Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has elicited imposition of some form of travel restrictions by almost all countries in the world. Most restrictions currently persist, although some have been gradually eased. It remains unclear if the trade-off from the unprecedented disruption to air travel was well worth for pandemic containment.Method: A comparative analysis was conducted on Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea’s COVID-19 response. Data on COVID-19 cases, travel-related and community interventions, socio-economic profile were consolidated. Trends on imported and local cases were analyzed using computations of moving averages, rate of change, particularly in response to distinct waves of travel-related interventions due to the outbreak in China, South Korea, Iran & Italy, and Europe.Results: South Korea’s travel restrictions were observed to be consistently more lagged in terms of timeliness and magnitude, with their first wave of travel restrictions on flights departing from China implemented 34 days after the outbreak in Wuhan, compared to 22–26 days taken by Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong. South Korea’s restrictions against all countries came after 91 days, compared to 78–80 days for the other three countries. The rate of change of imported cases fell by 1.08–1.43 across all four countries following the first wave of travel restrictions on departures from China, and by 0.22–0.52 in all countries except South Korea in the fifth wave against all international travellers. Delayed rate of change of local cases resulting from travel restrictions imposed by the four countries with intrinsic importation risk, were not observed.Conclusions: Travel restriction was effective in preventing COVID-19 case importation in early outbreak phase, but may still be limited in preventing general local transmission. The impact of travel restrictions, regardless of promptness, in containing epidemics likely also depends on the effectiveness of local surveillance and non-pharmaceutical interventions concurrently implemented.

COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality globally. As vaccines have been developed under expedited conditions, their safety and efficacy are being questioned by some populations leading to vaccine hesitancy, resulting in delayed vaccine uptake and herd immunity. This study aims to adopt a combination of Health Belief Model and other independent risk factors associated with high vaccine acceptance. An anonymized cross-sectional survey was distributed between 15 January and 3 February 2021 across Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia among adult respondents through a certified online panel. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were carried out to assess perception constructs followed by multivariate regression modelling to assess factors associated with high vaccine acceptance against SARS_CoV-2. A total of 3,133 anonymised participants from Singapore (n = 1,009), Australia (n = 1,118) and Hong Kong (n = 1,006) completed the survey. While age and gender were not significantly associated, Asian ethnicity, current smokers and self-efficacy were significant associated factors of increased vaccine acceptance. While specific practices like taking micronutrients more frequently, cleaning and disinfecting their house more often were positively associated with increased vaccine acceptance, seeking medical help for COVID-19 symptoms like loss of smell/taste and overall COVID-19 knowledge score were negatively associated. Increased likelihood of vaccine acceptance was seen among those that obtained COVID-19 information less frequently and used digital media or non-health-related sources like influencers as a source of information. Among the eight perception constructs, perceived susceptibility and perceived response efficacy were positively associated, while perceived barriers were negatively associated with high vaccine acceptance. While demographic parameters have weak association with vaccine acceptance, perceptions and practices parameters can help to better understand and influence vaccine acceptance. Study findings should provide guidance on the risk communication strategy to enhance vaccine acceptance for vaccination and boosters against new SARS-CoV-2 variants.