Category: News

      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.

On the occasion of the Initiative to evaluate the constitutionality of the Law on Science and Research, representatives of Masa held two meetings last week. We spoke with representatives of the University of Belgrade as well as the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development. In the form of a response to the invitation for an interview sent by SANU, Masa received the opinion of the Executive Board, which states that SANU insists on its own autonomy of opinion, but does not object to Masa, in accordance with his own beliefs, continuing with the activities of submitting the Initiative to the Constitutional Court. to the court.

The meeting at the rectorate of the University of Belgrade held on March 9, 2020 was attended by rector Ivanka Popović and vice-rector for science Petar Marin, as well as members of the Mass Gazela Coordination Board Pudar Draško, Đorđe Pavićević and Oliver Tošković. The rector pointed out that at this moment UB cannot support the Mass Initiative. As the main reason, she pointed out that Masa has not yet used all the institutional mechanisms so that the bodies of the University could decide on the Initiative. She noted that the University of Belgrade, during the adoption of the Law on Higher Education in 2017, requested that institutes that are members of the university be given greater autonomy through a different choice of governing body, but that this proposal was not taken into consideration at the time. In the conversation, she referred us to the Scientific Councils of the institutes that are members of the UB and to the Councils of the UB Institutes. Nevertheless, she pointed out that in principle she supports the activities of the Mass and that she will decide on the possible support of our actions in the future on a case-by-case basis. In the conversation, other issues were raised and, among other things, we informed the rector about our further activities related to accreditation, university regulations and the possible adoption of a new Law on Universities, as well as our concern about events in a number of institutes, especially in the Institute of Philosophy and social theory and the Vinca Institute for Nuclear Sciences. In principle, it was agreed that UB and Massa should coordinate future actions more.

The conversation at the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development was held on March 10, 2020. On behalf of the Ministry, the meeting was attended by the State Secretary for Science Vladimir Popović, 3 Assistant Ministers, the Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of the RS and the Ministry's lawyer, while the Mass was represented by members of the Coordinating Committee board members Galjina Ognjanov, Đorđe Pavićević, Vladan Čokić, Milutin Stepić and colleague Dejan Pavlović, a member of Massa. In the conversation, the differences in the understanding of autonomy, especially in the domain of organization and management as well as scientific work, and differences in the understanding of the status of the institute were highlighted. State Secretary Vladimir Popović emphasized the position of the Ministry that the law does not violate the autonomy of scientific work and that the legal status of an institute is different from that of a university. The conversation lasted almost two hours with a lot of polemics and no final agreement of positions. State Secretary Popović pointed out that he follows the work of Masa, reads our announcements and is interested in the views of individual representatives of Masa. The conversation proceeded with mutual respect, agreement on certain issues, and the principled will to continue discussions on issues on which there is currently no consensus, especially when it comes to the way scientific and academic institutions are organized and worked, was also expressed. The representatives of Masa announced that they will continue with their Initiative, because no concrete progress has been achieved on this issue, which the State Secretary accepted as our right.

After the meetings, the Masa Coordination Board decided to send a request to all the Scientific Councils of member institutes of the University of Belgrade to give their opinion on the Initiative for the Constitutional Review of the Law on Science and Research, and will continue to inform members and the public about this topic.