Category: News

MASA najoštrije osuđuje pretnje kojima je izložen direktor Biroa za društvena istraživanja – BIRODI, sociolog Zoran Gavrilović zbog stručnih stavova koje je nedavno, govoreći o stanju u medijima, izneo u emisijama u kojima je gostovao. Podsećamo da ovo nije prvi put da se Gavriloviću preti ili spočitava zbog objavljenih rezultata njegovih istraživanja. Pre nepunih godinu dana neki od poslanika vladajuće partije tražili su da tužilaštvo reaguje zbog nalaza o strukturi glasača SNS koje je objavio BIRODI. Jedan od poslanika je tada ocenio da javno izneti nalazi istraživanja koje je sproveo BIRODI predstavljaju opasnu pojavu i da u njima ima elemenata krivičnog dela!? Potpuno je neshvatljivo i neprihvatljivo da bilo ko može na ovakav način biti izložen pretnjama i pritiscima samo zato što njegovi stručni stavovi ili rezultati istraživanja nisu u skladu sa nečijim željama.

Zbog ovog i sličnih slučajeva, koji su u poslednje vreme sve učestaliji, MASA će se u narednom periodu aktivno zalagati za odbranu stručnog i profesionalnog integriteta svih pojedinaca i organizacija koji svoj posao obavljaju časno i pošteno koristeći znanja koja su mukotrpno sticali kroz obrazovni sistem Republike Srbije.

The Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement (MASA) makes a request for increasing the transparency of the public competition for financing short-term projects of special interest for sustainable development in AP Vojvodina in 2020, which was announced on May 15, 2020 by the Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research of AP Vojvodina.

Guided by experiences from previous competitions for short-term projects, as well as by the fact that they are already members of the academic community indicated the non-transparency of the allocation of funds by that, but also other contests for the financing of scientific projects, we would like to express our concern about the new possibility of the allocation of public funds being non-transparent, which could lead to certain projects being favored based on non-professional criteria.

From a formal point of view, the key problems of the Secretariat's contests so far were insufficiently clear criteria for evaluating projects, as well as insufficient transparency of the evaluation process. Registered researchers, whose projects were not approved for funding, did not receive information about the reasons for rejection or the number of points achieved, while information about the rejection of the project was delivered after the contracts had already been signed with the candidates whose project proposals were approved. For the above reasons, there is a justified fear that budget funds were not spent in a way that is in the best interest of the public and science.

In order to enable greater transparency in the evaluation of projects and the way funds are allocated, we ask the Secretariat to when announcing the results of the currently open competition for short-term projects, as well as when announcing future projects and regulations that define, state and publish them:

- the structure of the overall assessment of the project, i.e. to specify precisely how many points each of the defined criteria carries within the total evaluation rulebook;

- the formula for calculating the competence of the research team and the competence of the manager, as criteria for the evaluation of project proposals;

- the quota of the number of projects by scientific field that receive funding;

- the entire ranking list of all submitted project proposals with the evaluation structure according to the specified criteria, at the time of publication of the results of the competition;

- the names and biographies of the members of the expert councils selected in the competition published in February 2020 (with guarantees for competence, impartiality and independence) who carry out the evaluation of the projects;

- the results of the competition, which should be publicly available and easily accessible on the Secretariat's website;

In addition to the above, we also ask that:

- the results of the project evaluation are sent by email to all those who applied for it before making the final decision on financing, and to provide candidates with a legal deadline for filing appeals on the evaluation results;

- in subsequent competitions, the review and evaluation of projects of candidates from the same institution is defined as a conflict of interest, and in these cases the Secretariat engages external reviewers, and ideally all projects are evaluated by persons who are not employed in institutions from AP Vojvodina;

- finally, given that the Rulebook allows the Provincial Secretary to allocate funds without the opinion of the council, which is contrary to what MASA stands for, we believe that in such cases the total number of projects or the total amount of financial resources must be stated for which the Provincial Secretary can use his discretionary right to allocate funds beyond the opinion and assessment of the expert council, as well as to clearly mark such projects after the results of the competition.

We hope that the Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research of AP Vojvodina will respect these requests and take appropriate steps in order to send a message to the academic community that the true quality of scientific and research work is primarily valued in project competitions. We believe that this would contribute in the most efficient way to the necessary restoration of the confidence of the academic community in the expediency of applying for such competitions, in which we see a mutual benefit, both for the Provincial Secretariat as the initiator of the competition for the allocation of funds, and the academic community as their beneficiary.

The COVID-19 crisis is not abating, and apparently it will take a long time before medically proven methods to fight against the new strain of the corona virus are verified. We are witnessing the promotion of unproven methods and medical means whose effectiveness is extremely doubtful on social networks and on certain televisions with a national frequency. Their application without accompanying clinical studies can have unforeseeable consequences. It is worrisome that people who do not have any formal education in the field of medical sciences, but have access to the media, are increasingly involved in the promotion of the mentioned treatment methods.

   One of the most recent examples of this kind is the "discovery" of the effectiveness of the so-called methods of "blood ozonization" in the fight against the current COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. Behind this discovery stands no less than one television owner who not only has never engaged in scientific work in the field of medical sciences, not to mention narrower scientific fields such as virology, but also lacks the most basic medical knowledge. Since quackery is a phenomenon that has existed since diseases existed, in all modern countries criminal responsibility for this type of activity is regulated by law. In Serbia, Article 254 of the Criminal Code treats as quackery the situation in which someone without the appropriate professional training deals with treatment, preparation of medicines or provision of other medical services (fine or imprisonment for up to three years). Furthermore, in Article 252 of the same law, it is clearly stated that whoever performs medical or other similar experiments on people contrary to the regulations will be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

    From the above, it is more than clear that the actions of the owners of Pink Television are subject to criminal and material liability. In addition to the mentioned method of "blood ozonization" he implemented on himself, he will also apply it on his employees (according to his Twitter statements that "on March 16, he started the ozonization of Pink"). He also misled the public about the effectiveness of the mentioned treatment method of "blood ozonization" in prime time news programs on his television. However, for us as an organization, which, among other things, advocates for the defense of scientific principles and the authority of the profession, it is devastating that persons who are recognized by the domestic public as the main authorities in the fight against the COVID-19 epidemic in Serbia, failed to jointly fence off at least from the way of promoting this method when guesting on Pink television. 

    For the sake of truthfully informing the domestic public, it should be said that in April 2016, the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) banned all medical uses of ozone: "in any medical condition for which there is no evidence of safety and efficacy", stating: "ozone is a toxic gas with no known beneficial medical application in specific, supplemental, or prophylactic conditions.” There is not a single regular clinical study to justify ozone therapy. Based on published scientific works, ozone damages hemoglobin in erythrocytes, which can accumulate and cause serious disorders in the blood. Exposure to ozone, close to the level of the external environment, causes impairment of lung function and inflammation of the airways in elderly healthy individuals, as well as in those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, without an effect on the prothrombotic state. Ozonated autochemotherapy does not affect blood coagulation parameters in hemodialysis patients and does not cause an inflammatory response.

    Do we want to live in a world of fake doctors and diplomas or in an orderly society where the paths for acquiring knowledge and for promoting new solutions in all segments of our lives are clearly laid out? The bold and self-confident presentation of untrue scientific and medical facts without reactions from competent institutions sends a worrying message that those who make decisions on behalf of all of us are unwilling or unable to recognize the complete denial of education, science and the profession. That is why it is now up to us, people of science and profession, to raise our voices against such phenomena, which in normal society should be banished to the dark underground where pseudo scientists, conspiracy theorists and misunderstood geniuses reign. Unfortunately, it seems that today we live in a twisted world of disturbed reality, which has just been mastered by these, freed from the underground, miscreants.

Coordination Committee

Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement (MASA)

Although the crisis caused by the Covid-19 virus is not abating and it seems that it will take a long time before medically proven methods to fight against the new strain of the corona virus are verified, we are witnessing that on social networks, but what is even more dangerous, on certain televisions with national frequencies in this context they promote unproven methods and medical means whose effectiveness is extremely doubtful and the result of their application without accompanying clinical studies may have unforeseeable consequences. What is even more worrying is that people who do not have any formal education in the field of medical sciences are increasingly involved in the promotion of the mentioned treatment methods, but because they have access to the media with national coverage, they can mislead and even potentially endanger a large number of people.

Without pretensions to enter into a discussion about the effectiveness of certain treatment methods for the consequences of illness caused by the Covid-19 virus, MASA uses the opportunity to strongly support and with the consent of Professor Slobodan Savić, transmit his post from Facebook regarding the "revolutionary" treatment method promoted by the owner of Pink Television, Željko Mitrović:

"Dear friends, at the moment when the eyes of the entire public, especially people who have been sick with covid-19 and their family members, are completely justified, focused on the plasma treatment of patients who have suffered from this dangerous disease, news has appeared about another "method of treatment ", the placement of which I say in advance represents an extremely immoral act and a potential criminal offense. Two evenings ago, TV "Pink" showed a report about how Željko Mitrović "changes his blood" ie. injects himself with his own blood, which he previously "ozonated" in the apparatus shown in the picture, noting that according to the results of Italian doctors, it gave good results in patients with covid-19. I don't know if I explained the essence of this "epochal discovery" well, but if I didn't succeed, "Informer" did it much better than me, writing that Mitrović is right because the mentioned gas in the blood turns into hydrogen peroxide (hydrogen ) that disinfects blood from viruses and bacteria. To this publicized nonsense (for the sake of decency I avoid the harsher word), all professional medical associations should have reacted at the same time and pointed out to the public that this news is untrue and extremely dangerous, both from a medical and a moral point of view. As far as I know, none of them have come forward yet. Moreover, on the same evening, immediately after that reportage, our three eminent doctors were in the studio of that television and participated in a conversation about that nebulous procedure, its mechanism of action and possible effects. I couldn't believe my eyes and ears. There was absolutely no place for those doctors in that show, because with their participation, whether they wanted it or not, they gave credibility to something that is not and will never become a method of treatment. Instead, it all came down to the negative reactions of individuals on social networks, which are certainly good, but unfortunately not very effective. I have several strong arguments for my opinion. The first one refers to the fact that it is about television with a national frequency, which, apart from the purpose of entertainment (which it can do in reality programs), has a professional and moral obligation to communicate only verified news if it is of general social importance, and in these difficult days, better to say weeks, probably even months, there is certainly no more serious and significant news about a possible cure for covid-19. The second, perhaps the most important reason is the extreme immorality of this kind of news, which will certainly raise false hopes of a cure in those suffering from covid-19 and their family members, most of whom are medical laymen, especially if they are ill in a serious and life-threatening condition. It can realistically be expected that our healthcare workers, who are already exposed to superhuman efforts in the fight against the pandemic, will be exposed to new unrealistic requests from patients to apply that "magical life-saving treatment" to them as well. It is a completely understandable reaction of people, but directly caused by the irresponsible behavior of TV "Pink", whose program is obviously widely watched in the country of Serbia. The third argument is that the application of treatment whose effectiveness has not been medically proven and which has not been officially accepted in accordance with the regulations, is a potential criminal offense. Moreover, any treatment, as it is accepted, and especially that which is against the medical profession and science, as in this case the so-called "Blood ozonation", applied by a person who does not have the appropriate professional training for it (and as far as I know, Željko Mitrović does not have one) represents the criminal offense of quackery under Article 254 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia ("Who without the appropriate professional training engages in the treatment or provision of other medical services, shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment for up to three years"). The only thing that separates Željko Mitrović from criminal responsibility is that he has not (yet) engaged in providing this medical service to other persons, but that in no way frees him from serious moral responsibility for propagating quackery. What he did is an insult to all healthcare workers who, since the beginning of the pandemic, have been making superhuman efforts to preserve the health and save the lives of their patients, and especially to those who have sacrificed their lives for it. I apologize to everyone for such a long text, instead of which it might have been enough to write just one sentence next to the attached picture: SHAME THAT NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!"

      Following the newly emerging social, economic and political situation in Serbia as a result of the emergence of the coronavirus pandemic and the imposition of a state of emergency, MASA points to the ever-important need to nurture the freedom of critical thinking. Citizens of Serbia have the right to receive information and hear different opinions and arguments from verified sources, especially when it comes to experts in the field of medical and social sciences. Man is a social being, and the introduced state of emergency has radically reduced his sociability. Since the beginning of the state of emergency, concerned citizens have, quite expectedly, primarily focused their attention on epidemiologists and infectious disease experts, expecting news, precise information and useful advice.

  MASA notes with regret that, under pressure from representatives of the executive power, some members of the academic community are inappropriately inclined to blame the citizens themselves for the pandemic and the high death rate in Serbia. MASA demands that citizens' fears be answered exclusively by presenting verified, accurate and timely information that will be communicated in an adequate manner. A series of unmeasured statements at official press conferences by representatives of the executive power, but unfortunately also by academic members of the crisis staff, contributed to the additional collapse of the already low public trust in what they are being told about the coronavirus pandemic. This caused great damage, the consequences of which, as could be expected, are reflected in the spread of rumours, misinformation and fake news and causing even greater fear and panic in the public. It is a well-known fact in communication theory that rumors spread where information is limited. On the other hand, we are witnessing that those who laid the groundwork for the spread of rumors are trying to prevent it by further abolishing freedom of speech and arresting citizens and journalists. MASA warns that such moves will only further deepen the problem and cause a revolt among citizens at a time when solidarity and mutual support should be appealed for.

     A state of emergency was declared and inadequately protected health workers (without appropriate masks and protective equipment) were placed in front of the "invisible enemy". A large number of the infected are healthcare workers, but they cover it up or shyly bring it up during the roll call. While health workers have very little basic health care and while protective masks are sold to citizens in pharmacies at a price 5-6 times higher than before the pandemic, we hear about thousands of ventilators that need to arrive in Serbia. Politicians do not seem to be familiar with the medical catchphrase: "prevention is better than cure"?

    MASA requires clear and precise answers to the following questions: Are citizens given the option of choosing in the proposed measures, and if not, explain why (for example collection centers or home self-isolation)? Why is individual irresponsibility capriciously declared collective and the problem generalized instead of finding a way to target it? Are the sociological and psychological consequences of such a decision considered and what measures have been taken to solve the newly created problems?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Coronavirus disease 2019: COVID-19)

Vladan P. Čokić
Institute for Medical Research, University of Belgrade

Summary

At the end of 2019, the first cases of viral pneumonia of unknown origin appeared in China. On January 7, 2020, a new coronavirus was identified, which the World Health Organization named Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The first case of coronavirus was officially confirmed on March 6, 2020 in Serbia. It started on March 15 with public health measures for the prevention of the coronavirus: first, the closing of the state border and home self-isolation, then on March 17, the introduction of a night ban on movement and the all-day outing of pensioners, on March 21, the cancellation of public transport and the ban on gatherings, and on March 23, the opening of collective centers for patients with medical supervision. After a month, on April 6, the number of infected people in Serbia is 2,200 cases with 58 deaths. As of that date, the number of coronavirus detection tests per capita in Serbia is the lowest in the region. COVID-19 has paralyzed life in Serbia, and the goal of this paper is to bring the issues of the pandemic closer to the public in Serbia.

Key words: SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ASE2), Epidemic Prevention Measures

Introduction

In the last 20 years, there have been three global epidemics and the current pandemic [1, 2]:
1. Severe acute respiratory syndrome - severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1) from November 2002 to August 2003. It spread to 32 countries, where 8422 people became ill with 916 deaths (10,87%).
2. H1N1 flu in 2009. 201,200 respiratory deaths and 83,300 cardiovascular deaths were estimated, of which 80% deaths were among those under 65 years of age. [3]
3. Middle East respiratory syndrome - Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), was discovered in Saudi Arabia from April 2012 to December 2019. It spread to 27 countries, 2496 people became ill with 868 deaths (34,77%).
4. On December 12, 2019, patients with viral pneumonia of unknown origin were reported in Wuhan, China. The new pandemic called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It has spread to all countries of the world. Until 5/4/2020. it infected 1,268,851 people and led to the death of 69,330 patients (5,46%).

Etiology

Coronaviruses are the largest single-stranded RNA viruses, described for the first time in 1966. They got their name based on their spherical shape with an envelope and protrusions that resemble the Sun's corona (in Latin: corona = crown). [4] The subfamily Orthocoronavirinae has 4 genera [5]:
(a) alpha‐CoVs, cause stomach diseases in humans, dogs, pigs and cats.
(b) beta‐CoVs, attack mammals, and include SARS‐CoV, MERS‐CoV and SARS‐CoV‐2. [6, 7]
(c) gamma‐CoVs, attacks birds. [8]
(d) delta-CoV, attacks birds and mammals. [9]
Genetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 showed 88% to be similar to 2 types of bat SARS coronavirus, but genetically distant from SARS-CoV (79%) and MERS-CoV (50%). [6] Additional genetic study showed 96% similarities to the third type of bat coronavirus. [10] Phylogenetic studies of SARS-CoV-2 have shown that the closest common ancestor is from 22-24. November 2019 [11]
Population genetic analyzes of the SARS-CoV-2 genome showed 2 types of these viruses [12]:
– L type (∼70%), more frequent, spreading faster and more aggressive, with more mutations,
– S type (∼30%), older and less aggressive.

Epidemiology

SARS, MERS and endemic human coronaviruses can survive on metal, glass or plastic surfaces for up to 9 days. However, they are successfully inactivated by disinfectants such as 70% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite in 1 minute. [13] SARS-CoV-2 is more persistent on plastic (7 hours) and stainless steel (6 hours) than on copper and cardboard. SARS-CoV-2 can no longer be found on copper after 4 hours. On cardboard, SARS-CoV-2 does not survive for more than 24 hours. The half-lives of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 are similar in air, with a median of approximately 1.2 hours [14]. For COVID‐19, the average incubation period is 5.2 to 6.4 days (with a range of 1 to 14 days), while the median incubation period is 3 to 5 days. [15,16] For SARS-CoV, the incubation time is longer than for influenza (up to 5 days compared to only 2 days).[17] There is no noticeable difference between the incubation times for SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV (4 days) and MERS-CoV (4.5-5.2 days). [18] A higher viral load of SARS-CoV-2 is present immediately after the onset of symptoms in patients, with a higher viral load in the nose than in the throat. The viral load detected in an asymptomatic patient is similar to that in a symptomatic patient.[19]
In the COVID‐19 pandemic, the most important is the "basic reproductive number" that measures the potential of this disease and represents the average number of people to whom the disease will be transmitted from one infected person in a population that has never been infected before. The base reproduction number for SARS‐CoV‐2 is between 2.24 and 3.58, which is consistent with estimates for SARS‐CoV (from 2 to 5) and MERS‐CoV (from 2.7 to 3.9). The basic reproduction number for seasonal flu usually ranges from 1.2 to 1.4, but it still infects many more people than SARS‐CoV. For smallpox, the basic reproduction number is 12 to 18, and in 2009, for H1N1 flu, it was 1.2-1.6. [5, 16, 20] The basic reproductive number is affected by the duration of infectiousness, the transmissibility of pathogens and the number of susceptible contacts.
There are three main routes of transmission of COVID‐19: droplet, contact and airborne. Droplet transmission occurs when respiratory droplets (created when an infected person coughs or sneezes) are swallowed or inhaled by people in close proximity. Contact transmission occurs when a subject touches a surface or object contaminated with the virus and then touches their mouth, nose, or eyes. Airborne transmission occurs when respiratory droplets mix in the air, forming aerosols, and can cause infection when high doses of aerosols are inhaled into the lungs in a relatively closed environment. [21]

Risk of infection with COVID‐19 [22]:

 - Negligible risk: a person who had a short (<15 minutes) contact with a confirmed case in public areas, such as public transport, restaurants and shops; healthcare personnel who treated a confirmed case while wearing appropriate protective equipment.
- Low risk: a person who has had close (within 1 meter) but brief (<15 minutes) contact with a confirmed case, or distant (> 1 meter) but prolonged contact in public events, or any contact in private events that do not match the criteria of moderate / high exposure risk.
– Moderate / high risk: a person who had prolonged (> 15 minutes) direct contact closer than 1 meter (face-to-face) with a confirmed case, shared the same hospital room, lived in the same household or shared any leisure or professional activity in the immediate vicinity proximity to a confirmed case, traveled together with a confirmed case without appropriate personal protective equipment. Healthcare personnel who treated a confirmed case without wearing appropriate protective equipment.
Adults represent the population with the highest infection rate; however, infants, children and elderly patients can also be infected with SARS‐CoV‐2. In addition, nasopharyngeal infection of hospitalized patients and healthcare workers is also possible in transmission of the virus from asymptomatic patients with COVID‐19 [16].

Pathophysiology

Entry of coronaviruses into host cells is mediated by a transmembrane protrusion, called Ѕ glycoprotein, that forms homotrimers that protrude from the surface of the virus. As a result, entry of coronaviruses into susceptible host cells is a complex process that requires concerted receptor binding and proteolytic processing of Ѕ glycoproteins for virus-host cell fusion to occur. [23] SARS‐CoV‐2 uses the surface receptor angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 (ASE2) to enter cells, and has a higher affinity for ASE2 receptors than SARS‐CoV, which is consistent with the more efficient spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 between humans. . [6, 23-27] The primary physiological role of ASE2 is in the production of angiotensin, a peptide hormone that controls vasoconstriction, i.e. blood pressure. [25] The entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the cell, dependent on the ASE2 receptor, can be blocked by an inhibitor of a certain cellular protease (TMPRSS2) necessary for interaction with the Ѕ glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2. [28]
ASE2 expression is significantly increased in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes treated with ASE inhibitors and angiotensin II type I receptor blockers, as well as in patients with hypertension. Such therapy, in a feedback loop, leads to increased generation of ASE2 receptors on the surface of cells. Patients with heart disease, hypertension or diabetes, who are treated with drugs that increase ASE2, have a higher risk of severe infection with COVID-19. The ACE2 receptor is highly expressed in the lower respiratory tract, as well as in absorptive enterocytes from the ileum and colon, which coincides with abdominal discomfort and diarrhea in COVID-19. [21, 26]

Clinical picture

The main clinical manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection are elevated body temperature (fever - 91.7%), cough (67-75.0%), sore throat (13.9%), shortness of breath (18.6-30%), general weakness (38- 75.0%), diarrhea (3.8%), headache (13.6%), pneumonia. [1,21,29-31] The most common finding on chest imaging in patients with pneumonia is bilateral ground-glass-like opacity (56,4%) or patchy shadowing (51,8%). [16, 30] Computed tomography (CT) scans of the chest usually show abnormal results even in those without symptoms or mild disease. COVID-19 is a mild illness in most people, while in some (usually the elderly and those with comorbidities) it can progress to pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and multi-organ dysfunction. The mortality rate is estimated to be 1.4 to 3%. There is a higher prevalence of men with COVID-19 compared to women, however, there are studies with an equal number of female and male patients. [16, 32, 33] Significantly elevated mortality rates included the following patient characteristics: male gender, age over 60 years, primary diagnosis of severe pneumonia, and late diagnosis. [16]
Common laboratory findings for COVID-19 include a normal or low white blood cell count with elevated S-reactive protein (CRP). Lymphopenia (75.4%) and eosinopenia (52.9%) were observed in most patients. [32] Hypertension (17-30.0%) and diabetes mellitus (8-12.1%) are the most common comorbidities, followed by cardiovascular (5%) and respiratory (2%) diseases. [32, 33] Cancer patients have been shown to have a worse outcome if they contract COVID-19. [34]
COVID-19 has not led to the death of pregnant women and there have been no confirmed cases of intrauterine transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to their fetuses. [35] The most common symptoms of COVID-19 in pregnant women are fever and cough, and the laboratory finding is lymphocytopenia. Pregnancy and childbirth did not worsen the course of symptoms or ST features of COVID-19-induced pneumonia. [36] The median age of infected children was 6.7 years. Fever was present in 41.5% children. Other common symptoms include cough and pharyngeal erythema. Unlike infected adults, most infected children have a milder clinical course. [37]

Therapy

Chloroquine, an old and inexpensive malaria drug, has been shown to have apparent efficacy and acceptable safety in the treatment of pneumonia caused by COVID-19 in clinical trials conducted in China. [7, 38] Chloroquine is known to block virus infection by increasing the endosomal rN required for virus-cell fusion, as well as affecting glycosylation of the SARS‐CoV receptor. In addition to antiviral activity, chloroquine also has immune-modulating activity, which can synergistically enhance its antiviral effect. [39] Chloroquine phosphate has been shown to inhibit the worsening of pneumonia, improve lung imaging findings, support viral clearance, and shorten the course of the disease. [38] Treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir did not significantly accelerate clinical improvement, reduce mortality and the presence of RNA virus in the throat in severely ill patients with COVID-19. [40] Patients in Serbia receive lopinavir/ritonavir and chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 in mild and severe respiratory problems.
The case fatality ratio of cases of COVID-19 in China is 1.38% (1.23–1.53), with a significantly higher percentage in those over 60 years old where it is 6.4% (5.7–7.2), and over 80 years old where it is 13.4% (11.2– 15.9). [41] It is also evident that the outcome of SARS‐CoV‐2 pneumonia is highly destructive, despite a mortality rate lower than 3% compared to SARS‐CoV (9.6% mortality rate) and MERS‐CoV (34% mortality rate). [18]

Public health measures to prevent the coronavirus

The primary goal is to prevent the spread of disease between people and to separate people to stop transmission. The measures we have are isolation, quarantine, social distancing and community restriction [42]:

• Isolation is the separation of infected from non-infected persons, in order to protect them, and usually takes place in hospital conditions.
  Quarantine means restricting the movement of persons who are presumed to have been exposed to an infectious disease but are not sick, either because they have not been infected, or because they are still in the incubation period.
• Quarantine can be applied to individuals or a group and usually includes a restriction on leaving the house or a certain facility. Quarantine can be voluntary or mandatory.
• Social distancing is meant to reduce interactions between people in the wider community, where individuals may be contagious but not yet identified and isolated. As diseases transmitted by respiratory droplets require a certain proximity to people, social distancing of people reduces transmission. Social distancing is particularly useful in settings where community transmission is believed to have occurred, but where the links between cases are unclear and where restrictions placed only on exposed individuals are considered insufficient to prevent further transmission. Examples of social distancing include closing schools and business buildings, suspending public markets and canceling gatherings. [43]
• Community-wide containment is an intervention that applies to an entire community, city, or region, and is designed to reduce personal interactions, except for minimal interactions to ensure vital supplies.
  The value of wearing a face mask is controversial to say the least. Surgical masks do not fully protect against airborne viruses because they do not fully cover the nose and mouth. Thus, small droplets, which can travel further than large droplets, and in more unpredictable ways, can be inhaled around the sides of the masks. Since the virus is enveloped, washing your hands with soap and water for at least 30 seconds is helpful in killing SARS-CoV-2. Hand sanitizers can be used if soap and water are not readily available, while touching the eyes, nose, and mouth should be avoided. [5]

Literature:

1. Meo SA, Alhowikan AM, Al-Khlaiwi T, et al. Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV: prevalence, biological and clinical characteristics comparison with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020 Feb;24(4):2012-2019.
2. Kuiken T, Fouchier RA, Schutten M, et al. Newly discovered coronavirus as the primary cause of severe acute respiratory syndrome. Lancet. 2003 Jul 26;362(9380):263-270.
3. Dawood FS, Iuliano AD, Reed C, et al. Estimated global mortality associated with the first 12 months of 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 virus circulation: a modeling study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 Sep;12(9):687-695.
4. Tyrrell DA, Bynoe ML. Cultivation of viruses from a high proportion of patients with colds. Lancet 1966:1:76–77.
5. Ashour HM, Elkhatib WF, Rahman MM, et al. Insights into the Recent 2019 Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in Light of Past Human Coronavirus Outbreaks. Pathogens. 2020 Mar 4;9(3).
6. Lu R, Zhao X, Li J, et al. Genomic characterization and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Lancet. 2020 Feb 22;395(10224):565-574.
7. Devaux CA, Rolain JM, Colson P, et al. New Insights on the Antiviral Effects of Chloroquine Against Coronavirus: What to Expect for COVID-19? Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar 12:105938
8. Li X, Wang W, Zhao X, et al. Transmission dynamics and evolutionary history of 2019-nCoV. J Med Virol. 2020 May;92(5):501-511.
9. Li G, Fan Y, Lai Y, et al. Coronavirus infections and immune responses. J Med Virol. 2020 Apr;92(4):424-432.
10. Ceraolo C, Giorgi FM. Genomic variance of the 2019-nCoV coronavirus. J Med Virol. 2020 May;92(5):522-528.
11. Li X, Zai J, Zhao Q, et al. Evolutionary History, Potential Intermediate Animal Host, and Cross-Species Analyzes of SARS-CoV-2. J Med Virol 2020 Feb 27 doi: 10.1002/jmv.25731.
12. Lai CC, Shih TP, Ko WC, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): The epidemic and the challenges. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Mar;55(3):105924.
13. Kampf G, Todt D, Pfaender S, et al. Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and their inactivation with biocidal agents. J Hosp Infect. 2020 Mar;104(3):246-251.
14. van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, et al. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 17. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2004973.
15. Li Q, Guan X, Wu P et al. Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382(13):1199-1207.
16. Lai CC, Liu YH, Wang CY, et al. Asymptomatic carrier state, acute respiratory disease, and pneumonia due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): Facts and myths. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2020.02.012.
17. Nishiura H, Mizumoto K, Ejima K, et al. Incubation period as part of the case definition of severe respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus. Euro Survey. 2012 Oct 18;17(42).
18. Jiang X, Rayner S, Luo MH. Does SARS-CoV-2 have a longer incubation period than SARS and MERS? J Med Virol. 2020 May;92(5):476-478.
19. Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patients. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-1179.
20. Bauch CT, Lloyd-Smith JO, Coffee MP, et al. Dynamically modeling SARS and other newly emerging respiratory illnesses: past, present, and future. Epidemiology 2005:6:791–801.
21. Adhikari SP, Meng S, Wu YJ, et al. Epidemiology, causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, prevention and control of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) during the early outbreak period: a scoping review. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020 Mar 17;9(1):29.
22. Bernard Stoecklin S, Rolland P, Silue Y, et al. First cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in France: surveillance, investigations and control measures, January 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020 Feb;25(6).
23. Walls AC, Park YJ, Tortorici MA, et al. Structure, Function, and Antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein. Cell. 2020 Mar 6. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.058
24. Zhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):270-273.
25. Yan R, Zhang Y, Li Y, et al. Structural basis for the recognition of the SARS-CoV-2 by full-length human ACE2. Science. 2020 Mar 27;367(6485):1444-1448.
26. Guo YR, Cao QD, Hong ZS, et al. The origin, transmission and clinical therapies on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak – an update on the status. Mil Med Res. 2020 Mar 13;7(1):11.
27. Wrapp D, Wang N, Corbett KS, et al. Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation. Science. 2020 Mar 13;367(6483):1260-1263.
28. Hoffmann M, Kleine-Weber H, Schroeder S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor. Cell. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.052.
29. Lauer SA, Grantz KH, Bi Q, et al. The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Ann Intern Med, 2020 Mar 10 doi: 10.7326/M20-0504.
30. Guan W, Ni ZY, Hu Y, et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2002032.
31. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506.
32. Zhang JJ, Dong X, Cao YY, et al. Clinical characteristics of 140 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China. Allergy. 2020 Feb 19 doi: 10.1111/all.14238
33. Yang J, Zheng Y, Gou X, et al. Prevalence of comorbidities in the novel Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.017
34. Liang W, Guan W, Chen R, et al. Cancer patients in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a nationwide analysis in China. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21(3):335-337.
35. Schwartz YES. An Analysis of 38 Pregnant Women with COVID-19, Their Newborn Infants, and Maternal-Fetal Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: Maternal Coronavirus Infections and Pregnancy Outcomes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020 Mar 17. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0901-SA.
36. Liu D, Li L, Wu X, et al. Pregnancy and Perinatal Outcomes of Women With Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pneumonia: A Preliminary Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Mar 18:1-6.
37. Lu X, Zhang L, Du H, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2005073
38. Gao J, Tian Z, Yang X. Breakthrough: Chloroquine Phosphate Has Shown Apparent Efficacy in Treatment of COVID-19 Associated Pneumonia in Clinical Studies. Biosci Trends. 2020 Mar 16;14(1):72-73.
39. Wang M, Cao R, Zhang L, et al. Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro. Cell Res. 2020 Mar;30(3):269-271.
40. Cao B, Wang Y, Wen D, et al. A Trial of Lopinavir-Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282.
41. Verity R, Okell LC, Dorigatti I, et al. Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30243-7
42. Wilder-Smith A, Freedman DO. Isolation, quarantine, social distancing and community containment: pivotal role for old-style public health measures in the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. J Travel Med. 2020 Mar 13;27(2).
43. Cetron M, Landwirth J. Public health and ethical considerations in planning for quarantine. Yale J Biol Med 2005;78:329-334.

The Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement strongly opposes the ban on public appearances of assistant professor Vukašin Milićević issued on March 30, 2020 by His Holiness Patriarch Irinej of Serbia, after his guest appearance on the "Impression of the Week" show.   

Although docent Vukašin Milićević is a cleric of the Archdiocese of Belgrade-Karlovica, he is also a teacher at the University of Belgrade and a doctor of theological sciences. It is unthinkable that a member of the academic community is banned from public speaking and criticized for thinking critically about current social issues.

As members of the academic community, we do not want to interfere in the internal affairs of the church, just as the church should not interfere in the internal affairs of the university, but since assistant professor Milićević is also a member of the academic community, we must react to the aforementioned prohibition, which simultaneously deny basic human freedoms and collapse the autonomy of universities. All the more so since the Patriarch bases his decision on an earlier letter which, not only to him, but to all employees of the Orthodox Theological Faculty of the University of Belgrade, prohibits any appearance in public without his prior approval.

At the same time, since many of us are members of the Serbian Orthodox Church, we want to express our concern about this kind of sanctioning of freedom of speech within the church and emphasize our firm belief that with his public actions Milićević only contributed to raising the reputation of the church in the public, and never harmed it.

We ask His Holiness Patriarch Irinej of Serbia, the Holy Synod of Bishops and the Church Court of the Archdiocese of Belgrade-Karlovica to consider our appeal and to take into account the decision regarding assistant professor Vukašin Milićević, as well as all future decisions regarding the teachers of the Faculty of Orthodox Theology at the University of Belgrade. taking into account the fact that they are simultaneously members of both the church and the academic community. Therefore, we appeal that when making this and similar decisions, it is mandatory to take into account the circumstance that members of the academic community, as well as all conscientious citizens of our society, are expected to speak publicly and take critical positions, which the mentioned ban directly opposes.

We understand that the position of teachers and associates of the Orthodox Theological Faculty of the University of Belgrade is specific, but that is precisely why we believe that this specificity must be respected, both on the part of the university and on the part of the church. In situations such as this one, which point to a divergence in the way the two communities, ecclesiastical and academic, behave, we can only find a common language by finding compromise solutions while taking into account the specifics of the position of teachers and associates who are members of both communities. Also, we believe that the teachers and associates of the Orthodox Theological Faculty are an important link between the two communities and that we must not lose that link.