can take interim measures, including online consultation, zoning, and epidemic priority to relieve pressure on clinical trials, reduce cross-infection, and strengthen protection of high-risk personnel.

COVID‑19 is a devastating disease, and its control is difficult due to its high transmissibility rate and a long incubation average period (6.4 days). Additionally, more than half of the infected patients were asymptomatic young people or children. The asymptomatic virus transmission is the actual challenge to controlling the disease. Because of limited treatment options, diagnosis techniques have been the first focus all over the world, involving q-RT-PCR as a gold standard, serological tests, point of care studies, or RT-LAMP. Generally, nasopharyngeal, and oropharyngeal samples are preferred clinically as sources. However, alternative sources are being researched, particularly for healthcare professionals who have difficulty taking samples, patients who are afraid of giving samples, and pediatric patients. Herein, physiological saline has been utilized to offer an alternative source besides the swab samples for use in q-RT-PCR. In this study, 212 randomly chosen patients’ samples were studied, and we evaluated the concordance and accurate q-RT-PCR results in two different sources, obtained from swab and gargle samples of patients. Herein, physiological saline is utilized, which is widely used medically as a recommended irrigating and wound dressing solution. We obtained in our experiments with this method, the confidence interval determines 74.50% positivity when compared to the routine q-RT-PCR procedure as summarized. In addition, when only the gargle sampling method is studied in low-income countries, the cost of testing for COVID-19 will decrease significantly. Because this method does not require vNAT or VTM transport solution sterile swab sticks as shown. The plastic container with a lid in which the patient can gargle with SF and spit it out is an ideal method for this. Additionally, it provides a great cost-benefit in low-income countries.