HOW IS THE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH OF SECOND WAVE OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC COMPARED TO THE FIRST WAVE? CASE STUDY OF ITALY

Mario Coccia
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.16.20232389

Abstract

The main goal of this study is to compare the effects on public health of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to first wave in society. The paper here focuses on a case study of Italy, one of the first European countries to experience a rapid increase in confirmed cases and deaths. Methodology considers daily data from February to November 2020 of the ratio of confirmed cases/total swabs, fatality rate (deaths / confirmed cases) and ratio of individuals in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) / Confirmed cases. Results reveal that the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy had a strong but declining impact on public health with the approaching of summer season and with the effects of containment measures, whereas second wave of the COVID-19 has a growing trend of confirmed cases with admission to ICUs and total deaths having a, to date, lower impact on public health compared to first wave. Although effects of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on public health, policymakers have had an unrealistic optimist behavior that a new wave of COVID-19 could not hit their countries and, especially, a low organizational capacity to plan effective policy responses to cope with recurring COVID-19 pandemic crisis. This study can support vital information to design effective policy responses of crisis management to constrain current and future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic and similar epidemics in society.

GOAL OF THE INVESTIGATION

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the strain of novel coronavirus that causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with high numbers of COVID-19 related infected individuals and deaths in society (Coccia, 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). In this context, the main goal of this study is to analyze the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic to compare the effects on public health in terms of confirmed cases, fatality rates and admission at Intensive Care Units. This study is important to explain the impact of COVID-19 pandemic to design effective policy responses for constraining the effects on public health and economic systems of on-going and future waves of the COVID-19 and similar epidemics.

What is already known on these topics is based on some studies from different disciplines

Glass (2020) analyses four large countries in Europe and the USA with a proposed model and results reveal that policy responses based on limited containment measures can generate an impact of the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic on public health higher than the first one: “The results indicate that relaxations took effect in terms of increasing numbers of cases with dates ranging from early June in some countries to mid-July in other countries. For the European countries, results suggest relaxations ranging from 31% to 57% are underway and if current trends continue unchecked could lead to significant second waves that last longer than the corresponding earlier waves. In the case of the US, where the number of cases has already peaked for a second time, an extended version of the model suggests that the level of transmission may now be similar to that after the first peak”. Bontempi (2020) argues that from September 2020, Europe has to cope with the appearance of a COVID-19 second wave. The Italy situation compared with other large European countries (e.g., France, Germany, UK, and Spain) seems to show a lower impact on public health likely due to containment measures applied in the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic (cf., Atalan, 2020; Prem et al., 2020). Cacciapaglia et al. (2020) apply the Epidemic Renormalisation Group approach to COVID-19 pandemic, using data of the first wave, to simulate the transmission dynamics of this novel infectious disease as well as the diffusion across different European countries. Results of simulation model suggest that the peak of the second wave can be roughly between July 2020 and January 2021. In particular, the timing of the peak can be estimated considering different non-pharmaceutical measures of containment and mitigation and in addition: “The sensitivity of the second peak prognosis on the value of the infection rates gives a clear indication that social distancing measures and responsible individual behavior can have a strong effect if implemented early on” (Cacciapaglia et al., 2020). Instead, Renardy et al. (2020) apply a model based on discrete and stochastic network in a case study of Washtenaw County in Michigan (USA) to forecast the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results show that a delay of reopening does not reduce the total impact of the second peak of confirmed cases, but only delays it. However, simulations of the model reveal that a reduction of casual contacts between people can both delay and reduce the peak of the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic. Gatto et al. (2020), based on their transmission model, argue that restriction to mobility and human interactions can reduce transmission dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic by about 45%. Other studies show that specific places have a high risk to be COVID-19 outbreaks, acting as suprspreaders (Chang et al., 2020). In particular, model by Chang et al. (2020), using cell phone data, predicts that a small minority of points of interest (called, POIs), such as restaurants and religious establishments, account for a large majority of infections; as a consequence, restricting maximum occupancy at each POI is more effective than uniformly reducing mobility. Moreover, higher infection rates among disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic people are due to their behavior of visiting more crowded and higher-risk places (Chang et al., 2020). In this context, countries and regions can apply timely containment and mitigation measures, such as personal protective equipment, school closing, cancellation of public/private events, restrictions on mass gatherings in public and private places, restriction on internal mobility and international travel, etc. to reduce the threats of accelerated diffusion of the waves of COVID-19 pandemic and similar viral agents in society (Petherick et al., 2020). Chu et al. (2020) also point out that mitigation measures based on social distancing and the use of facemasks seem to be effective to reduce the risk factors of transmission of the novel coronavirus. Instead, van Weert (2020) states that in the presence of a shortage of personal protective equipment, social distancing is a vital control measure to reduce the transmission dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic in society (cf., Islam, 2020).

However, studies just mentioned are mainly based on models that generate simulations with computer experiments to predict eventual real effects of the dynamics of COVID-19 pandemic in different urban contexts. What is hardly known in these research topics is, using current data of COVID-19 pandemic, to explain whether the evolution of the second wave of the COVID-19 is generating an impact on public health higher or lower than first pandemic wave. The study here proposes an empirical analysis based on available data to explain the evolutionary dynamics of the second wave of COVID-19 compared to first one to design effective strategies of crisis management to cope with recurring waves of COVID-19 pandemic and future epidemics of new viral agents.

METHODOLOGY

1.1 Data collection

The paper here is based on a case study of Italy that was the first large European country to experience a rapid increase in COVID-19 confirmed cases and deaths from March 2020. This study focuses on evolution of the first and second wave of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. The end of the first wave of COVID-19 is detected here considering the minimum number of confirmed cases from February 2020 onwards, which is the 31 July 2020; after this date, confirmed cases begin to increase and this study considers the starting of the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, i.e., 1st August 2020. In particular, this study considers data for 105 days from the starting of each wave for a comparable framework of analysis:

  • □ First wave of COVID-19 from 24th February, considering N=105 days

  • □ Second wave of COVID-19 from 1st August 2020 onwards, also considering N=105 days

In the context of first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, the containment measures of national lockdown and quarantine in Italy started on 8th March 2020 and ended on 18th May 2020 (Governo Italiano, 2020). In addition, Italy is located in the North hemisphere of the globe and the summer season started on 20-21 June 2020 and ended 23 September 2020, for a period of 92 days of warmer temperatures. This period is important for current study because some papers suggest that hot weather can reduce the viral infectivity of COVID-19: “high temperatures damage the virus lipid layer decreasing its stability and infection potential and may even cause virus inactivation, therefore lowering the transmission rate” (Rosario Denes et al., 2020, p. 4).

In the context of second wave of COVID-19, Italian government on 3 November 2020 applied different containment measures according to the impact of COVID-19 in regions in terms of level of admission to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) and other factors of health sector: red regions with full lockdown based on restrictions to individual mobility and closure of schools and public/private events; orange regions with a partial lockdown, and yellow regions in which people mainly have to wear protective mask against droplets of the coronavirus into the air and respect social distancing (cf., Chaudhry et al., 2020; Coccia, 2020f; Islam, 2020).

Data of the COVID-19 pandemic under study here are:

  • daily confirmed cases

  • daily deaths

  • daily admission to Intensive Care Units (ICUs)

  • daily swabs

Period under study is from 24 February to November 2020 and source of data is the Ministero della Salute (2020) in Italy.

1.2 Variables

Dynamics of the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy is measured by:

  • ▪ Daily confirmed cases standardized = ratio of confirmed cases (t) / swab test (t-2). The lag of about 2 days from swab test to the result of positivity to the novel coronavirus (confirmed case) is based on average time of laboratories to deliver results of the COVID-19 swab test that is roughly 1-2 days from the date of specimen pickup (LabCorp, 2020).

  • ▪ Daily admission to ICUs standardized = ratio of admission to ICUs (t) / confirmed cases at (t-5). The lag of about 5 days from initial symptoms, positivity to swab test to the hospitalization and recovery in ICUs of patients is based on average time from diagnosis to hospitalization as explained by specific studies (Faes et al., 2020).

  • ▪ Daily Fatality rate = ratio of deaths at (t) /confirmed cases at (t-14). The lag of about 14 days from initial symptoms to deaths is based on empirical evidence of some studies (Zhang et al., 2020).

1.3 Methods of statistical analysis

Firstly, data are analyzed with descriptive statistics, comparing arithmetic mean of measures just mentioned between first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy.

Secondly, each measure is represented in graphs comparing trends of the 1st wave and 2nd wave of COVID-19 pandemic, inserting the specific measure on y-axis (e.g., fatality rates) and temporal unit on x-axis given by progressive numbers, in which the number 1 indicates the starting of the pandemic wave (i.e., 24th February for 1st wave and 1st August for 2nd wave), the number two is the second day of COVID-19 pandemic wave, and so on. Moreover, the three indicators are also compared within the 1st and 2nd wave to have a comparative analysis of the overall evolutionary dynamics of COVID-19 pandemic (cf., Coccia and Benati, 2018).

Thirdly, the study explores relationships between variables with correlation analysis and test of association. This study extends the analysis with a regression model based on a linear relationship in which variables measuring the impact of the COVID-19 on public health are linear function of time (days from starting of the pandemic wave for a period of 105 days). The specification of linear relationship is given by a semi-log model: Embedded Image y = measures of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic in society: Daily fatality rate, Daily admission to ICUs, Daily confirmed cases

t = time given by progressive numbers representing days of the first and second wave of COVID-19 pandemic

u = error term

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method is applied for estimating the unknown parameters of linear model [1]. Statistical analyses are performed with the Statistics Software SPSS® version 26.

RESULTS

  • □ Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public health comparing 1st and 2nd wave

First wave of COVID-19 pandemic shows from February 2020 onwards an average fatality rate of about 24%, whereas second wave of COVID-19−for the same number of 105 days from the starting in August 2020−indicates an average fatality rate of about 1.9%. Comparative analysis of the average admission to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) shows an 87.7% in the first wave and about 13% in the second one. Instead, standardized confirmed cases with swab tests show that it is about 9% in the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 and roughly 5% in the second one (Table 1). Figures 1-2-3 show the trend of variables just mentioned confirming, ictu oculi, that the impact of the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy on public health has been stronger than second one in the first 105 days of the evolution of this pandemic.

View this table:
Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of variables measuring the impact on public health of waves of COVID-19 pandemic

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Trend of confirmed cases of the first and second wave (W) of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, first 105 days

However, Figure 1 of confirmed cases reveals a growing trend for second pandemic wave, whereas the first one has a declining trend also because of lockdown and quarantine and the progression of COVID-19 pandemic towards summer season when the novel coronavirus seems to have a seasonality with natural reduction of transmission for better weather conditions (e.g., hot temperatures) and also low levels of air pollution for containment measures applied (cf., Coccia, 2020, 2020a, 2020b; Rosario Dentes et al., 2020).

Figure 2 shows trends of admission to ICUs: the second wave has an intensity lower than first pandemic wave and both waves seem to have stable dynamics. Instead, figure 3 shows trends of fatality rates: second pandemic wave has a low magnitude over time, suggesting a low impact on public health until November 2020.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Trend of ICUs of the first and second wave (W) of COVID-19 in Italy, first 105 days

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Trend of fatality rate of the first and second wave (W) of COVID-19 in Italy, first 105 days

Table 2 shows bivariate correlation analysis of variables under study in the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic: fatality rates have a high positive association with admission to ICUs (r=.66, p-value <.01), and a lower positive association of the coefficient of correlation is between fatality rates and confirmed cases (r=.24, p-value <.05), whereas correlation between ICUs and confirmed cases is negative (r= −.22, p-value <.05). Table 2 seems to show that many infected individuals died as well as a lot of patients in ICUs likely because of low knowledge of the pathology and evolution of COVID-19 in patients, and lack of appropriate therapies and low number of ICUs in hospitals (Gattinoni et al., 2020; Sterpetti, 2020). Table 3 shows tentative results for second wave of COVID-19 pandemic: correlation has a significant positive association between fatality rates and confirmed cases (r=.30, p-value <.01), whereas coefficient between ICUs and confirmed cases correlation is negative with an association higher than in the first epidemic wave (r=−.38, p-value <.01) likely because a lot of confirmed cases have not severe symptoms of COVID-19 and do not require utilization of ICUs.

View this table:
Table 2.

Bivariate correlation of indicators in the First Wave of COVID-19 pandemic

View this table:
Table 3.

Bivariate correlation of indicators in the Second Wave of COVID-19 pandemic

Table 4 shows the estimation of parameters in linear relationships between a number of variables and time as explanatory variable. The coefficient of regression of the model of fatality rate (dependent variable) indicates that in the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, an increase of 1 day, it reduces the expected fatality rate by .02 (p-value = .001), whereas for second wave of the COVID-19, an increase of 1 day, it increases the expected fatality rate by a mere .004 (p-value = .05). The model’s R2 value indicates in the first wave that about 37% of the variation of fatality rate can be attributed (linearly) to time, whereas for second pandemic wave the coefficient of determination is rather low. The coefficient of regression of the model of admission to ICUs (dependent variable) indicates not significant results in the first wave, whereas in the second wave an increase of 1 day, it decreases the expected admission to ICUs by .003 (p-value = .001). Finally, the coefficient of regression using confirmed cases as dependent variable indicates that in the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, an increase of 1 day, it reduces the confirmed cases by about .037 (p-value = .001), whereas for the second waves of COVID-19 pandemic, it increases by .032 (p-value = .001). In the last models for first and second wave of COVID-19 pandemic, R2 coefficient indicates that more than 76% of the variation of confirmed cases can be attributed (linearly) to time.

View this table:
Table 4.

Estimated relationships, based on linear model of regression

General observation of regression analysis is that the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic after national containment measures and the evolution towards summer season has a tendency to reduce fatality rates and confirmed cases, whereas during the first 105 days the second wave of COVID-19 has a low increase of fatality rate and confirmed cases but a moderate reduction of admission of patients to ICUs likely also for the evolution towards autumn-winter season when climate conditions can affect the COVID-19.

  • □ Analysis within the first and second wave of COVID-19 pandemic

In order to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic over time in society, variables under study are represented simultaneously in the same graph for 105 observations from starting day of the pandemic wave. Figure 4 shows that the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic from February 2020 has a declining trends of confirmed cases, the admission to ICUs has a high level rather stable, whereas the fatality rates after a decline in the first 30 days of the pandemic, in March or thereabout it becomes stable over time.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Effects of the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic on public health in Italy, first 105 days from February 2020

Figure 5 shows trends for second wave of COVID-19 from August 2020 to November 2020: admissions to ICUs are rather stable and with a level lower than first wave, whereas trend of confirmed case has a consistent grow, finally trend of fatality rates seems to have a stability in this period of autumn season.

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Effects of the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic on public health in Italy, first 105 days from August 2020

These results suggest that in general the first wave has had a stronger impact on public health, reduced with the approaching of summer season and national containment measures. Instead, the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic has a dynamic still in evolution that seems also to be related to climate and seasonality that may increase the impact on public health in autumn-winter season 2020-2021 like all influenza diseases, though with a lower intensity compared to the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic.

LESSONS LEARNED

What this study adds to current studies on the COVID-19 global pandemic crisis is that an accurate comparison of the first and second wave of COVID-19 pandemic suggests that the first one seems to have had a stronger impact on public health, until now. In addition, government responses in the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, based on national lockdown and quarantine, seem to have lightly constrained the diffusion of COVID-19, also helped with the approaching of summer season 2020 (cf., Coccia, 2020d, 2020f; Tobías, 2020). In general, the COVID-19 pandemic tends to have natural dynamics and seasonality that policy responses of nations seem to mitigate but without generate a significant reduction of infected cases and fatality rates (Coccia, 2020f). In fact, countries with the on-going COVID-19 pandemic have showed an uncertain governance and an unrealistic optimism about their low vulnerability that a second wave of this pandemic cannot hit them (cf., Weinstein, 1987). Although the severe impact on public health of the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, many countries have shown still a low capability of national planning for crisis management adopting ambiguous, delayed and uncertain policy responses in the presence of recurring waves of COVID-19 pandemic crisis. In general, it seems that countries have not used in comprehensive way the process of institutional learning of the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic for supporting effective and timely critical decisions to cope with similar problematic situations generated by second pandemic wave on public health (cf., Coccia, 2018, 2019, 2020; 2020e).

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

The study here sought to understand different impact on public health of the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, analyzing a case study in Italy.

The results of analysis are:

  • □ First wave of COVID-19 pandemic showed an average fatality rate of 24%, whereas second wave of COVID-19 indicates an average fatality rate of about 1.9%.

  • □ Average admission to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) was an 87.7% in the first wave and is about 13% in the second one.

  • □ Average confirmed cases was about 9% in the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 and is about 5% in the second one.

  • □ However, confirmed cases are growing for second pandemic wave, whereas the first one had a declining trend also because of national containment measure and the progression of COVID-19 pandemic towards summer season.

  • □ Analysis of relationships between variables shows a high impact on public health of the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic that reduces intensity over time, whereas second wave of COVID-19 pandemic has until now a lower impact on public health but evolutionary dynamics seems to increase the intensity with the progression in the direction of winter season.

The positive side of this study is that considers a large European country, Italy, that was the first country in western world to experience a rapid increase in confirmed cases and deaths; subsequently, many countries have had a similar impact on public health of COVID-19 pandemic crisis. However, these results are based on a case study and future studies, to be reinforced in terms of generalization of suggested findings, have to enlarge the sample considering other European countries to maintain a comparable framework for statistical analyses. Hence, these conclusions are of course tentative because in the presence of the second and future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic manifold socioeconomic and environmental factors play a critical role (Coccia, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2020d). There is need for much more detailed research on how COVID-19 pandemic and similar epidemics evolve in different economic, social, environmental and institutional contexts and especially in a specific period of time of a given geographical area (Coccia, 2020e). Overall, then, the investigation and explanation of the effects of pandemic waves on public health and economy are important, very important in order to design effective containment measures, apply new technologies and support R&D investments for public research directed to minimize the impact of future COVID-19 outbreaks and other epidemics similar to the COVID-19 in society, as well as interventions for not deteriorating structural indicators of the economic system of nations1.

To conclude, although vital results of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic from February to August 2020, policymakers have had an unrealistic optimist behavior that a new wave of COVID-19, started in September 2020, could not hit their countries and, especially, a low organizational capacity to plan effective policy responses to cope with recurring COVID-19 pandemic crisis (cf., Coccia, 2020f, 2020g). As a result, inappropriate and delayed policy responses associated with inefficient practices of crisis management to constrain impact of new wave of COVID-19 is again generating negative effects, déjà vu, on public health and of course economic systems.

Data Availability

data are on: Ministero della Salute 2020. Covid-19 - Situazione in Italia. http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/nuovocoronavirus/dettaglioContenutiNuovoCoronavirus.jsp?lingua=italiano&id=5351&area=nuovoCoronavirus&menu=vuoto

Declaration of competing interest

The author declares that he has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. No funding was received for this study.

Footnotes

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Atalan A. 2020. Is the lockdown important to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic? Effects on psychology, environment and economy-perspective. Annals of medicine and surgery 56, 38–42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.06.010
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    Bontempi E. 2020. The Europe second wave of COVID-19 infection and the Italy “strange” situation. Environmental Research. In press
  3. ↵
    Cacciapaglia G., Cot C., Sannino F. 2020. Second wave COVID-19 pandemics in Europe: a temporal playbook, Scientific Reports, 10(1),15514, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72611-5
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    Chang S., Pierson E., Koh P.W. et al. 2020. Mobility network models of COVID-19 explain inequities and inform reopening. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2923-3
  5. ↵
    Chaudhry R., Dranitsaris G., Mubashir T., Bartoszko J., Riazi S. 2020. A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes. Eclinicalmedicine. 100464. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100464
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    Coccia M. 2016. The relation between price setting in markets and asymmetries of systems of measurement of goods, The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, vol. 14, part B, November, pp. 168–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeca.2016.06.001
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    Coccia M. 2017a. The Fishbone diagram to identify, systematize and analyze the sources of general purpose technologies. Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, vol. 4, n. 4, pp. 291–303, http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jsas.v4i4.1518
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    Coccia M. 2017b. Sources of disruptive technologies for industrial change. L’industria –rivista di economia e politica industriale, vol. 38, n. 1, pp. 97-120, ISSN: 0019-7416, DOI: 10.1430/87140
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    Coccia M. 2018. An introduction to the theories of institutional change, Journal of Economics Library, vol. 5, n. 4, pp. 337–344, http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jel.v5i4.1788, ISSN: 2149-2379
    OpenUrl
  10. Coccia M. 2018a. Theorem of not independence of any technological innovation, Journal of Economics Bibliography, vol. 5, n. 1, pp. 29–35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jeb.v5i1.1578
    OpenUrl
    11. Coccia M. 2019. Comparative Institutional Changes. A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1277-1
    1. Coccia M. 2019a. Why do nations produce science advances and new technology? Technology in society, vol. 59, November, 101124, pp. 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.03.007
      OpenUrl
    2. ↵
      Coccia M. 2020. Factors determining the diffusion of COVID-19 and suggested strategy to prevent future accelerated viral infectivity similar to COVID. Science of The Total Environment 729, 138474, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138474.
      OpenUrl
    3. ↵
      Coccia M. 2020a. An index to quantify environmental risk of exposure to future epidemics of the COVID-19 and similar viral agents: Theory and Practice. Environmental Research, volume 191, December, Article number 110155, PII S0013-9351(20)31052-5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110155
    4. ↵
      Coccia M. 2020b. The effects of atmospheric stability with low wind speed and of air pollution on the accelerated transmission dynamics of COVID-19. Journal: International Journal of Environmental Studies, Article ID: GENV 1802937, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2020.1802937
    5. ↵
      Coccia M. 2020c. How do low wind speeds and high levels of air pollution support the spread of COVID-19? Atmospheric Pollution Research, PII S1309-1042(20)30293-2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2020.10.002
    6. ↵
      Coccia M. 2020d. Effects of Air Pollution on COVID-19 and Public Health, Research Article-Environmental Economics-Environmental Policy, ResearchSquare. DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-41354/v1, https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-41354/v1
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    7. ↵
      Coccia M. 2020e. Two mechanisms for accelerated diffusion of COVID-19 outbreaks in regions with high intensity of population and polluting industrialization: the air pollution-to-human and human-to-human transmission dynamics. medRxiv, version 1, DOI: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20055657 PPR: PPR150169, Preprint v1 EMS89953. https://europepmc.org/article/PPR/PPR150169
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      Coccia M. 2020f. The impact of lockdown on public health during the first wave of covid-19 pandemic: lessons learned for designing effective containment measures to cope with second wave. CocciaLab Working Paper 2020 – No. 56b/2020 -- National Research Council of Italy. Available on medRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.22.20217695
    9. ↵
      1. Farazmand A.
      Coccia M. 2020g. Comparative Critical Decisions in Management. In: Farazmand A. (eds), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020, Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3969-1
    10. Coccia M. 2020h. Deep learning technology for improving cancer care in society: New directions in cancer imaging driven by artificial intelligence. Technology in Society, vol. 60, February, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101198
      OpenUrl
    11. ↵
      1. Ali Farazmand
      Coccia M., Benati I. 2018. Comparative Studies. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance –section Bureaucracy (edited by Ali Farazmand). Chapter No. 1197-1, pp. 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1197-1, Springer International Publishing AG, Cham.
    12. ↵
      Faes C., Abrams S., Van Beckhoven D., Meyfroidt G., Vlieghe E., Hens N., Belgian Collaborative Group on COVID-19 Hospital Surveillance. 2020. Time between Symptom Onset, Hospitalisation and Recovery or Death: Statistical Analysis of Belgian COVID-19 Patients. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17, 7560.
      OpenUrl
    13. ↵
      Forman R., Atun R., McKee M., Mossialos E. 2020. 12 Lessons learned from the management of the coronavirus pandemic. Health Policy. 24(6):577–580. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.05.008
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    14. ↵
      Gattinoni L. et al. 2020. Covid-19 Does not Lead to a ‘Typical’ Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/rccm.202003-0817LE
    15. ↵
      Gatto M., Bertuzzo E., Mari L., Miccoli S., Carraro L., Casagrandi R., Rinaldo A. 2020. Spread and dynamics of the COVID-19 epidemic in Italy: effects of emergency containment measures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 117 (19), 10484–10491. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004978117, 2020
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      Glass D.H. 2020 European and US lockdowns and second waves during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mathematical Biosciences, 330,108472, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2020.108472
      OpenUrl
    17. ↵
      Governo Italiano, 2020. #IoRestoaCasa, misure per il contenimento e gestione dell’emergenza epidemiologica. http://www.governo.it/it/iorestoacasa-misure-governo (accessed 29 July 2020)
    18. Islam N., Sharp S. J, Chowell G., Shabnam S., Kawachi I., Lacey B. et al. 2020. Physical distancing interventions and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019: natural experiment in 149 countries. BMJ 2020; 370: m2743
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      LabCorp 2020. Individuals/ Patients, Getting COVID-19 Test Results-How to Get My COVID-19 Test Result. https://www.labcorp.com/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/individuals/test-results (accessed in October 2020)
    20. ↵
    21. ↵
      Petherick A., Kira B., Hale T., Phillips T., Webster S., Cameron-Blake E., Hallas L., Majumdar S., Tatlow H. 2020. Variation in government responses to COVID-19. Blavatnik School working paper, BSG-WP-2020/032, version 7
    22. ↵
      Prem K., Liu Y., Russell T. W., Kucharski A.J., Eggo R. M., Davies N. et al., 2020. The effect of control strategies to reduce social mixing on outcomes of the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan, China: a modelling study, The Lancet Public Health, March 25, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30073-6
    23. ↵
      Renardy M., Eisenberg M., Kirschner D. 2020. Predicting the second wave of COVID-19 in Washtenaw County, MI, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 507, 21 December 2020, Article number 110461, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2020.110461
    24. ↵
      Rosario Denes K.A., Mutz Yhan S., Bernardes Patricia C., Conte-Junior Carlos A., 2020. Relationship between COVID-19 and weather: Case study in a tropical country. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 229, 113587
      OpenUrl
    25. ↵
      Sterpetti A.V. 2020. Lessons Learned During the COVID-19 Virus Pandemic. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.03.018
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    26. ↵
      Tobías A. 2020. Evaluation of the lockdowns for the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Italy and Spain after one month follow up. Sci Total Environ. 725:138539. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138539.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      van Weert H. 2020. After the first wave: What effects did the COVID-19 measures have on regular care and how can general practitioners respond to this?(Editorial), European Journal of General Practice, Volume 26, Issue 1, 16 December 2020, Pages 126–128, https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2020.1798156
      OpenUrl
    28. ↵
      Weinstein N.D. 1987. Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: conclusions from a community-wide sample. J Behav Med.10(5):481–500.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      Zhang B, Zhou X, Qiu Y, Song Y, Feng F, Feng J, et al. 2020. Clinical characteristics of 82 cases of death from COVID-19. PLoS ONE 15(7): e0235458. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235458
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    Back to top
    Posted November 18, 2020.
    Download PDF
    Data/Code
    Email
    HOW IS THE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH OF SECOND WAVE OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC COMPARED TO THE FIRST WAVE? CASE STUDY OF ITALY
    Mario Coccia
    medRxiv 2020.11.16.20232389; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.16.20232389
    Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
    Citation Tools

    Subject Area