The COVID-19 outbreak is ongoing in China. Here, Boltzmann function-based analyses reveal the potential total numbers of COVID-19 deaths: 3,260 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3187–3394) in China; 110 (95% CI, 109–112) in Hubei Province; 3,174 (95% CI, 3095–3270) outside Hubei; 2,550 (95% CI, 2494–2621) in Wuhan City; and 617 (95% CI, 607–632) outside Wuhan.

Italy is fighting against one of the worst medical emergency since the 1918 Spanish Flu. Pressure on the hospitals is tremendous. As for official data on March 14th: 8372 admitted in hospitals, 1518 in intensive care units, 1441 deaths (175 more than the day before). Unfortunately, hospitals are not prepared: even where a plan for massive influx of patients is present, it usually focuses on sudden onset disaster trauma victims (the most probable case scenario), and it has not been tested, validated, or propagated to the staff. Despite this, the All Hazards Approach for management of major incidents and disasters is still valid and the “4S” theory (staff, stuff, structure, systems) for surge capacity can be guidance to respond to this disaster.

During the current COVID-19 disease emergency, it is not only an ethical imperative but also a public health responsibility to keep the network of community psychiatry services operational, particularly for the most vulnerable subjects (those with mental illness, disability, and chronic conditions). At the same time, it is necessary to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 disease within the outpatient and inpatient services affiliated with Mental Health Departments. These instructions, first published online on 16 March 2020 in their original Italian version, provide a detailed description of actions, proposed by the Italian Society of Epidemiological Psychiatry, addressed to Italian Mental Health Departments during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The overall goal of the operational instructions is to guarantee, during the current health emergency, the provision of the best health care possible, taking into account both public health necessities and the safety of procedures. These instructions could represent a useful resource to mental health providers, and stakeholders to face the current pandemic for which most of Mental Health Departments worldwide are not prepared to. These instructions could provide guidance and offer practical tools which can enable professionals and decision makers to foresee challenges, like those already experienced in Italy, which in part can be avoided or minimised if timely planned. These strategies can be shared and adopted, with the appropriate adjustments, by Mental Health Departments in other countries.

On December 31, 2019 the China National Health Commission (NHC) reported that an unknown cause of pneumonia had been detected in Wuhan in Hubei province. On February 12, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) was given a formal name, COVID-19. On January 20, 2020, the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed in Korea. The age-specific death rate was the highest among patients over 70 years of age, with underlying diseases in their circulatory system, such as myocardial infarction, cerebral infraction, arrythmia, and hypertension. Patients with underlying disease who are 70 years of age or older should recognize that there is a high possibility of developing a serious disease in case of viral infection and follow strict precautions.

A previously healthy 42-year-old male developed a fever and cough shortly after returning to Canada from overseas. Initially, he had mild upper respiratory tract infection symptoms and a cough. He was aware of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and the advisory to self-isolate and did so; however, he developed increasing respiratory distress over several days and called 911. On arrival at the emergency department (ED), his heart rate was 130 beats/min, respiratory rate 32 per/min, and oxygenation saturation 82% on room air. As per emergency medical services (EMS) protocol, they placed him on nasal prongs under a surgical mask at 5 L/min and his oxygen saturation improved to 86%.

The outbreak of a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, is challenging international public health and health care efforts. As hospitals work to acquire enough personal protective equipment and brace for potential cases, the role of infection prevention efforts and programs has become increasingly important. Lessons from the 2003 SARS-CoV outbreak in Toronto and 2015 MERS-CoV outbreak in South Korea have unveiled the critical role that hospitals play in outbreaks, especially of novel coronaviruses. Their ability to amplify the spread of disease can rapidly fuel transmission of the disease, and often those failures in infection prevention and general hospital practices contribute to such events. While efforts to enhance infection prevention measures and hospital readiness are underway in the United States, it is important to understand why these programs were not able to maintain continued, sustainable levels of readiness. History has shown that infection prevention programs are primarily responsible for preparing hospitals and responding to biological events but face understaffing and focused efforts defined by administrators. The current US health care system, though, is built upon a series of priorities that often view biopreparedness as a costly endeavor. Awareness of these competing priorities and the challenges that infection prevention programs face when working to maintain biopreparedness is critical in adequately addressing this critical infrastructure in the face of an international outbreak.

Multiple professional societies, nongovernment and government agencies have studied the science of sudden onset disaster mass casualty incidents to create and promote surge response guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented the health-care system with challenges that have limited science to guide the staff, stuff, and structure surge response.

This study reviewed the available surge science literature specifically to guide an emergency department’s surge structural response using a translational science approach to answer the question: How does the concept of sudden onset mass casualty incident surge capability apply to the process to expand COVID-19 pandemic surge structure response?

The available surge structural science literature was reviewed to determine the application to a pandemic response. The on-line ahead of print and print COVID-19 scientific publications, as well as gray literature were studied to learn the best available COVID-19 surge structural response science. A checklist was created to guide the emergency department team’s COVID-19 surge structural response.