Preprint Hypothesis Version 2 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

How Risky if China Moves Away from Its Zero-COVID Policy?

Version 1 : Received: 20 April 2022 / Approved: 20 April 2022 / Online: 20 April 2022 (08:24:20 CEST)
Version 2 : Received: 23 April 2022 / Approved: 25 April 2022 / Online: 25 April 2022 (03:30:28 CEST)
Version 3 : Received: 5 May 2022 / Approved: 6 May 2022 / Online: 6 May 2022 (03:38:30 CEST)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Journal reference: Journal of Medical Virology 2022, 94
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.27949

Abstract

We found four striking differences in the COVID-19 case fatality rate (CFR). All of these striking differences suggest that, besides vaccination, good isolation of cases, disinfection of their living environments, and maintenance treatment (IDM) are highly effective is in mitigating COVID-19. This suggestion is crucial to the global control of the pandemic and consistent with the theoretical functions of IDM in minimizing co-infections with various other pathogens and maintaining human body functions. Accordingly, the risk for China to move away from its zero-COVID policy shall depend on China’s control measures. The CFR of COVID-19 in China can remain less than one tenth of that of influenza, namely that COVID-19 can remain “tiny influenza” in China, if the IDM measures are well implemented (e.g., staying at well-disinfected home with good rest for vast mild cases). Otherwise, the CFR of COVID-19 in China can be several times higher than that of influenza, namely that COVID-19 can be “giant influenza” in China. This analysis also clarifies that the COVID-19 CFR shall increase greatly if many asymptomatic or mild COVD cases are isolated together at temporary hospitals.

Keywords

COVID-19; case fatality rate; risk; co-infection; control; policy; pandemic

Subject

MEDICINE & PHARMACOLOGY, General Medical Research

Comments (1)

Comment 1
Received: 25 April 2022
Commenter: Ji-Ming Chen
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: Author
Comment: Compared with version 1,  this new version shares the same first affiliation (a company).  I did submit a version using a university as the first affiliation, but this submission was withdrawn before version 1 and has never been published. This new version keeps the same conclusions, but Table 2 was revised and the data of Shanghai was revised from a ratio to the CFR with different data. All data and sentences were proofed throughout. I will not submit any new version for this manuscript which has been under review in a leading journal for weeks. Please publish this version as a new version, rather than replacing version 1 (the first affiliation of these two versions is the same company).
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 1
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.

We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.