Lessons from Italy’s Response to #Coronavirus
▻https://hbr.org/2020/03/lessons-from-italys-response-to-coronavirus
Les auteurs expliquent pourquoi la Lombardie (35.000 cas de #COVID-19 avec 5.000 décès pour 10 millions d’habitants) et la Vénétie (7.000 cas, 287 décès pour une population de 5 millions), de niveau socio-économique comparable, ont eu des résultats très différents (chiffres jusqu’au 26/3) ;
... it’s becoming increasingly apparent that different public health choices made early in the cycle of the pandemic also had an impact.
Specifically, while Lombardy and Veneto applied similar approaches to social distancing and retail closures, Veneto took a much more proactive tack towards the containment of the virus. Veneto’s strategy was multi-pronged:
– Extensive testing of symptomatic and asymptomatic cases early on.
– Proactive tracing of potential positives. If someone tested positive, everyone in that patient’s home as well as their neighbors were tested. If testing kits were unavailable, they were self-quarantined.
– A strong emphasis on home diagnosis and care. Whenever possible, samples were collected directly from a patient’s home and then processed in regional and local university labs.
– Specific efforts to monitor and protect health care and other essential workers. They included medical professionals, those in contact with at-risk populations (e.g., caregivers in nursing homes), and workers exposed to the public (e.g., supermarket cashiers, pharmacists, and protective services staff).
Following the guidance from public health authorities in the central government, Lombardy opted instead for a more conservative approach to testing. On a per capita basis, it has so far conducted half of the tests conducted in Veneto and had a much stronger focus only on symptomatic cases — and has so far made limited investments in proactive tracing, home care and monitoring, and protection of health care workers.