Infodemics, often including rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories, have been common during the COVID-19 pandemic. Monitoring social media data has been identified as the best method for tracking rumors in real time and as a possible way to dispel misinformation and reduce stigma. However, the detection, assessment, and response to rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories in real time are a challenge. Therefore, we followed and examined COVID-19–related rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories circulating on online platforms, including fact-checking agency websites, Facebook, Twitter, and online newspapers, and their impacts on public health. Information was extracted between December 31, 2019 and April 5, 2020, and descriptively analyzed. We performed a content analysis of the news articles to compare and contrast data collected from other sources. We identified 2,311 reports of rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories in 25 languages from 87 countries. Claims were related to illness, transmission and mortality (24%), control measures (21%), treatment and cure (19%), cause of disease including the origin (15%), violence (1%), and miscellaneous (20%). Of the 2,276 reports for which text ratings were available, 1,856 claims were false (82%). Misinformation fueled by rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories can have potentially serious implications on the individual and community if prioritized over evidence-based guidelines. Health agencies must track misinformation associated with the COVID-19 in real time, and engage local communities and government stakeholders to debunk misinformation.

Editor's Note The authors of this article, published in 2015, have written a response to their work in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. We urge our readers to consider the response when reading the article. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.responses#covid-19-shortages-of-masks-and-the-use-of-cloth-masks-as-a-last-resort Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks. Setting: 14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam. Participants: 1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards. Intervention: Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks. Main outcome measure: Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection. Results: The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. Conclusions: This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. Trial registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.

Many countries are stockpiling face masks for use as a nonpharmaceutical intervention to control virus transmission during an influenza pandemic. We conducted a prospective cluster-randomized trial comparing surgical masks, non–fit-tested P2 masks, and no masks in prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) in households. Mask use adherence was self-reported. During the 2006 and 2007 winter seasons, 286 exposed adults from 143 households who had been exposed to a child with clinical respiratory illness were recruited. We found that adherence to mask use significantly reduced the risk for ILI-associated infection, but <50% of participants wore masks most of the time. We concluded that household use of face masks is associated with low adherence and is ineffective for controlling seasonal respiratory disease. However, during a severe pandemic when use of face masks might be greater, pandemic transmission in households could be reduced. Many countries are stockpiling face masks for use as nonpharmaceutical interventions to reduce viral transmission during an influenza pandemic. We conducted a prospective cluster-randomized trial comparing surgical masks, non–fit-tested P2 masks, and no masks in prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) in households. During the 2006 and 2007 winter seasons, 286 exposed adults from 143 households who had been exposed to a child with clinical respiratory illness were recruited. Intent-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference in the relative risk of ILI in the mask use groups compared with the control group; however, <50% of those in the mask use groups reported wearing masks most of the time. Adherence to mask use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of ILI-associated infection. We concluded that household use of masks is associated with low adherence and is ineffective in controlling seasonal ILI. If adherence were greater, mask use might reduce transmission during a severe influenza pandemic.

The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of pneumonia and secondary bacterial infections during the pandemic of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. A systematic review was conducted to identify relevant literature in which clinical outcomes of pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 infection were described. Published studies (between 01/01/2009 and 05/07/2012) describing cases of fatal or hospitalised A(H1N1)pdm09 and including data on bacterial testing or co-infection. Seventy five studies met the inclusion criteria. Fatal cases with autopsy specimen testing were reported in 11 studies, in which any co-infection was identified in 23% of cases (Streptococcus pneumoniae 29%). Eleven studies reported bacterial co-infection among hospitalised cases of A(H1N1)2009pdm with confirmed pneumonia, with a mean of 19% positive for bacteria (Streptococcus pneumoniae 54%). Of 16 studies of intensive care unit (ICU) patients, bacterial co-infection identified in a mean of 19% of cases (Streptococcus pneumoniae 26%). The mean prevalence of bacterial co-infection was 12% in studies of hospitalised patients not requiring ICU (Streptococcus pneumoniae 33%) and 16% in studies of paediatric patients hospitalised in general or pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) wards (Streptococcus pneumoniae 16%). We found that few studies of the 2009 influenza pandemic reported on bacterial complications and testing. Of studies which did report on this, secondary bacterial infection was identified in almost one in four patients, with Streptococcus pneumoniae the most common bacteria identified. Bacterial complications were associated with serious outcomes such as death and admission to intensive care. Prevention and treatment of bacterial secondary infection should be an integral part of pandemic planning, and improved uptake of routine pneumococcal vaccination in adults with an indication may reduce the impact of a pandemic.

There is widespread hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. To identify predictors of willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 in five cities with varying COVID-19 incidence in the US, UK, and Australia. Online, cross-sectional survey of adults from Dynata’s research panel in July-September 2020 Adults aged 18 and over in Sydney, Melbourne, London, New York City, or Phoenix Willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine; reason for vaccine intention To identify predictors of intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, we used Poisson regression with robust error estimation to produce prevalence ratios. The proportion willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was 70% in London, 71% NYC, 72% in Sydney, 76% in Phoenix, and 78% in Melbourne. Age was the only sociodemographic characteristic that predicted willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in all five cities. In Sydney and Melbourne, participants with high confidence in their current government had greater willingness to receive the vaccine (PR = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.07-1.44 and PR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.74-1.62), while participants with high confidence in their current government in NYC and Phoenix were less likely to be willing to receive the vaccine (PR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.72 - 0.85 and PR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.76-0.96). Consumer panels can be subject to bias and may not be representative of the general population Success for COVID-19 vaccination programs requires high levels of vaccine acceptance. Our data suggests more than 25% of adults may not be willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but many of them were not explicitly anti-vaccination and thus may become more willing to vaccinate over time. Among the three countries surveyed, there appears to be cultural differences, political influences, and differing experiences with COVID-19 that may affect willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.