{"articleList":{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["state",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["isLoading",false]]}],["edges",null],["firstCursor",null],["lastCursor",null],["totalCount",null],["authFields",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[]}],["stats",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["repliedCount",0],["notRepliedCount",0]]}]]},"replyList":{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["state",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["isLoading",true]]}],["edges",null],["firstCursor",null],["lastCursor",null],["totalCount",null]]},"articleDetail":{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["state",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["isLoading",false],["isAuthLoading",false],["isReplyLoading",false]]}],["data",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["article",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["replyCount",0],["references",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["type","LINE"]]}]}],["replyRequestCount",2],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","j4S8C_z2HRKwllOz3z95zOHdiR5lieisl8qJXGtVfAnTonkjo"],["name","深沉的南港渥茲華斯"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",0]]}],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Community Law Firm Singapore - Shengkai International Law Firm"],["url","https://n4v9g.com/"],["summary","Shengkai International Law Firm is Singapore’s largest community law firm providing legal services for a range of issues such as medical negligence and personal injury."],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]}]}],["text","https://n4v9g.com/"],["replyRequests",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","ywtp82442u27__j4S8C_z2HRKwllOz3z95zOHdiR5lieisl8qJXGtVfAnTonkjo__RUMORS_LINE_BOT"],["reason",""],["positiveFeedbackCount",0],["negativeFeedbackCount",0]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","ywtp82442u27__j4S8C_TztYbfWdLLxlHZHPRXILNdEAIBi_mHwakgWAZHR913s__RUMORS_LINE_BOT"],["reason",""],["positiveFeedbackCount",0],["negativeFeedbackCount",0]]}]}],["id","ywtp82442u27"],["createdAt","2024-04-25T07:27:17.868Z"]]}],["replyConnections",{"__iterable":"List","data":[]}],["relatedArticles",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["replyCount",1],["references",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["type","LINE"]]}]}],["replyRequestCount",3],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","j4S8C_AJ6U4iWQ-mkeN6adxiC5zos371FWfPOyvywoJP-NCoA"],["name","生動的秀林普魯登斯♡"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",0]]}],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Mingwel International Law\nMingwei International Law Firm\n( 銘威國際律師事務所)\n案情訊息庫備案登記表\n備案受理律師:武博裕\n日期:2024年⋯⋯ | Cofacts 真的假的"],["url","https://cofacts.tw/article/shBLdo4B0DEb0v6c39qL"],["summary","Mingwel International LawMingwei International Law Firm( 銘威國際律師事務所)案情訊息庫備案登記表備案受理律師:武博裕日期:2024年03月25日姓名陳欣宜性別女出生年月民國87年06月16日年齡26歲職業自由業電話號碼0917235458受損總額89,128-NTD現居住地址平台名稱無(抽獎活動帳號)被騙類型高雄市前鎮區民壽街20巷14號IG抽獎、line通話指示轉帳https://www.instagram.com/conghinglo?i涉案網址是否報案處理否口gsh=MWJmM2Q5d2JhbjBibA==涉案收款地址/戶名涉案收款銀行帳戶017-02310276519013-699508041245轉帳人本人轉帳本人轉帳006-0290872132871004-0243004376775本人轉帳本人轉帳詳情說明備註事情經過:民國113年03月18日受害人陳欣宜透過網路社交軟體(IG)接到歹徒訊息,對方誆稱受害人中獎,購買商品滿4000元即可折現抽獎,但要先付款並慫恿受害人透過網銀轉帳等方式轉至其提供的指定收款帳戶,匯款後對方設局稱需要再支付2萬元訂金分享他們的頁面後才可取回,匯款後對方誆稱已轉入88000元至受害人台灣企銀帳戶但實際查詢沒有入款,隨後又宣稱郵局帳戶財力存款不足無法入款,需要匯款提供財力證明受害人才驚覺被騙,受害人前後共計損失資金89,128-NTD。相關的轉帳記錄憑證都以附件形式傳給武博裕律師立案偵查,現特向貴機構申請法律援助。受害人提供的相關涉案圖片以附件形式存檔,僅供追損調查使用,本律師事務所承諾會對資料進行嚴格保密。本人承諾保證所填寫資料真實,如有發現所填資料存在虚假情况,本律師事務所有權對本人單方面解除受理合約,並不做任何賠償及補償。特別提醒受理單位:銘威國際律師事務所總部地址:Raffles Place, Tower 2#19-0004861威國際律師Law- Mingwe近 31 日網頁瀏覽 16 次Line 詢問 1 次0102005102/283/23/53/83/113/143/173/203/233/263/29"],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]}]}],["text","請幫我看看這是真的還是假的：https://cofacts.tw/article/shBLdo4B0DEb0v6c39qL"],["id","1bzvosu45yrga"],["createdAt","2024-03-29T04:27:32.604Z"]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["replyCount",1],["references",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["type","LINE"]]}]}],["replyRequestCount",2],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","j4S8C_6ti2S8zIk-MdwJ-eR5TtZ4T41X2BcokPgN4RATm3k58"],["name","乂禮貌的三芝希伯來乂"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",0]]}],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","7 Reasons why Taiwan is the best LGBT de... | Taiwan News"],["url","https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3492498"],["summary","The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) bullyboy tactics have been having a good week. Not only have US Airlines caved into CCP demands over the use of the name Taiwan, but the East Asian Olympic Committee (EAOC) has gone so far as to remove Taichung as host of the 2019 East Asian Youth Games (EAYG) under pressure from Beijing. But perhaps the most surprising move has been the CCP’s targeting of the 2018 Gay Games in Paris. \n\nThere is a 25-strong team of athletes from Taiwan slated to attend this event for LGBT sports stars and the Federation of Gay Games (FGG) had agreed that they would compete under the name Taiwan and the Taiwanese flag. But it seems they are now going back on this agreement after being put under pressure from the CCP, despite that fact that the Communist regime there has a long track record of stoking homophobia and undermining gay rights across the country. \n\nIn contrast, there are a whole host of reasons why Taiwan is widely seen as the most LGBT-friendly destination in Asia. Quite why the FGG would choose to side with the CCP over a free Taiwan is unclear. But just to jog their memories, here is a quick rundown of 7 reasons why Taiwan is the most LGBT-friendly country in the region. If you think we have missed anything out, please share them with us on our Facebook or Twitter pages:\n\n1. First Asian country to approve same-sex marriage\n\n\n\nImage Credit: Wikimedia\n\nIn May last year, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court ruled that barring gay couples from marriage violated “the people’s freedom of marriage” and “the people’s right to equality”. This ruling paved the way for Taiwan to become the first country in Asia to introduce legislation to permit same sex marriage. The legislation process to enshrine this in law has been slow since then, but with most Taiwanese people supporting the move, and opposition coming primarily from US-based Christian organizations, it shouldn’t be too long before Taiwan passes this landmark law. \n\n2. Home to the largest Gay Pride celebration in Asia\n\n\n\nImage Credit: Taiwan News reporter Sophia Yang\n\nThere has been a Gay Pride event in Taipei since 2003 and with more than 80,000 people taking part in the most recent event, it is officially the biggest in Asia. Taking place over 4 days, with the main parade always being held on the last Saturday in October, the weekend is packed full of events, parties, and fun. The parade itself begins in Ketagalan Boulevard, outside the Presidential Palace before following a two-hour route through the city center. Other Pride events have also taken place in Kaohsiung and Taichung. \n\n3. Great LGBT Movie culture\n\n\n\nImage Credit: www.alchetron.com\n\nTaiwan has a long and rich culture of making LGBT-themed movies. Taiwanese Director Ang Lee is well known for directing Brokeback Mountain, but that was not his first movie with LGBT themes. Back in 1993, he made The Wedding Banquet about a gay Chinese man who stages a sham marriage to please his parents. In 1997, The River by art-house director Tsai Ming-liang told the tale of a Taiwanese patriarch who secretly frequented gay saunas, while the hugely successful 2002 film Blue Gate Crossing is about an innocent love triangle complicated by ambiguous sexual orientations. The 2006 film Eternal Summer also featured a similar love triangle, while in 2015, the multiple award winning Thanatos, Drunk, told the tale of a young Taipei man, his gay brother and their sexually ambiguous gigolo friend. Taiwan also hosts an annual renowned LGBT Film Festival, the Taiwan International Queer Film Festival.\n\n4. Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association - 台灣同志諮詢熱線協會\n\n\n\nImage Credit: Wikimedia\n\nThese days there are no shortage of LGBT advocacy groups in Taiwan, but none have had such a profound influence on promoting LGBT rights and improving the lot of Taiwan’s LGBT Community than the Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association. The association was founded in 1998 and has been providing support for the Taiwanese LGBT community for twenty years. It also provides gender and sexual orientation counselling, publications, and education. It also has campaigned vociferously and effectively for equal rights in Taiwan. But perhaps the single most important service they offer is family consultations to help older and more traditional Taiwanese generations understand the LGBT community and deal with the news that a family member is LGBT.\n\n5. A bustling LGBT scene\n\n\n\nImage Credit: www.thegaypassport.com\n\nMost Taiwanese cities boast LGBT-friendly bars and nightclubs, but as you would expect it is in Taipei where the biggest gay scene can be found. This scene is centered largely around the Red House, a western style red-brick octagonal building, which is also a class III historical site. Situated in Ximending, the Red House is a cultural hub which houses more than 25 LGBT bars, restaurants and nightclubs. Whether you are looking for a quiet meal, some karaoke, or something more vibrant, the Red House has it all. \n\n6. The first Chinese language LGBT bookstore\n\n\n\nImage credit: Flickr User - Back to Nothing\n\nAs well as a thriving gay scene, Taipei is also home to the first ever LGBT bookstore in the Chinese-speaking world. Gin Gin Books (晶晶書庫), which is situated in Da’an district, carries a huge range of LGBT books, magazines, DVDs, and merchandise. It also hosts regular exhibitions and community events on various LGBT-related themes. The store has also played a role in promoting LGBT rights both locally and across Taiwan and is a regular haunt for many of Taiwan’s LGBT community. \n\n7. Thriving LGBT nightlife\n\n\n\nImage Credit: Pixabay\n\nIf you are looking to party in a proper gay club, Taipei has the place for you too. There are no shortage of gay clubs around the city, but the most famous is probably G*star Club. The club boasts a light-up dancefloor and plays host to regular stream of the best DJs in Taiwan. For gay men in Taipei, it is probably the must-visit nightclub. For lesbians, that accolade probably goes to Taboo. Taboo offers live music some nights and a fairly small dancefloor, but later in the evening and at weekends it is packed with revelers enjoying the wide range of music that is played."],["topImageUrl","https://tnimage.taiwannews.com.tw/photos/shares/5b59f638ee06c.jpg"],["error",null]]}]}],["text","官方媒體竟然向國外宣傳臺灣是性解放天堂\nhttps://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3492498\n新聞列舉七個《天堂》理由 :\n\n亞洲第ㄧ個同意同性婚姻的《國家》\n亞洲最大性解放遊行所在\n高度性解放電影文化\n有性解放熱線協會\n性解放認知快速傳播中\n成立第ㄧ家性解放中文書店\n豐富的性解放夜生活\n 註 : \n1 , 還有免費愛滋醫療。\n2 , 將LGBT譯為性解放是就臺灣情況的內容而言的。"],["id","1rundd3splanf"],["createdAt","2018-08-04T04:37:37.008Z"]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["replyCount",1],["references",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["type","LINE"]]}]}],["replyRequestCount",2],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","j4S8C_srUvTD2tm44GicAp_KzCgtkqY4QZqRlZoB75flP-5Ig"],["name","體貼的長濱魯賓"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",0]]}],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Learning to appreciate a modern miracle - Tai... | Taiwan News"],["url","https://pse.is/E7W8H"],["summary","It is not surprising that many, perhaps most, people around the world do not know about Taiwan. After all, China -- with the support of more and more countries -- has isolated Taiwan diplomatically for more than forty years, and recently China has been campaigning to eliminate even the name of Taiwan as a global destination. Following the demise of Mao Zedong, China increasingly prospered and attracted business people, tourists, and students from around the world, who too often have bypassed Taiwan. Once, for example, almost everyone wishing to learn Mandarin came to Taiwan, but most now go to China.\n\nWhat is more surprising, however, is that many Taiwanese themselves do not sufficiently appreciate their own country. Taiwanese often ask me with a puzzled look, why I live in Taiwan. Over time, I have come to believe this reflects both a native modesty, but also perhaps a misperception of Taiwan’s place in the world, a lack of knowledge of the extraordinary accomplishments of their own country, and to some extent therefore a lack of confidence in Taiwan. Such attitudes need to change.\n\nTAIWAN IS A MIDDLE POWER\n\nAs Professor Bruce Jacobs, the leading Australian expert on Taiwan, first argued, Taiwan is a “Middle Power” in the world. As a country with some 23.5 million people, Taiwan has in fact more people than 77% of the world’s countries and territories, according to the CIA’s World Factbook (WF). Although Taiwan’s land area is relatively small, it is still larger than 46% of the world’s nations and territories.\n\nTaiwan’s economic strength also ranks it as a “Middle Power.” Although under the influence of China, the World Bank states “Taiwan, China, is not listed as a separate country for World Development Indicators,” we know from other sources that, according to 2017 estimates, Taiwan ranked 22nd in the world in total GDP in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms. In per capita GDP (PPP) – which many economists regard as a better measure of an economy’s strength -- Taiwan ranked 28th in the world, better than Australia (29), Canada (34), the UK (39), France (40), Japan (42), South Korea (46), Israel (55), and China (105) (WF).\n\nTAIWAN’S GREAT ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS SUCCESS\n\nTaiwan’s other economic rankings are equally, if not more impressive. As of October 2018, Taiwan was the 11th largest U.S. trading partner (U.S. Census Bureau). In the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom for 2019, Taiwan ranked 10th out of 186 countries, ahead of Germany (25), South Korea (27) Japan (30), Israel (31), France (71), and China (110). In the Global Economic Forum Competitiveness Report for 2018-19, Taiwan ranked 13th, ahead of Australia (14), South Korea (15), France (17), Israel (20), and China (28). In the World Bank’s 2019 “Ease of Doing Business” rankings, “Taipei, China” earned 13th place, ahead of Australia (18), Canada (22), Germany (24), France (32), Netherlands (36), Japan (39), and China (46).\n\nAlthough Taiwanese often complain about their country’s wealth gap, Taiwan’s GINI Index (which measures the gap between the rich and the poor) indicates it actually ranks in the top third of countries with the smallest gaps. Out of 156 countries and territories ranked in the WF, Lesotho and South Africa are in 1st and 2nd place respectively with the greatest gaps, but other places not doing well either are Hong Kong (9), China (31), Malaysia (32), Singapore (38), and the U.S. (41). Taiwan, however, ranks in 112th place.\n\nTAIWAN IS ALSO A LEADER IN TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION\n\nThe U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) reports that Taiwan ranked 5th in the world in 2015 and 2016 and 6th in the world in 2017 and 2018 in the number of patents granted by the USPTO. Only the U.S., Japan, South Korea, and Germany, and more recently China, surpassed Taiwan. This is all the more remarkable considering Taiwan’s much smaller population.\n\nTaiwan is also a world leader in new technologies like nanotechnology. It ranked 4th in 2016 and in 5th in the world in 2017 (the last year for which statistics have been published) in USPTO nanotechnology patents. According to Taiwan Today on February 16, 2019, Taiwan maintained its global lead in integrated circuit 200mm-equivalent wafer fab capacity for the 4th consecutive year. Based on a report by the semiconductor research firm IC Insights Inc., as of December 2018, Taiwan enjoyed a global share of 21.8%, ahead of South Korea (21.3%), Japan (16.8%), North America (12.8%), and China (12.5%).\n\nTaipei itself ranked 1st in Asia and 5th among the world’s most technologically advanced 85 cities, according to a study commissioned by Business Insider published on Aug. 8, 2017 based on such factors as the number of patents filed per capita, number of startups, and the level of smartphone use. Taipei, the only Asian city in the top 5, led other cities in industrial design, hardware, the number of headquarters of some of the largest PC companies, and the number of venture capitalists.\n\nAside from its many excellent universities, Taiwan has also scored 4th is the world in science and math in the influential “Program for International Student Assessment” test rankings in 2015. The exams, run by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, are given every three years to 15-year-olds in more than 70 countries.\n\nFREE, DEMOCRATIC, AND HAPPY….\n\nEconomic and technological achievements are not, however, the only reasons why Taiwan is such a great success and such a great place to live. Taiwan is also a vibrant democracy, where freedom, rule of law, and human rights are all fostered and protected. This is something which the U.S. officials who negotiated establishing relations with the PRC never foresaw. In fact, while the seeds of democracy were always here, Taiwan’s transition to democracy really only took 10 years -- from 1986 to 1996 -- an amazingly quick transition. It is hardly surprising therefore that since 1996 Taiwan’s democracy has only grown stronger. In Freedom House’s 2018 survey of global freedom, Taiwan ranked tied for 8th place in freedom out of 210 countries in the world. Embarrassingly enough, the United States only ranked tied for 15th place. Taiwan’s aggregate freedom score was 93 out of 100; the U.S. 86; Hong Kong 59; and the PRC 14.\n\nFreedom indeed plays a key role in the quality of life in Taiwan. In the annual, originally UN-initiated World Happiness Report for 2018, Taiwan ranked 1st in Asia in “happiness,” ahead of Singapore (34), Japan (54), South Korea (57), Hong Kong (76), and China (86), and ranked 26th in the world overall among 156 countries and territories. The six key variables on which the rankings are based are those found to support a sense of well-being: freedom to make life choices, per capita income, social support (caring and having someone to count on in times of trouble), healthy life expectancy at birth, generosity, and perceptions of corruption (which indicates good governance, honesty and trust).\n\nAND VERY FRIENDLY\n\nWhile Taiwanese generally appreciate the benefits their country affords them -- whether virtually free health care, free or very inexpensive education, convenient transportation, accessible cities, excellent restaurants, wonderful cultural opportunities, and great scenery -- they don’t always appreciate how attractive life in Taiwan also is to foreigners. But there is considerable evidence that foreigners really like Taiwan as well.\n\nAmong all the countries in the world where expatriates live, Taiwan Ranked 1st in 2016, 4th in 2017, and 2nd in 2018 in the online “InterNations Expat Insider” survey of “Best Countries for Expats.” In 2018 Taipei also ranked 1st in the quality of urban living, and also scored in the top five for all indices in InterNations expat city ranking. The report highly praised Taipei, saying that no expats in the other ranked cities were as satisfied with the availability, affordability, and quality of medical care, as well as local transportation and personal safety. (Numbeo’s Crime Index for 2019, based on online surveys, similarly ranked Taiwan as the 4th safest country in the world, after Qatar, Japan and the United Arab Emirates.)\n\nThe InterNations survey also gave Taipei a 1st place ranking in 2018 for the general friendliness of the Taiwanese and their positive attitude toward foreign residents. An overwhelming 94% highly rated the general friendliness of locals in Taipei. Likewise, customers of Booking.com -- one of the largest e-commerce travel companies -- selected Taiwan as the 5th most friendly country in the world in 2018.\n\nAs the Taiwanese people consider the future of their country, it is necessary that they appreciate and value the extraordinary success they have already achieved.\n\nIt is also necessary that those who are too willing to dismiss Taiwan as a country worth helping to support and defend also understand Taiwan’s unique achievements.\n\n\n\nWilliam A. Stanton has served since 2017 at National Taiwan University (NTU) as a Professor at the Center for General Education and subsequently also as the Chief Advisor to NTU's International College Provisional Office. Dr. Stanton previously worked for four years as the founding Director of the Center for Asia Policy at National Tsing Hua University (NTHU). From October 2014 through January 2016, he was also NTHU's Senior Vice President for Global Affairs. Dr. Stanton previously served for 34 years as a U.S. diplomat. His final posting was as Director of the American Institute in Taiwan (2009-2012)."],["topImageUrl","https://tnimage.taiwannews.com.tw/photos/shares/5c6b9858ebfdb.jpg"],["error",null]]}]}],["text","美國在台協會前臺北辦事處處長司徒文投稿英文原文：Learning to appreciate a modern miracle - Taiwan: William Stanton\nhttps://pse.is/E7W8H\n(以下是中文節選翻譯)\n學會欣賞一個近代的奇蹟：台灣\n世界上大多數的人並不了解台灣。畢竟中國在許多國家的支持下，已孤立台灣四十多年了。更令人驚訝的是，許多台灣人也不了解自己的國家，台灣人常常疑惑地問我：「你怎會選擇來台灣？」漸漸的我了解這反應了台灣人的謙虛，以及對於台灣國際地位的誤解。台灣人並不太知道自己國家的非凡成就，也因而缺乏一些自信。但是，這種心態必須改變。\n就如澳洲之臺灣專家 Bruce Jacobs 所說的，台灣是中等強國，在國際上有一定的影響力。美國中情局的“世界現況”提及台灣的人口已超越世界上77%的國家，而土地面積也大於世界上46%的國家。台灣的經濟實力是屬中等強國的水準。而在技術創新方面，台灣是領導者，美國USPTO報導台灣的奈米技術專利在 2017年排全球第五名。此外，台灣的220 mm 晶圓製造能力則連續四年排名全球第一。台灣在購買力平價指數、經濟自由度、科技創新與所得分配平均度等，比起很多我們羨慕的歐、美、日、韓、以色列等國毫不遜色。\n台灣是一個熱愛民主、法制、人權的國家。在2018年Freedom House的各項評比之中，台灣在全球自由度排名第八、幸福度排名亞洲第一。 InterNations Expat Insider調查還顯示台北市排名世界第一，為最適合外國人居住的城市。\n當台灣人思考自己國家的未來時，他們必須學會欣賞並且重視台灣的非凡成就。而那些願意支持台灣的人也需要了解台灣的獨特成就。"],["id","2i2kv8vdtlis"],["createdAt","2019-10-19T05:25:41.993Z"]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["replyCount",1],["references",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["type","LINE"]]}]}],["replyRequestCount",2],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","j4S8C_YlgNaHHUAmuAJvBJ9fT06nPwQIphzAJEbrZaWWhlh_8"],["name","發起者的頭屋維拉"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",0]]}],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks"],["url","https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2?fbclid=IwAR3EzP6Xm2bXH4bDHx9i9oOYxqHIraWbuRbZcGzM6fmgQz7iIl7ufHrkN-A"],["summary","AbstractWe identified seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses in exhaled breath and coughs of children and adults with acute respiratory illness. Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.\n \n \n \n\n \n \n MainRespiratory virus infections cause a broad and overlapping spectrum of symptoms collectively referred to as acute respiratory virus illnesses (ARIs) or more commonly the ‘common cold’. Although mostly mild, these ARIs can sometimes cause severe disease and death1. These viruses spread between humans through direct or indirect contact, respiratory droplets (including larger droplets that fall rapidly near the source as well as coarse aerosols with aerodynamic diameter >5 µm) and fine-particle aerosols (droplets and droplet nuclei with aerodynamic diameter ≤5 µm)2,3. Although hand hygiene and use of face masks, primarily targeting contact and respiratory droplet transmission, have been suggested as important mitigation strategies against influenza virus transmission4, little is known about the relative importance of these modes in the transmission of other common respiratory viruses2,3,5. Uncertainties similarly apply to the modes of transmission of COVID-19 (refs. 6,7).Some health authorities recommend that masks be worn by ill individuals to prevent onward transmission (source control)4,8. Surgical face masks were originally introduced to protect patients from wound infection and contamination from surgeons (the wearer) during surgical procedures, and were later adopted to protect healthcare workers against acquiring infection from their patients. However, most of the existing evidence on the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro experiments with nonbiological particles9,10, which may not be generalizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets. There is little information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory viruses and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory infections8, and most research has focused on influenza11,12.Here we aimed to explore the importance of respiratory droplet and aerosol routes of transmission with a particular focus on coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses, by quantifying the amount of respiratory virus in exhaled breath of participants with medically attended ARIs and determining the potential efficacy of surgical face masks to prevent respiratory virus transmission.ResultsWe screened 3,363 individuals in two study phases, ultimately enrolling 246 individuals who provided exhaled breath samples (Extended Data Fig. 1). Among these 246 participants, 122 (50%) participants were randomized to not wearing a face mask during the first exhaled breath collection and 124 (50%) participants were randomized to wearing a face mask. Overall, 49 (20%) voluntarily provided a second exhaled breath collection of the alternate type.Infections by at least one respiratory virus were confirmed by reverse transcription PCR (RT–PCR) in 123 of 246 (50%) participants. Of these 123 participants, 111 (90%) were infected by human (seasonal) coronavirus (n = 17), influenza virus (n = 43) or rhinovirus (n = 54) (Extended Data Figs. 1 and 2), including one participant co-infected by both coronavirus and influenza virus and another two participants co-infected by both rhinovirus and influenza virus. These 111 participants were the focus of our analyses.There were some minor differences in characteristics of the 111 participants with the different viruses (Table 1a). Overall, 24% of participants had a measured fever ≥37.8 °C, with patients with influenza more than twice as likely than patients infected with coronavirus and rhinovirus to have a measured fever. Coronavirus-infected participants coughed the most with an average of 17 (s.d. = 30) coughs during the 30-min exhaled breath collection. The profiles of the participants randomized to with-mask versus without-mask groups were similar (Supplementary Table 1).Table 1a Characteristics of individuals with symptomatic coronavirus, influenza virus or rhinovirus infectionWe tested viral shedding (in terms of viral copies per sample) in nasal swabs, throat swabs, respiratory droplet samples and aerosol samples and compared the latter two between samples collected with or without a face mask (Fig. 1). On average, viral shedding was higher in nasal swabs than in throat swabs for each of coronavirus (median 8.1 log10 virus copies per sample versus 3.9), influenza virus (6.7 versus 4.0) and rhinovirus (6.8 versus 3.3), respectively. Viral RNA was identified from respiratory droplets and aerosols for all three viruses, including 30%, 26% and 28% of respiratory droplets and 40%, 35% and 56% of aerosols collected while not wearing a face mask, from coronavirus, influenza virus and rhinovirus-infected participants, respectively (Table 1b). In particular for coronavirus, we identified OC43 and HKU1 from both respiratory droplets and aerosols, but only identified NL63 from aerosols and not from respiratory droplets (Supplementary Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 3).Fig. 1: Efficacy of surgical face masks in reducing respiratory virus shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols of symptomatic individuals with coronavirus, influenza virus or rhinovirus infection.a–c, Virus copies per sample collected in nasal swab (red), throat swab (blue) and respiratory droplets collected for 30min while not wearing (dark green) or wearing (light green) a surgical face mask, and aerosols collected for 30min while not wearing (brown) or wearing (orange) a face mask, collected from individuals with acute respiratory symptoms who were positive for coronavirus (a), influenza virus (b) and rhinovirus (c), as determined by RT–PCR in any samples. P values for mask intervention as predictor of log10 virus copies per sample in an unadjusted univariate Tobit regression model which allowed for censoring at the lower limit of detection of the RT–PCR assay are shown, with significant differences in bold. For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (coronavirus, n=17; influenza virus, n=43; rhinovirus, n=54). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, numbers of infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing or wearing a surgical face mask, respectively were: coronavirus (n=10 and 11), influenza virus (n=23 and 28) and rhinovirus (n=36 and 32). A subset of participants provided exhaled breath samples for both mask interventions (coronavirus, n=4; influenza virus, n=8; rhinovirus, n=14). The box plots indicate the median with the interquartile range (lower and upper hinge) and ±1.5×interquartile range from the first and third quartile (lower and upper whiskers).Table 1b Efficacy of surgical face masks in reducing respiratory virus frequency of detection and viral shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols of symptomatic individuals with coronavirus, influenza virus or rhinovirus infectionWe detected coronavirus in respiratory droplets and aerosols in 3 of 10 (30%) and 4 of 10 (40%) of the samples collected without face masks, respectively, but did not detect any virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols collected from participants wearing face masks, this difference was significant in aerosols and showed a trend toward reduced detection in respiratory droplets (Table 1b). For influenza virus, we detected virus in 6 of 23 (26%) and 8 of 23 (35%) of the respiratory droplet and aerosol samples collected without face masks, respectively. There was a significant reduction by wearing face masks to 1 of 27 (4%) in detection of influenza virus in respiratory droplets, but no significant reduction in detection in aerosols (Table 1b). Moreover, among the eight participants who had influenza virus detected by RT–PCR from without-mask aerosols, five were tested by viral culture and four were culture-positive. Among the six participants who had influenza virus detected by RT–PCR from with-mask aerosols, four were tested by viral culture and two were culture-positive. For rhinovirus, there were no significant differences between detection of virus with or without face masks, both in respiratory droplets and in aerosols (Table 1b). Conclusions were similar in comparisons of viral shedding (Table 1b). In addition, we found a significant reduction in viral shedding (Supplementary Table 2) in respiratory droplets for OC43 (Extended Data Fig. 4) and influenza B virus (Extended Data Fig. 5) and in aerosols for NL63 (Extended Data Fig. 4).We identified correlations between viral loads in different samples (Extended Data Figs. 6–8) and some evidence of declines in viral shedding by time since onset for influenza virus but not for coronavirus or rhinovirus (Extended Data Fig. 9). In univariable analyses of factors associated with detection of respiratory viruses in various sample types, we did not identify significant association in viral shedding with days since symptom onset (Supplementary Table 3) for respiratory droplets or aerosols (Supplementary Tables 4–6).A subset of participants (72 of 246, 29%) did not cough at all during at least one exhaled breath collection, including 37 of 147 (25%) during the without-mask and 42 of 148 (28%) during the with-mask breath collection. In the subset for coronavirus (n = 4), we did not detect any virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols from any participants. In the subset for influenza virus (n = 9), we detected virus in aerosols but not respiratory droplets from one participant. In the subset for rhinovirus (n = 17), we detected virus in respiratory droplets from three participants, and we detected virus in aerosols in five participants.DiscussionOur results indicate that aerosol transmission is a potential mode of transmission for coronaviruses as well as influenza viruses and rhinoviruses. Published studies detected respiratory viruses13,14 such as influenza12,15 and rhinovirus16 from exhaled breath, and the detection of SARS-CoV17 and MERS-CoV18 from air samples (without size fractionation) collected from hospitals treating patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome, but ours demonstrates detection of human seasonal coronaviruses in exhaled breath, including the detection of OC43 and HKU1 from respiratory droplets and NL63, OC43 and HKU1 from aerosols.Our findings indicate that surgical masks can efficaciously reduce the emission of influenza virus particles into the environment in respiratory droplets, but not in aerosols12. Both the previous and current study used a bioaerosol collecting device, the Gesundheit-II (G-II)12,15,19, to capture exhaled breath particles and differentiated them into two size fractions, where exhaled breath coarse particles >5 μm (respiratory droplets) were collected by impaction with a 5-μm slit inertial Teflon impactor and the remaining fine particles ≤5 μm (aerosols) were collected by condensation in buffer. We also demonstrated the efficacy of surgical masks to reduce coronavirus detection and viral copies in large respiratory droplets and in aerosols (Table 1b). This has important implications for control of COVID-19, suggesting that surgical face masks could be used by ill people to reduce onward transmission.Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols, whereas for rhinovirus we detected virus in aerosols in 19 of 34 (56%) participants (compared to 4 of 10 (40%) for influenza and 8 of 23 (35%) for coronavirus). For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low (Fig. 1). Given the high collection efficiency of the G-II (ref. 19) and given that each exhaled breath collection was conducted for 30 min, this might imply that prolonged close contact would be required for transmission to occur, even if transmission was primarily via aerosols, as has been described for rhinovirus colds20. Our results also indicate that there could be considerable heterogeneity in contagiousness of individuals with coronavirus and influenza virus infections.The major limitation of our study was the large proportion of participants with undetectable viral shedding in exhaled breath for each of the viruses studied. We could have increased the sampling duration beyond 30 min to increase the viral shedding being captured, at the cost of acceptability in some participants. An alternative approach would be to invite participants to perform forced coughs during exhaled breath collection12. However, it was the aim of our present study to focus on recovering respiratory virus in exhaled breath in a real-life situation and we expected that some individuals during an acute respiratory illness would not cough much or at all. Indeed, we identified virus RNA in a small number of participants who did not cough at all during the 30-min exhaled breath collection, which would suggest droplet and aerosol routes of transmission are possible from individuals with no obvious signs or symptoms. Another limitation is that we did not confirm the infectivity of coronavirus or rhinovirus detected in exhaled breath. While the G-II was designed to preserve viability of viruses in aerosols, and in the present study we were able to identify infectious influenza virus in aerosols, we did not attempt to culture coronavirus or rhinovirus from the corresponding aerosol samples.MethodsStudy designParticipants were recruited year-round from March 2013 through May 2016 in a general outpatient clinic of a private hospital in Hong Kong. As routine practice, clinic staff screened all individuals attending the clinics for respiratory and any other symptoms regardless of the purpose of the visit at triage. Study staff then approached immediately those who reported at least one of the following symptoms of ARI for further screening: fever ≥37.8 °C, cough, sore throat, runny nose, headache, myalgia and phlegm. Individuals who reported ≥2 ARI symptoms, within 3 d of illness onset and ≥11 years of age were eligible to participate. After explaining the study to and obtaining informed consent from the participants, a rapid influenza diagnostic test, the Sofia Influenza A + B Fluorescent Immunoassay Analyzer (cat. no. 20218, Quidel), was used to identify influenza A or B virus infection as an incentive to participate. All participants provided a nasal swab for the rapid test and an additional nasal swab and a separate throat swab for subsequent virologic confirmation at the laboratory. All participants also completed a questionnaire to record basic information including age, sex, symptom severity, medication, medical conditions and smoking history. In the first phase of the study from March 2013 to February 2014 (‘Influenza Study’), the result of the rapid test was used to determine eligibility for further participation in the study and exhaled breath collection, whereas in the second phase of the study from March 2014 to May 2016 (‘Respiratory Virus Study’), the rapid test did not affect eligibility. Eligible participants were then invited to provide an exhaled breath sample for 30 min in the same clinic visit.Before exhaled breath collection, each participant was randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either wearing a surgical face mask (cat. no. 62356, Kimberly-Clark) or not during the collection. To mimic the real-life situation, under observation by the study staff, participants were asked to attach the surgical mask themselves, but instruction on how to wear the mask properly was given when the participant wore the mask incorrectly. Participants were instructed to breathe as normal during the collection, but (natural) coughing was allowed and the number of coughs was recorded by study staff. Participants were then invited to provide a second exhaled breath sample of the alternate type (for example if the participant was first assigned to wearing a mask they would then provide a second sample without a mask), but most participants did not agree to stay for a second measurement because of time constraints. Participants were compensated for each 30-min exhaled breath collection with a supermarket coupon worth approximately US$30 and all participants were gifted a tympanic thermometer worth approximately US$20.Ethical approvalWritten informed consent was obtained from all participants ≥18 years of age and written informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians of participants 11–17 years of age in addition to their own written informed consent. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of The University of Hong Kong and the Clinical and Research Ethics Committee of Hong Kong Baptist Hospital.Collection of swabs and exhaled breath particlesNasal swabs and throat swabs were collected separately, placed in virus transport medium, stored and transported to the laboratory at 2–8 °C and the virus transport medium was aliquoted and stored at −70 °C until further analysis. Exhaled breath particles were captured and differentiated into two size fractions, the coarse fraction containing particles with aerodynamic diameter >5 μm (referred to here as ‘respiratory droplets’), which included droplets up to approximately 100 µm in diameter and the fine fraction with particles ≤5 μm (referred to here as ‘aerosols’) by the G-II bioaerosol collecting device12,15,19. In the G-II device, exhaled breath coarse particles >5 μm were collected by a 5-μm slit inertial Teflon impactor and the remaining fine particles ≤5 μm were condensed and collected into approximately 170 ml of 0.1% BSA/PBS. Both the impactor and the condensate were stored and transported to the laboratory at 2–8 °C. The virus on the impactor was recovered into 1 ml and the condensate was concentrated into 2 ml of 0.1% BSA/PBS, aliquoted and stored at −70 °C until further analysis. In a validation study, the G-II was able to recover over 85% of fine particles >0.05 µm in size and had comparable collection efficiency of influenza virus as the SKC BioSampler19.Laboratory testingSamples collected from the two studies were tested at the same time. Nasal swab samples were first tested by a diagnostic-use viral panel, xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel (Abbott Molecular) to qualitatively detect 12 common respiratory viruses and subtypes including coronaviruses (NL63, OC43, 229E and HKU1), influenza A (nonspecific, H1 and H3) and B viruses, respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza virus (types 1–4), adenovirus, human metapneumovirus and enterovirus/rhinovirus. After one or more of the candidate respiratory viruses was detected by the viral panel from the nasal swab, all the samples from the same participant (nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols) were then tested with RT–PCR specific for the candidate virus(es) for determination of virus concentration in the samples. Infectious influenza virus was identified by viral culture using MDCK cells as described previously21, whereas viral culture was not performed for coronavirus and rhinovirus.Statistical analysesThe primary outcome of the study was virus generation rate in tidal breathing of participants infected by different respiratory viruses and the efficacy of face masks in preventing virus dissemination in exhaled breath, separately considering the respiratory droplets and aerosols. The secondary outcomes were correlation between viral shedding in nose swabs, throat swabs, respiratory droplets and aerosols and factors affecting viral shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols.We identified three groups of respiratory viruses with the highest frequency of infection as identified by RT–PCR, namely coronavirus (including NL63, OC43, HKU1 and 229E), influenza virus and rhinovirus, for further statistical analyses. We defined viral shedding as log10 virus copies per sample and plotted viral shedding in each sample (nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols); the latter two were stratified by mask intervention. As a proxy for the efficacy of face masks in preventing transmission of respiratory viruses via respiratory droplet and aerosol routes, we compared the respiratory virus viral shedding in respiratory droplet and aerosol samples between participants wearing face masks or not, by comparing the frequency of detection with a two-sided Fisher’s exact test and by comparing viral load (defined as log10 virus copies per sample) by an unadjusted univariate Tobit regression model, which allowed for censoring at the lower limit of detection of the RT–PCR assay. We also used the unadjusted univariate Tobit regression to investigate factors affecting viral shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols without mask use, for example age, days since symptom onset, previous influenza vaccination, current medication and number of coughs during exhaled breath collection. We investigated correlations between viral shedding in nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols with scatter-plots and calculated the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between any two types of samples. We imputed 0.3 log10 virus copies ml−1 for undetectable values before transformation to log10 virus copies per sample. All analyses were conducted with R v.3.6.0 (ref. 22) and the VGAM package v.1.1.1 (ref. 23).Reporting SummaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.\n \n\n Data availabilityAnonymized raw data and R syntax to reproduce all the analyses, figures, tables and supplementary tables in the published article are available at: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.w9ghx3fkt.References1.Nichols, W. G., Peck Campbell, A. J. & Boeckh, M. Respiratory viruses other than influenza virus: impact and therapeutic advances. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 21, 274–290 (2008).2.Shiu, E. Y. C., Leung, N. H. L. & Cowling, B. J. Controversy around airborne versus droplet transmission of respiratory viruses: implication for infection prevention. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 32, 372–379 (2019).3.Tellier, R., Li, Y., Cowling, B. J. & Tang, J. W. Recognition of aerosol transmission of infectious agents: a commentary. BMC Infect. Dis. 19, 101 (2019).4.Xiao, J. et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings-personal protective and environmental measures. Emerg. Infect. Dis. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2605.190994 (2020).5.Kutter, J. S., Spronken, M. I., Fraaij, P. L., Fouchier, R. A. M. & Herfst, S. Transmission routes of respiratory viruses among humans. Curr. Opin. Virol. 28, 142–151 (2018).6.Cowling, B. J. & Leung, G. M. Epidemiological research priorities for public health control of the ongoing global novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. Euro Surveill. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.6.2000110 (2020).7.Han, Q., Lin, Q., Ni, Z. & You, L. Uncertainties about the transmission routes of 2019 novel coronavirus. Influenza Other Respir. Viruses https://doi.org/10.1111/irv.12735 (2020).8.MacIntyre, C. R. & Chughtai, A. A. Facemasks for the prevention of infection in healthcare and community settings. BMJ 350, h694 (2015).9.Ha’eri, G. B. & Wiley, A. M. The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using “tracer particles”. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 148, 160–162 (1980).10.Patel, R. B., Skaria, S. D., Mansour, M. M. & Smaldone, G. C. Respiratory source control using a surgical mask: an in vitro study. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 13, 569–576 (2016).11.Johnson, D. F., Druce, J. D., Birch, C. & Grayson, M. L. A quantitative assessment of the efficacy of surgical and N95 masks to filter influenza virus in patients with acute influenza infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 49, 275–277 (2009).12.Milton, D. K., Fabian, M. P., Cowling, B. J., Grantham, M. L. & McDevitt, J. J. Influenza virus aerosols in human exhaled breath: particle size, culturability, and effect of surgical masks. PLoS Pathog. 9, e1003205 (2013).13.Huynh, K. N., Oliver, B. G., Stelzer, S., Rawlinson, W. D. & Tovey, E. R. A new method for sampling and detection of exhaled respiratory virus aerosols. Clin. Infect. Dis. 46, 93–95 (2008).14.Stelzer-Braid, S. et al. Exhalation of respiratory viruses by breathing, coughing and talking. J. Med. Virol. 81, 1674–1679 (2009).15.Yan, J. et al. Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 1081–1086 (2018).16.Tovey, E. R. et al. Rhinoviruses significantly affect day-to-day respiratory symptoms of children with asthma. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 135, 663–669 (2015).17.Booth, T. F. et al. Detection of airborne severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus and environmental contamination in SARS outbreak units. J. Infect. Dis. 191, 1472–1477 (2005).18.Kim, S. H. et al. Extensive viable Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus contamination in air and surrounding environment in MERS isolation wards. Clin. Infect. Dis. 63, 363–369 (2016).19.McDevitt, J. J. et al. Development and performance evaluation of an exhaled-breath bioaerosol collector for influenza virus. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 47, 444–451 (2013).20.Jennings, L. C. & Dick, E. C. Transmission and control of rhinovirus colds. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 3, 327–335 (1987).21.Chan, K. H., Peiris, J. S., Lim, W., Nicholls, J. M. & Chiu, S. S. Comparison of nasopharyngeal flocked swabs and aspirates for rapid diagnosis of respiratory viruses in children. J. Clin. Virol. 42, 65–69 (2008).22.R: a language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2019).23.Yee, T. W. Vector Generalized Linear and Additive Models: with an Implementation in R (Springer, 2016).Download referencesAcknowledgementsThis work was supported by the General Research Fund of the University Grants Committee (grant no. 765811), the Health and Medical Research Fund (grant no. 13120592) and a commissioned grant of the Food and Health Bureau and the Theme-based Research Scheme (project no. T11-705/14-N) of the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR Government. We acknowledge colleagues including R. O. P. Fung, A. K. W. Li, T. W. Y. Ng, T. H. C. So, P. Wu and Y. Xie for technical support in preparing and conducting this study and enrolling participants; J. K. M. Chan, S. Y. Ho, Y. Z. Liu and A. Yu for laboratory support; S. Ferguson, W. K. Leung, J. Pantelic, J. Wei and M. Wolfson for technical support in constructing and maintaining the G-II device; V. J. Fang, L. M. Ho and T. T. K. Lui for setting up the database; and C. W. Y. Cheung, L. F. K. Cheung, P. T. Y. Ching, A. C. H. Lai, D. W. Y. Lam, S. S. Y. Lo, A. S. K. Luk and other colleagues at the Outpatient Center and Infection Control Team of Hong Kong Baptist Hospital for facilitating this study.Author informationAuthor notesThese authors jointly supervised this work: Donald K. Milton, Benjamin J. Cowling.AffiliationsWHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, ChinaNancy H. L. Leung, Daniel K. W. Chu, Eunice Y. C. Shiu, Benien J. P. Hau, Hui-Ling Yen, Dennis K. M. Ip, J. S. Malik Peiris, Wing-Hong Seto, Gabriel M. Leung & Benjamin J. CowlingDepartment of Microbiology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, ChinaKwok-Hung ChanDepartment of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USAJames J. McDevittDepartment of Surgery, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, ChinaBenien J. P. HauDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, ChinaYuguo LiDepartment of Pathology, Hong Kong Baptist Hospital, Hong Kong, ChinaWing-Hong SetoMaryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USADonald K. MiltonAuthorsNancy H. L. LeungYou can also search for this author in Daniel K. W. ChuYou can also search for this author in Eunice Y. C. ShiuYou can also search for this author in Kwok-Hung ChanYou can also search for this author in James J. McDevittYou can also search for this author in Benien J. P. HauYou can also search for this author in Hui-Ling YenYou can also search for this author in Yuguo LiYou can also search for this author in Dennis K. M. IpYou can also search for this author in J. S. Malik PeirisYou can also search for this author in Wing-Hong SetoYou can also search for this author in Gabriel M. LeungYou can also search for this author in Donald K. MiltonYou can also search for this author in Benjamin J. CowlingYou can also search for this author in ContributionsAll authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria for authorship. The study protocol was drafted by N.H.L.L. and B.J.C. Data were collected by N.H.L.L., E.Y.C.S. and B.J.P.H. Laboratory testing was performed by D.K.W.C. and K.-H.C. Statistical analyses were conducted by N.H.L.L. N.H.L.L. and B.J.C. wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors provided critical review and revision of the text and approved the final version.Corresponding authorCorrespondence to\n Benjamin J. Cowling.Ethics declarations\n \n Competing interests\n B.J.C. consults for Roche and Sanofi Pasteur. The authors declare no other competing interests.\n \n Additional informationPeer review information Alison Farrell was the primary editor on this article and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Extended dataExtended Data Fig. 1Participant enrolment, randomization of mask intervention and identification of respiratory virus infection.Extended Data Fig. 2 Weekly number of respiratory virus infections identified by RT-PCR in symptomatic individuals who had provided exhaled breath samples (respiratory droplets and aerosols) during the study period.Blue, coronavirus; red, influenza virus; yellow, rhinovirus; green, other respiratory viruses including human metapneumovirus, parainfluenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus and adenovirus; white, no respiratory virus infection identified.Extended Data Fig. 3 Respiratory virus shedding in (a) nasal swab, (b) throat swab, (c) respiratory droplets and (d) aerosols in symptomatic individuals with coronavirus NL63, coronavirus OC43, coronavirus HKU1, influenza A and influenza B virus infection.For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals identified by RT-PCR in any collected samples were included: coronavirus NL63 (n = 8), coronavirus OC43 (n = 5), coronavirus HKU1 (n = 4), influenza A virus (n = 31) and influenza B virus (n = 14). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, only infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing a surgical face mask were included: coronavirus NL63 (n = 3), coronavirus OC43 (n = 3), coronavirus HKU1 (n = 4), influenza A virus (n = 19) and influenza B virus (n = 6). The box plots indicate the median with the interquartile range (lower and upper hinge) and ± 1.5 × interquartile range from the first and third quartile (lower and upper whisker). Dark blue, coronavirus NL63; light blue, coronavirus OC43; brown, coronavirus HKU1; red, influenza A virus; orange, influenza B virus.Extended Data Fig. 4 Efficacy of surgical face masks in reducing respiratory virus shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols of symptomatic individuals with seasonal coronaviruses including (a) coronavirus NL63, (b) coronavirus OC43 and (c) coronavirus HKU1.The figure shows the virus copies per sample collected in nasal swab (red), throat swab (blue), respiratory droplets collected for 30 min while not wearing (dark green) or wearing (light green) a surgical face mask and aerosols collected for 30 min while not wearing (brown) or wearing (orange) a face mask, collected from individuals with acute respiratory symptoms who were positive for coronavirus NL63, coronavirus OC43 and coronavirus HKU1 as determined by RT-PCR in any samples. P values for mask intervention as predictor of log10 virus copies per sample in an unadjusted univariate Tobit regression model which allowed for censoring at the lower limit of detection of the RT-PCR assay are shown, with significant differences in bold. For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (coronavirus NL63, n = 8; coronavirus OC43, n = 5; coronavirus HKU1, n = 4). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, numbers of infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing or wearing a surgical face mask, respectively were: coronavirus NL63 (n = 3 and 5), coronavirus OC43 (n = 3 and 4), coronavirus HKU1 (n = 4 and 2). A subset of participants provided exhaled breath samples for both mask interventions (coronavirus NL63, n = 0; coronavirus OC43, n = 2; coronavirus HKU1, n = 2).Extended Data Fig. 5 Efficacy of surgical face masks in reducing respiratory virus shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols of symptomatic individuals with seasonal influenza viruses including (a) influenza A and (b) influenza B virus.The figure shows the virus copies per sample collected in nasal swab (red), throat swab (blue), respiratory droplets collected for 30 min while not wearing (dark green) or wearing (light green) a surgical face mask and aerosols collected for 30 min while not wearing (brown) or wearing (orange) a face mask, collected from individuals with acute respiratory symptoms who were positive for influenza A and influenza B virus as determined by RT-PCR in any samples. P values for mask intervention as predictor of log10 virus copies per sample in an unadjusted univariate Tobit regression model which allowed for censoring at the lower limit of detection of the RT-PCR assay are shown, with significant differences in bold. For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (influenza A virus, n = 31; influenza B virus, n = 14). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, numbers of infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing or wearing a surgical face mask, respectively were: influenza A virus (n = 19 and 19), influenza B virus (n = 6 and 10). A subset of participants provided exhaled breath samples for both mask interventions (influenza A virus, n = 7; influenza B virus, n = 2).Extended Data Fig. 6 Correlation of coronavirus viral shedding between different samples (nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols) in symptomatic individuals with seasonal coronavirus infection.For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (n = 17). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, only infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing a surgical face mask were included (n = 10). r, the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.Extended Data Fig. 7 Correlation of influenza viral shedding between different samples (nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols) in symptomatic individuals with seasonal influenza infection.For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (n = 43). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, only infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing a surgical face mask were included (n = 23). r, the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.Extended Data Fig. 8 Correlation of rhinovirus viral shedding between different samples (nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols) in symptomatic individuals with rhinovirus infection.For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (n = 54). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, only infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing a surgical face mask were included (n = 36). r, the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.Extended Data Fig. 9 Respiratory virus shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols stratified by days from symptom onset for (a) coronavirus, (b) influenza virus or (c) rhinovirus.The figures shows the virus copies per sample collected in nasal swab (red), throat swab (blue), respiratory droplets (dark green) and aerosols (brown) collected for 30 min while not wearing a surgical face mask, stratified by the number of days from symptom onset on which the respiratory droplets and aerosols were collected. For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (coronavirus, n = 17; influenza virus, n = 43; rhinovirus, n = 54). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, numbers of infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing or wearing a surgical face mask, respectively were: coronavirus (n = 10 and 11), influenza virus (n = 23 and 28), rhinovirus (n = 36 and 32). A subset of participants provided exhaled breath samples for both mask interventions (coronavirus, n = 4; influenza virus, n = 8; rhinovirus, n = 14). The box plots indicate the median with the interquartile range (lower and upper hinge) and ± 1.5 × interquartile range from the first and third quartile (lower and upper whisker).Supplementary informationAbout this articleCite this articleLeung, N.H.L., Chu, D.K.W., Shiu, E.Y.C. et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks.\n Nat Med (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2Download citationReceived: 02 March 2020Accepted: 20 March 2020Published: 03 April 2020DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2"],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","職安系副教授實測「乾蒸口罩」5次內過濾效力仍合格，但強調僅應急不建議長期使用 - The News Lens 關鍵評論網"],["url","https://www.thenewslens.com/article/131064"],["summary","武漢肺炎疫情導致國內口罩需求量增大，網路上也出現各種可以讓口罩重複使用的「復活偏方」，包括用電鍋乾蒸、用紫外線照、用酒精消毒等。如今，中山醫學大學職安系副教授賴全裕表示，經過檢測證實，「電鍋乾蒸」口罩，5次以內，過濾效果都還在規定合格的80%以內。但中央流行疫情指揮中心強調，以台灣疫情狀況，非慢性病患，在開放空間不用戴口罩。《中央社》報導，賴全裕表示，「電鍋乾蒸法」可使口罩復活。電鍋乾蒸法可以利用一般家用電鍋、電鍋架及內鍋，在電鍋內依序置入內鍋架、內鍋，並放入沒沾上體液、血液或鼻涕的口罩，不用加水，直接按下煮飯按鍵，乾蒸約2到3分鐘，等到煮飯鍵跳起後，再繼續保溫約5分鐘，即可拿出來繼續使用。賴全裕指出，一般經認證合格的外科口罩，過濾效力約為80%，乾蒸5次後，過濾效力減損到70%以下，這時就必須丟棄，不能再使用了。但賴全裕也提醒，這是口罩短缺時的應急措施，不建議長期使用。根據中山醫學大學特色領域研究中心介紹，賴全裕研究專長為個人防護具（包含呼吸防護具、防護衣等）進行生物防護性能及消毒、再利用。此外，《自由時報》訪問亞東紀念醫院感染管制中心主任廖俊星，廖俊星表示，紫外線消毒、水蒸口罩、酒精消毒，都沒有研究證實能有效消毒口罩，其中，水蒸、酒精消毒還可能破壞口罩結構。但曾有人拿過期口罩測驗，如果口罩沒有被破壞或使用，證實效果還在。此外，昨日，中央流行疫情指揮中心的記者會上，也有記者提問表示，有台大醫師認為口罩用越久，效果越好。指揮中心醫療整備官羅一鈞澄清，這有違一般對於口罩的學理跟常識，有待證實。指揮中心昨日也再次呼籲，開放空間不用戴口罩，但去醫院看病、出入人多擁擠地方、慢性病患要戴口罩。此外，也要以肥皂肥皂勤洗手、避免觸摸眼鼻口。 \t \t\t \t\t\t消毒方法 \t\t\t是否證實有效 \t\t\t資訊來源 \t\t \t\t \t\t\t電鍋乾蒸 \t\t\t是 \t\t\t（乾蒸口罩超過5次即需丟棄） \t\t\t中山醫學大學職安系副教授賴全裕 \t\t \t\t \t\t\t紫外線消毒 \t\t\t未證實 \t\t\t亞東紀念醫院感染管制中心主任廖俊星 \t\t \t\t \t\t\t水蒸 \t\t\t未證實 \t\t\t亞東紀念醫院感染管制中心主任廖俊星 \t\t \t\t \t\t\t酒精消毒 \t\t\t未證實 \t\t\t亞東紀念醫院感染管制中心主任廖俊星 \t\t \t\t \t\t\t過期口罩 \t\t\t是 \t\t\t亞東紀念醫院感染管制中心主任廖俊星 \t\t \t\t \t\t\t口罩用越久效果越好 \t\t\t未證實 \t\t\t中央流行疫情指揮中心醫療整備官羅一鈞 \t\t \t 延伸閱讀： \t【插畫】「武漢肺炎」來勢洶洶，口罩該買哪種？ \t口罩實名制上路：如何買？怎麼查哪還有庫存？8個QA一次看懂 \t其實你不一定要戴口罩：武漢肺炎讓全台陷「口罩之亂」，6個QA看怎麼選、如何用新聞來源： \t口罩復活術真有效？醫師破解防疫網路謠言（自由時報） \t口罩電鍋乾蒸3分鐘殺菌學者實測最多重複用5次（中央社）責任編輯：李修慧"],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","認證電鍋可以乾蒸口罩！指揮中心︰殺菌實驗達標 - 生活 - 自由時報電子報"],["url","https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/3123669"],["summary","針對口罩使用電鍋乾蒸延長使用壽命進行實驗，結果發現無論細菌過濾效率或微粒過濾效率都跟原本口罩效果相近。（指揮中心提供）\n \n\n\n 2020-04-05 16:45:51〔記者簡惠茹／台北報導〕衛福部食藥署和中山醫學大學職業安全衛生系副教授賴全裕都針對口罩使用電鍋乾蒸延長使用壽命進行實驗，實驗結果發現無論細菌過濾效率或微粒過濾效率都跟原本口罩效果相近。指揮官陳時中指出，從這禮拜四4月9日開始，口罩就可以14天買9片，這個量應該是足夠，還是非常期待大家撙節使用，食藥署也有提供增加口罩使用次數或延長使用時間的方法。 \n \n食藥署說明電鍋乾蒸方法，一，先將內鍋架及內鍋依序放入乾燥電鍋；二、將醫用口罩平放於內鍋中，蓋上外鍋蓋；三、按下電鍋加熱開關，等約3分鐘待開關自動跳起後，再靜置5分鐘，使鍋內熱空氣充分殺菌；四、打開外鍋蓋，完成殺菌程序，待電鍋冷卻後再進行下一次口罩殺菌。指揮中心研究組副組長吳秀梅說明，自己使用過的醫用外科口罩如果想要延長壽命，可以放入電鍋內鍋架乾蒸，提醒不要放水，放水會影響口罩靜電層，有人問是否可以使用酒精消毒，其實也不好，因為靜電層會受到影響。吳秀梅也提醒，如果口罩有髒汙破損不建議再度消毒使用，有呼吸道症狀、慢性疾病、出入醫院以一次使用為原則，低風險場所就會建議可以使用布口罩，有不織布層的布口罩，可以重複清洗效果也好，也可以使用電鍋乾蒸重複消毒4到5次。吳秀梅說明外科口罩測試部分，除了有參考學研單位建議，食藥署也做過研究，她表示，經過3到5次消毒後，對於細菌過濾效率（BFE）可以維持99%以上。中山醫學大學副教授賴全裕實驗室做過電鍋乾蒸口罩實驗，他指出，粒子過濾效果（PFE）檢測中，儀器會產生2奈米到2微米的微粒，其中99%是10奈米到770奈米的微粒，然後來看口罩可以過濾多少，總過濾效果如果超過95%，就是N95口罩，80%以上是外科手術口罩，電鍋乾蒸實驗結果發現，第一次乾蒸跟原本外科口罩過濾效果相比還能維持99%，只是纖維帶電還是有些微影響，但是消毒越多次，就會越下降，建議不要超過5次。至於病毒過濾效果，賴全裕說，雖然外科手術口罩沒有檢測病毒過濾效果，主要是防護衣才會測試，但是武漢肺炎病毒的大小大概是100奈米，所以檢測PFE就有將病毒尺寸涵蓋在內。賴全裕也解答民眾各種電鍋蒸口罩的疑慮。許多民眾詢問可以使用家裡的電鍋就好嗎？還是要買新的電鍋？賴全裕指出，由於內鍋壁165度左右，該殺死的細菌應該都殺死了，乾蒸氣溫大概110度左右，如果有疑慮可以洗鍋子。口罩氣味太重怎麼辦？可以加精油或酒精嗎？賴全裕表示，有化學物質的都會破壞口罩不織布纖維帶電，不建議這樣做，因為味道來源是口水和細菌繁殖的關係，殺死後理論上味道就會不見。用烤箱、氣炸鍋或微波爐可以嗎？賴全裕指出，這些家電如果可以控制溫度達110度，可以模擬電鍋溫度的話就可以嘗試，但是還是要實測才知道，微波爐可能會出現口罩燃燒要小心。使用負離子吹風機可以嗎？賴全裕表示，目前還沒有實驗檢測，暫時不建議。殺菌燈小型烘碗機可以嗎？賴全裕指出，如果紫外燈波長有220奈米到280奈米，可是口罩裡面有3層，紫外燈只能對上下兩面照射，不確定中間層的殺菌效果，使用的時候還是建議要注意，未來有機會會再做實驗。用煮的可以嗎？賴全裕說，還沒有實驗可以確認。暫時拿下來的口罩如何收納？賴全裕指出，建議把口罩放在通風乾燥處，拿下來的時候，不要使用完全密封的塑膠袋，會造成細菌容易繁殖，可以用塑膠夾或紙袋，避免手觸摸到口罩。相關新聞請見︰武漢肺炎懶人包》傳染途徑、預防措施看這裡「武漢肺炎專區」請點此，更多相關訊息，帶您第一手掌握。\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n 不用抽不用搶現在用APP看新聞保證天天中獎　\n 點我下載APP　\n 按我看活動辦法\n\n \n \n\n\n\n 相關新聞\n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n LTN集點大放送\n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n網友回應"],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019"],["url","https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x"],["summary","AbstractCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute respiratory tract infection that emerged in late 20191,2. Initial outbreaks in China involved 13.8% cases with severe, and 6.1% with critical courses3. This severe presentation corresponds to the usage of a virus receptor that is expressed predominantly in the lung2,4. By causing an early onset of severe symptoms, this same receptor tropism is thought to have determined pathogenicity, but also aided the control, of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 20035. However, there are reports of COVID-19 cases with mild upper respiratory tract symptoms, suggesting the potential for pre- or oligosymptomatic transmission6–8. There is an urgent need for information on body site-specific virus replication, immunity, and infectivity. Here we provide a detailed virological analysis of nine cases, providing proof of active virus replication in upper respiratory tract tissues. Pharyngeal virus shedding was very high during the first week of symptoms (peak at 7.11 × 108 RNA copies per throat swab, day 4). Infectious virus was readily isolated from throat- and lung-derived samples, but not from stool samples, in spite of high virus RNA concentration. Blood and urine never yielded virus. Active replication in the throat was confirmed by viral replicative RNA intermediates in throat samples. Sequence-distinct virus populations were consistently detected in throat and lung samples from the same patient, proving independent replication. Shedding of viral RNA from sputum outlasted the end of symptoms. Seroconversion occurred after 7 days in 50% of patients (14 days in all), but was not followed by a rapid decline in viral load. COVID-19 can present as a mild upper respiratory tract illness. Active virus replication in the upper respiratory tract puts the prospects of COVID-19 containment in perspective.\n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n\n Author informationAuthor notesThese authors contributed equally: Roman Wölfel, Victor M. Corman, Wolfgang GuggemosThese authors jointly supervised this work: Christian Drosten, Clemens WendtnerAffiliationsBundeswehr Institute of Microbiology, Munich, GermanyRoman Wölfel, Sabine Zange, Patrick Vollmar, Rosina Ehmann & Katrin ZwirglmaierCharité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, GermanyVictor M. Corman, Marcel A. Müller, Daniela Niemeyer, Terry C. Jones, Tobias Bleicker, Sebastian Brünink, Julia Schneider & Christian DrostenKlinikum München-Schwabing, Munich, GermanyWolfgang Guggemos, Michael Seilmaier & Clemens WendtnerCenter for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKTerry C. JonesUniversity Hospital LMU Munich, Munich, GermanyCamilla Rothe & Michael HoelscherAuthorsRoman WölfelYou can also search for this author in Victor M. CormanYou can also search for this author in Wolfgang GuggemosYou can also search for this author in Michael SeilmaierYou can also search for this author in Sabine ZangeYou can also search for this author in Marcel A. MüllerYou can also search for this author in Daniela NiemeyerYou can also search for this author in Terry C. JonesYou can also search for this author in Patrick VollmarYou can also search for this author in Camilla RotheYou can also search for this author in Michael HoelscherYou can also search for this author in Tobias BleickerYou can also search for this author in Sebastian BrüninkYou can also search for this author in Julia SchneiderYou can also search for this author in Rosina EhmannYou can also search for this author in Katrin ZwirglmaierYou can also search for this author in Christian DrostenYou can also search for this author in Clemens WendtnerYou can also search for this author in Corresponding authorsCorrespondence to\n Christian Drosten or Clemens Wendtner.Supplementary information\n \n \n Supplementary InformationThis file contains Supplementary Methods, which include a description of RNA extraction and RT-PCR methods, a description of cell culture and antibody detection methods and Supplementary References.About this articleCite this articleWölfel, R., Corman, V.M., Guggemos, W. et al. Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019.\n Nature (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2196-xDownload citationReceived: 01 March 2020Accepted: 24 March 2020Published: 01 April 2020DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2196-x\n\n \n\n \n CommentsBy submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate."],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]}]}],["text","#口罩可以乾蒸嗎\n#為何2月不行現在可以\n#水鏡來告訴你\n\n今天疾管中心宣傳口罩可以乾蒸，再重複使用\n馬上有人找出2月衛福部食藥署建議不要乾蒸的資料\n還有人把這照片放在爆料公社，很明顯要帶風向\n\n有人酸因為唐鳳說可以乾蒸，所以政策就轉彎\n\n不管別人怎麼說，包括這篇都是\n請做個獨立思考的人\n\n#防疫本來就是與時俱進\n大家應該還記得，2月的時候疾管中心跟大家說不用戴口罩\n總統、行政院長、陳時中部長，也帶頭不戴口罩\n當時還有「我OK，你先戴」的風氣\n\n當時背景是沒有社區感染，戴不戴口罩風險都低\n當時到現在沒戴口罩的人，都活得好好的也沒被感染。\n\n這兩天陳時中部長已經戴起口罩，為什麼呢？\n簡單說，我們有零星的社區感染，加上這幾天連假的出遊\n我們要在未來的14天防範疫情社區化\n\nNature Medicine刊出香港學者研究，外科口罩可以顯著防止新冠病毒從感染者傳播出去。https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2?fbclid=IwAR3EzP6Xm2bXH4bDHx9i9oOYxqHIraWbuRbZcGzM6fmgQz7iIl7ufHrkN-A\n\n這是因為疫情的不同，資訊的改變\n政府反應以及需要民間配合的方式不同\n\n#那到底口罩可不可以乾蒸\n\n你可能會問，當時食藥署為何覺得不行？\n當時食藥署的說法是\"可能\"會破壞結構，所以不建議。\n\n但後續的研究出來，真的可以透過乾蒸讓口罩重複使用\n\n根據中山醫學大學職安系副教授賴全裕表示，經過檢測證實，「電鍋乾蒸」口罩，5次以內，過濾效果都還在規定合格的80%以內。\nhttps://www.thenewslens.com/article/131064\n\n實驗結果發現無論細菌過濾效率或微粒過濾效率都跟原本口罩效果相近。\nhttps://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/3123669\n\n再說一次，這是人類第一次遇到這個病毒，很多事情本來就不了解。\n\n比如Nature這篇研究，就刷新大家原本的認知\n\n原來剛被感染的前5天，傳染力最大，到住院第9天傳染力就低了，不一定要在負壓房。\n\n這對本來以為症狀越嚴重傳播力越大、負壓房要住好住滿的觀念是很大的釐清\nhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x\n\n好，回到乾蒸口罩這件事\n原先政府有疑惑，後來研究證實，口罩乾蒸可以重複使用\n政府提供資訊，不OK嗎？\n\n#未來14天大家照顧好自己\n\n現在已經有人在傳\n「為了要向國外捐口罩，所以要求民眾乾蒸」\n\n請問我們有為了捐口罩，一周從買三個變買兩個嗎？\n\n提供乾蒸，只是資訊更新後提供方法\n可能有些人不覺得一個口罩五元貴\n\n但對節省、重視環保的或有經濟壓力的人，這不失為權宜之計\n至於要酸的、要戰的、要攻擊的，\n就別了，台灣需要大家的團結\n\n就像這幾天的連假，\n大家玩都玩了，該得的也得了，不該得的也不會得\n\n本院只有一個請求\n\n#連假有出遊的朋友接下來14天外出請戴口罩\n\n接下來14天，大家把自己照顧好\n勤洗手、出門戴口罩、保持人際距離、不摸臉、少聚集\n\n#祝大家平安健康\n\n#我們二月也不知道肥胖容易得重症啊\n\n#水鏡共筆"],["id","1kyvy3pelrgow"],["createdAt","2020-04-06T08:20:58.169Z"]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["replyCount",1],["references",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["type","LINE"]]}]}],["replyRequestCount",1],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","j4S8C_AO7U9UgO3jfO7w-_TCIO4Xtij_63hrFiTOAIF-wiO0o"],["name","忠誠的✖長濱✖法蘭克林"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",0]]}],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Universal and reusable virus deactivation system for respiratory protection"],["url","https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39956#Sec8"],["summary","AbstractAerosolized pathogens are a leading cause of respiratory infection and transmission. Currently used protective measures pose potential risk of primary/secondary infection and transmission. Here, we report the development of a universal, reusable virus deactivation system by functionalization of the main fibrous filtration unit of surgical mask with sodium chloride salt. The salt coating on the fiber surface dissolves upon exposure to virus aerosols and recrystallizes during drying, destroying the pathogens. When tested with tightly sealed sides, salt-coated filters showed remarkably higher filtration efficiency than conventional mask filtration layer, and 100% survival rate was observed in mice infected with virus penetrated through salt-coated filters. Viruses captured on salt-coated filters exhibited rapid infectivity loss compared to gradual decrease on bare filters. Salt-coated filters proved highly effective in deactivating influenza viruses regardless of subtypes and following storage in harsh environmental conditions. Our results can be applied in obtaining a broad-spectrum, airborne pathogen prevention device in preparation for epidemic and pandemic of respiratory diseases.\n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n IntroductionAerosols take a prominent role in airborne transmission of respiratory diseases. Droplets with aerodynamic size (da) < 10 μm and 10 < da < 100 μm are known to infect the alveolar regions and upper respiratory tract, respectively1,2. Notably, aerosols can also be a route of infection in diseases that, contrary to for instance influenza, do not specifically target the respiratory tract, as it could be the case of Ebola virus3. While vaccination can greatly reduce morbidity and mortality, during a pandemic or epidemic new vaccines matching the specific strain would be available, at the earliest, six months after the initial outbreak. Additionally, following development of an effective viral vaccine, several potential problems would remain, such as limited supply due to insufficient production capacity and time-consuming manufacturing processes. As a result, individuals close to the point of an outbreak would be in imminent danger of exposure to infectious diseases during the non-vaccine period. In the absence of vaccination, respirators and masks can be worn to prevent transmission of airborne pathogenic aerosols and control diseases, such as influenza4.The main alternative, the N95 respirator, requires training prior to use, must be expertly fitted to address the risk of faceseal leakage at the face-mask interface, and must be disposed of as biohazard5. Due to these factors, the use of N95 respirators on a large scale is impractical and expensive during an epidemic or pandemic. Past experiences of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), H1N1 swine flu in 2009, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) indicate that surgical masks have been most widely adopted by the public as personal protective measure, despite controversy on their effectiveness6,7,8,9. Currently, among other factors, filtration in respirators and masks depends on filter characteristics, including fiber diameter, packing density, charge of fibers and filter thickness, as well as particle properties, such as diameter, density and velocity10,11,12,13,14. However, in the lack of a system to deactivate the collected pathogens, safety concerns naturally arise about secondary infection and contamination from virus-laden filter media during utilization and disposal. Furthermore, since re-sterilization is not possible without causing damage, respirators and masks are recommended for single use only9,15,16. Scientific efforts have been focused on treatment of filters with materials possessing well-known antimicrobial properties, such as iodine, chlorine and metals17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25, although with limited effectiveness against virus aerosols26,27,28. Therefore, a key challenge is the development of an easy-to-use, universal virus negation system, which is reusable without reprocessing and capable of deactivating pathogens, thereby reducing potential risk of secondary infection and transmission.Here, we report a simple but efficient virus inactivation system exploiting the naturally occurring salt recrystallization. Our strategy is to modify the surface of the fibrous filtration layer within masks with a continuous salt film for virus deactivation via two successive processes: i) salt is locally dissolved by the viral aerosols and ii) supersaturation is followed by evaporation-induced salt recrystallization. Consequently, viruses are exposed to increasingly higher concentrations of saline solution during drying and physically damaged by recrystallization.ResultsPreparation and characterization of salt-functionalized filtersTo demonstrate the concept of virus deactivation system based on salt recrystallization, the middle layer of three-ply surgical mask, polypropylene (PP) microfiber filter, was coated with NaCl salt as an active virus negation unit (see Supplementary Fig. S1 for bare PP filter). The coating formulations contained surfactant to enhance wetting of saline solution on the surface of hydrophobic PP fibers. Bare PP filters (abbreviated as Filterbare) were pre-wet to contain about 600 μL of coating solution (abbreviated as Filterwet). The amount of NaCl salt (Wsalt in mg/cm2) coated on the filter per unit area, considering that the filters thickness is constant, was easily controlled by changing the coating solution volume (Vsalt in μL) during drying of pre-wet filter (radius: 3 cm, Wsalt = 3.011 + 0.013 × Vsat, n = 7) (Fig. S2). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) mapping analysis showed the formation of homogeneous NaCl coating during drying, as also confirmed by X-ray diffraction (XRD) (Fig. 1a,b and Supplementary Fig. S3). Both the formation of NaCl coating on PP fibers and presence of surfactant in the coating formulation appeared to alter the filter surface properties from hydrophobic (bare filter; contact angle, θc = 133.0 ± 4.7°) to completely hydrophilic (salt-coated filter; θc ~ 0°, n = 10) (Fig. 1c and Supplementary Fig. S4). Hydrophilic nature of salt coating can greatly improve adhesion of viral aerosols to PP fibers compared to Filterbare, as seen in Raman microscope images (Fig. 1d and Supplementary Fig. S5).Figure 1: Mask with salt-coated filter for prevention and deactivation of airborne pathogens.(a) SEM image of Filterwet+600μL (top left) and EDX mapping images of Na (red), Cl (green), and NaCl (combination of Na and Cl mapping images), showing the formation of NaCl coating, as also confirmed by XRD spectra (b) of Filterbare, Filterwet, Filterwet+100μL, Filterwet+300μL, Filterwet+600μL, Filterwet+900μL and Filterwet+1200μL (labelled as Bare, wet, wet+100 μL, wet+300 μL, wet+600 μL, wet+900 μL and wet+1200 μL, respectively; miller indices corresponding to NaCl crystal are shown at the top of XRD spectra for each position). (c) Optical microscope images for contact angle measurements using 3 μL DI water droplets on (i) Filterbare and (ii) Filterwet+600μL (n = 10). (d) Microscope images of aerosol on (i) Filterbare and (ii) Filterwet+600μL (n = 10).Filtration efficiency against viral aerosols and protective efficacy in vivoFiltration efficiency of salt-coated filters was tested against aerosols with volumetric mean diameter (VMD) of 2.5–4 μm containing H1N1 pandemic influenza virus (A/California/04/2009, abbreviated as CA/09) at different pressure conditions (see Fig. 2a for transmission electron microscope (TEM) image of H1N1 virus). Interestingly, as shown in Fig. 2b, Filterbare did not exhibit any significant level of resistance against penetration of virus under our experimental conditions (i.e., 0% filtration efficiency). Conversely, salt-coated filters showed substantially increasing filtration efficiency with pressure and amount of coated salt. In particular, in the case of Filterwet+600μL, filtration efficiency varied from 43 to 70%, with increasing pressure from 3 to 17 kPa, and Filterwet+1200μL exhibited persistent, high-level efficiency (~85%) (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.85).Figure 2: Filtration efficiency of salt-coated filters.(a) TEM image of CA/09 H1N1 influenza virus. (b) Pressure-dependent filtration efficiency (n = 8–10, mean ± standard deviation (SD)). (c–f) Effects of filtration efficiency on protective efficacy in vivo. Body weight change of mice after infection with the dosages of penetrated virus (n = 12, mean ± SD) (c), survival rates (mean; 100% means that all mice in the group survived as penetrated dosages were lower than lethal dose) (d), lung virus titers (n = 4, mean ± SD) (e), and lung inflammatory cytokine (interferon-γ (IFN-γ)) assay (n = 11, mean ± SD) (f). Legends: filters are labelled as in Fig. 1b.To probe the effects of filtration efficiency on protective efficacy, in vivo experiments were performed using mice intranasally (IN) infected with penetrated dosages of H1N1 virus under breathing pressure (~10 kPa)29. As shown in Fig. 2c, similarly to negative control groups (mice infected with lethal dose of virus stock and aerosolized virus), mice exposed to a dose penetrated through the bare filter showed rapid body weight loss, followed by death within 10 days after infection, in good agreement with the observed 0% filtration efficiency (Fig. 2b). In contrast, mice groups exposed to virus derived from salt-coated filters resulted in 100% survival rate (Fig. 2d). Furthermore, lungs of mice from negative control groups exhibited severe lung infection 4 days after challenge (Fig. 2e). Conversely, mice groups exposed to virus derived from salt-coated filters showed significantly lower levels of lung viral titers (t-test, P < 0.005). This is consistent with lower levels of inflammatory cytokines, interferon-γ (IFN-γ), from salt-coated filter groups compared to negative control and bare filter groups (t-test, P < 0.001) (Fig. 2f).Deactivation of virus on salt-functionalized filtersInfluenza virus stability tests were performed to investigate the effects of salt coating. The same amount of recovered viruses from the PP fibers was used, and, in the case of bare filters, viral aerosols exposure was conducted in the absence of pressure due to 100% penetration of viral aerosols. Unlike bare filters (Fig. S6a(i)), formation of micron-sized NaCl phase represents a typical feature of salt-coated filters due to recrystallization of NaCl salt, following local dissolution upon aerosols exposure (SEM images in Fig. S6a, ii to iv, and EDX mapping in Fig. S6b). In contrast to 8% HA activity loss of virus adsorbed onto Filterbare, salt-coated filters exhibited almost complete HA activity loss within 5 min of incubation (Fig. 3a). Such dramatic virus destabilization on salt-coated filters is further supported by negligible levels of viral titers compared to Filterbare with incubation time (t-test, P < 0.001) (Fig. 3b). It is also noted that virus titers exhibited significant decrease with increase of incubation time and amount of coated salt (ANOVA general linear model, P < 0.001). TEM analysis showed that influenza virus on Filterbare experiences morphological change into non-spherical shape during aerosol drying (Fig. 3c(i)). Notably, influenza virus was severely damaged on salt-coated filters even at 5 min of incubation (Fig. 3c(ii)). From microscopic analysis, aerosol drying time was about 3 min, indicating that destruction of virus observed at 5 min is associated with drying-induced salt crystallization. Physical damage of virus due to crystallization was similarly reported as a major destabilizing factor of inactivated influenza virus30,31. Lower levels of native fluorescence and nile red fluorescence from virus recovered from salt-coated filters accounted for more severe conformational change of antigenic proteins and destabilization of viral envelope, respectively, consistent with TEM analysis (t-test, P < 0.001) (Fig. 3d). In parallel, we investigated the separate effect of salt concentration increase on virus stability during the aerosol drying process, irrespective of crystal growth. As displayed in Supplementary Fig. S7, the materials collected in suspension from Filterwet+600μL induced visible morphological transformation of the virus (Supplementary Fig. S7b) compared to suspension of Filterbare (Supplementary Fig. S7a). This can be attributed to the high salt/surfactant concentration and osmotic pressure, which have been well-known to destabilize proteins and viruses31,32,33. Therefore, the marked virus destabilization on salt-coated PP fibers can be explained by the combined effects of salt concentration increase during drying and evaporation-induced salt crystallization.Figure 3: Inactivation of virus adsorbed on salt-coated filters.(a,b) HA activity (a) and virus titer (b) displaying the effects of incubation time on the remaining activity of virus (n = 4–8, mean ± SD). (c) TEM images of viruses reconstituted, after incubation for 5 and 60 min, from (i) Filterbare and (ii) Filterwet+600μL. (d) Native fluorescence/nile red fluorescence of viruses incubated for 60 min (n = 12, mean ± SD). (e,f) Body weight change of mice after infection with virus recovered from filters after incubation for 60 min (n = 12, mean ± SD) (e), and lung virus titers (n = 6, mean ± SD) (f). Asterisk (*): below detection limit. Legends: filters are labelled as in Fig. 1b.To verify in vitro virus stability on the filters, an in vivo study was performed by infecting mice with virus incubated for 60 min on PP filters. As shown in Fig. 3e, Filterbare group exhibited 5% body weight loss at day 9 post-infection, reaching a body weight lower than that of salt-coated filter groups by 10–15%. Thus, significantly higher lung virus titers in the negative control group were observed in contrast to no detectable titers in the salt-coated filter groups (Fig. 3f).Strain-nonspecific virus deactivation and effects of storage under harsh environmental conditions on salt coating stabilityBroad-spectrum protection of salt-coated filters against multiple subtypes of viral aerosols was evaluated by investigating both lethal infectivity by penetrated virus in vivo and infectivity by virus collected on filters during filtration in vitro using A/Puerto Rico/08/1934 (PR/34 H1N1) and A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (VN/04 H5N1). Similarly to CA/09 H1N1, 100% of mice survived viral infection (PR/34 and VN/04), with no evidence of weight loss, due to higher filtration efficiency of salt-coated filter than that of bare filter (Fig. 4a). This is supported by no significant level of viral titer in the lung. In addition, as shown in Fig. 4b, salt-coated PP filters destroyed adsorbed influenza viruses irrespective of both subtypes and amount of coated salts.Figure 4: Strain- and environment-dependent performance of salt-coated filters.(a) Body weight change of mice infected with penetrated PR/34 H1N1 and VN/04 H5N1 viruses through Filterwet+600μL (n = 12, mean ± SD). (b) Virus titers of recovered viruses from bare and salt-coated filters (n = 4, mean ± SD; data for Filterwet, Filterwet+600μL and Filterwet+1200μL are overlapped). (c,d) Body weight change (c) and survival rate (d) of mice infected with dosage of penetrated virus through Filterwet+600μL before and after exposure to harsh environmental conditions (37 °C and 70% RH) for 1 day (filled square and open square overlap in (d)). (e) EDX mapping image of NaCl-coated Filterwet+600μL after incubation for 15 days at 37 °C and 70% RH (combination of Na (red) and Cl (green) mapping images). (f) XRD spectra of Filterwet+600μL before and after incubation at 37 °C 70% for 1 day and 15 days. Legends: filters are labelled as in Fig. 1b.The stability of salt coating on PP fibers was tested under harsh environmental conditions. Incubation at 37 °C and 70% relative humidity (RH) for 1 day did not cause any significant difference in filtration efficiency (t-test, P = 0.718) (Supplementary Fig. S8). As a result, all mice infected with dosage of penetrated virus through the filter stored at high temperature and RH displayed 100% survival with 7% of body weight loss (Fig. 4c,d). Even after 15 days of incubation, salts remained to coat PP fibers (Fig. 4e, and Supplementary Fig. S9a,b), despite change in grain orientation due to recrystallization (Fig. 4f, and Supplementary Fig. S10a,b).DiscussionDevelopment of a universally applicable, low-cost, and efficient mechanism for virus negation is regarded as a major challenge in public health against general airborne biological threats. This led us to propose a new concept of personal/public preventive and control measures using salt-recrystallization against pathogenic aerosols based on two hypotheses. The salt-coating can enhance adsorption of virus on the filter fibers and inactivate virus by the increase of osmotic pressure followed by the crystallization of salts. As shown in Fig. 2b, salt-coated filters exhibited significantly higher levels of filtration efficiency than bare filters. Notably, the bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE) reported by the mask manufacturer is 99%. The different value of filtration efficiency for bare filters obtained under our experimental conditions may be partially due to the use of aerosols with different biological origins. The FDA-recognized ASTM F2101 – 14 standard for evaluation of BFE exposes surgical masks to Staphylococcus aureus aerosols, by employing S. aureus ATCC 653834, which has an average diameter of about 1 μm. In this study, filtration efficiency was calculated following exposure of bare and salt-coated filters to influenza virus, which exhibits a smaller diameter than that of S. aureus by one order of magnitude. Additionally, whereas during BFE evaluation all three layers of surgical masks are used, in this work filtration efficiency refers to mask filters (middle layer). It is worth noting that the conditions for BFE standard evaluation (such as flow rate and time of application of flow) do not coincide with the experimental procedure we used for measurement of the filtration efficiency, which may further contribute to the different result. The enhanced filtration efficiency of salt-coated filters against influenza virus aerosols as compared to bare filters can be explained by the observed wetting of aerosols, favoring greater adhesion to salt-coated filters. Furthermore, the significant improvement in filtration efficiency resulted in complete protection of mice against lethal influenza aerosols, which demonstrates the high level of protection provided by salt-coated filters, outperforming currently used bare filters.Rapid loss of HA activity and viral infectivity on salt-coated filters can be explained by physical destruction of virus during recrystallization of coated salts. When the salt-coated filter is exposed to virus aerosols, salt crystals below the aerosol droplet dissolve to increase osmotic pressure to virus. Due to evaporation, the salt concentration of the droplet significantly increases and reaches the solubility limit, leading to recrystallization of salt. As a consequence, virus particles are exposed to increasing osmotic pressure during the drying process and are physically damaged by crystallization. As shown in Fig. 3e,f, the superior advantage of physically destroying the virus adsorbed to the salt-coated PP filters through natural salt crystallization process was further confirmed in vivo. According to previous reports, hyperosmotic stress (>541 mOsm) and crystallization induce membrane perturbation with irreversible deformation of the viral envelope and structural virus damage, respectively, resulting in infectivity loss of virus30,31. Therefore, our data support that the extensive level of infectivity loss associated with a salt recrystallization process caused by physical contact between virus aerosols and salt coating can be used in developing virus negation systems that are reusable without reprocessing.Similarly to CA/09 H1N1 aerosols, increased protection in vivo due to higher filtration efficiency of salt-coated filters compared to bare filters and deactivation of virus on salt-coated filters were observed following exposure to PR/34 H1N1 and VN/04 H5N1 (Fig. 4a,b). This suggests that salt-coated filters prevent virus penetration and destroy virus attached to the filter in a non-specific way. Furthermore, the performance of salt-coated filters was not degraded by storage at 37 °C and 70% RH, demonstrating that salt recrystallization-based filters can ensure protection even under harsh environmental conditions. Notably, for demonstration of the concept of salt-recrystallization based virus deactivation system, NaCl salt was used, which has a critical RH of 75% at 30 °C35. However, salts with higher critical RH can be easily used, such as ammonium sulfate, potassium chloride and potassium sulfate, which have critical RH of 80%, 84% and 96.3% at 30 °C, respectively35. This suggests that salt-coated filters may be developed for specific environmental conditions.In conclusion, we demonstrated that the developed salt-recrystallization based filtration system provides high filtration efficiency and successfully deactivates multiple subtypes of adsorbed viruses. Moreover, we have shown that stability of the salt coating is not compromised by high temperature and humidity, which suggests safe use and long-term storage/reuse at such environmental conditions. Although our tests are based on exposure to different types of influenza virus, the significance of these results for personal and public protective measures may be generally extended to enveloped respiratory viruses where infection and transmission can occur by aerosol. Our salt-coated filter unit can promise the development of long-term stable, versatile airborne pathogen negation system, without safety concerns. In fact, the destruction mechanism of viruses solely depends on the simple, yet robust naturally occurring salt recrystallization process, combining the destabilizing effects of salt crystal growth and concentration increase during drying of aerosols. This idea can be easily applied to a wide range of existing technologies to obtain low-cost, universal personal and public means of protection against airborne pathogens, such as masks and air filters in hospitals. Therefore, we believe that salt-recrystallization based virus deactivation system can contribute to global health by providing a more reliable means of preventing transmission and infection of pandemic or epidemic diseases and bioterrorism.MethodsBare and salt-coated filter samples preparationThe commercial surgical masks had a three-ply structure. The middle layer is the filter media, whereas the inner and outer layers provide support and protect the filter against wear and tear. The metal nose clips and elastic ear loops were removed and circular samples (radius: 3 cm) were cut from the masks. The PP filters (middle layer) were isolated by removing the inner and outer protective layers (bare filters, Filterbare). The coating solution was prepared by dissolving sodium chloride (NaCl; Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) in filtered DI water (0.22 μm pore size; Corning, Tewksbury, MA) under stirring at 400 rpm and 90 °C, followed by the addition of Tween 20 (Fisher Scientific) to a final concentration of 29.03 w/v% of NaCl and 1 v/v% of Tween 20. To obtain the salt-coated filters, the mask bare PP filters were pre-wet to contain approximately 600 μL of coating solution by incubating overnight at room temperature. Any remaining dry areas were removed by applying gentle strokes with tweezers to the filters while immersed in the coating solution. Subsequently, the filters were deposited in the desired volume of coating solution (0, 100, 300, 600, 900 and 1200 μL, of which corresponding membranes are abbreviated as Filterwet, Filterwet+100μL, Filterwet+300μL, Filterwet+600μL, Filterwet+900μL, and Filterwet+1200μL, respectively) on petri dishes (60 × 15 mm; Fisher Scientific) to control the amount of NaCl per unit area and dried in an oven (Isotemp Incubator, Fisher Scientific) at 37 °C for 1 day.Influenza virus preparationInfluenza viruses A/California/04/2009 (CA/09, H1N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34 (PR/34, H1N1) and A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (VN/04, H5N1) were grown in 10-day old embryonated hen eggs, in which H5N1 virus was derived by reverse genetics from HPAI A/Vietnam/1203/200436. Influenza viruses were purified from allantoic fluid using discontinuous sucrose gradient (15%, 30% and 60%) layers following the previously reported procedure37.Aerosols exposure to filtersFor experiments involving aerosols exposure, an aerosol chamber (L × W × H = 145 × 145 × 150 mm; Emka Inc., Middletown, PA) was used (Fig. S11). It has a connection to the vacuum line and a circular aperture in the top wall (diameter: 22 mm) to exactly accommodate the cylindrical part (diameter: 20 mm, height; 20 mm) of the nebulizer unit that is below the aerosol generator (Aeroneb Lab Nebulizer System; Aerogen, Galway, Ireland). Bleach was used as trap between the chamber and the vacuum pump (Welch 2522C-10, 22 L/min; Niles, IL). The filters were placed on top of the chamber aperture and the nebulizer unit was inserted, ensuring the tight seal of the filters against the side of the aperture. 5 μL of virus stock were added to the nebulizer unit, aerosols (VMD 2.5–4 μm from manufacturer specifications) were generated for 30 sec and subsequently the desired vacuum level (3, 10 or 17 kPa) was applied, by manual control, three times in 1 sec cycles. Notably, in the case of bare filters, pressure was only applied for filtration efficiency tests.For all assays and analysis, suspensions of the filters were prepared as follows, unless otherwise indicated. To reconstitute virus adsorbed onto filters, virus-laden filters were immersed in 400 μL of sterilized DI water for about 5 min, and then removed after vortexing from the suspension. The virus suspension was centrifuged at 19,800 g and 4 °C for 10 min (Centrifuge 5810 R, Eppendorf, Hauppauge, NY), followed by resuspension of pellets in 70 μL of DI water to eliminate any interference from materials in supernatant during assays.Filtration efficiency testsThe filters were exposed to the virus aerosols at 3, 10 and 17 kPa and suspensions of the filters were obtained, as described above. The filtration efficiency was calculated as the ratio of the amount of virus (i.e., total proteins measured from the virus) reconstituted from the filter to that from the virus in the exposure aerosols. The concentration of virus in aerosols was determined by generating viral aerosols into a 15 mL centrifuge tube, containing 1 mL of DI water. After vortexing, virus concentrations (i.e., total protein concentration) were measured with bicinchoninic acid assay (BCA protein assay kit; Thermo Fischer scientific, Waltham, IL) with bovine serum albumin as a standard. In the case of virus reconstituted from salt-coated filters, virus-laden filter suspension was replaced with DI water prior to BCA assay.In vivo infection testsLethal infectivity of influenza viruses (CA/09 H1N1) was examined in 8 week old female inbred BALB/c mice (Nara Biotech; Seoul, Korea) by using the intranasal route. For bare and salt-coated filters, 12 mice per group were infected with individual penetration dosage of influenza virus through each filter. The penetration dosage of the virus through the filters (Filterbare, Filterwet, Filterwet+600μL, and Filterwet+1200μL) was calculated from the filtration efficiency at 10 kPa (near breathing pressure) using the relationship: penetration dosage = virus dosage in lethal aerosol × penetration efficiency (%)/100, where penetration efficiency (%) = 100 − filtration efficiency (%). To examine the effects of the aerosolization process on the viral infectivity change, two mice groups were infected with a lethal dose of virus before and after aerosol formation, which served as negative control groups. Body weight changes and survival rate of mice were monitored daily for 15 days. Mice with body weight loss greater than 25% were euthanized. All animal protocols were approved by the Kyung Hee University (KHU) Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). All animal experiments and husbandry involved in this work were conducted under the approved protocols and guidelines of KHU IACUC. KHU IACUC operates under National Veterinary Research and Quarantine Service (NVRQS), and animal welfare law and regulations of the WOAH-OIE (World organization for animal health).To test strain-dependent lethal infection behavior, mice (12 per group) were infected with the penetrated dosage of viral aerosols (PR/34 H1N1 and VN/04 H5N1 viruses) through Filterwet+600μL at 10 kPa. Time-dependent body weight change was monitored in the same manner described above.Lung viral titer and lung inflammatory cytokine assays after infectionOn day 4 after infection 6 mice of each group were sacrificed for the collection of lung samples. Lung virus titers were measured on six-well plates containing confluent MDCK cell monolayers. Inflammatory cytokines (IFN-γ) were determined using BD OptEIA mouse IFN-γ ELISA kit (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA) following the manufacturer’s procedure.Test of viral infectivity change on filtersTo investigate the effects of salt-coating on viral infectivity loss, lethal influenza aerosols were exposed to four different types of filters (Filterbare, Filterwet, Filterwet+600μL, and Filterwet+1200μL). Since Filterbare exhibited almost complete penetration upon pressure application, aerosols were exposed to the bare filter in the absence of pressure and samples were carefully handled to prevent mechanical agitation. To measure time-dependent stability change of virus, virus-laden filters were incubated at ambient conditions for 0, 5, 15, and 60 min after aerosol exposure, and suspended in DI water to reconstitute virus at each time point. In vitro stability of virus was characterized by measuring hemagglutinin activity (HA) and virus titers at the same concentration as lethal dose30. The conformational stability of antigenic proteins was characterized by measuring intrinsic fluorescence using 0.1 mg/mL of virus suspension38. To investigate morphological change of virus, lipid stability of viral wall was characterized by nile red fluorescence (Sigma Aldrich), a fluorescent lipid stain, following manufacturer’s protocol39. A decrease in fluorescence intensity can be used to examine the level of disintegration of the virus. Both intrinsic and nile red fluorescence were measured by using a fluorimeter (LB 50B; PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA). Intensity changes of fluorescent spectra were compared relative to those of a control from virus stock.To test infectivity difference observed from in vitro findings, in vivo study was performed for the virus reconstituted from the filters (Filterbare, Filterwet, Filterwet+600μL, and Filterwet+1200μL) after incubation for 60 min at RT (aerosol exposure at 10 kPa, except for Filterbare). 12 mice per group were infected with a lethal dose of virus collected from each type of filter. Body weight change and lung virus titers were measured as described above.Effects of environmental conditions on the performance of salt-coated filterSalt-coated filters (Filterwet, Filterwet+600μL, and Filterwet+1200μL) were stored at 37 °C, 70% RH in an incubator (Maru Max; Rcom, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea) for 15 days. Every day, the filters were collected and incubated at ambient conditions for 5 min. At 1-day incubation, filtration efficiency was measured at 10 kPa from Filterwet+600μL, followed by in vivo infection test. Lethal infectivity between two different filter groups (before and after incubation at 37 °C, 70% RH) was compared by measuring body weight change and survival rate of mice after exposure to lethal CA/09 H1N1 aerosols. XRD analysis was performed to salt-coated filters incubated for 1 and 15 days, and SEM/EDX mapping analysis for 15-day incubated samples.Contact angle measurements and imaging of aerosolsThe bare and salt-coated filters were fixed with carbon tape (Ted Pella, Inc., Redding, CA) to a metal, flat substrate and 3 μL of DI water were added on the surface of the filters. The contact angles were measured from images collected with an optical microscope (10× lens, Motic SMZ-140; Motic, Richmond, Canada) at RT. Images of aerosols on filter fibers were obtained using a dispersive Raman microscope (Nicolet Almega XR; Fisher Scientific).Aerosol drying time on filtersThe bare and salt-coated filters were fixed with carbon tape to a metal, flat substrate and exposed to aerosols generated from 5 μL of Sulforhodamine B Dye solution (1 mM, Sigma-Aldrich). Aerosol drying time was determined with timer by observation with optical microscope.Electron microscopy analysisFor virus stability tests, bare and salt-coated filters were exposed to CA/09 H1N1 aerosols and, after 5 and 60 min incubation, virus was recovered by suspension of the filters, as described above. To study the effects of the coating formulation during aerosol drying independently from crystal growth, bare and salt-coated filters were immersed in DI water and removed after 60 min. Subsequently, virus was incubated in the obtained suspension for 60 min. Additionally, the virus suspension was centrifuged at 19,800 g and 4 °C for 10 min to collect the samples and suspend them in DI water. For TEM analysis (200 kV, JEOL JEM 2100; JEOL, Peabody, MA), samples were deposited on copper grid (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA) and negatively stained with solution comprised of phosphotungstic acid hydrate (1.5 w/v%, pH = 7.0; Sigma-Aldrich, Oakville, Canada).To identify the morphology of salt-coated filters and recrystallized salts, SEM/EDX analysis was performed for bare and salt-coated filters after coating with 10 nm thick gold layer. Scanning electron microscopy analysis (Hitachi S-3000N; Hitachi, Toronto, Canada) was operated in secondary electron mode at 20 kV and EDX analysis was obtained with EDX detector (Oxford Instruments, Concord, MA).XRD analysisTo confirm the formation of crystalline NaCl coating during drying process and its stability during storage at 37 °C and 70% RH, XRD analysis (BRU-1098; Bruker, Billerica, MA) was performed at different coating conditions. Filters (1 × 1 cm) were mounted on a slide glass for XRD analysis (θ–2θ mode) using a CuKα radiation.Statistical analysisTo compare multiple conditions, Student’s t-test, One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and general linear model were used (Minitab release 14; Minitab, State College, PA). P value of less than 0.05 was considered to be significant.Additional InformationHow to cite this article: Quan, F.-S. et al. Universal and reusable virus deactivation system for respiratory protection. Sci. Rep. 7, 39956; doi: 10.1038/srep39956 (2017).Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.\n \n\n References1Tellier, R. Review of aerosol transmission of influenza A virus. Emerging Infect. Dis. 12, 1657–1662 (2006).2Weber, T. P. & Stilianakis, N. I. Inactivation of influenza A viruses in the environment and modes of transmission: a critical review. J. Infect. 57, 361–373 (2008).3Duy, J. et al. Circulating microRNA profiles of Ebola virus infection. Sci. Rep. 6, 24496 (2016).4Morse, S. S., Garwin, R. L. & Olsiewski, P. J. Next flu pandemic: what to do until the vaccine arrives? Science 314, 929–929 (2006).5CDC. Laboratory performance evaluation of N95 filtering facepiece respirators, 1996. MMWR, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 47, 1045 (1998).6Seto, W. H. et al. Effectiveness of precautions against droplets and contact in prevention of nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Lancet 361, 1519–1520 (2003).7Bałazy, A. et al. Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks? Am. J. Infect. Control 34, 51–57 (2006).8Loeb, M. et al. Surgical mask vs N95 respirator for preventing influenza among health care workers: a randomized trial. JAMA 302, 1865–1871 (2009).9Bunyan, D., Ritchie, L., Jenkins, D. & Coia, J. E. Respiratory and facial protection: a critical review of recent literature. J. Hosp. Infect. 85, 165–169 (2013).10Zhu, C., Lin, C. H. & Cheung, C. S. Inertial impaction-dominated fibrous filtration with rectangular or cylindrical fibers. Powder Technol. 112, 149–162 (2000).11Lee, K. W. & Liu, B. Y. H. Theoretical study of aerosol filtration by fibrous filters. Aerosol Sci. Tech. 1, 147–161 (1982).12Duarte Fo, O. B., Marra, W. D., Kachan, G. C. & Coury, J. R. Filtration of electrified solid particles. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res 39, 3884–3895 (2000).13Kraemer, H. F. & Johnstone, H. F. Collection of aerosol particles in presence of electrostatic fields. Ind. Eng. Chem. 47, 2426–2434 (1955).14Ranz, W. E. & Wong, J. B. Impaction of dust and smoke particles on surface and body collectors. Ind. Eng. Chem. 44, 1371–1381 (1952).15Siegel, J. D., Rhinehart, E., Jackson, M. & Chiarello, L. 2007 guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents in health care settings. Am. J. Infect. Control 35, S65–S164 (2007).16Coia, J. E. et al. Guidance on the use of respiratory and facial protection equipment. J. Hosp. Infect. 85, 170–182 (2013).17Ratnesar-Shumate, S. et al. Evaluation of physical capture efficiency and disinfection capability of an iodinated biocidal filter medium. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 8, 1–18 (2008).18Lee, J. H., Wu, C. Y., Wysocki, K. M. & Farrah, S. & Wander, J. Efficacy of iodine-treated biocidal filter media against bacterial spore aerosols. J. Appl. Microbiol. 105, 1318–1326 (2008).19Badrossamay, M. R. & Sun, G. Acyclic halamine polypropylene polymer: effect of monomer structure on grafting efficiency, stability and biocidal activities. React. Funct. Polym. 68, 1636–1645 (2008).20Zhao, N. & Liu, S. Thermoplastic semi-IPN of polypropylene (PP) and polymeric N-halamine for efficient and durable antibacterial activity. Eur. Polym. J. 47, 1654–1663 (2011).21Cerkez, I., Worley, S. D., Broughton, R. M. & Huang, T. S. Antimicrobial surface coatings for polypropylene nonwoven fabrics. React. Funct. Polym. 73, 1412–1419 (2013).22Davison, A. M. Pathogen inactivation and filtration efficacy of a new anti-microbial and anti-viral surgical facemask and N95 against dentistry-associated microorganisms. International dentistry Australasian edition 7, 36–42 (2012).23Borkow, G., Zhou, S. S., Page, T. & Gabbay, J. A novel anti-influenza copper oxide containing respiratory face mask. PLoS One 5, e11295 (2010).24Borkow, G. & Gabbay, J. Putting copper into action: copper-impregnated products with potent biocidal activities. FASEB J. 18, 1728–1730 (2004).25Li, Y., Leung, P., Yao, L., Song, Q. W. & Newton, E. Antimicrobial effect of surgical masks coated with nanoparticles. J. Hosp. Infect. 62, 58–63 (2006).26Lee, J. H. et al. Assessment of iodine-treated filter media for removal and inactivation of MS2 bacteriophage aerosols. J. Appl. Microbiol. 107, 1912–1923 (2009).27Lore, M. B. et al. Performance of conventional and antimicrobial-treated filtering facepiece respirators challenged with biological aerosols. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 9, 69–80 (2012).28Rengasamy, S., Fisher, E. & Shaffer, R. E. Evaluation of the survivability of MS2 viral aerosols deposited on filtering face piece respirator samples incorporating antimicrobial technologies. Am. J. Infect. Control 38, 9–17 (2010).29Windisch, W., Hennings, E., Sorichter, S., Hamm, H. & Criee, C. P. Peak or plateau maximal inspiratory mouth pressure: which is best? Eur. Respir. J. 23, 708–713 (2004).30Choi, H.-J. et al. Stability of influenza vaccine coated onto microneedles. Biomaterials 33, 3756–3769 (2012).31Choi, H.-J. et al. Stability of whole inactivated influenza virus vaccine during coating onto metal microneedles. J. Control. Release 166, 159–171 (2013).32Baldwin, R. L. How hofmeister ion interactions affect protein stability. Biophys. J. 71, 2056–2063 (1996).33Choi, H.-J. et al. Effect of osmotic pressure on the stability of whole inactivated influenza vaccine for coating on microneedles. PLoS one 10, e0134431 (2015).34ASTM International. ASTM F2101 - 14 Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Bacterial Filtration Efficiency (BFE) of Medical Face Mask Materials, Using a Biological Aerosol of Staphylococcus aureus (2014).35Adams, J. R. & Merz, A. R. Hygroscopicity of fertilizer materials and mixtures. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 21, 305–307 (1929).36Song, J.-M. et al. Protective immunity against H5N1 influenza virus by a single dose vaccination with virus-like particles. Virology 405, 165–175 (2010).37Quan, F. S. et al. A bivalent influenza VLP vaccine confers complete inhibition of virus replication in lungs. Vaccine 26, 3352–3361 (2008).38Choi, H.-J., Ebersbacher, C. F., Kim, M., Kang, S. & Montemagno, C. D. A mechanistic study on the destabilization of whole inactivated influenza virus vaccine in gastric environment. PLoS one 8, e66316 (2013).39Greenspan, P., Mayer, E. P. & Fowler, S. D. Nile red: a selective fluorescent stain for intracellular lipid droplets. J. Cell Biol. 100, 965–973 (1985).Download referencesAcknowledgementsThis research was financially supported by startup funds from University of Alberta (H.J.C.), and grants from National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) (NRF-2014R1A2A2A01004899) and Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI15C2928).Author informationAuthor notesFu-Shi Quan and Ilaria Rubino: These authors contributed equally to this work.AffiliationsDepartment of Medical Zoology, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, 130-701, KoreaFu-Shi QuanDepartment of Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1H9, CanadaIlaria Rubino, Brendan Koch & Hyo-Jick ChoiDepartment of Biomedical Science, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, 130-701, KoreaSu-Hwa LeeAuthorsSearch for Fu-Shi Quan in:Search for Ilaria Rubino in:Search for Su-Hwa Lee in:Search for Brendan Koch in:Search for Hyo-Jick Choi in:ContributionsH.J.C. conceived and designed the experiments. F.S.Q., I.R., S.H.L., B.K., and H.J.C. performed the experiments. F.S.Q., I.R., S.H.L., B.K., and H.J.C. analyzed the data. I.R. and H.J.C. wrote the manuscript. F.S.Q. and B.K. edited the manuscript.Corresponding authorCorrespondence to\n Hyo-Jick Choi.Ethics declarations\n \n Competing interests\n The authors declare no competing financial interests.\n \n Supplementary informationRights and permissionsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Reprints and PermissionsAbout this articleCite this articleQuan, F., Rubino, I., Lee, S. et al. Universal and reusable virus deactivation system for respiratory protection.\n Sci Rep 7, 39956 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39956Download citationReceived: 04 August 2016Accepted: 30 November 2016Published: 04 January 2017DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39956\n\n \n \n \n Further reading\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Survival of Microorganisms on Nonwovens Used for the Construction of Filtering Facepiece Respirators\n \n \n \n \n Katarzyna Majchrzycka, Małgorzata Okrasa, Justyna Szulc, Anita Jachowicz[…] & Beata Gutarowska- Show fewer authors\n \n \n International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\n (2019)\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Respiratory Protection against Pandemic and Epidemic Diseases\n \n \n \n \n Ilaria Rubino & Hyo-Jick Choi\n \n \n Trends in Biotechnology\n (2017)\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n CommentsBy submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate."],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]}]}],["text","WIKILINK\n最新科技資訊\n\n \n口罩能否反復使用？浸鹽水後可100%讓H1N1病毒滅活，但對其他病毒需謹慎 | 《科學報告》期刊\nFebruary 5, 2020 admin\n曉查發自凹非寺 \n量子位報道 | 公眾號 QbitAI\n一場新冠肺炎讓中國的口罩嚴重告急。\n\n每齣一次門就要廢掉一個口罩，傢裏的口罩即將用完，藥店和網上都買不到，真是急死人瞭。\n\n彆怕，早在2016年，來自韓國慶熙大學的研究者就發現，口罩隻需用普通食鹽水處理後，就具有瞭一定的殺滅病毒能力，至少對2009年爆發的H1N1流感病毒有效。\n\n他們將處理後的口罩來過濾充滿H1N1病毒的空氣，然後再給小白鼠呼吸，結果發現小鼠的存活率達到瞭100%。\n\n\n\n\n \n空氣中的病毒濃度達到瞭緻死量。作為對照，如果使用普通醫用口罩過濾，小白鼠在4天後就會齣現嚴重的肺炎，10天後全部死亡。\n\n這篇文章發錶在2017年1月Nature旗下的Scientific Reports期刊上。\n\n\n\n△實驗中用到的過濾裝置\n早在3年前，該文章就預測瞭口罩短缺的可能性。\n\n作者在開頭說，在疫病大流行時期，生産能力不足和製造過程耗時，會導緻口罩供應有限。\n\nN95口罩雖然可以過濾空氣中形成的病毒氣溶膠，但是在嚴重的疫情麵前，大規模使用N95口罩是不切實際的，而且價格昂貴。\n\n過去的SARS、H1N1、MERS都錶明，醫用外科口罩是被公眾最廣泛采用的個人防護措施，盡管人們對它的效果存在爭議。\n\n因此需要開發一種通用、低成本且有效的防護病毒機製，最好能用在普通醫用口罩上。\n\n\n\n\n\n\n研究人員配置瞭濃度29.03 w/v%的氯化鈉溶液，並在其中加入瞭一些Tween 20錶麵活性劑，將口罩浸潤，然後在37℃的環境下乾燥一天。\n\n文章指齣，經過這種方法處理後的口罩無需再次處理即可重復使用。最終實驗發現，塗有氯化鈉的口罩上的病毒在5分鍾後就失去瞭活性。\n\n\n\n\n\n\n從顯微鏡分析來看，病毒氣溶膠乾燥時間約為3分鍾，錶明在5分鍾時觀察到的病毒破壞與乾燥引起的鹽結晶有關。\n\n作者推測，可能是帶有水分的病毒被吸附在口罩錶麵，濕潤後又重結晶的鹽破壞瞭病毒的結構。\n\n既然對H1N1病毒，自然就有網友很好奇，這種處理方法是否也對新型冠狀病毒有效。\n\n一些網友對此提齣瞭質疑，認為鹽結晶可能減小瞭口罩的通氣量，而且實驗隻對H1N1病毒進行瞭驗證，是否實用還有待商榷。\n\n所以在未經實驗驗證的情況下，請不要用這種方法來過濾新型冠狀病毒。口罩還是要保證一用一換，切不可自行處理後就重復使用，否則仍有被感染的風險。\n\n論文地址：\nhttps://www.nature.com/articles/srep39956#Sec8\n\n— 完 —\n\n"],["id","obwrpyiajxnx"],["createdAt","2020-02-09T01:53:22.130Z"]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["replyCount",1],["references",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["type","LINE"]]}]}],["replyRequestCount",5],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","j4S8C_naTRAXPvsA2Ma5ynggq8IjSbQRVemeRSEOwL3LzNZM8"],["name","乂愛冒險的鹽埔甘乃迪乂"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",0]]}],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","2020 coronavirus pandemic in Vietnam"],["url","https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Vietnam"],["summary","The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic was confirmed to have spread to Vietnam on 23 January 2020.[2] As of 2 April 2020, there were 227 confirmed cases, with 75 recoveries and 0 deaths.[1]The country's response to the outbreak has received acclaim for its effectiveness and transparency, as well as its low-cost model, in contrast to China, the rest of Southeast Asia and even to Europe and North America and is compared to how South Korea has responded, despite economically more behind; though not without controversies.[3][4][5]\n\n\nTimeline\n\n\nCOVID-19 cases in Vietnam (vte) Deaths Recoveries Active cases\nDate\n\n# of cases\n2020-01-23\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2(+2)\n\n(n.a.)\n⋮\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2(=)\n\n(=)\n2020-01-28\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2\n\n(=)\n⋮\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2(=)\n\n(=)\n2020-01-31\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n5(+3)\n\n(+150%)\n2020-02-01\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n6(+1)\n\n(+20%)\n2020-02-02\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n7(+1)\n\n(+17%)\n2020-02-03\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n8(+1)\n\n(+14%)\n2020-02-04\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n10(+2)\n\n(+25%)\n2020-02-05\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n10\n\n(=)\n2020-02-06\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n12(+2)\n\n(+20%)\n2020-02-07\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n13(+1)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-02-08\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n13\n\n(=)\n2020-02-09\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n14(+1)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-02-10\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n14\n\n(=)\n2020-02-11\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n15(+1)\n\n(+7%)\n2020-02-12\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n15\n\n(=)\n2020-02-13\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(+1)\n\n(+7%)\n⋮\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(=)\n\n(=)\n2020-02-18\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(+1)\n\n(=)\n2020-02-19\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(+1)\n\n(=)\n2020-02-20\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(+1)\n\n(=)\n⋮\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(=)\n\n(=)\n2020-02-26\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16\n\n(=)\n⋮\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(=)\n\n(=)\n2020-03-06\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n17(+1)\n\n(+6%)\n2020-03-07\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n20(+3)\n\n(+15%)\n2020-03-08\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n30(+10)\n\n(+50%)\n2020-03-09\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n31(+1)\n\n(+3%)\n2020-03-10\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n34(+3)\n\n(+10%)\n2020-03-11\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n38(+4)\n\n(+12%)\n2020-03-12\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n44(+6)\n\n(+16%)\n2020-03-13\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n47(+3)\n\n(+7%)\n2020-03-14\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n53(+6)\n\n(+13%)\n2020-03-15\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n57(+4)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-03-16\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n61(+4)\n\n(+7%)\n2020-03-17\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n66(+5)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-03-18\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n76(+10)\n\n(+15%)\n2020-03-19\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n85(+9)\n\n(+12%)\n2020-03-20\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n91(+6)\n\n(+7%)\n2020-03-21\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n94(+3)\n\n(+3%)\n2020-03-22\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n113(+19)\n\n(+20%)\n2020-03-23\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n123(+10)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-03-24\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n134(+11)\n\n(+9%)\n2020-03-25\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n141(+7)\n\n(+5%)\n2020-03-26\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n153(+12)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-03-27\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n163(+10)\n\n(+7%)\n2020-03-28\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n174(+11)\n\n(+7%)\n2020-03-29\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n188(+14)\n\n(+9%)\n2020-03-30\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n203(+15)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-03-31\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n207(+4)\n\n(+2%)\n2020-04-01\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n218(+11)\n\n(+5%)\n2020-04-02\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n227(+9)\n\n(+4%)\nSources:Ministry of Health of Vietnam (Chart from Vietnam Ministry of Health)\n\nJanuary\nOn 23 January, Vietnam confirmed the first two cases of COVID-19, a Chinese man (#1) travelling from Wuhan to Hanoi to visit his son who lived in Vietnam, and his son (#2), who was believed to have contracted the disease from his father. They were hospitalised on 22 January at Chợ Rẫy Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City.[6] On 24 January, Acting Minister of Health Vũ Đức Đam ordered the activation of the Emergency Epidemic Prevention Centre.[7] On 29 January, the son fully recovered and was discharged.[8] His father was discharged on 12 February.[9]A week later, three positive cases were confirmed by the Ministry of Health, involving Vietnamese nationals who had returned from Wuhan. Case No. 3 (25-yr-old female) was quarantined and cured in Thanh Hóa Province, while the other two cases (#4: 29-yr-old male; #5: 23-yr-old female) are hospitalised in Hanoi.[10][11] Case No. 5 was discharged on 3 February, fully recovered and tested negative with the virus.[12]\nFebruary\nOn 1 February, a 25-year-old woman (#6) was declared coronavirus-positive in Khánh Hòa Province. She has worked as a receptionist and had direct contact with the Chinese father and son (cases #1–2).[13] This case was discharged from the hospital on 4 February.[14] Noticeably, this case was the first domestic transmission in Vietnam, leading to an epidemic declaration signed by the Vietnamese Prime Minister and calls for border tightening, aviation permits revoked, and visa restriction.[15][16][17][18]On 2 February, a Vietnamese American (#7) got infected with coronavirus, due to two-hour layover in Wuhan airport during his trip from the US.[19]On 3–4 February, Vietnam announced their eighth and ninth case: a 29-year-old female (#8) and a 30-year-old male (#9). They belonged to the same training team with the previous confirmed cases of three (cases #3-through-5).[20][21]Later on 4 February, the 10th case was identified. A 42-year-old female met and greeted with the case No. 5 during Lunar New Year holiday.[22] Mother (49-year-old, #11) and younger sister (16-year-old, #12) of the case No. 5 were also transmitted on 6 February.[23]On 7 February, Vietnam confirmed their 13th case, a 29-year-old worker, who is a member of the same training crew with 5 previously confirmed cases (case #3,4,5,8,9).[24] Earlier of the same day, Vietnam declared to have successfully cultured and isolated the virus in the lab. This is one of the few countries able to do this, aside from Singapore, Australia, Japan and China.[25]On 9 February, a 55-year-old woman, a neighbour of case No. 5, tested positive; the 14th case.[26]On 10 February, three more cases: #4, #5 and #9 were declared to be recovered.[27]The 15th case was identified on 11 February, a 3-month-old grandchild of case No. 10.[28]On 13 February, father of case No. 5 was tested positive, making the number of cases in Vietnam 16.[29]On 25 February, the 16th was released from the hospital after being tested negative from the COVID-19, temporarily made Vietnam cleared from COVID-19 outbreak.[30] However, quarantine measures continue to be imposed until further notice.[31]\nMarch\nOn 6 March night, Hanoi urgently announced a new case of coronavirus, the first one found in the capital of Vietnam. The patient, a 26-year-old woman, had been traveling across Europe during the outbreak. She had been exhibiting several symptoms, but didn't notify the authorities about her travel history or health conditions.[32] The government has isolated roughly 200 people who had close contact, live on the same street, or were on the same flight as the patient.[33][34] The incident also sparked a wave of stockpiling purchases across the city.[35]On 7 March afternoon, a 27-year-old Vietnamese was put into quarantine in Ninh Binh Province, after he was diagnosed with COVID-19, making this the 18th case. The patient had been in Daegu for several days.[36] Just 2 hours later, the Vietnamese Ministry of Health confirmed 2 more cases, both related to the 17th case.[37]On 8 March, another case in Hanoi was announced, which was a 61-year-old man.[38] Later this day, 9 more cases was announced, with 4 cases in Quảng Ninh, 2 cases in Lào Cai, 2 cases in Đà Nẵng and 1 case in Thừa Thiên - Huế. All of them were on the same flight with case #17.[39]On 9 March evening, a 49-year-old British man was put into quarantine in Quảng Nam Province, related to patient number 17.[40]On 10 March, a 24-year-old Vietnamese woman was announced positive with the virus and had close contact with case #17 while in London. After she acknowledged that case #17 was infected, she flew back to Vietnam in a private jet with quarantined cabin to seek healthcare in her home country.[41] Later that day, another British man was found infected with the virus, who was on the same flight with case #17.[42] Before the end of the day, the 34th case was identified, a 51-year-old businesswoman who had visited the United States, with a brief transit in Korea and Qatar during the trip.[43]On 11 March, Vietnam confirmed their 35th case of COVID-19, a 29-year-old woman who works in an electronics supermarket in Da Nang, and had physical contact with two infected British tourists.[44] Within the same day, 3 more case were discovered, all are related to patient number 34.[45]On 12 March morning, Vietnamese Ministry of Health reported the 39th case of the country. This case is a 29-year-old tour guide in Hanoi, who had contact with patient number 24 during a trip to Ninh Binh.[46] Evening of the same day, five more cases were announced, all are related to patient number 34.[47]On 13 March, 3 more cases were announced.[48][49]On 14 March, 6 cases were announced. Aside from cases related to flight VN0054 and patient 34, there are 3 unrelated cases: A Vietnamese came back from Paris, a Vietnamese overseas student who has been travelling across Europe, and a Czech national.[50]On 16 March, a new case was reported in Vietnam, known as the 61st patient. The patient, a Muslim from the Cham minority, had participated in the Tablighi Jamaat in Sri Petaling mosque, Malaysia, where he got infected before returning to Vietnam and attended the Jamiul Muslimin Mosque in Ho Chi Minh City before returning home in Ninh Thuận. Due to the wide range of people he contacted, it raised the fear of the patient being a super spread patient. Eventually, the Vietnamese authorities decided to isolate and quarantine the whole province, as well as shut the mosque.[51][52][53] Subsequently, a new-found case connected with the man were also discovered the following days.[54] On 22 March, another case also related to the Islamic activities is a fellow Muslim who returned from Malaysia also attended in the same Sri Petaling mosque, before went back to Vietnam and still did Islamic praying five times a day in Jamiul Anwar mosque, despite being asked to quarantine at home.[55]On 22 March, Vietnam recorded over fourteen new patients, surpassing over 100 patients for the first time. Many returned from various countries, including Britain, Malaysia, and France; which are severely hit by the coronavirus.[56]On 26 March, 12 more cases were confirmed.[57]\nCases\nAs of 2 April 2020, there were 9 new cases with 12 new recoveries, bringing the tally to 227 confirmed cases and 75 recovered cases with no confirmed deaths.[1]\n\n\nCase details\nDetails of the confirmed cases in Vietnam (as of 2 April 2020)\n\nCase\n\nDate\n\nAge\n\nGender\n\nNationality\n\nPlace of detection\n\nPlace of treatment\n\nBeen to Wuhan, Hubei\n\nBeen to Covid-19 countries (excluding China)\n\nStatus\n\nNote\n\nSource\n1\n\n23 January 2020\n\n66\n\nMale\n\n China\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCho Ray Hospital\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]2\n\n28\n\nMale\n\n China\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nSon of case 1\n\n[59][58]3\n\n30 January 2020\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nThanh Hoa\n\nThanh Hoa General Hospital\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]4\n\n29\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nVinh Phuc\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]5\n\n23\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]6\n\n1 February 2020\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nKhanh Hoa\n\nKhanh Hoa Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nRelated to cases 1 and 2\n\n[59][58]7\n\n2 February 2020\n\n73\n\nMale\n\n United States\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nHo Chi Minh City Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nStayed at Wuhan Tianhe International Airport before flying to Vietnam\n\n[59][58]8\n\n3 February 2020\n\n29\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nVinh Phuc\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]9\n\n4 February 2020\n\n30\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]10\n\n42\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBinh Xuyen District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nCousin of case 5\n\n[59][58]11\n\n6 February 2020\n\n49\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nMother of case 5\n\n[59][58]12\n\n16\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nSister of case 5\n\n[59][58]13\n\n7 February 2020\n\n29\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nTam Dao Health Centre\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]14\n\n9 February 2020\n\n55\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nNeighbor of case 5\n\n[59][58]15\n\n11 February 2020\n\n3 months\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nVietnam National Children's Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nGrandchildren of case 10\n\n[59][58]16\n\n13 February 2020\n\n50\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBinh Xuyen District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nFather of case 5\n\n[59][58]17\n\n6 March 2020\n\n26\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nVisited to United Kingdom, Italy and France. Related to flight VN54 cluster\n\n[60][61]18\n\n7 March 2020\n\n27\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Binh\n\nNinh Binh General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nWorked in Daegu\n\n[62]19\n\n64\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nAunt of case 17\n\n[37]20\n\n27\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nDriver of case 17\n21\n\n8 March 2020\n\n61\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nFlight VN54 cluster\n\n[39][63]22\n\n60\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nDa Nang\n\nDa Nang Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n23\n\n66\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n24\n\n67\n\nFemale\n\n Ireland\n\nQuang Ninh\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n25\n\n50\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n26\n\n58\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n27\n\n70\n\nFemale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n28\n\n69\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nLao Cai\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n29\n\n70\n\nFemale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n30\n\n66\n\nFemale\n\n Great Britain\n\nThua Thien Hue\n\nHue Central Hospital (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n31\n\n9 March 2020\n\n49\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nQuang Nam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n[64][58]32\n\n10 March 2020\n\n24\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nHo Chi Minh City Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nFriend and related to case 17 at London before flied to Vietnam\n\n[65]33\n\n58\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nQuang Nam\n\nHue Central Hospital (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nFlight VN54 cluster\n\n[66]34\n\n51\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBinh Thuan\n\nBinh Thuan General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nVisited United States and Qatar\n\n[58]35\n\n11 March 2020\n\n29\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nDa Nang\n\nDa Nang Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nRelated to cases 22 and 23 in Da Nang\n\n[45][58]36\n\n64\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBinh Thuan\n\nBinh Thuan General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nHelper of case 34\n37\n\n37\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nEmployee of case 34\n38\n\n28\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nDaughter-in-law of case 34\n39\n\n25\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nTour guide for case 24\n\n[67][58]40\n\n12 March 2020\n\n59\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBinh Thuan\n\nBinh Thuan General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nHusband of case 34\n\n[47][58]41\n\n28\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nSon of case 34\n42\n\n2\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nGranddaughter of case 34\n43\n\n47\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nClose contact with case 38\n44\n\n13\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nSon of case 37\n45\n\n13 March 2020\n\n25\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nClose contact with case 34\n\n[50][58]46\n\n30\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nFlight attendant on flight VN54\n47\n\n43\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nHelper of case 17\n48\n\n14 March 2020\n\n31\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nClose contact with case 34\n49\n\n71\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nThua Thien Hue\n\nHue Central Hospital (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nHusband of case 30, related to flight VN54 cluster\n50\n\n24\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nQuang Ninh\n\n2nd Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n51\n\n50\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n52\n\n22\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n53\n\n53\n\nMale\n\n Czech Republic\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n54\n\n15 March 2020\n\n33\n\nMale\n\n Latvia\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[68][69][58]55\n\n35\n\nMale\n\n Germany\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n56\n\n30\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n57\n\n66\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nQuang Nam\n\nQuang Nam General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nSame flight as case 46\n58\n\n16 March 2020\n\n26\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n59\n\n30\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nFlight attendant on flight VN54\n60\n\n29\n\nMale\n\n France\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n61\n\n42\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Thuan\n\nNinh Thuan General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n62\n\n17 March 2020\n\n18\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nQuang Ninh\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n63\n\n20\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n64\n\n36\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n65\n\n28\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nColleague of case 45 and 48\n66\n\n21\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n67\n\n18 March 2020\n\n36\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Thuan\n\nNinh Thuan General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nSame flight as case 61\n68\n\n41\n\nMale\n\n United States\n\nDa Nang\n\n199 Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n69\n\n30\n\nMale\n\n Germany\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n70\n\n19\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n71\n\n19\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n72\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n France\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nGirlfriend of case 60\n73\n\n11\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHai Duong\n\nThanh Mien District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nSame flight as case 46 and 59\n74\n\n23\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBac Ninh\n\nBac Ninh General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n75\n\n40\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n76\n\n52\n\nMale\n\n France\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n77\n\n19 March 2020\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n78\n\n22\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n79\n\n48\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n80\n\n18\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nSon of case 79\n81\n\n20\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n82\n\n16\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n83\n\n50\n\nFemale\n\n United States\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n84\n\n21\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n85\n\n20\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n86\n\n20 March 2020\n\n54\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nBach Mai Hospital nurses\n87\n\n34\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n88\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n89\n\n22\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n90\n\n21\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n91\n\n43\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nHo Chi Minh City Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nPilot of Vietnam Airlines, related to Bar Buddha cluster\n92\n\n21 March 2020\n\n21\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n93\n\n20\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n94\n\n64\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n95\n\n22 March 2020\n\n20\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n96\n\n21\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n97\n\n34\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to Bar Buddha cluster\n98\n\n34\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n99\n\n29\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n100\n\n55\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n101\n\n26\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nDong Thap\n\nSa Dec General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nPassengers on flight VN50\n102\n\n9\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n103\n\n22\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n104\n\n33\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n105\n\n35\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nTra Vinh\n\nTra Vinh Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n106\n\n20\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n107\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nDaughter of case 86\n108\n\n19\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n109\n\n42\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n110\n\n19\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n111\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n112\n\n30\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n113\n\n18\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n114\n\n23 March 2020\n\n19\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n115\n\n44\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nDaughter of case 94\n116\n\n29\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nDoctor who infected from his patients\n117\n\n30\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nTay Ninh\n\nTay Ninh General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nVisited Cambodia\n118\n\n23\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n119\n\n29\n\nMale\n\n United States\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nFV Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n120\n\n27\n\nMale\n\n Canada\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nClose contact with case 91\n121\n\n58\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n122\n\n24\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nDa Nang\n\nDa Nang Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorked as a bartender in Bangkok, Thailand\n123\n\n17\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBen Tre\n\nBinh Dai District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n124\n\n24 March 2020\n\n52\n\nMale\n\n Brazil\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to Bar Buddha cluster\n\n[70][58]125-126\n\n22-28\n\n1 male, 1 female\n\n South Africa\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n2 In-patient\n127\n\n23\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n128-132\n\n20-30\n\n4 males, 1 female\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n1 In-patient, 4 Discharged\n\n\n133\n\n66\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nLai Chau\n\nLai Chau General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nInfected from Bach Mai Hospital\n134\n\n10\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nThanh Hoa\n\nBim Son General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n135\n\n25 March 2020\n\n27\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nDa Nang\n\nDa Nang Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n136-140\n\n21-36\n\n3 males, 2 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n3 In-patient, 2 Discharged\n141\n\n29\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nDoctor infected by his patients\n142\n\n26 March 2020\n\n26\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n143\n\n58\n\nFemale\n\n South Africa\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n144\n\n22\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nTra Vinh\n\nTra Vinh Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n145\n\n34\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCan Tho\n\nCan Tho Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n146\n\n17\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHa Tinh\n\nCau Treo General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n147\n\n19\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n148\n\n58\n\n France\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n149\n\n40\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nQuang Ninh\n\n2nd Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n150\n\n55\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n151\n\n45\n\nFemale\n\n Brazil\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nClose contact with case 124\n152\n\n27\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nSister of case 127\n153\n\n60\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n154\n\n27 March 2020\n\n23\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCan Tho\n\nCan Tho Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n155-156\n\n21\n\n1 male, 1 female\n\n Vietnam\n\nBac Lieu\n\nBac Lieu General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n2 In-patient\n\n\n157\n\n31\n\nFemale\n\n Great Britain\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to Bar Buddha cluster\n158-159\n\n33-45\n\n2 males\n\n Brazil\n\nHo Chi Minh City Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n2 In-patient\n160\n\n30\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n161\n\n88\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nInfected from Bach Mai Hospital\n162\n\n63\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nDaughter-in-law of case 161\n163\n\n43\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nDuc Giang Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nGrand daughter of case 161\n164-166\n\n28 March 2020\n\n23-58\n\n2 males, 1 female\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Binh\n\nNinh Binh General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n3 In-patient\n\n\n167\n\n20\n\nFemale\n\n Denmark\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n168-169\n\n49\n\n2 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n2 In-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n170\n\n27\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Binh\n\nKim Son District General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to Bach Mai Hospital cluster\n171\n\n19\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\n\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n172\n\n\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\n\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nDaughter-in-law of case 133\n173\n\n\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\n\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n174\n\n\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\n\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n175-177\n\n29 March 2020\n\n38-57\n\n1 male, 2 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\n\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n3 In-patient\n178\n\n44\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nThai Nguyen\n\nDai Tu District General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n179\n\n62\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nThanh Hoa\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n180-182\n\n19-33\n\n1 male, 2 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Binh\n\nNinh Binh General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n3 In-patient\n\n\n183\n\n43\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nClose contact with case 148\n184\n\n42\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n185\n\n38\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nInfected from Bach Mai Hospital\n186\n\n52\n\nFemale\n\n France\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nWife of case 76\n187\n\n30\n\nMale\n\n United States\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n188\n\n44\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n189-196\n\n30 March 2020\n\n21-49\n\n8 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n8 In-patient\n197\n\n41\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nInfected from Bach Mai Hospital\n198-202\n\n23-61\n\n5 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n4 In-patient, 1 Discharged\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n203\n\n35\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\n\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n204\n\n31 March 2020\n\n10\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n205\n\n41\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n206\n\n48\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nDriver of cases 124 and 151\n207\n\n49\n\nMale\n\n Brazil\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nHusband of case 151 and colleague of case 124\n208\n\n1 April 2020\n\n38\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n209\n\n55\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to case 163\n210\n\n26\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHa Tinh\n\nCau Treo General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n211\n\n23\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Binh\n\nNinh Binh General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n212\n\n35\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n213\n\n40\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to Bach Mai Hospital cluster\n214-215\n\n31-45\n\n1 male, 1 female\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n2 In-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n216-218\n\n25-48\n\n3 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n3 In-patient\n\n\n219\n\n2 April 2020\n\n59\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to case 133 and infected from Bach Mai Hospital\n220-222\n\n20-28\n\n1 male, 2 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n3 In-patient\n\n\n223\n\n29\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n224\n\n39\n\nMale\n\n Brazil\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to case 158\n225-226\n\n22-35\n\n2 males\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n2 In-patient\n\n\n227\n\n31\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nSon of case 209\nPreventive measures\nOn 16 March 2020, the Vietnamese government requested that everyone wear face masks when going to public areas to protect themselves and others.[71]\nThe rising number of patients had caused serious concerns. Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyễn Xuân Phúc ordered measures to prevent and counter the spread of the disease into Vietnam,[72] as well as to warn Vietnamese citizens to avoid visiting areas with outbreaks.[73] Deputy minister Đỗ Xuân Tuyên said that Vietnam is considering closing the border with China as a necessary countermeasure.[74] Saigon Tourist announced that it cancelled all tours to or with transit in Wuhan.[75] On 24 January, the Civil Aviation Administration of Vietnam ordered the cancellation of all flights from and to Wuhan.[76][77]In February 2020, Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training suspended all school activities across the country until the end of March as part of quarantine measures against the spreading of the virus, and later extended this till the middle of April until further notice.[78] Aggressive measures were also taken to combat possible outbreaks, from 14 days quarantine to restriction of outdoor activities (some sources believe it was more than 20 to 40 days under quarantine),[79] the Vietnam People's Armed Forces also takes part on patrolling and controlling measures.[80]Rumours also spread that Chinese nationals fled to Vietnam from Guangxi from a video, which triggered public reactions that Chinese nationals might be escaping from the coronavirus outbreak. It was later denied by the Vietnamese and Chinese governments as misleading. The Agence France-Presse also condemned the footage as fake.[81]South Korean nationals are also reportedly screened due to the rampant outbreak of COVID-19 in South Korea, which has extensive trade relationship with Vietnam.[82][83]\nImpact and response\nStockpiling\nStores across Vietnam were quickly sold out of surgical masks and hand sanitisers after the initial cases of coronavirus were reported. This followed a similar trend in many other Asian countries due to the outbreak.[84] Interim Health Minister Vũ Đức Đam urged the public to remain calm during the outbreak, and to avoid excessive emergency shopping.[85] Vietnamese authorities also arrested people using the outbreak to profiteer.[86]\nEconomy\nLike most of the world's economy, Vietnam was hit hard by the outbreak, due to the slowdown of private and national industries, the downturn of stock exchanges and the lower number of incoming tourists, though Vietnam is expected to be harmed less than China.[87]\nSport\nThe outbreak also forced 2020 V.League 1 to be delayed to 7 March until further announcement, which affected the preparation of Vietnam national football team for the upcoming 2022 World Cup qualification.[88][89] It also caused the Vietnamese Grand Prix of the 2020 Formula One World Championship to be postponed until further notice. [90] [91]\nResponse\nVietnam has prepared for the epidemic as early as the very first case in China emerged, around mid-December 2019. Vietnam's Deputy Prime Minister Vũ Đức Đam stated that the Government Office, Army forces and Minister of Health have worked out various plans in case the number of affected cases burst out.[92] The Deputy Prime Minister added that the country \"has won the first round\" in the fight against the virus with 16 confirmed cases, 16 recoveries, and 0 death.[93]Vietnamese response has gathered praises from several figures, comparing it to the fast Vietnamese response back in 2003 when the SARS outbreak occurred when Vietnam became the first country to be cleared of SARS. United States Ambassador to Vietnam, Daniel Kritenbrink, had praised Vietnam for its fast measures against the outbreak.[94] US delegation also praised Vietnam for its quarantine efforts, and have cooperated with the Vietnamese Embassy in the United States.[95]However, Vietnam also received criticism for its response. President of Ho Chi Minh City People's Committee, Nguyễn Thành Phong, admitted the lack of facilities and said that if the city has to take over 1.000 patients, it will go past its 'red limit'.[96] Overseas Vietnamese accused the government of its passive reactions and censorship.[97]\nRacism and xenophobia\nAsia Times reported that \"A number of Vietnamese hotels and guesthouses have reportedly hung signs on their doors saying that Chinese guests are not welcome, while many Vietnamese have gone online to demand the closure of all border crossings with China.\"[98] Signs suggesting that Chinese customers are not accepted were seen in front of a shop in Phu Quoc and a restaurant in Da Nang.[99]Islamophobia was also reported due to the increasing number of the infects coming from the Vietnamese Muslim community returning from Malaysia following their attendance to the Tablighi Jamaat festival in Sri Petaling mosque, and two to three patients did not obey the self-quarantine law in Vietnam but still attend Islamic events in Ho Chi Minh City, leading to fury and demand to imprison the Muslim population, even among Vietnamese celebrities.[100]\nIn popular culture\nVietnam's National Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health commissioned artists to release the song \"Ghen Cô Vy\" (\"Jealous Coronavirus\") which recommended correct handwashing technique[101] and was a remake of 2017 song \"Ghen\" (Jealous), has gone viral amidst the coronavirus outbreak, first earned praises from John Oliver in his talk show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and became increasingly popular among public and frequently duplicated by netizens, with UNICEF recommended the video to fight back the fear of coronavirus.[102][103]\nReferences\n\n^ a b c d e \"TRANG TIN VỀ DỊCH BỆNH VIÊM ĐƯỜNG HÔ HẤP CẤP COVID-19\" (in Vietnamese). BỘ Y TẾ (Ministry of Health).\n\n^ Coleman, Justine (23 January 2020). \"Vietnam reports first coronavirus cases\". The Hill. Archived from the original on 18 February 2020. Retrieved 18 February 2020.\n\n^ How Vietnam Learned From China’s Coronavirus Mistakes Trien Vinh Le and Huy Quynh Nguyen March 17, 2020\n\n^ \"[Op-ed] Why Vietnam has been the world's number 1 country in dealing with coronavirus\". 4 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Vietnam's coronavirus offensive wins praise for low-cost model\". www.ft.com. Retrieved 30 March 2020.\n\n^ Phương, Lê (23 January 2020). \"Hai người viêm phổi Vũ Hán cách ly tại Bệnh viện Chợ Rẫy\" [Two people with Wuhan pneumonia were isolated at Cho Ray Hospital]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 23 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.\n\n^ \"Yêu cầu kích hoạt ngay trung tâm phòng chống dịch khẩn cấp bệnh viêm phổi do virus corona\" [Request immediate activation of the corona virus emergency pneumonia centre]. Người Lao Động (in Vietnamese). 24 January 2020. Retrieved 24 January 2020.\n\n^ Phương, Lê (28 January 2020). \"One of Vietnam's first confirmed coronavirus patients recovers\". VnExpress. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 29 January 2020.\n\n^ Phương, Lê (12 January 2020). \"Bệnh nhân viêm phổi corona thứ hai ở TP HCM xuất viện\" [Second recovered COVID-19 patient in HCMC]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 12 February 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.\n\n^ \"3 người Việt đầu tiên nhiễm nCoV đã đi qua những đâu?\" [Where did the first 3 Vietnamese people infected with nCoV go?]. Thanh Niên (in Vietnamese). 31 January 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.\n\n^ Thùy, Hoàng (30 January 2020). \"Ba người Việt Nam nhiễm viêm phổi Vũ Hán\" [Three Vietnamese are infected with Wuhan pneumonia]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 2 February 2020.\n\n^ Quỳnh, Thúy; Hoàng, Lê (3 February 2020). \"Bệnh nhân nhiễm virus corona đầu tiên xuất viện\" [Patients infected with corona virus first discharged]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 17 February 2020. Retrieved 11 February 2020.\n\n^ Ngọc, Xuân (1 February 2020). \"Ca thứ 6 Việt Nam nhiễm virus corona\" [Case 6 in Vietnam with corona virus]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 1 February 2020. Retrieved 2 February 2020.\n\n^ Ngọc, Xuân (4 February 2020). \"Bệnh nhân viêm phổi thứ ba xuất viện\" [The third pneumonia patient discharged]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 5 February 2020. Retrieved 11 February 2020.\n\n^ \"Vietnam declares novel coronavirus epidemic\". Vietnam News Agency. 1 February 2020. Archived from the original on 1 February 2020. Retrieved 1 February 2020 – via Vietnam+.\n\n^ Khang, Minh; Huệ, Nguyễn (31 January 2020). \"Quảng Ninh đóng cửa các điểm xuất hàng trên tuyến biên giới giáp Trung Quốc\" [Quang Ninh closes export points on its border with China]. VTC News (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 1 February 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.\n\n^ Thắng, Tiến (31 January 2020). \"Người dân lên Móng Cái để sang Trung Quốc được yêu cầu quay về\" [People who went to Mong Cai to go to China were asked to return]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 1 February 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.\n\n^ Phùng, Tuấn (1 February 2020). \"Dừng toàn bộ chuyến bay giữa Việt Nam và Trung Quốc từ chiều nay\" [Stop the entire flight between Vietnam and China from this afternoon]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 1 February 2020. Retrieved 1 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (2 February 2020). \"Ca thứ 7 ở Việt Nam nhiễm virus corona\" [Case 7 in Vietnam with corona virus]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 2 February 2020. Retrieved 3 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (3 February 2020). \"Ca thứ 8 mắc virus corona ở Việt Nam\" [Case 8 infected with corona virus in Vietnam]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 3 February 2020. Retrieved 3 February 2020.\n\n^ Lê, Chi (4 February 2020). \"Ca thứ 9 ở Việt Nam nhiễm virus corona\" [Case 9 in Vietnam with corona virus]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 4 February 2020. Retrieved 4 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (4 February 2020). \"Ca nhiễm virus thứ 10 ở Việt Nam\" [Case 10 in Vietnam with corona virus]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 4 February 2020. Retrieved 4 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (6 February 2020). \"Thêm 2 người Vĩnh Phúc dương tính nCoV\" [2 more Vĩnh Phúc people were positive for nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 6 February 2020. Retrieved 6 February 2020.\n\n^ Lê, Chi (7 February 2020). \"Ca dương tính nCoV thứ 13 tại Việt Nam\" [13th case of nCoV positive in Vietnam]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 7 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (7 February 2020). \"Việt Nam nuôi cấy thành công nCoV\" [Vietnam succeeds in isolating novel coronavirus]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 7 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (9 February 2020). \"Thêm một người Vĩnh Phúc dương tính nCoV\" [Another case in Vĩnh Phúc Province with nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 9 February 2020. Retrieved 9 February 2020.\n\n^ Quỳnh, Thúy; Lê, Chi (10 February 2020). \"Ba bệnh nhân viêm phổi corona xuất viện\" [Three patients with coronary pneumonia discharged]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 10 February 2020. Retrieved 11 February 2020.\n\n^ Lê, Chi (11 February 2020). \"Bé gái Vĩnh Phúc 3 tháng tuổi dương tính nCoV\" [3-month-old Vinh Phuc girl was positive for nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 11 February 2020. Retrieved 11 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (13 February 2020). \"Ca thứ 16 tại Việt Nam dương tính nCoV\" [The 16th case in Vietnam was positive for nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 13 February 2020. Retrieved 13 February 2020.\n\n^ Hằng, Thu (25 February 2020). \"Bệnh nhân thứ 16 nhiễm virus corona xuất viện hôm nay\" [The 16th patient infected with corona virus discharged from the hospital today]. Zing.vn (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 25 February 2020.\n\n^ Nguyen, Sen (28 February 2020). \"Coronavirus miracle? Vietnam says all its infected patients cured\". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 29 February 2020. Retrieved 1 March 2020.\n\n^ Anh, L.; Long, X.; Tuệ, C.; Điểu, T. (6 March 2020). \"Hà Nội có 1 ca dương tính nCoV, là ca thứ 17 ở Việt Nam\" [Hanoi had 1 positive case of nCoV, the 17th case in Vietnam]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 6 March 2020. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ Định, Tất; Táo, Hoàng; Tuân, Viết; Thạnh, Võ; Thành, Đắc (8 March 2020). \"Cách ly hàng trăm người liên quan 'bệnh nhân 17'\" [Isolated hundred of peoples related to 'No. 17 Patient']. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 8 March 2020. Retrieved 8 March 2020.\n\n^ Hải, Võ; Định, Tất; Huy, Giang (6 March 2020). \"Hà Nội cách ly khu phố có ca nhiễm nCoV\" [Hanoi to quarantine the street where No. 17 Patient lives]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 8 March 2020.\n\n^ Huy, Giang (7 March 2020). \"Nhiều gia đình mua đồ tích trữ lúc nửa đêm\" [Many families gathering foods at midnight]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 8 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (7 March 2020). \"Ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 18 ở Việt Nam\" [The 18th nCoV case in Vietnam]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ a b Nga, Lê (7 March 2020). \"Thêm hai người dương tính nCoV tại Hà Nội\" [2 more nCoV cases in Vietnam]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ Lê, Chi (8 March 2020). \"Việt Nam công bố ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 21\" [Vietnam announced the 21st case of nCoV infection]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 8 March 2020. Retrieved 8 March 2020.\n\n^ a b Nga, Lê (8 March 2020). \"Thêm 9 người dương tính nCoV\" [An additional 9 people were positive for nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 9 March 2020. Retrieved 8 March 2020.\n\n^ Huệ, Bích (9 March 2020). \"Bệnh nhân thứ 31 nhiễm virus corona ở Việt Nam\" [The 31st patient infected with coronavirus in Vietnam]. Zing.vn (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ Phương, Lê (10 March 2020). \"Việt Nam công bố ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 32\" [Vietnam announced the 32nd case of nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 10 March 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2020.\n\n^ Thành, Đắc; Nga, Lê (10 March 2020). \"Việt Nam công bố ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 33\" [Vietnam announced the 33rd case of nCoV infection]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 10 March 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê; Quốc, Việt (10 March 2020). \"Việt Nam công bố ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 34\" [Vietnam announced the 34th case of nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 11 March 2020. Retrieved 12 March 2020.\n\n^ Đông, Nguyễn; Nga, Lê (11 March 2020). \"Việt Nam ghi nhận ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 35\" [Vietnam recorded the 35th case of nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 11 March 2020. Retrieved 12 March 2020.\n\n^ a b Lê, Chi (11 March 2020). \"Ba ca nhiễm nCoV mới ở Bình Thuận\" [Three new nCoV infections in Bình Thuận]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 12 March 2020. Retrieved 12 March 2020.\n\n^ Lê, Chi (12 March 2020). \"Công bố ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 39\" [Announcing the 39th case of nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 12 March 2020. Retrieved 12 March 2020.\n\n^ a b Nga, Lê; Quốc, Việt (12 March 2020). \"Thêm 5 người ở Bình Thuận dương tính nCoV\" [5 more people in Bình Thuận were positive for nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 12 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê; Quốc, Việt (13 March 2020). \"Nam thanh niên ở TP HCM nhiễm nCoV\" [Young men in HCMC are infected with nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 14 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (13 March 2020). \"Công bố ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 46 và 47\" [Announcement of 46th and 47th cases of nCoV infection]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 14 March 2020.\n\n^ a b Lê, Chi (14 March 2020). \"Thêm 4 người nhiễm nCoV tại Hà Nội, Quảng Ninh, TP HCM\" [4 more people infected with nCoV in Hanoi, Quảng Ninh, HCMC]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 14 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Saigon mosque closed after followers' contact with Covid-19 patient\". VnExpress. 16 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Việt Nam records 61st COVID-19 patient\". Viet Nam News. 16 March 2020. Retrieved 17 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Ninh Thuận phong tỏa khu dân cư Văn Lâm 3\". thanhnien.vn (in Vietnamese). 16 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Ninh Thuan man confirmed 67th COVID-19 patient\". VGP News. 18 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Cách ly tại nhà, bệnh nhân thứ 100 mắc Covid-19 vẫn đi lễ 5 lần/ngày\". baomoi.com (in Vietnamese). 22 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Thêm 14 người mắc Covid-19, cả nước có 113 bệnh nhân\". news.zing.vn (in Vietnamese). 22 March 2020.\n\n^ \"COVID-19 cases in Vietnam stand at 153\". en.vietnamplus.vn. 26 March 2020.\n\n^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y \"Thống kê tình hình dịch bệnh COVID-19\" [Statistics on COVID-19 disease situation] (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 13 February 2020. Retrieved 16 February 2020 – via Ministry of Health, Vietnam.\n\n^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Thành, Tiến (13 February 2020). \"Đường lây nhiễm 16 ca dương tính nCoV\" [16 cases of nCoV positive infection]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 14 February 2020. Retrieved 16 February 2020.\n\n^ \"Bệnh Covid-19 xuất hiện ở Hà Nội\" [Covid-19 disease appeared in Hanoi]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). 6 March 2020. Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Vietnam confirms 17th Covid-19 patient\". VnExpress. 7 March 2020. Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (7 March 2020). \"Ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 18 ở Việt Nam\" [The 18th case of nCoV in Vietnam]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ Huệ, Bích; Anh, Phương; Quyên, Hà (8 March 2020). \"9 người nước ngoài mắc Covid-19 cùng chuyến bay với bệnh nhân thứ 17\" [9 foreigners with Covid-19 on the same flight as 17th patient]. Zing.vn (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ Thạnh, Võ; Thành, Đắc (11 March 2020). \"Ba bệnh nhân Covid-19 ở Huế sức khỏe ổn định\" [Three Covid-19 patients in Huế were in stable condition]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 15 March 2020. Retrieved 11 March 2020.\n\n^ Xuân, Kim (10 March 2020). \"Việt Nam phát hiện trường hợp nhiễm COVID-19 thứ 32\" [Vietnam detected the 32nd COVID-19 infection]. VTV (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 10 March 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Ca nhiễm Covid-19 thứ 33 cùng trên chuyến bay VN0054 với bệnh nhân 17\" [33rd Covid-19 case on flight VN0054 with patient 17]. Voice of Vietnam (in Vietnamese). 10 March 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2020.\n\n^ Anh, Lan (11 March 2020). \"Đang chờ kết quả xét nghiệm lần 4 của bệnh nhân nghi là ca thứ 39\" [Waiting for the 4th test results of patients suspected to be the 39th case]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 11 March 2020. Retrieved 11 March 2020.\n\n^ \"TP HCM thêm 3 ca dương tính nCoV\" [3 more nCoV cases in Ho Chi Minh City]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). 23 March 2020. Retrieved 23 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Lãnh đạo tỉnh Đồng Tháp họp khẩn trong đêm khi có 4 ca dương tính với COVID-19 về từ Anh\" [4 COVID-19 cases in Dong Thap Province]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). 22 March 2020. Retrieved 23 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Thêm 11 ca dương tính nCoV\" [More 11 nCoV cases in]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). 24 March 2020. Retrieved 24 March 2020.\n\n^ \"All in Vietnam must wear face mask in public places for coronavirus prevention\". The Star. 16 March 2020. Retrieved 21 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Prime Minister reveals plans to fight the deadly coronavirus\". Việt Nam News. 28 January 2020. Archived from the original on 30 January 2020. Retrieved 8 February 2020.\n\n^ \"Thủ tướng yêu cầu kiểm tra chặt các cửa khẩu trước dịch virus corona\" [The Prime Minister requested a strict inspection of border gates before the corona virus outbreak]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). 23 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.\n\n^ Linh, Thùy (22 January 2020). \"Phòng dịch viêm phổi lạ: Phân loại người bệnh ngay từ khâu đăng ký\" [Prevention of strange pneumonia: Classification of patients right from the registration stage]. Lao Động (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 23 January 2020.\n\n^ Tú, Anh (23 January 2020). \"Công ty lữ hành Việt hủy chuyến đi Trung Quốc, tránh quá cảnh Vũ Hán\" [Vietnamese travel company cancelled the trip to China, avoiding transit in Wuhan]. Zing.vn (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 23 January 2020.\n\n^ Phùng, Tuấn (24 January 2020). \"Hàng không Việt Nam dừng bay đến Vũ Hán\" [Vietnamese aviation stopped flying to Wuhan]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 24 January 2020.\n\n^ Hà, Mai (24 January 2020). \"Việt Nam hủy toàn bộ chuyến bay đi, đến Vũ Hán vì dịch viêm phổi cấp\" [Vietnam cancelled all flights to and from Wuhan due to acute pneumonia]. Thanh Niên (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 24 January 2020.\n\n^ Hùng, Thanh (14 February 2020). \"Sinh viên tiếp tục nghỉ học, hoãn thi\" [Students continue to miss school, postpone the exam]. Sài Gòn Giải Phóng (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 25 February 2020.\n\n^ \"Vietnam quarantines area with 10,000 residents over coronavirus\". AFP. 13 February 2020. Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 25 February 2020 – via Radio France Internationale.\n\n^ Anh, Lan (22 February 2020). \"Nỗ lực dập dịch COVID-19: Việt Nam dùng nhiều biện pháp chưa có tiền lệ\" [COVID-19 outbreak effort: Vietnam uses many unprecedented measures]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 25 February 2020.\n\n^ \"This video circulated online weeks before the novel coronavirus was first reported\". AFP Hong Kong. 21 February 2020. Retrieved 25 February 2020 – via AFP Fact Check.\n\n^ Lam, Truc (25 February 2020). \"South Korean visitors expose holes in coronavirus response\". VnExpress. Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 25 February 2020.\n\n^ Đông, Sỹ (25 February 2020). \"Người về từ vùng dịch Hàn Quốc phải bị cách ly, không có quyền chọn khách sạn\" [People who come back from the Korean region must be isolated, no right to choose hotel]. Thanh Niên (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 25 February 2020.\n\n^ Stuart Hunter, Gregor; Choong, Rebecca (24 January 2020). \"Virus Panic Causes Face Mask Supplies to Run Out Across Asia\". Time. Archived from the original on 26 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Le (6 February 2020). \"Don't panic and stockpile food, health ministry advises\". VnExpress. Archived from the original on 15 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ Hiệp, Nghĩa (14 February 2020). \"Lợi dụng dịch bệnh để trục lợi: Cần xử lý nghiêm khắc\" [Taking advantage of epidemics to seek personal benefits: Enforcement is strictly required]. Báo Dân tộc và Phát triển (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 15 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Dịch Covid-19: 'Việt Nam đang hứng chịu thiệt hại lớn về kinh tế'\" [Covid-19: 'Vietnam is suffering from great economic losses']. BBC News Tiếng Việt (in Vietnamese). 23 February 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.\n\n^ Thịnh, Quang (2 February 2020). \"Virus corona khiến các giải bóng đá Việt Nam tạm hoãn\" [Corona virus caused the Vietnam football tournament to be postponed]. Zing.vn (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 15 March 2020.\n\n^ Ninh, Trung (24 February 2020). \"Vì sao Lịch thi đấu V-League 2020 vẫn phải chờ?\" [Why is the V-League 2020 Schedule still waiting?]. Thanh Niên (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 15 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Bahrain and Vietnam Grands Prix postponed | Formula 1®\". www.formula1.com. Retrieved 28 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Formula 1: Vietnam Grand Prix postponed due to coronavirus\". CNA. Retrieved 28 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Le (25 February 2020). \"Phó Thủ tướng: 'Việt Nam thắng trận đầu chống Covid-19'\" [Deputy Prime Minister: 'Vietnam won the first match against Covid-19']. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 2 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Le (25 February 2020). \"Vietnam wins first round of coronavirus fight: Deputy PM\". VnExpress. Archived from the original on 15 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ PhoBolsaTV (19 February 2020). Đại sứ Mỹ Daniel Kritenbrink: \"Ấn tượng với mức độ hợp tác và minh bạch của chính phủ VN\" [US Ambassador Daniel Kritenbrink: \"Impressed with the level of cooperation and transparency of the Vietnamese government\"] (video) (07:14) (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 9 March 2020 – via YouTube.\n\n^ Đăng, Nhật (22 February 2020). \"Mỹ tin Việt Nam sẽ chống COVID-19 hiệu quả, sắp cử đoàn sang hợp tác\" [The US believes that Vietnam will fight COVID-19 effectively, about to send a delegation to co-operate]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 15 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Chủ tịch TP HCM: 'Nếu 1.000 người nhiễm bệnh là vỡ trận' - VnExpress\". Tin nhanh VnExpress. Retrieved 30 March 2020.\n\n^ Văn, Trân (26 February 2020). \"COVID-19, nên nhìn Iran mà ngẫm…\" [COVID-19, should look at Iran and reflect...]. Voice of America Tiếng Việt (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 6 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Vietnam walls off viral China at its peril\". Asia Times. 30 January 2020. Archived from the original on 1 March 2020. Retrieved 1 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Anti-China sentiments, racism spreading along with coronavirus\". New York Post. Archived from the original on 16 February 2020. Retrieved 16 February 2020.\n\n^ \"Nguyễn Sin tức giận đòi bỏ tù bệnh nhân thứ 100 - Netizen - Tin trong ngày\". Việt Giải Trí. 23 March 2020. Retrieved 30 March 2020.\n\n^ Puhak, Janine; Hein, Alexandria (5 March 2020). \"Coronavirus-inspired TikTok dance reminds social-media users to wash hands\". Fox News. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ Illmer, Andreas (6 March 2020). \"Coronavirus: Vietnam's handwashing song goes global\". BBC News. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ O'Kane, Caitlin (4 March 2020). \"Catchy PSA about coronavirus turns into viral TikTok challenge about washing your hands\". CBS News. Retrieved 8 March 2020.\n\n\nExternal links\nLatest Updates on the Coronavirus cases in Vietnam – Ministry of Health of Vietnam\nCoronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases and historical data by Johns Hopkins University"],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Coronavirus miracle? Vietnam says all its infected patients cured | Vietnam News | Al Jazeera"],["url","https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2020/02/infected-patients-vietnam-cured-coronavirus-miracle-200228035007608.html"],["summary","World Health Organization officials and health experts say swift response crucial in containing virus in the country."],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","【武漢肺炎】另類療法建功？曬太陽殺菌劑漱口　越南首錄患者出院"],["url","https://www.hk01.com/%E7%86%B1%E7%88%86%E8%A9%B1%E9%A1%8C/430217/%E6%AD%A6%E6%BC%A2%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E-%E6%9B%AC%E5%A4%AA%E9%99%BD%E6%AE%BA%E8%8F%8C%E5%8A%91%E6%BC%B1%E5%8F%A3-%E8%B6%8A%E5%8D%97%E9%A6%96%E5%90%8D%E7%A2%BA%E8%A8%BA%E6%82%A3%E8%80%85%E5%BA%B7%E5%BE%A9%E5%87%BA%E9%99%A2?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=fbpost_link&utm_campaign=hottopics"],["summary","最後更新日期：2020-02-05 19:48武漢新型冠狀病毒肺炎疫情持續，越南25歲女子阮秋莊（Nguyen Thu Trang）早前確診，已連續6天沒有發燒，周一（3日）終可出院，成為當地首宗出院病例。同時，越南首2名確診患者其中一人亦告康復，院方表示，採取的治療方法包括曬太陽、做戶外運動及殺菌劑漱口等，但強調治療因人而異，且療法並未獲世界衛生組織（WHO）建議。李自超（右）周二（4日）獲准出院，但要求繼續留在醫院照顧父親。（網上片段截圖）阮秋莊來自越南中北部的清化省（Thanh Hoa），在日本一間位於越南的企業工作，早前被公司派往武漢受訓約2個月，上月17日搭乘中國南方航空班機返回越南，之後出現發燒、咳嗽與胸痛等症狀，送進清化省綜合醫院接受治療。清化省綜合醫院院長黎文士（Le Van Sy）表示，阮秋莊的病毒檢測結果呈陽性，立即進行隔離治療，院方採取了衛生部的治療方案，密切監察其狀態，針對症狀治療包括使用抗生素，以及採用其他支持性療法（給予氧氣、保守的靜脈輸液等）。阮秋莊接受10日的隔離治療，在過去連續6日未有發燒，健康狀況回復穩定，再次接受檢測結果呈陰性，發燒、咳嗽或胸痛等症狀消失，周一上午獲准出院。阮秋莊說，當醫生指她可以出院的一刻，她極度驚喜，「我感到很幸福，很想念父母和家人，春節期間大家都為我擔心」。同時，越南首兩宗確診患者──來自中國的28歲男子李自超（Li Zichao）及其66歲父親李鼎（Li Ding），同在胡志明市的大水鑊醫院（Cho Ray Hospital）接受治療。院方表示，李自超從上月27日起多次新型冠狀病毒檢測結果均呈陰性，宣布他已經痊癒；李鼎則由於患有糖尿病、高血壓等其他疾病，因此治療難度較大，但日前的病毒檢測結果亦首次呈陰性。李自超周二（4日）獲准出院，但要求繼續留在醫院照顧父親，他說：「我要對願意治療我的醫生和護士表示感謝，他們不僅治癒了我，且在精神上支持我。」院方透露，李自超服用過退燒藥，但沒有使用抗生素，每日上午在醫院的天台曬太陽及做運動，而在隔離病房期間會打開窗戶呼吸新鮮空氣，以及讓房間接受太陽光照射，確保室內保持溫暖，此外，他每日均以殺菌劑漱口。熱帶疾病部門醫師 Le Quoc Hung指出，治療方法並未獲世界衛生組織（WHO）建議，但團隊決定以自身的經驗及其他科學根據來照顧病患，例如讓他們漱口，而目前仍沒有治療新型冠狀病毒的官方資料，普遍的建議是支持性療法，治療方法亦因人而異。▼世界各地如何面對武漢肺炎疫情"],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]}]}],["text","越南曾經在2/26，原有的16位確診病人全部康復。\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Vietnam\n\n越南似乎沒有使用針對病毒的藥\n\"There's no medication for this virus yet. We rely on fundamental principles,\" \nhttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2020/02/infected-patients-vietnam-cured-coronavirus-miracle-200228035007608.html\n\n而是 :\n\"每日上午在醫院的天台曬太陽及做運動，而在隔離病房期間會打開窗戶呼吸新鮮空氣，以及讓房間接受太陽光照射\"\nhttps://www.hk01.com/%E7%86%B1%E7%88%86%E8%A9%B1%E9%A1%8C/430217/%E6%AD%A6%E6%BC%A2%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E-%E6%9B%AC%E5%A4%AA%E9%99%BD%E6%AE%BA%E8%8F%8C%E5%8A%91%E6%BC%B1%E5%8F%A3-%E8%B6%8A%E5%8D%97%E9%A6%96%E5%90%8D%E7%A2%BA%E8%A8%BA%E6%82%A3%E8%80%85%E5%BA%B7%E5%BE%A9%E5%87%BA%E9%99%A2?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=fbpost_link&utm_campaign=hottopics"],["id","5y4njwi9e7u8"],["createdAt","2020-04-02T21:45:44.744Z"]]}]}],["relatedReplies",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["article",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["replyCount",1],["references",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["type","LINE"]]}]}],["replyRequestCount",3],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","j4S8C_AJ6U4iWQ-mkeN6adxiC5zos371FWfPOyvywoJP-NCoA"],["name","生動的秀林普魯登斯♡"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",0]]}],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Mingwel International Law\nMingwei International Law Firm\n( 銘威國際律師事務所)\n案情訊息庫備案登記表\n備案受理律師:武博裕\n日期:2024年⋯⋯ | Cofacts 真的假的"],["url","https://cofacts.tw/article/shBLdo4B0DEb0v6c39qL"],["summary","Mingwel International LawMingwei International Law Firm( 銘威國際律師事務所)案情訊息庫備案登記表備案受理律師:武博裕日期:2024年03月25日姓名陳欣宜性別女出生年月民國87年06月16日年齡26歲職業自由業電話號碼0917235458受損總額89,128-NTD現居住地址平台名稱無(抽獎活動帳號)被騙類型高雄市前鎮區民壽街20巷14號IG抽獎、line通話指示轉帳https://www.instagram.com/conghinglo?i涉案網址是否報案處理否口gsh=MWJmM2Q5d2JhbjBibA==涉案收款地址/戶名涉案收款銀行帳戶017-02310276519013-699508041245轉帳人本人轉帳本人轉帳006-0290872132871004-0243004376775本人轉帳本人轉帳詳情說明備註事情經過:民國113年03月18日受害人陳欣宜透過網路社交軟體(IG)接到歹徒訊息,對方誆稱受害人中獎,購買商品滿4000元即可折現抽獎,但要先付款並慫恿受害人透過網銀轉帳等方式轉至其提供的指定收款帳戶,匯款後對方設局稱需要再支付2萬元訂金分享他們的頁面後才可取回,匯款後對方誆稱已轉入88000元至受害人台灣企銀帳戶但實際查詢沒有入款,隨後又宣稱郵局帳戶財力存款不足無法入款,需要匯款提供財力證明受害人才驚覺被騙,受害人前後共計損失資金89,128-NTD。相關的轉帳記錄憑證都以附件形式傳給武博裕律師立案偵查,現特向貴機構申請法律援助。受害人提供的相關涉案圖片以附件形式存檔,僅供追損調查使用,本律師事務所承諾會對資料進行嚴格保密。本人承諾保證所填寫資料真實,如有發現所填資料存在虚假情况,本律師事務所有權對本人單方面解除受理合約,並不做任何賠償及補償。特別提醒受理單位:銘威國際律師事務所總部地址:Raffles Place, Tower 2#19-0004861威國際律師Law- Mingwe近 31 日網頁瀏覽 16 次Line 詢問 1 次0102005102/283/23/53/83/113/143/173/203/233/263/29"],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]}]}],["text","請幫我看看這是真的還是假的：https://cofacts.tw/article/shBLdo4B0DEb0v6c39qL"],["id","1bzvosu45yrga"],["createdAt","2024-03-29T04:27:32.604Z"]]}],["reply",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","VpZGvo4BQ_PNHtDOEIEt"],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","AWF-YUEchutQxxU6trlv"],["name","Asdfgh"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",18]]}],["type","NOT_ARTICLE"],["text","附連結是Cofacts網址。"],["reference",""],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[]}],["createdAt","2024-04-08T15:14:06.512Z"]]}]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["article",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["replyCount",1],["references",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["type","LINE"]]}]}],["replyRequestCount",2],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","j4S8C_6ti2S8zIk-MdwJ-eR5TtZ4T41X2BcokPgN4RATm3k58"],["name","乂禮貌的三芝希伯來乂"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",0]]}],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","7 Reasons why Taiwan is the best LGBT de... | Taiwan News"],["url","https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3492498"],["summary","The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) bullyboy tactics have been having a good week. Not only have US Airlines caved into CCP demands over the use of the name Taiwan, but the East Asian Olympic Committee (EAOC) has gone so far as to remove Taichung as host of the 2019 East Asian Youth Games (EAYG) under pressure from Beijing. But perhaps the most surprising move has been the CCP’s targeting of the 2018 Gay Games in Paris. \n\nThere is a 25-strong team of athletes from Taiwan slated to attend this event for LGBT sports stars and the Federation of Gay Games (FGG) had agreed that they would compete under the name Taiwan and the Taiwanese flag. But it seems they are now going back on this agreement after being put under pressure from the CCP, despite that fact that the Communist regime there has a long track record of stoking homophobia and undermining gay rights across the country. \n\nIn contrast, there are a whole host of reasons why Taiwan is widely seen as the most LGBT-friendly destination in Asia. Quite why the FGG would choose to side with the CCP over a free Taiwan is unclear. But just to jog their memories, here is a quick rundown of 7 reasons why Taiwan is the most LGBT-friendly country in the region. If you think we have missed anything out, please share them with us on our Facebook or Twitter pages:\n\n1. First Asian country to approve same-sex marriage\n\n\n\nImage Credit: Wikimedia\n\nIn May last year, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court ruled that barring gay couples from marriage violated “the people’s freedom of marriage” and “the people’s right to equality”. This ruling paved the way for Taiwan to become the first country in Asia to introduce legislation to permit same sex marriage. The legislation process to enshrine this in law has been slow since then, but with most Taiwanese people supporting the move, and opposition coming primarily from US-based Christian organizations, it shouldn’t be too long before Taiwan passes this landmark law. \n\n2. Home to the largest Gay Pride celebration in Asia\n\n\n\nImage Credit: Taiwan News reporter Sophia Yang\n\nThere has been a Gay Pride event in Taipei since 2003 and with more than 80,000 people taking part in the most recent event, it is officially the biggest in Asia. Taking place over 4 days, with the main parade always being held on the last Saturday in October, the weekend is packed full of events, parties, and fun. The parade itself begins in Ketagalan Boulevard, outside the Presidential Palace before following a two-hour route through the city center. Other Pride events have also taken place in Kaohsiung and Taichung. \n\n3. Great LGBT Movie culture\n\n\n\nImage Credit: www.alchetron.com\n\nTaiwan has a long and rich culture of making LGBT-themed movies. Taiwanese Director Ang Lee is well known for directing Brokeback Mountain, but that was not his first movie with LGBT themes. Back in 1993, he made The Wedding Banquet about a gay Chinese man who stages a sham marriage to please his parents. In 1997, The River by art-house director Tsai Ming-liang told the tale of a Taiwanese patriarch who secretly frequented gay saunas, while the hugely successful 2002 film Blue Gate Crossing is about an innocent love triangle complicated by ambiguous sexual orientations. The 2006 film Eternal Summer also featured a similar love triangle, while in 2015, the multiple award winning Thanatos, Drunk, told the tale of a young Taipei man, his gay brother and their sexually ambiguous gigolo friend. Taiwan also hosts an annual renowned LGBT Film Festival, the Taiwan International Queer Film Festival.\n\n4. Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association - 台灣同志諮詢熱線協會\n\n\n\nImage Credit: Wikimedia\n\nThese days there are no shortage of LGBT advocacy groups in Taiwan, but none have had such a profound influence on promoting LGBT rights and improving the lot of Taiwan’s LGBT Community than the Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association. The association was founded in 1998 and has been providing support for the Taiwanese LGBT community for twenty years. It also provides gender and sexual orientation counselling, publications, and education. It also has campaigned vociferously and effectively for equal rights in Taiwan. But perhaps the single most important service they offer is family consultations to help older and more traditional Taiwanese generations understand the LGBT community and deal with the news that a family member is LGBT.\n\n5. A bustling LGBT scene\n\n\n\nImage Credit: www.thegaypassport.com\n\nMost Taiwanese cities boast LGBT-friendly bars and nightclubs, but as you would expect it is in Taipei where the biggest gay scene can be found. This scene is centered largely around the Red House, a western style red-brick octagonal building, which is also a class III historical site. Situated in Ximending, the Red House is a cultural hub which houses more than 25 LGBT bars, restaurants and nightclubs. Whether you are looking for a quiet meal, some karaoke, or something more vibrant, the Red House has it all. \n\n6. The first Chinese language LGBT bookstore\n\n\n\nImage credit: Flickr User - Back to Nothing\n\nAs well as a thriving gay scene, Taipei is also home to the first ever LGBT bookstore in the Chinese-speaking world. Gin Gin Books (晶晶書庫), which is situated in Da’an district, carries a huge range of LGBT books, magazines, DVDs, and merchandise. It also hosts regular exhibitions and community events on various LGBT-related themes. The store has also played a role in promoting LGBT rights both locally and across Taiwan and is a regular haunt for many of Taiwan’s LGBT community. \n\n7. Thriving LGBT nightlife\n\n\n\nImage Credit: Pixabay\n\nIf you are looking to party in a proper gay club, Taipei has the place for you too. There are no shortage of gay clubs around the city, but the most famous is probably G*star Club. The club boasts a light-up dancefloor and plays host to regular stream of the best DJs in Taiwan. For gay men in Taipei, it is probably the must-visit nightclub. For lesbians, that accolade probably goes to Taboo. Taboo offers live music some nights and a fairly small dancefloor, but later in the evening and at weekends it is packed with revelers enjoying the wide range of music that is played."],["topImageUrl","https://tnimage.taiwannews.com.tw/photos/shares/5b59f638ee06c.jpg"],["error",null]]}]}],["text","官方媒體竟然向國外宣傳臺灣是性解放天堂\nhttps://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3492498\n新聞列舉七個《天堂》理由 :\n\n亞洲第ㄧ個同意同性婚姻的《國家》\n亞洲最大性解放遊行所在\n高度性解放電影文化\n有性解放熱線協會\n性解放認知快速傳播中\n成立第ㄧ家性解放中文書店\n豐富的性解放夜生活\n 註 : \n1 , 還有免費愛滋醫療。\n2 , 將LGBT譯為性解放是就臺灣情況的內容而言的。"],["id","1rundd3splanf"],["createdAt","2018-08-04T04:37:37.008Z"]]}],["reply",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","7zrnCGUBbZnN2I-Ez5qf"],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","7VwZ6mEBbyB_hvRuWqIm"],["name","龜珍"],["avatarUrl","https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/2668eec0eb27eeb71e8321a93619fdf0?s=100&d=identicon&r=g"],["level",8]]}],["type","RUMOR"],["text","首先，文章內容翻譯錯誤。LGBT表示的是性傾向，不等於性解放。再來性解放與危險性行為沒有實際上的關聯(反而欠缺正確性教育可能比較容易發生危險性行為)。\n如果是對既有名詞重新定義，那應該列出重新定義的理由並明確放在翻譯文章開頭。\n如果英文不好也沒關係，google翻譯是大家的好朋友！ :D\n\n其次，臺灣已經沒有免費愛滋醫療了，只剩免費愛滋篩檢。原因是因為現在醫療技術進步，愛滋病已經可以視作一般的慢性疾病處理，所以適用健保給付。"],["reference","\n性解放定義：\nhttps://zh.m.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E6%80%A7%E9%9D%A9%E5%91%BD\n疾管局說明：\nhttps://www.cdc.gov.tw/info.aspx?treeid=45da8e73a81d495d&nowtreeid=1bd193ed6dabaee6&tid=CDDABE4236CE315C"],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","性革命 - 維基百科，自由的百科全書"],["url","https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E6%80%A7%E9%9D%A9%E5%91%BD"],["summary","性革命始於1960年代發生於美國的避孕藥開發上市後，所引起對於性倫理及墮胎的爭論。這些爭論逐漸擴大，後來又向外傳播，最終引發歐美各國的性革命[3][4]。也有學者認為性革命的起點來由更早，是由1920年代精神分析學在美國普及化後引起。\n此後，女性主義開始由女性的家庭角色和工作權利，轉而爭取女性的身體自主權。自1973年羅訴韋德案（英語：Roe v. Wade），美國最高法院於1973年判決容許婦女的墮胎權受到憲法保障後，女權組織開始以墮胎權及避孕權來爭取女權，墮胎權自此亦成為美國重要的社會議題。\n1990年代以後，LGBT團體組織開始加入，開始爭取LGBT的人權及平等權利。\n值得注意的是，對於美國1960年代開始的性解放運動理解應該結合其時代背景。舉例來說，其最著名的口號「要做愛，不要戰爭。」（Make love, not war），但實際上明顯是以反戰（越戰）為主，並非後來女性爭取身體自主權為目標。\n性解放在學術上有確切的嚴肅意義，但受到大眾傳播媒體報道以及保守派批評及反撲，常被理解為「追求性慾滿足」，例如「同性戀的性解放」就是認為同性戀追求性滿足、「青少年的性解放」就是認為青少年追求性慾滿足。於是，當看到「性騷擾的性解放」、「私生子的性解放」、「性病的性解放」就無法理解其真正的意涵了。\n\n定義編輯\n性別解放的意義有三個層次：\n\n知識的：除魅、破除對性的迷信。例如破除處女情結，對於處女守貞的壓迫以及非處女的歧視等。\n政治的：民主、平等。例如對於性別參政、投票平等的權利。\n自由的：身體自主、選擇。例如對於性別身體自主權的保障。所以把「性」套入後就可得出性解放的意涵：性的理性除魅、性的民主平等，性別擁有對身體自主的選擇權。\n若代入同性戀，「同性戀的性解放」就是：破除對於同性戀的迷思、追求同性戀的民主平等、尊重選擇同性性行為的權利。以此類推……。於是「解放」與「平權／運動／平權運動」等字彙可以說是有著相通的內涵，使用上也經常互換。\n\n偏見編輯\n性長久被視為禁忌、被壓抑，使得人們一提及「性」眼光便容易集中在性慾。於是性解放常被誤讀為盲目地擁抱性、無節制滿足性慾、追求快感；偏離「解放」原意而不自知。性解放人士也常被保守人士誤導為鼓吹同性戀、濫交、亂倫、等禁忌的性行為。\n約翰·威廉·曼尼過世為止都是約翰霍普金斯大學小兒科和醫療心理學的教授，他也因為一件有爭議的大衛·利馬醫療案例而為人所知，曼尼曾宣稱成功的將遭受到差勁包皮手術還是嬰兒的大衛·利馬變性為女性。\n\n與宗教及社會保守派的角力編輯\n不論是性革命或是性解放，性的議題都觸碰到宗教及社會保守派的敏感神經，形成具爭議的社會議題。\n保守派及宗教組織認為性必須在一個固定的基本價值軌道運作（而且是與過去看齊、根據經書指示的）、婚姻永恆不變，反對墮胎、避孕、未婚同居和婚前性行為，導致傳統家庭價值的「崩壞」。而自由派則認為選擇墮胎、避孕、同居和婚前性行為純屬個人自由及私人領域，政府及外界並無權力干預，並以政治思維大異其趣。在討論議題時，保守派及宗教組織多以宗教及道德倫理非政治話語論述，於是雙方常落入雞同鴨講的局面。\n在LGBT權益方面，關於同性婚姻及同性伴侶領養子女的議題方面，平權運動是從平等權利的角度切入（爭取與異性戀伴侶一樣享有選擇婚姻和擁有子女的權利），而從宗教立場則是守著「婚姻」在其宗教中的意義來反對（如基督教教義是指婚姻根據《聖經》是上帝設計為一男一女）。此外，保守派的世俗觀點也認為，對於同性伴侶是否適合領養子女，甚至對被領養子女的心理發展產生何種影響有深刻的質疑。"],["topImageUrl","https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/%C3%96rebro_slott_resynth.jpg/77px-%C3%96rebro_slott_resynth.jpg"],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","疾管署回應愛滋醫療費用回歸健保給付，為愛滋平權且去歧視的作法"],["url","https://www.cdc.gov.tw/info.aspx?treeid=45da8e73a81d495d&nowtreeid=1bd193ed6dabaee6&tid=CDDABE4236CE315C"],["summary","依國際趨勢及現今醫療水準，愛滋感染已可視為一般慢性疾病，因此愛滋醫療照護應回歸健保以慢性疾病照護方式，依人類免疫缺乏病毒傳染防治及感染者權益保障條例規定，自106年2月4日起，愛滋感染者確診開始服藥2年內醫療費用由疾管署編列預算支應，2年後則由健保給付。國際上，愛滋醫療費用亦多以健保支應，為愛滋平權且去歧視的作法。近幾年疾管署積極進行愛滋相關防治工作，每年新增感染人數呈穩定狀態，加上近幾年藥費也逐年下降，該署得以積極推動一天一次處方，愛滋感染者之服藥率大幅上升至84%，病毒量測不到已達88%，在良好的追蹤及治療下，愛滋感染已可控制如其他慢性疾病，與高血壓、糖尿病等常見疾病相同。基於疾病平權平責，醫療照護不應依疾病別而給予特殊化待遇，因此愛滋治療納入健保，有助於感染者的去標籤化、去汙名化。愛滋病的治療與宣導費用雖用於愛滋感染者，主要是透過感染者病毒的控制與及早診斷立即接受治療的措施，其目的在於防止疫情持續擴大，因此，以治療愛滋患者做為預防疫情的散播，是世界衛生組織目前建議的最重要防治方式之一，並且符合成本效益。為達國際90-90-90之目標(即90%知道自己感染、90%感染者有服藥、90%服藥者病毒受到控制)，疾管署持續加強愛滋防治工作，致力減少愛滋新增感染人數。然，唯有全民以尊重、接納的態度，營造健康、友善的性別環境，才能讓高風險族群能獲得相關健康資訊與正確防治觀念，並早期接受篩檢及早治療，有效控制疫情。"],["topImageUrl","http://www.cdc.gov.tw//uploads/photogallery/medium/da370227-68da-4368-a0a8-6c95aff3e5a0.jpg"],["error",null]]}]}],["createdAt","2018-08-05T07:05:34.374Z"]]}]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["article",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["replyCount",1],["references",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["type","LINE"]]}]}],["replyRequestCount",2],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","j4S8C_srUvTD2tm44GicAp_KzCgtkqY4QZqRlZoB75flP-5Ig"],["name","體貼的長濱魯賓"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",0]]}],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Learning to appreciate a modern miracle - Tai... | Taiwan News"],["url","https://pse.is/E7W8H"],["summary","It is not surprising that many, perhaps most, people around the world do not know about Taiwan. After all, China -- with the support of more and more countries -- has isolated Taiwan diplomatically for more than forty years, and recently China has been campaigning to eliminate even the name of Taiwan as a global destination. Following the demise of Mao Zedong, China increasingly prospered and attracted business people, tourists, and students from around the world, who too often have bypassed Taiwan. Once, for example, almost everyone wishing to learn Mandarin came to Taiwan, but most now go to China.\n\nWhat is more surprising, however, is that many Taiwanese themselves do not sufficiently appreciate their own country. Taiwanese often ask me with a puzzled look, why I live in Taiwan. Over time, I have come to believe this reflects both a native modesty, but also perhaps a misperception of Taiwan’s place in the world, a lack of knowledge of the extraordinary accomplishments of their own country, and to some extent therefore a lack of confidence in Taiwan. Such attitudes need to change.\n\nTAIWAN IS A MIDDLE POWER\n\nAs Professor Bruce Jacobs, the leading Australian expert on Taiwan, first argued, Taiwan is a “Middle Power” in the world. As a country with some 23.5 million people, Taiwan has in fact more people than 77% of the world’s countries and territories, according to the CIA’s World Factbook (WF). Although Taiwan’s land area is relatively small, it is still larger than 46% of the world’s nations and territories.\n\nTaiwan’s economic strength also ranks it as a “Middle Power.” Although under the influence of China, the World Bank states “Taiwan, China, is not listed as a separate country for World Development Indicators,” we know from other sources that, according to 2017 estimates, Taiwan ranked 22nd in the world in total GDP in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms. In per capita GDP (PPP) – which many economists regard as a better measure of an economy’s strength -- Taiwan ranked 28th in the world, better than Australia (29), Canada (34), the UK (39), France (40), Japan (42), South Korea (46), Israel (55), and China (105) (WF).\n\nTAIWAN’S GREAT ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS SUCCESS\n\nTaiwan’s other economic rankings are equally, if not more impressive. As of October 2018, Taiwan was the 11th largest U.S. trading partner (U.S. Census Bureau). In the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom for 2019, Taiwan ranked 10th out of 186 countries, ahead of Germany (25), South Korea (27) Japan (30), Israel (31), France (71), and China (110). In the Global Economic Forum Competitiveness Report for 2018-19, Taiwan ranked 13th, ahead of Australia (14), South Korea (15), France (17), Israel (20), and China (28). In the World Bank’s 2019 “Ease of Doing Business” rankings, “Taipei, China” earned 13th place, ahead of Australia (18), Canada (22), Germany (24), France (32), Netherlands (36), Japan (39), and China (46).\n\nAlthough Taiwanese often complain about their country’s wealth gap, Taiwan’s GINI Index (which measures the gap between the rich and the poor) indicates it actually ranks in the top third of countries with the smallest gaps. Out of 156 countries and territories ranked in the WF, Lesotho and South Africa are in 1st and 2nd place respectively with the greatest gaps, but other places not doing well either are Hong Kong (9), China (31), Malaysia (32), Singapore (38), and the U.S. (41). Taiwan, however, ranks in 112th place.\n\nTAIWAN IS ALSO A LEADER IN TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION\n\nThe U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) reports that Taiwan ranked 5th in the world in 2015 and 2016 and 6th in the world in 2017 and 2018 in the number of patents granted by the USPTO. Only the U.S., Japan, South Korea, and Germany, and more recently China, surpassed Taiwan. This is all the more remarkable considering Taiwan’s much smaller population.\n\nTaiwan is also a world leader in new technologies like nanotechnology. It ranked 4th in 2016 and in 5th in the world in 2017 (the last year for which statistics have been published) in USPTO nanotechnology patents. According to Taiwan Today on February 16, 2019, Taiwan maintained its global lead in integrated circuit 200mm-equivalent wafer fab capacity for the 4th consecutive year. Based on a report by the semiconductor research firm IC Insights Inc., as of December 2018, Taiwan enjoyed a global share of 21.8%, ahead of South Korea (21.3%), Japan (16.8%), North America (12.8%), and China (12.5%).\n\nTaipei itself ranked 1st in Asia and 5th among the world’s most technologically advanced 85 cities, according to a study commissioned by Business Insider published on Aug. 8, 2017 based on such factors as the number of patents filed per capita, number of startups, and the level of smartphone use. Taipei, the only Asian city in the top 5, led other cities in industrial design, hardware, the number of headquarters of some of the largest PC companies, and the number of venture capitalists.\n\nAside from its many excellent universities, Taiwan has also scored 4th is the world in science and math in the influential “Program for International Student Assessment” test rankings in 2015. The exams, run by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, are given every three years to 15-year-olds in more than 70 countries.\n\nFREE, DEMOCRATIC, AND HAPPY….\n\nEconomic and technological achievements are not, however, the only reasons why Taiwan is such a great success and such a great place to live. Taiwan is also a vibrant democracy, where freedom, rule of law, and human rights are all fostered and protected. This is something which the U.S. officials who negotiated establishing relations with the PRC never foresaw. In fact, while the seeds of democracy were always here, Taiwan’s transition to democracy really only took 10 years -- from 1986 to 1996 -- an amazingly quick transition. It is hardly surprising therefore that since 1996 Taiwan’s democracy has only grown stronger. In Freedom House’s 2018 survey of global freedom, Taiwan ranked tied for 8th place in freedom out of 210 countries in the world. Embarrassingly enough, the United States only ranked tied for 15th place. Taiwan’s aggregate freedom score was 93 out of 100; the U.S. 86; Hong Kong 59; and the PRC 14.\n\nFreedom indeed plays a key role in the quality of life in Taiwan. In the annual, originally UN-initiated World Happiness Report for 2018, Taiwan ranked 1st in Asia in “happiness,” ahead of Singapore (34), Japan (54), South Korea (57), Hong Kong (76), and China (86), and ranked 26th in the world overall among 156 countries and territories. The six key variables on which the rankings are based are those found to support a sense of well-being: freedom to make life choices, per capita income, social support (caring and having someone to count on in times of trouble), healthy life expectancy at birth, generosity, and perceptions of corruption (which indicates good governance, honesty and trust).\n\nAND VERY FRIENDLY\n\nWhile Taiwanese generally appreciate the benefits their country affords them -- whether virtually free health care, free or very inexpensive education, convenient transportation, accessible cities, excellent restaurants, wonderful cultural opportunities, and great scenery -- they don’t always appreciate how attractive life in Taiwan also is to foreigners. But there is considerable evidence that foreigners really like Taiwan as well.\n\nAmong all the countries in the world where expatriates live, Taiwan Ranked 1st in 2016, 4th in 2017, and 2nd in 2018 in the online “InterNations Expat Insider” survey of “Best Countries for Expats.” In 2018 Taipei also ranked 1st in the quality of urban living, and also scored in the top five for all indices in InterNations expat city ranking. The report highly praised Taipei, saying that no expats in the other ranked cities were as satisfied with the availability, affordability, and quality of medical care, as well as local transportation and personal safety. (Numbeo’s Crime Index for 2019, based on online surveys, similarly ranked Taiwan as the 4th safest country in the world, after Qatar, Japan and the United Arab Emirates.)\n\nThe InterNations survey also gave Taipei a 1st place ranking in 2018 for the general friendliness of the Taiwanese and their positive attitude toward foreign residents. An overwhelming 94% highly rated the general friendliness of locals in Taipei. Likewise, customers of Booking.com -- one of the largest e-commerce travel companies -- selected Taiwan as the 5th most friendly country in the world in 2018.\n\nAs the Taiwanese people consider the future of their country, it is necessary that they appreciate and value the extraordinary success they have already achieved.\n\nIt is also necessary that those who are too willing to dismiss Taiwan as a country worth helping to support and defend also understand Taiwan’s unique achievements.\n\n\n\nWilliam A. Stanton has served since 2017 at National Taiwan University (NTU) as a Professor at the Center for General Education and subsequently also as the Chief Advisor to NTU's International College Provisional Office. Dr. Stanton previously worked for four years as the founding Director of the Center for Asia Policy at National Tsing Hua University (NTHU). From October 2014 through January 2016, he was also NTHU's Senior Vice President for Global Affairs. Dr. Stanton previously served for 34 years as a U.S. diplomat. His final posting was as Director of the American Institute in Taiwan (2009-2012)."],["topImageUrl","https://tnimage.taiwannews.com.tw/photos/shares/5c6b9858ebfdb.jpg"],["error",null]]}]}],["text","美國在台協會前臺北辦事處處長司徒文投稿英文原文：Learning to appreciate a modern miracle - Taiwan: William Stanton\nhttps://pse.is/E7W8H\n(以下是中文節選翻譯)\n學會欣賞一個近代的奇蹟：台灣\n世界上大多數的人並不了解台灣。畢竟中國在許多國家的支持下，已孤立台灣四十多年了。更令人驚訝的是，許多台灣人也不了解自己的國家，台灣人常常疑惑地問我：「你怎會選擇來台灣？」漸漸的我了解這反應了台灣人的謙虛，以及對於台灣國際地位的誤解。台灣人並不太知道自己國家的非凡成就，也因而缺乏一些自信。但是，這種心態必須改變。\n就如澳洲之臺灣專家 Bruce Jacobs 所說的，台灣是中等強國，在國際上有一定的影響力。美國中情局的“世界現況”提及台灣的人口已超越世界上77%的國家，而土地面積也大於世界上46%的國家。台灣的經濟實力是屬中等強國的水準。而在技術創新方面，台灣是領導者，美國USPTO報導台灣的奈米技術專利在 2017年排全球第五名。此外，台灣的220 mm 晶圓製造能力則連續四年排名全球第一。台灣在購買力平價指數、經濟自由度、科技創新與所得分配平均度等，比起很多我們羨慕的歐、美、日、韓、以色列等國毫不遜色。\n台灣是一個熱愛民主、法制、人權的國家。在2018年Freedom House的各項評比之中，台灣在全球自由度排名第八、幸福度排名亞洲第一。 InterNations Expat Insider調查還顯示台北市排名世界第一，為最適合外國人居住的城市。\n當台灣人思考自己國家的未來時，他們必須學會欣賞並且重視台灣的非凡成就。而那些願意支持台灣的人也需要了解台灣的獨特成就。"],["id","2i2kv8vdtlis"],["createdAt","2019-10-19T05:25:41.993Z"]]}],["reply",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","hOGX7m0BqwaEkHKwl-DA"],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","AVriAlOoyrDaTqlmmqhC"],["name","Lin"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",22]]}],["type","OPINIONATED"],["text","總部在華盛頓的自由之家（Freedom House）說在報告評估的195個國家中，86國被評為「自由」，59國被評為「部分自由」，還有50國為「不自由」。\n\n台灣得分與去年同為93分，在亞洲僅次於日本的96分，還高於法國、義大利和美國等西方民主國家。\n\n"],["reference","https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3640792?utm_source=Facebook_PicSee"],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Learning to appreciate a modern miracle - Tai... | Taiwan News"],["url","https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3640792?utm_source=Facebook_PicSee"],["summary","It is not surprising that many, perhaps most, people around the world do not know about Taiwan. After all, China -- with the support of more and more countries -- has isolated Taiwan diplomatically for more than forty years, and recently China has been campaigning to eliminate even the name of Taiwan as a global destination. Following the demise of Mao Zedong, China increasingly prospered and attracted business people, tourists, and students from around the world, who too often have bypassed Taiwan. Once, for example, almost everyone wishing to learn Mandarin came to Taiwan, but most now go to China.\n\nWhat is more surprising, however, is that many Taiwanese themselves do not sufficiently appreciate their own country. Taiwanese often ask me with a puzzled look, why I live in Taiwan. Over time, I have come to believe this reflects both a native modesty, but also perhaps a misperception of Taiwan’s place in the world, a lack of knowledge of the extraordinary accomplishments of their own country, and to some extent therefore a lack of confidence in Taiwan. Such attitudes need to change.\n\nTAIWAN IS A MIDDLE POWER\n\nAs Professor Bruce Jacobs, the leading Australian expert on Taiwan, first argued, Taiwan is a “Middle Power” in the world. As a country with some 23.5 million people, Taiwan has in fact more people than 77% of the world’s countries and territories, according to the CIA’s World Factbook (WF). Although Taiwan’s land area is relatively small, it is still larger than 46% of the world’s nations and territories.\n\nTaiwan’s economic strength also ranks it as a “Middle Power.” Although under the influence of China, the World Bank states “Taiwan, China, is not listed as a separate country for World Development Indicators,” we know from other sources that, according to 2017 estimates, Taiwan ranked 22nd in the world in total GDP in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms. In per capita GDP (PPP) – which many economists regard as a better measure of an economy’s strength -- Taiwan ranked 28th in the world, better than Australia (29), Canada (34), the UK (39), France (40), Japan (42), South Korea (46), Israel (55), and China (105) (WF).\n\nTAIWAN’S GREAT ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS SUCCESS\n\nTaiwan’s other economic rankings are equally, if not more impressive. As of October 2018, Taiwan was the 11th largest U.S. trading partner (U.S. Census Bureau). In the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom for 2019, Taiwan ranked 10th out of 186 countries, ahead of Germany (25), South Korea (27) Japan (30), Israel (31), France (71), and China (110). In the Global Economic Forum Competitiveness Report for 2018-19, Taiwan ranked 13th, ahead of Australia (14), South Korea (15), France (17), Israel (20), and China (28). In the World Bank’s 2019 “Ease of Doing Business” rankings, “Taipei, China” earned 13th place, ahead of Australia (18), Canada (22), Germany (24), France (32), Netherlands (36), Japan (39), and China (46).\n\nAlthough Taiwanese often complain about their country’s wealth gap, Taiwan’s GINI Index (which measures the gap between the rich and the poor) indicates it actually ranks in the top third of countries with the smallest gaps. Out of 156 countries and territories ranked in the WF, Lesotho and South Africa are in 1st and 2nd place respectively with the greatest gaps, but other places not doing well either are Hong Kong (9), China (31), Malaysia (32), Singapore (38), and the U.S. (41). Taiwan, however, ranks in 112th place.\n\nTAIWAN IS ALSO A LEADER IN TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION\n\nThe U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) reports that Taiwan ranked 5th in the world in 2015 and 2016 and 6th in the world in 2017 and 2018 in the number of patents granted by the USPTO. Only the U.S., Japan, South Korea, and Germany, and more recently China, surpassed Taiwan. This is all the more remarkable considering Taiwan’s much smaller population.\n\nTaiwan is also a world leader in new technologies like nanotechnology. It ranked 4th in 2016 and in 5th in the world in 2017 (the last year for which statistics have been published) in USPTO nanotechnology patents. According to Taiwan Today on February 16, 2019, Taiwan maintained its global lead in integrated circuit 200mm-equivalent wafer fab capacity for the 4th consecutive year. Based on a report by the semiconductor research firm IC Insights Inc., as of December 2018, Taiwan enjoyed a global share of 21.8%, ahead of South Korea (21.3%), Japan (16.8%), North America (12.8%), and China (12.5%).\n\nTaipei itself ranked 1st in Asia and 5th among the world’s most technologically advanced 85 cities, according to a study commissioned by Business Insider published on Aug. 8, 2017 based on such factors as the number of patents filed per capita, number of startups, and the level of smartphone use. Taipei, the only Asian city in the top 5, led other cities in industrial design, hardware, the number of headquarters of some of the largest PC companies, and the number of venture capitalists.\n\nAside from its many excellent universities, Taiwan has also scored 4th is the world in science and math in the influential “Program for International Student Assessment” test rankings in 2015. The exams, run by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, are given every three years to 15-year-olds in more than 70 countries.\n\nFREE, DEMOCRATIC, AND HAPPY….\n\nEconomic and technological achievements are not, however, the only reasons why Taiwan is such a great success and such a great place to live. Taiwan is also a vibrant democracy, where freedom, rule of law, and human rights are all fostered and protected. This is something which the U.S. officials who negotiated establishing relations with the PRC never foresaw. In fact, while the seeds of democracy were always here, Taiwan’s transition to democracy really only took 10 years -- from 1986 to 1996 -- an amazingly quick transition. It is hardly surprising therefore that since 1996 Taiwan’s democracy has only grown stronger. In Freedom House’s 2018 survey of global freedom, Taiwan ranked tied for 8th place in freedom out of 210 countries in the world. Embarrassingly enough, the United States only ranked tied for 15th place. Taiwan’s aggregate freedom score was 93 out of 100; the U.S. 86; Hong Kong 59; and the PRC 14.\n\nFreedom indeed plays a key role in the quality of life in Taiwan. In the annual, originally UN-initiated World Happiness Report for 2018, Taiwan ranked 1st in Asia in “happiness,” ahead of Singapore (34), Japan (54), South Korea (57), Hong Kong (76), and China (86), and ranked 26th in the world overall among 156 countries and territories. The six key variables on which the rankings are based are those found to support a sense of well-being: freedom to make life choices, per capita income, social support (caring and having someone to count on in times of trouble), healthy life expectancy at birth, generosity, and perceptions of corruption (which indicates good governance, honesty and trust).\n\nAND VERY FRIENDLY\n\nWhile Taiwanese generally appreciate the benefits their country affords them -- whether virtually free health care, free or very inexpensive education, convenient transportation, accessible cities, excellent restaurants, wonderful cultural opportunities, and great scenery -- they don’t always appreciate how attractive life in Taiwan also is to foreigners. But there is considerable evidence that foreigners really like Taiwan as well.\n\nAmong all the countries in the world where expatriates live, Taiwan Ranked 1st in 2016, 4th in 2017, and 2nd in 2018 in the online “InterNations Expat Insider” survey of “Best Countries for Expats.” In 2018 Taipei also ranked 1st in the quality of urban living, and also scored in the top five for all indices in InterNations expat city ranking. The report highly praised Taipei, saying that no expats in the other ranked cities were as satisfied with the availability, affordability, and quality of medical care, as well as local transportation and personal safety. (Numbeo’s Crime Index for 2019, based on online surveys, similarly ranked Taiwan as the 4th safest country in the world, after Qatar, Japan and the United Arab Emirates.)\n\nThe InterNations survey also gave Taipei a 1st place ranking in 2018 for the general friendliness of the Taiwanese and their positive attitude toward foreign residents. An overwhelming 94% highly rated the general friendliness of locals in Taipei. Likewise, customers of Booking.com -- one of the largest e-commerce travel companies -- selected Taiwan as the 5th most friendly country in the world in 2018.\n\nAs the Taiwanese people consider the future of their country, it is necessary that they appreciate and value the extraordinary success they have already achieved.\n\nIt is also necessary that those who are too willing to dismiss Taiwan as a country worth helping to support and defend also understand Taiwan’s unique achievements.\n\n\n\nWilliam A. Stanton has served since 2017 at National Taiwan University (NTU) as a Professor at the Center for General Education and subsequently also as the Chief Advisor to NTU's International College Provisional Office. Dr. Stanton previously worked for four years as the founding Director of the Center for Asia Policy at National Tsing Hua University (NTHU). From October 2014 through January 2016, he was also NTHU's Senior Vice President for Global Affairs. Dr. Stanton previously served for 34 years as a U.S. diplomat. His final posting was as Director of the American Institute in Taiwan (2009-2012)."],["topImageUrl","https://tnimage.taiwannews.com.tw/photos/shares/5c6b9858ebfdb.jpg"],["error",null]]}]}],["createdAt","2019-10-21T13:52:55.319Z"]]}]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["article",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["replyCount",1],["references",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["type","LINE"]]}]}],["replyRequestCount",2],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","j4S8C_YlgNaHHUAmuAJvBJ9fT06nPwQIphzAJEbrZaWWhlh_8"],["name","發起者的頭屋維拉"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",0]]}],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks"],["url","https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2?fbclid=IwAR3EzP6Xm2bXH4bDHx9i9oOYxqHIraWbuRbZcGzM6fmgQz7iIl7ufHrkN-A"],["summary","AbstractWe identified seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses in exhaled breath and coughs of children and adults with acute respiratory illness. Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.\n \n \n \n\n \n \n MainRespiratory virus infections cause a broad and overlapping spectrum of symptoms collectively referred to as acute respiratory virus illnesses (ARIs) or more commonly the ‘common cold’. Although mostly mild, these ARIs can sometimes cause severe disease and death1. These viruses spread between humans through direct or indirect contact, respiratory droplets (including larger droplets that fall rapidly near the source as well as coarse aerosols with aerodynamic diameter >5 µm) and fine-particle aerosols (droplets and droplet nuclei with aerodynamic diameter ≤5 µm)2,3. Although hand hygiene and use of face masks, primarily targeting contact and respiratory droplet transmission, have been suggested as important mitigation strategies against influenza virus transmission4, little is known about the relative importance of these modes in the transmission of other common respiratory viruses2,3,5. Uncertainties similarly apply to the modes of transmission of COVID-19 (refs. 6,7).Some health authorities recommend that masks be worn by ill individuals to prevent onward transmission (source control)4,8. Surgical face masks were originally introduced to protect patients from wound infection and contamination from surgeons (the wearer) during surgical procedures, and were later adopted to protect healthcare workers against acquiring infection from their patients. However, most of the existing evidence on the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro experiments with nonbiological particles9,10, which may not be generalizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets. There is little information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory viruses and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory infections8, and most research has focused on influenza11,12.Here we aimed to explore the importance of respiratory droplet and aerosol routes of transmission with a particular focus on coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses, by quantifying the amount of respiratory virus in exhaled breath of participants with medically attended ARIs and determining the potential efficacy of surgical face masks to prevent respiratory virus transmission.ResultsWe screened 3,363 individuals in two study phases, ultimately enrolling 246 individuals who provided exhaled breath samples (Extended Data Fig. 1). Among these 246 participants, 122 (50%) participants were randomized to not wearing a face mask during the first exhaled breath collection and 124 (50%) participants were randomized to wearing a face mask. Overall, 49 (20%) voluntarily provided a second exhaled breath collection of the alternate type.Infections by at least one respiratory virus were confirmed by reverse transcription PCR (RT–PCR) in 123 of 246 (50%) participants. Of these 123 participants, 111 (90%) were infected by human (seasonal) coronavirus (n = 17), influenza virus (n = 43) or rhinovirus (n = 54) (Extended Data Figs. 1 and 2), including one participant co-infected by both coronavirus and influenza virus and another two participants co-infected by both rhinovirus and influenza virus. These 111 participants were the focus of our analyses.There were some minor differences in characteristics of the 111 participants with the different viruses (Table 1a). Overall, 24% of participants had a measured fever ≥37.8 °C, with patients with influenza more than twice as likely than patients infected with coronavirus and rhinovirus to have a measured fever. Coronavirus-infected participants coughed the most with an average of 17 (s.d. = 30) coughs during the 30-min exhaled breath collection. The profiles of the participants randomized to with-mask versus without-mask groups were similar (Supplementary Table 1).Table 1a Characteristics of individuals with symptomatic coronavirus, influenza virus or rhinovirus infectionWe tested viral shedding (in terms of viral copies per sample) in nasal swabs, throat swabs, respiratory droplet samples and aerosol samples and compared the latter two between samples collected with or without a face mask (Fig. 1). On average, viral shedding was higher in nasal swabs than in throat swabs for each of coronavirus (median 8.1 log10 virus copies per sample versus 3.9), influenza virus (6.7 versus 4.0) and rhinovirus (6.8 versus 3.3), respectively. Viral RNA was identified from respiratory droplets and aerosols for all three viruses, including 30%, 26% and 28% of respiratory droplets and 40%, 35% and 56% of aerosols collected while not wearing a face mask, from coronavirus, influenza virus and rhinovirus-infected participants, respectively (Table 1b). In particular for coronavirus, we identified OC43 and HKU1 from both respiratory droplets and aerosols, but only identified NL63 from aerosols and not from respiratory droplets (Supplementary Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 3).Fig. 1: Efficacy of surgical face masks in reducing respiratory virus shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols of symptomatic individuals with coronavirus, influenza virus or rhinovirus infection.a–c, Virus copies per sample collected in nasal swab (red), throat swab (blue) and respiratory droplets collected for 30min while not wearing (dark green) or wearing (light green) a surgical face mask, and aerosols collected for 30min while not wearing (brown) or wearing (orange) a face mask, collected from individuals with acute respiratory symptoms who were positive for coronavirus (a), influenza virus (b) and rhinovirus (c), as determined by RT–PCR in any samples. P values for mask intervention as predictor of log10 virus copies per sample in an unadjusted univariate Tobit regression model which allowed for censoring at the lower limit of detection of the RT–PCR assay are shown, with significant differences in bold. For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (coronavirus, n=17; influenza virus, n=43; rhinovirus, n=54). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, numbers of infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing or wearing a surgical face mask, respectively were: coronavirus (n=10 and 11), influenza virus (n=23 and 28) and rhinovirus (n=36 and 32). A subset of participants provided exhaled breath samples for both mask interventions (coronavirus, n=4; influenza virus, n=8; rhinovirus, n=14). The box plots indicate the median with the interquartile range (lower and upper hinge) and ±1.5×interquartile range from the first and third quartile (lower and upper whiskers).Table 1b Efficacy of surgical face masks in reducing respiratory virus frequency of detection and viral shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols of symptomatic individuals with coronavirus, influenza virus or rhinovirus infectionWe detected coronavirus in respiratory droplets and aerosols in 3 of 10 (30%) and 4 of 10 (40%) of the samples collected without face masks, respectively, but did not detect any virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols collected from participants wearing face masks, this difference was significant in aerosols and showed a trend toward reduced detection in respiratory droplets (Table 1b). For influenza virus, we detected virus in 6 of 23 (26%) and 8 of 23 (35%) of the respiratory droplet and aerosol samples collected without face masks, respectively. There was a significant reduction by wearing face masks to 1 of 27 (4%) in detection of influenza virus in respiratory droplets, but no significant reduction in detection in aerosols (Table 1b). Moreover, among the eight participants who had influenza virus detected by RT–PCR from without-mask aerosols, five were tested by viral culture and four were culture-positive. Among the six participants who had influenza virus detected by RT–PCR from with-mask aerosols, four were tested by viral culture and two were culture-positive. For rhinovirus, there were no significant differences between detection of virus with or without face masks, both in respiratory droplets and in aerosols (Table 1b). Conclusions were similar in comparisons of viral shedding (Table 1b). In addition, we found a significant reduction in viral shedding (Supplementary Table 2) in respiratory droplets for OC43 (Extended Data Fig. 4) and influenza B virus (Extended Data Fig. 5) and in aerosols for NL63 (Extended Data Fig. 4).We identified correlations between viral loads in different samples (Extended Data Figs. 6–8) and some evidence of declines in viral shedding by time since onset for influenza virus but not for coronavirus or rhinovirus (Extended Data Fig. 9). In univariable analyses of factors associated with detection of respiratory viruses in various sample types, we did not identify significant association in viral shedding with days since symptom onset (Supplementary Table 3) for respiratory droplets or aerosols (Supplementary Tables 4–6).A subset of participants (72 of 246, 29%) did not cough at all during at least one exhaled breath collection, including 37 of 147 (25%) during the without-mask and 42 of 148 (28%) during the with-mask breath collection. In the subset for coronavirus (n = 4), we did not detect any virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols from any participants. In the subset for influenza virus (n = 9), we detected virus in aerosols but not respiratory droplets from one participant. In the subset for rhinovirus (n = 17), we detected virus in respiratory droplets from three participants, and we detected virus in aerosols in five participants.DiscussionOur results indicate that aerosol transmission is a potential mode of transmission for coronaviruses as well as influenza viruses and rhinoviruses. Published studies detected respiratory viruses13,14 such as influenza12,15 and rhinovirus16 from exhaled breath, and the detection of SARS-CoV17 and MERS-CoV18 from air samples (without size fractionation) collected from hospitals treating patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome, but ours demonstrates detection of human seasonal coronaviruses in exhaled breath, including the detection of OC43 and HKU1 from respiratory droplets and NL63, OC43 and HKU1 from aerosols.Our findings indicate that surgical masks can efficaciously reduce the emission of influenza virus particles into the environment in respiratory droplets, but not in aerosols12. Both the previous and current study used a bioaerosol collecting device, the Gesundheit-II (G-II)12,15,19, to capture exhaled breath particles and differentiated them into two size fractions, where exhaled breath coarse particles >5 μm (respiratory droplets) were collected by impaction with a 5-μm slit inertial Teflon impactor and the remaining fine particles ≤5 μm (aerosols) were collected by condensation in buffer. We also demonstrated the efficacy of surgical masks to reduce coronavirus detection and viral copies in large respiratory droplets and in aerosols (Table 1b). This has important implications for control of COVID-19, suggesting that surgical face masks could be used by ill people to reduce onward transmission.Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols, whereas for rhinovirus we detected virus in aerosols in 19 of 34 (56%) participants (compared to 4 of 10 (40%) for influenza and 8 of 23 (35%) for coronavirus). For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low (Fig. 1). Given the high collection efficiency of the G-II (ref. 19) and given that each exhaled breath collection was conducted for 30 min, this might imply that prolonged close contact would be required for transmission to occur, even if transmission was primarily via aerosols, as has been described for rhinovirus colds20. Our results also indicate that there could be considerable heterogeneity in contagiousness of individuals with coronavirus and influenza virus infections.The major limitation of our study was the large proportion of participants with undetectable viral shedding in exhaled breath for each of the viruses studied. We could have increased the sampling duration beyond 30 min to increase the viral shedding being captured, at the cost of acceptability in some participants. An alternative approach would be to invite participants to perform forced coughs during exhaled breath collection12. However, it was the aim of our present study to focus on recovering respiratory virus in exhaled breath in a real-life situation and we expected that some individuals during an acute respiratory illness would not cough much or at all. Indeed, we identified virus RNA in a small number of participants who did not cough at all during the 30-min exhaled breath collection, which would suggest droplet and aerosol routes of transmission are possible from individuals with no obvious signs or symptoms. Another limitation is that we did not confirm the infectivity of coronavirus or rhinovirus detected in exhaled breath. While the G-II was designed to preserve viability of viruses in aerosols, and in the present study we were able to identify infectious influenza virus in aerosols, we did not attempt to culture coronavirus or rhinovirus from the corresponding aerosol samples.MethodsStudy designParticipants were recruited year-round from March 2013 through May 2016 in a general outpatient clinic of a private hospital in Hong Kong. As routine practice, clinic staff screened all individuals attending the clinics for respiratory and any other symptoms regardless of the purpose of the visit at triage. Study staff then approached immediately those who reported at least one of the following symptoms of ARI for further screening: fever ≥37.8 °C, cough, sore throat, runny nose, headache, myalgia and phlegm. Individuals who reported ≥2 ARI symptoms, within 3 d of illness onset and ≥11 years of age were eligible to participate. After explaining the study to and obtaining informed consent from the participants, a rapid influenza diagnostic test, the Sofia Influenza A + B Fluorescent Immunoassay Analyzer (cat. no. 20218, Quidel), was used to identify influenza A or B virus infection as an incentive to participate. All participants provided a nasal swab for the rapid test and an additional nasal swab and a separate throat swab for subsequent virologic confirmation at the laboratory. All participants also completed a questionnaire to record basic information including age, sex, symptom severity, medication, medical conditions and smoking history. In the first phase of the study from March 2013 to February 2014 (‘Influenza Study’), the result of the rapid test was used to determine eligibility for further participation in the study and exhaled breath collection, whereas in the second phase of the study from March 2014 to May 2016 (‘Respiratory Virus Study’), the rapid test did not affect eligibility. Eligible participants were then invited to provide an exhaled breath sample for 30 min in the same clinic visit.Before exhaled breath collection, each participant was randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either wearing a surgical face mask (cat. no. 62356, Kimberly-Clark) or not during the collection. To mimic the real-life situation, under observation by the study staff, participants were asked to attach the surgical mask themselves, but instruction on how to wear the mask properly was given when the participant wore the mask incorrectly. Participants were instructed to breathe as normal during the collection, but (natural) coughing was allowed and the number of coughs was recorded by study staff. Participants were then invited to provide a second exhaled breath sample of the alternate type (for example if the participant was first assigned to wearing a mask they would then provide a second sample without a mask), but most participants did not agree to stay for a second measurement because of time constraints. Participants were compensated for each 30-min exhaled breath collection with a supermarket coupon worth approximately US$30 and all participants were gifted a tympanic thermometer worth approximately US$20.Ethical approvalWritten informed consent was obtained from all participants ≥18 years of age and written informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians of participants 11–17 years of age in addition to their own written informed consent. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of The University of Hong Kong and the Clinical and Research Ethics Committee of Hong Kong Baptist Hospital.Collection of swabs and exhaled breath particlesNasal swabs and throat swabs were collected separately, placed in virus transport medium, stored and transported to the laboratory at 2–8 °C and the virus transport medium was aliquoted and stored at −70 °C until further analysis. Exhaled breath particles were captured and differentiated into two size fractions, the coarse fraction containing particles with aerodynamic diameter >5 μm (referred to here as ‘respiratory droplets’), which included droplets up to approximately 100 µm in diameter and the fine fraction with particles ≤5 μm (referred to here as ‘aerosols’) by the G-II bioaerosol collecting device12,15,19. In the G-II device, exhaled breath coarse particles >5 μm were collected by a 5-μm slit inertial Teflon impactor and the remaining fine particles ≤5 μm were condensed and collected into approximately 170 ml of 0.1% BSA/PBS. Both the impactor and the condensate were stored and transported to the laboratory at 2–8 °C. The virus on the impactor was recovered into 1 ml and the condensate was concentrated into 2 ml of 0.1% BSA/PBS, aliquoted and stored at −70 °C until further analysis. In a validation study, the G-II was able to recover over 85% of fine particles >0.05 µm in size and had comparable collection efficiency of influenza virus as the SKC BioSampler19.Laboratory testingSamples collected from the two studies were tested at the same time. Nasal swab samples were first tested by a diagnostic-use viral panel, xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel (Abbott Molecular) to qualitatively detect 12 common respiratory viruses and subtypes including coronaviruses (NL63, OC43, 229E and HKU1), influenza A (nonspecific, H1 and H3) and B viruses, respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza virus (types 1–4), adenovirus, human metapneumovirus and enterovirus/rhinovirus. After one or more of the candidate respiratory viruses was detected by the viral panel from the nasal swab, all the samples from the same participant (nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols) were then tested with RT–PCR specific for the candidate virus(es) for determination of virus concentration in the samples. Infectious influenza virus was identified by viral culture using MDCK cells as described previously21, whereas viral culture was not performed for coronavirus and rhinovirus.Statistical analysesThe primary outcome of the study was virus generation rate in tidal breathing of participants infected by different respiratory viruses and the efficacy of face masks in preventing virus dissemination in exhaled breath, separately considering the respiratory droplets and aerosols. The secondary outcomes were correlation between viral shedding in nose swabs, throat swabs, respiratory droplets and aerosols and factors affecting viral shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols.We identified three groups of respiratory viruses with the highest frequency of infection as identified by RT–PCR, namely coronavirus (including NL63, OC43, HKU1 and 229E), influenza virus and rhinovirus, for further statistical analyses. We defined viral shedding as log10 virus copies per sample and plotted viral shedding in each sample (nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols); the latter two were stratified by mask intervention. As a proxy for the efficacy of face masks in preventing transmission of respiratory viruses via respiratory droplet and aerosol routes, we compared the respiratory virus viral shedding in respiratory droplet and aerosol samples between participants wearing face masks or not, by comparing the frequency of detection with a two-sided Fisher’s exact test and by comparing viral load (defined as log10 virus copies per sample) by an unadjusted univariate Tobit regression model, which allowed for censoring at the lower limit of detection of the RT–PCR assay. We also used the unadjusted univariate Tobit regression to investigate factors affecting viral shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols without mask use, for example age, days since symptom onset, previous influenza vaccination, current medication and number of coughs during exhaled breath collection. We investigated correlations between viral shedding in nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols with scatter-plots and calculated the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between any two types of samples. We imputed 0.3 log10 virus copies ml−1 for undetectable values before transformation to log10 virus copies per sample. All analyses were conducted with R v.3.6.0 (ref. 22) and the VGAM package v.1.1.1 (ref. 23).Reporting SummaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.\n \n\n Data availabilityAnonymized raw data and R syntax to reproduce all the analyses, figures, tables and supplementary tables in the published article are available at: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.w9ghx3fkt.References1.Nichols, W. G., Peck Campbell, A. J. & Boeckh, M. Respiratory viruses other than influenza virus: impact and therapeutic advances. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 21, 274–290 (2008).2.Shiu, E. Y. C., Leung, N. H. L. & Cowling, B. J. Controversy around airborne versus droplet transmission of respiratory viruses: implication for infection prevention. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 32, 372–379 (2019).3.Tellier, R., Li, Y., Cowling, B. J. & Tang, J. W. Recognition of aerosol transmission of infectious agents: a commentary. BMC Infect. Dis. 19, 101 (2019).4.Xiao, J. et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings-personal protective and environmental measures. Emerg. Infect. Dis. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2605.190994 (2020).5.Kutter, J. S., Spronken, M. I., Fraaij, P. L., Fouchier, R. A. M. & Herfst, S. Transmission routes of respiratory viruses among humans. Curr. Opin. Virol. 28, 142–151 (2018).6.Cowling, B. J. & Leung, G. M. Epidemiological research priorities for public health control of the ongoing global novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. Euro Surveill. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.6.2000110 (2020).7.Han, Q., Lin, Q., Ni, Z. & You, L. Uncertainties about the transmission routes of 2019 novel coronavirus. Influenza Other Respir. Viruses https://doi.org/10.1111/irv.12735 (2020).8.MacIntyre, C. R. & Chughtai, A. A. Facemasks for the prevention of infection in healthcare and community settings. BMJ 350, h694 (2015).9.Ha’eri, G. B. & Wiley, A. M. The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using “tracer particles”. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 148, 160–162 (1980).10.Patel, R. B., Skaria, S. D., Mansour, M. M. & Smaldone, G. C. Respiratory source control using a surgical mask: an in vitro study. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 13, 569–576 (2016).11.Johnson, D. F., Druce, J. D., Birch, C. & Grayson, M. L. A quantitative assessment of the efficacy of surgical and N95 masks to filter influenza virus in patients with acute influenza infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 49, 275–277 (2009).12.Milton, D. K., Fabian, M. P., Cowling, B. J., Grantham, M. L. & McDevitt, J. J. Influenza virus aerosols in human exhaled breath: particle size, culturability, and effect of surgical masks. PLoS Pathog. 9, e1003205 (2013).13.Huynh, K. N., Oliver, B. G., Stelzer, S., Rawlinson, W. D. & Tovey, E. R. A new method for sampling and detection of exhaled respiratory virus aerosols. Clin. Infect. Dis. 46, 93–95 (2008).14.Stelzer-Braid, S. et al. Exhalation of respiratory viruses by breathing, coughing and talking. J. Med. Virol. 81, 1674–1679 (2009).15.Yan, J. et al. Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 1081–1086 (2018).16.Tovey, E. R. et al. Rhinoviruses significantly affect day-to-day respiratory symptoms of children with asthma. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 135, 663–669 (2015).17.Booth, T. F. et al. Detection of airborne severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus and environmental contamination in SARS outbreak units. J. Infect. Dis. 191, 1472–1477 (2005).18.Kim, S. H. et al. Extensive viable Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus contamination in air and surrounding environment in MERS isolation wards. Clin. Infect. Dis. 63, 363–369 (2016).19.McDevitt, J. J. et al. Development and performance evaluation of an exhaled-breath bioaerosol collector for influenza virus. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 47, 444–451 (2013).20.Jennings, L. C. & Dick, E. C. Transmission and control of rhinovirus colds. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 3, 327–335 (1987).21.Chan, K. H., Peiris, J. S., Lim, W., Nicholls, J. M. & Chiu, S. S. Comparison of nasopharyngeal flocked swabs and aspirates for rapid diagnosis of respiratory viruses in children. J. Clin. Virol. 42, 65–69 (2008).22.R: a language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2019).23.Yee, T. W. Vector Generalized Linear and Additive Models: with an Implementation in R (Springer, 2016).Download referencesAcknowledgementsThis work was supported by the General Research Fund of the University Grants Committee (grant no. 765811), the Health and Medical Research Fund (grant no. 13120592) and a commissioned grant of the Food and Health Bureau and the Theme-based Research Scheme (project no. T11-705/14-N) of the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR Government. We acknowledge colleagues including R. O. P. Fung, A. K. W. Li, T. W. Y. Ng, T. H. C. So, P. Wu and Y. Xie for technical support in preparing and conducting this study and enrolling participants; J. K. M. Chan, S. Y. Ho, Y. Z. Liu and A. Yu for laboratory support; S. Ferguson, W. K. Leung, J. Pantelic, J. Wei and M. Wolfson for technical support in constructing and maintaining the G-II device; V. J. Fang, L. M. Ho and T. T. K. Lui for setting up the database; and C. W. Y. Cheung, L. F. K. Cheung, P. T. Y. Ching, A. C. H. Lai, D. W. Y. Lam, S. S. Y. Lo, A. S. K. Luk and other colleagues at the Outpatient Center and Infection Control Team of Hong Kong Baptist Hospital for facilitating this study.Author informationAuthor notesThese authors jointly supervised this work: Donald K. Milton, Benjamin J. Cowling.AffiliationsWHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, ChinaNancy H. L. Leung, Daniel K. W. Chu, Eunice Y. C. Shiu, Benien J. P. Hau, Hui-Ling Yen, Dennis K. M. Ip, J. S. Malik Peiris, Wing-Hong Seto, Gabriel M. Leung & Benjamin J. CowlingDepartment of Microbiology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, ChinaKwok-Hung ChanDepartment of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USAJames J. McDevittDepartment of Surgery, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, ChinaBenien J. P. HauDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, ChinaYuguo LiDepartment of Pathology, Hong Kong Baptist Hospital, Hong Kong, ChinaWing-Hong SetoMaryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USADonald K. MiltonAuthorsNancy H. L. LeungYou can also search for this author in Daniel K. W. ChuYou can also search for this author in Eunice Y. C. ShiuYou can also search for this author in Kwok-Hung ChanYou can also search for this author in James J. McDevittYou can also search for this author in Benien J. P. HauYou can also search for this author in Hui-Ling YenYou can also search for this author in Yuguo LiYou can also search for this author in Dennis K. M. IpYou can also search for this author in J. S. Malik PeirisYou can also search for this author in Wing-Hong SetoYou can also search for this author in Gabriel M. LeungYou can also search for this author in Donald K. MiltonYou can also search for this author in Benjamin J. CowlingYou can also search for this author in ContributionsAll authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria for authorship. The study protocol was drafted by N.H.L.L. and B.J.C. Data were collected by N.H.L.L., E.Y.C.S. and B.J.P.H. Laboratory testing was performed by D.K.W.C. and K.-H.C. Statistical analyses were conducted by N.H.L.L. N.H.L.L. and B.J.C. wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors provided critical review and revision of the text and approved the final version.Corresponding authorCorrespondence to\n Benjamin J. Cowling.Ethics declarations\n \n Competing interests\n B.J.C. consults for Roche and Sanofi Pasteur. The authors declare no other competing interests.\n \n Additional informationPeer review information Alison Farrell was the primary editor on this article and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Extended dataExtended Data Fig. 1Participant enrolment, randomization of mask intervention and identification of respiratory virus infection.Extended Data Fig. 2 Weekly number of respiratory virus infections identified by RT-PCR in symptomatic individuals who had provided exhaled breath samples (respiratory droplets and aerosols) during the study period.Blue, coronavirus; red, influenza virus; yellow, rhinovirus; green, other respiratory viruses including human metapneumovirus, parainfluenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus and adenovirus; white, no respiratory virus infection identified.Extended Data Fig. 3 Respiratory virus shedding in (a) nasal swab, (b) throat swab, (c) respiratory droplets and (d) aerosols in symptomatic individuals with coronavirus NL63, coronavirus OC43, coronavirus HKU1, influenza A and influenza B virus infection.For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals identified by RT-PCR in any collected samples were included: coronavirus NL63 (n = 8), coronavirus OC43 (n = 5), coronavirus HKU1 (n = 4), influenza A virus (n = 31) and influenza B virus (n = 14). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, only infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing a surgical face mask were included: coronavirus NL63 (n = 3), coronavirus OC43 (n = 3), coronavirus HKU1 (n = 4), influenza A virus (n = 19) and influenza B virus (n = 6). The box plots indicate the median with the interquartile range (lower and upper hinge) and ± 1.5 × interquartile range from the first and third quartile (lower and upper whisker). Dark blue, coronavirus NL63; light blue, coronavirus OC43; brown, coronavirus HKU1; red, influenza A virus; orange, influenza B virus.Extended Data Fig. 4 Efficacy of surgical face masks in reducing respiratory virus shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols of symptomatic individuals with seasonal coronaviruses including (a) coronavirus NL63, (b) coronavirus OC43 and (c) coronavirus HKU1.The figure shows the virus copies per sample collected in nasal swab (red), throat swab (blue), respiratory droplets collected for 30 min while not wearing (dark green) or wearing (light green) a surgical face mask and aerosols collected for 30 min while not wearing (brown) or wearing (orange) a face mask, collected from individuals with acute respiratory symptoms who were positive for coronavirus NL63, coronavirus OC43 and coronavirus HKU1 as determined by RT-PCR in any samples. P values for mask intervention as predictor of log10 virus copies per sample in an unadjusted univariate Tobit regression model which allowed for censoring at the lower limit of detection of the RT-PCR assay are shown, with significant differences in bold. For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (coronavirus NL63, n = 8; coronavirus OC43, n = 5; coronavirus HKU1, n = 4). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, numbers of infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing or wearing a surgical face mask, respectively were: coronavirus NL63 (n = 3 and 5), coronavirus OC43 (n = 3 and 4), coronavirus HKU1 (n = 4 and 2). A subset of participants provided exhaled breath samples for both mask interventions (coronavirus NL63, n = 0; coronavirus OC43, n = 2; coronavirus HKU1, n = 2).Extended Data Fig. 5 Efficacy of surgical face masks in reducing respiratory virus shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols of symptomatic individuals with seasonal influenza viruses including (a) influenza A and (b) influenza B virus.The figure shows the virus copies per sample collected in nasal swab (red), throat swab (blue), respiratory droplets collected for 30 min while not wearing (dark green) or wearing (light green) a surgical face mask and aerosols collected for 30 min while not wearing (brown) or wearing (orange) a face mask, collected from individuals with acute respiratory symptoms who were positive for influenza A and influenza B virus as determined by RT-PCR in any samples. P values for mask intervention as predictor of log10 virus copies per sample in an unadjusted univariate Tobit regression model which allowed for censoring at the lower limit of detection of the RT-PCR assay are shown, with significant differences in bold. For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (influenza A virus, n = 31; influenza B virus, n = 14). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, numbers of infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing or wearing a surgical face mask, respectively were: influenza A virus (n = 19 and 19), influenza B virus (n = 6 and 10). A subset of participants provided exhaled breath samples for both mask interventions (influenza A virus, n = 7; influenza B virus, n = 2).Extended Data Fig. 6 Correlation of coronavirus viral shedding between different samples (nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols) in symptomatic individuals with seasonal coronavirus infection.For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (n = 17). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, only infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing a surgical face mask were included (n = 10). r, the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.Extended Data Fig. 7 Correlation of influenza viral shedding between different samples (nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols) in symptomatic individuals with seasonal influenza infection.For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (n = 43). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, only infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing a surgical face mask were included (n = 23). r, the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.Extended Data Fig. 8 Correlation of rhinovirus viral shedding between different samples (nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols) in symptomatic individuals with rhinovirus infection.For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (n = 54). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, only infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing a surgical face mask were included (n = 36). r, the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.Extended Data Fig. 9 Respiratory virus shedding in respiratory droplets and aerosols stratified by days from symptom onset for (a) coronavirus, (b) influenza virus or (c) rhinovirus.The figures shows the virus copies per sample collected in nasal swab (red), throat swab (blue), respiratory droplets (dark green) and aerosols (brown) collected for 30 min while not wearing a surgical face mask, stratified by the number of days from symptom onset on which the respiratory droplets and aerosols were collected. For nasal swabs and throat swabs, all infected individuals were included (coronavirus, n = 17; influenza virus, n = 43; rhinovirus, n = 54). For respiratory droplets and aerosols, numbers of infected individuals who provided exhaled breath samples while not wearing or wearing a surgical face mask, respectively were: coronavirus (n = 10 and 11), influenza virus (n = 23 and 28), rhinovirus (n = 36 and 32). A subset of participants provided exhaled breath samples for both mask interventions (coronavirus, n = 4; influenza virus, n = 8; rhinovirus, n = 14). The box plots indicate the median with the interquartile range (lower and upper hinge) and ± 1.5 × interquartile range from the first and third quartile (lower and upper whisker).Supplementary informationAbout this articleCite this articleLeung, N.H.L., Chu, D.K.W., Shiu, E.Y.C. et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks.\n Nat Med (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2Download citationReceived: 02 March 2020Accepted: 20 March 2020Published: 03 April 2020DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2"],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","職安系副教授實測「乾蒸口罩」5次內過濾效力仍合格，但強調僅應急不建議長期使用 - The News Lens 關鍵評論網"],["url","https://www.thenewslens.com/article/131064"],["summary","武漢肺炎疫情導致國內口罩需求量增大，網路上也出現各種可以讓口罩重複使用的「復活偏方」，包括用電鍋乾蒸、用紫外線照、用酒精消毒等。如今，中山醫學大學職安系副教授賴全裕表示，經過檢測證實，「電鍋乾蒸」口罩，5次以內，過濾效果都還在規定合格的80%以內。但中央流行疫情指揮中心強調，以台灣疫情狀況，非慢性病患，在開放空間不用戴口罩。《中央社》報導，賴全裕表示，「電鍋乾蒸法」可使口罩復活。電鍋乾蒸法可以利用一般家用電鍋、電鍋架及內鍋，在電鍋內依序置入內鍋架、內鍋，並放入沒沾上體液、血液或鼻涕的口罩，不用加水，直接按下煮飯按鍵，乾蒸約2到3分鐘，等到煮飯鍵跳起後，再繼續保溫約5分鐘，即可拿出來繼續使用。賴全裕指出，一般經認證合格的外科口罩，過濾效力約為80%，乾蒸5次後，過濾效力減損到70%以下，這時就必須丟棄，不能再使用了。但賴全裕也提醒，這是口罩短缺時的應急措施，不建議長期使用。根據中山醫學大學特色領域研究中心介紹，賴全裕研究專長為個人防護具（包含呼吸防護具、防護衣等）進行生物防護性能及消毒、再利用。此外，《自由時報》訪問亞東紀念醫院感染管制中心主任廖俊星，廖俊星表示，紫外線消毒、水蒸口罩、酒精消毒，都沒有研究證實能有效消毒口罩，其中，水蒸、酒精消毒還可能破壞口罩結構。但曾有人拿過期口罩測驗，如果口罩沒有被破壞或使用，證實效果還在。此外，昨日，中央流行疫情指揮中心的記者會上，也有記者提問表示，有台大醫師認為口罩用越久，效果越好。指揮中心醫療整備官羅一鈞澄清，這有違一般對於口罩的學理跟常識，有待證實。指揮中心昨日也再次呼籲，開放空間不用戴口罩，但去醫院看病、出入人多擁擠地方、慢性病患要戴口罩。此外，也要以肥皂肥皂勤洗手、避免觸摸眼鼻口。 \t \t\t \t\t\t消毒方法 \t\t\t是否證實有效 \t\t\t資訊來源 \t\t \t\t \t\t\t電鍋乾蒸 \t\t\t是 \t\t\t（乾蒸口罩超過5次即需丟棄） \t\t\t中山醫學大學職安系副教授賴全裕 \t\t \t\t \t\t\t紫外線消毒 \t\t\t未證實 \t\t\t亞東紀念醫院感染管制中心主任廖俊星 \t\t \t\t \t\t\t水蒸 \t\t\t未證實 \t\t\t亞東紀念醫院感染管制中心主任廖俊星 \t\t \t\t \t\t\t酒精消毒 \t\t\t未證實 \t\t\t亞東紀念醫院感染管制中心主任廖俊星 \t\t \t\t \t\t\t過期口罩 \t\t\t是 \t\t\t亞東紀念醫院感染管制中心主任廖俊星 \t\t \t\t \t\t\t口罩用越久效果越好 \t\t\t未證實 \t\t\t中央流行疫情指揮中心醫療整備官羅一鈞 \t\t \t 延伸閱讀： \t【插畫】「武漢肺炎」來勢洶洶，口罩該買哪種？ \t口罩實名制上路：如何買？怎麼查哪還有庫存？8個QA一次看懂 \t其實你不一定要戴口罩：武漢肺炎讓全台陷「口罩之亂」，6個QA看怎麼選、如何用新聞來源： \t口罩復活術真有效？醫師破解防疫網路謠言（自由時報） \t口罩電鍋乾蒸3分鐘殺菌學者實測最多重複用5次（中央社）責任編輯：李修慧"],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","認證電鍋可以乾蒸口罩！指揮中心︰殺菌實驗達標 - 生活 - 自由時報電子報"],["url","https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/3123669"],["summary","針對口罩使用電鍋乾蒸延長使用壽命進行實驗，結果發現無論細菌過濾效率或微粒過濾效率都跟原本口罩效果相近。（指揮中心提供）\n \n\n\n 2020-04-05 16:45:51〔記者簡惠茹／台北報導〕衛福部食藥署和中山醫學大學職業安全衛生系副教授賴全裕都針對口罩使用電鍋乾蒸延長使用壽命進行實驗，實驗結果發現無論細菌過濾效率或微粒過濾效率都跟原本口罩效果相近。指揮官陳時中指出，從這禮拜四4月9日開始，口罩就可以14天買9片，這個量應該是足夠，還是非常期待大家撙節使用，食藥署也有提供增加口罩使用次數或延長使用時間的方法。 \n \n食藥署說明電鍋乾蒸方法，一，先將內鍋架及內鍋依序放入乾燥電鍋；二、將醫用口罩平放於內鍋中，蓋上外鍋蓋；三、按下電鍋加熱開關，等約3分鐘待開關自動跳起後，再靜置5分鐘，使鍋內熱空氣充分殺菌；四、打開外鍋蓋，完成殺菌程序，待電鍋冷卻後再進行下一次口罩殺菌。指揮中心研究組副組長吳秀梅說明，自己使用過的醫用外科口罩如果想要延長壽命，可以放入電鍋內鍋架乾蒸，提醒不要放水，放水會影響口罩靜電層，有人問是否可以使用酒精消毒，其實也不好，因為靜電層會受到影響。吳秀梅也提醒，如果口罩有髒汙破損不建議再度消毒使用，有呼吸道症狀、慢性疾病、出入醫院以一次使用為原則，低風險場所就會建議可以使用布口罩，有不織布層的布口罩，可以重複清洗效果也好，也可以使用電鍋乾蒸重複消毒4到5次。吳秀梅說明外科口罩測試部分，除了有參考學研單位建議，食藥署也做過研究，她表示，經過3到5次消毒後，對於細菌過濾效率（BFE）可以維持99%以上。中山醫學大學副教授賴全裕實驗室做過電鍋乾蒸口罩實驗，他指出，粒子過濾效果（PFE）檢測中，儀器會產生2奈米到2微米的微粒，其中99%是10奈米到770奈米的微粒，然後來看口罩可以過濾多少，總過濾效果如果超過95%，就是N95口罩，80%以上是外科手術口罩，電鍋乾蒸實驗結果發現，第一次乾蒸跟原本外科口罩過濾效果相比還能維持99%，只是纖維帶電還是有些微影響，但是消毒越多次，就會越下降，建議不要超過5次。至於病毒過濾效果，賴全裕說，雖然外科手術口罩沒有檢測病毒過濾效果，主要是防護衣才會測試，但是武漢肺炎病毒的大小大概是100奈米，所以檢測PFE就有將病毒尺寸涵蓋在內。賴全裕也解答民眾各種電鍋蒸口罩的疑慮。許多民眾詢問可以使用家裡的電鍋就好嗎？還是要買新的電鍋？賴全裕指出，由於內鍋壁165度左右，該殺死的細菌應該都殺死了，乾蒸氣溫大概110度左右，如果有疑慮可以洗鍋子。口罩氣味太重怎麼辦？可以加精油或酒精嗎？賴全裕表示，有化學物質的都會破壞口罩不織布纖維帶電，不建議這樣做，因為味道來源是口水和細菌繁殖的關係，殺死後理論上味道就會不見。用烤箱、氣炸鍋或微波爐可以嗎？賴全裕指出，這些家電如果可以控制溫度達110度，可以模擬電鍋溫度的話就可以嘗試，但是還是要實測才知道，微波爐可能會出現口罩燃燒要小心。使用負離子吹風機可以嗎？賴全裕表示，目前還沒有實驗檢測，暫時不建議。殺菌燈小型烘碗機可以嗎？賴全裕指出，如果紫外燈波長有220奈米到280奈米，可是口罩裡面有3層，紫外燈只能對上下兩面照射，不確定中間層的殺菌效果，使用的時候還是建議要注意，未來有機會會再做實驗。用煮的可以嗎？賴全裕說，還沒有實驗可以確認。暫時拿下來的口罩如何收納？賴全裕指出，建議把口罩放在通風乾燥處，拿下來的時候，不要使用完全密封的塑膠袋，會造成細菌容易繁殖，可以用塑膠夾或紙袋，避免手觸摸到口罩。相關新聞請見︰武漢肺炎懶人包》傳染途徑、預防措施看這裡「武漢肺炎專區」請點此，更多相關訊息，帶您第一手掌握。\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n 不用抽不用搶現在用APP看新聞保證天天中獎　\n 點我下載APP　\n 按我看活動辦法\n\n \n \n\n\n\n 相關新聞\n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n LTN集點大放送\n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n網友回應"],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019"],["url","https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x"],["summary","AbstractCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute respiratory tract infection that emerged in late 20191,2. Initial outbreaks in China involved 13.8% cases with severe, and 6.1% with critical courses3. This severe presentation corresponds to the usage of a virus receptor that is expressed predominantly in the lung2,4. By causing an early onset of severe symptoms, this same receptor tropism is thought to have determined pathogenicity, but also aided the control, of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 20035. However, there are reports of COVID-19 cases with mild upper respiratory tract symptoms, suggesting the potential for pre- or oligosymptomatic transmission6–8. There is an urgent need for information on body site-specific virus replication, immunity, and infectivity. Here we provide a detailed virological analysis of nine cases, providing proof of active virus replication in upper respiratory tract tissues. Pharyngeal virus shedding was very high during the first week of symptoms (peak at 7.11 × 108 RNA copies per throat swab, day 4). Infectious virus was readily isolated from throat- and lung-derived samples, but not from stool samples, in spite of high virus RNA concentration. Blood and urine never yielded virus. Active replication in the throat was confirmed by viral replicative RNA intermediates in throat samples. Sequence-distinct virus populations were consistently detected in throat and lung samples from the same patient, proving independent replication. Shedding of viral RNA from sputum outlasted the end of symptoms. Seroconversion occurred after 7 days in 50% of patients (14 days in all), but was not followed by a rapid decline in viral load. COVID-19 can present as a mild upper respiratory tract illness. Active virus replication in the upper respiratory tract puts the prospects of COVID-19 containment in perspective.\n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n\n Author informationAuthor notesThese authors contributed equally: Roman Wölfel, Victor M. Corman, Wolfgang GuggemosThese authors jointly supervised this work: Christian Drosten, Clemens WendtnerAffiliationsBundeswehr Institute of Microbiology, Munich, GermanyRoman Wölfel, Sabine Zange, Patrick Vollmar, Rosina Ehmann & Katrin ZwirglmaierCharité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, GermanyVictor M. Corman, Marcel A. Müller, Daniela Niemeyer, Terry C. Jones, Tobias Bleicker, Sebastian Brünink, Julia Schneider & Christian DrostenKlinikum München-Schwabing, Munich, GermanyWolfgang Guggemos, Michael Seilmaier & Clemens WendtnerCenter for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKTerry C. JonesUniversity Hospital LMU Munich, Munich, GermanyCamilla Rothe & Michael HoelscherAuthorsRoman WölfelYou can also search for this author in Victor M. CormanYou can also search for this author in Wolfgang GuggemosYou can also search for this author in Michael SeilmaierYou can also search for this author in Sabine ZangeYou can also search for this author in Marcel A. MüllerYou can also search for this author in Daniela NiemeyerYou can also search for this author in Terry C. JonesYou can also search for this author in Patrick VollmarYou can also search for this author in Camilla RotheYou can also search for this author in Michael HoelscherYou can also search for this author in Tobias BleickerYou can also search for this author in Sebastian BrüninkYou can also search for this author in Julia SchneiderYou can also search for this author in Rosina EhmannYou can also search for this author in Katrin ZwirglmaierYou can also search for this author in Christian DrostenYou can also search for this author in Clemens WendtnerYou can also search for this author in Corresponding authorsCorrespondence to\n Christian Drosten or Clemens Wendtner.Supplementary information\n \n \n Supplementary InformationThis file contains Supplementary Methods, which include a description of RNA extraction and RT-PCR methods, a description of cell culture and antibody detection methods and Supplementary References.About this articleCite this articleWölfel, R., Corman, V.M., Guggemos, W. et al. Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019.\n Nature (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2196-xDownload citationReceived: 01 March 2020Accepted: 24 March 2020Published: 01 April 2020DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2196-x\n\n \n\n \n CommentsBy submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate."],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]}]}],["text","#口罩可以乾蒸嗎\n#為何2月不行現在可以\n#水鏡來告訴你\n\n今天疾管中心宣傳口罩可以乾蒸，再重複使用\n馬上有人找出2月衛福部食藥署建議不要乾蒸的資料\n還有人把這照片放在爆料公社，很明顯要帶風向\n\n有人酸因為唐鳳說可以乾蒸，所以政策就轉彎\n\n不管別人怎麼說，包括這篇都是\n請做個獨立思考的人\n\n#防疫本來就是與時俱進\n大家應該還記得，2月的時候疾管中心跟大家說不用戴口罩\n總統、行政院長、陳時中部長，也帶頭不戴口罩\n當時還有「我OK，你先戴」的風氣\n\n當時背景是沒有社區感染，戴不戴口罩風險都低\n當時到現在沒戴口罩的人，都活得好好的也沒被感染。\n\n這兩天陳時中部長已經戴起口罩，為什麼呢？\n簡單說，我們有零星的社區感染，加上這幾天連假的出遊\n我們要在未來的14天防範疫情社區化\n\nNature Medicine刊出香港學者研究，外科口罩可以顯著防止新冠病毒從感染者傳播出去。https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2?fbclid=IwAR3EzP6Xm2bXH4bDHx9i9oOYxqHIraWbuRbZcGzM6fmgQz7iIl7ufHrkN-A\n\n這是因為疫情的不同，資訊的改變\n政府反應以及需要民間配合的方式不同\n\n#那到底口罩可不可以乾蒸\n\n你可能會問，當時食藥署為何覺得不行？\n當時食藥署的說法是\"可能\"會破壞結構，所以不建議。\n\n但後續的研究出來，真的可以透過乾蒸讓口罩重複使用\n\n根據中山醫學大學職安系副教授賴全裕表示，經過檢測證實，「電鍋乾蒸」口罩，5次以內，過濾效果都還在規定合格的80%以內。\nhttps://www.thenewslens.com/article/131064\n\n實驗結果發現無論細菌過濾效率或微粒過濾效率都跟原本口罩效果相近。\nhttps://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/3123669\n\n再說一次，這是人類第一次遇到這個病毒，很多事情本來就不了解。\n\n比如Nature這篇研究，就刷新大家原本的認知\n\n原來剛被感染的前5天，傳染力最大，到住院第9天傳染力就低了，不一定要在負壓房。\n\n這對本來以為症狀越嚴重傳播力越大、負壓房要住好住滿的觀念是很大的釐清\nhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x\n\n好，回到乾蒸口罩這件事\n原先政府有疑惑，後來研究證實，口罩乾蒸可以重複使用\n政府提供資訊，不OK嗎？\n\n#未來14天大家照顧好自己\n\n現在已經有人在傳\n「為了要向國外捐口罩，所以要求民眾乾蒸」\n\n請問我們有為了捐口罩，一周從買三個變買兩個嗎？\n\n提供乾蒸，只是資訊更新後提供方法\n可能有些人不覺得一個口罩五元貴\n\n但對節省、重視環保的或有經濟壓力的人，這不失為權宜之計\n至於要酸的、要戰的、要攻擊的，\n就別了，台灣需要大家的團結\n\n就像這幾天的連假，\n大家玩都玩了，該得的也得了，不該得的也不會得\n\n本院只有一個請求\n\n#連假有出遊的朋友接下來14天外出請戴口罩\n\n接下來14天，大家把自己照顧好\n勤洗手、出門戴口罩、保持人際距離、不摸臉、少聚集\n\n#祝大家平安健康\n\n#我們二月也不知道肥胖容易得重症啊\n\n#水鏡共筆"],["id","1kyvy3pelrgow"],["createdAt","2020-04-06T08:20:58.169Z"]]}],["reply",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","yQweUHEBrhVJn3LNh3pF"],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","_1YnAG8BV0DITCqGm7go"],["name","uienwt"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",18]]}],["type","OPINIONATED"],["text","為何2月不行現在可以，陳時中說，他一直很期待可以研發讓口罩重複使用的方法，但食藥署站在專業角度，堅持要經過驗證後才正式公告，他也認為這是對的。"],["reference","https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2020-04-06/386656\n電鍋蒸口罩為何延遲公布？"],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","武漢肺炎》電鍋蒸口罩為何延遲公布？陳時中說明原因 | 社會 | 新頭殼 Newtalk"],["url","https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2020-04-06/386656"],["summary","中央流行疫情指揮中心指揮官陳時中（左起）與食藥署署長吳秀梅，5日示範以電鍋乾蒸口罩。圖：翻攝自疾管署直播影片 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n 2月的時候，指揮中心對電鍋蒸口罩重複消毒一事並未正式證實其效用，直到4月5日，陳時中與食藥署署長吳秀梅親自在記者會上示範用電鍋乾蒸消毒口罩。陳時中說，他一直很期待可以研發讓口罩重複使用的方法，但食藥署站在專業角度，堅持要經過驗證後才正式公告，他也認為這是對的。\n昨天記者會上，陳時中與吳秀梅現場使用電鍋消毒口罩，將口罩放進電鍋乾蒸3分鐘，開關跳起後等待5分鐘，消毒程序就大功告成。吳秀梅表示，電鍋乾蒸法消毒的口罩可維持99%的細菌過濾效率，讓口罩重複使用。\n陳時中表示，他一直很期待研發出讓口罩重複使用的有效方法，當他知道電鍋蒸口罩有相關研究報告佐證時也想推廣這種方式，但食藥署站在專業角度，認為沒實證不夠謹慎。食藥署花時間對口罩進行檢測實驗，驗證完之後才公布這是有效方法且容易執行。\n陳時中也同意食藥署的看法，認為他們用更嚴謹的態度處理是對的，因此昨天才正式公布。 \n \n \n \n 他一直很期待可以研發讓口罩重複使用的方法但食藥署站在專業角度，堅持要經過驗證後才正式公告直到4月5日，陳時中與食藥署署長吳秀梅親自在記者會上示範用電鍋乾蒸消毒口罩。"],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]}]}],["createdAt","2020-04-06T15:31:50.222Z"]]}]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["article",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["replyCount",1],["references",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["type","LINE"]]}]}],["replyRequestCount",1],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","j4S8C_AO7U9UgO3jfO7w-_TCIO4Xtij_63hrFiTOAIF-wiO0o"],["name","忠誠的✖長濱✖法蘭克林"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",0]]}],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Universal and reusable virus deactivation system for respiratory protection"],["url","https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39956#Sec8"],["summary","AbstractAerosolized pathogens are a leading cause of respiratory infection and transmission. Currently used protective measures pose potential risk of primary/secondary infection and transmission. Here, we report the development of a universal, reusable virus deactivation system by functionalization of the main fibrous filtration unit of surgical mask with sodium chloride salt. The salt coating on the fiber surface dissolves upon exposure to virus aerosols and recrystallizes during drying, destroying the pathogens. When tested with tightly sealed sides, salt-coated filters showed remarkably higher filtration efficiency than conventional mask filtration layer, and 100% survival rate was observed in mice infected with virus penetrated through salt-coated filters. Viruses captured on salt-coated filters exhibited rapid infectivity loss compared to gradual decrease on bare filters. Salt-coated filters proved highly effective in deactivating influenza viruses regardless of subtypes and following storage in harsh environmental conditions. Our results can be applied in obtaining a broad-spectrum, airborne pathogen prevention device in preparation for epidemic and pandemic of respiratory diseases.\n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n IntroductionAerosols take a prominent role in airborne transmission of respiratory diseases. Droplets with aerodynamic size (da) < 10 μm and 10 < da < 100 μm are known to infect the alveolar regions and upper respiratory tract, respectively1,2. Notably, aerosols can also be a route of infection in diseases that, contrary to for instance influenza, do not specifically target the respiratory tract, as it could be the case of Ebola virus3. While vaccination can greatly reduce morbidity and mortality, during a pandemic or epidemic new vaccines matching the specific strain would be available, at the earliest, six months after the initial outbreak. Additionally, following development of an effective viral vaccine, several potential problems would remain, such as limited supply due to insufficient production capacity and time-consuming manufacturing processes. As a result, individuals close to the point of an outbreak would be in imminent danger of exposure to infectious diseases during the non-vaccine period. In the absence of vaccination, respirators and masks can be worn to prevent transmission of airborne pathogenic aerosols and control diseases, such as influenza4.The main alternative, the N95 respirator, requires training prior to use, must be expertly fitted to address the risk of faceseal leakage at the face-mask interface, and must be disposed of as biohazard5. Due to these factors, the use of N95 respirators on a large scale is impractical and expensive during an epidemic or pandemic. Past experiences of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), H1N1 swine flu in 2009, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) indicate that surgical masks have been most widely adopted by the public as personal protective measure, despite controversy on their effectiveness6,7,8,9. Currently, among other factors, filtration in respirators and masks depends on filter characteristics, including fiber diameter, packing density, charge of fibers and filter thickness, as well as particle properties, such as diameter, density and velocity10,11,12,13,14. However, in the lack of a system to deactivate the collected pathogens, safety concerns naturally arise about secondary infection and contamination from virus-laden filter media during utilization and disposal. Furthermore, since re-sterilization is not possible without causing damage, respirators and masks are recommended for single use only9,15,16. Scientific efforts have been focused on treatment of filters with materials possessing well-known antimicrobial properties, such as iodine, chlorine and metals17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25, although with limited effectiveness against virus aerosols26,27,28. Therefore, a key challenge is the development of an easy-to-use, universal virus negation system, which is reusable without reprocessing and capable of deactivating pathogens, thereby reducing potential risk of secondary infection and transmission.Here, we report a simple but efficient virus inactivation system exploiting the naturally occurring salt recrystallization. Our strategy is to modify the surface of the fibrous filtration layer within masks with a continuous salt film for virus deactivation via two successive processes: i) salt is locally dissolved by the viral aerosols and ii) supersaturation is followed by evaporation-induced salt recrystallization. Consequently, viruses are exposed to increasingly higher concentrations of saline solution during drying and physically damaged by recrystallization.ResultsPreparation and characterization of salt-functionalized filtersTo demonstrate the concept of virus deactivation system based on salt recrystallization, the middle layer of three-ply surgical mask, polypropylene (PP) microfiber filter, was coated with NaCl salt as an active virus negation unit (see Supplementary Fig. S1 for bare PP filter). The coating formulations contained surfactant to enhance wetting of saline solution on the surface of hydrophobic PP fibers. Bare PP filters (abbreviated as Filterbare) were pre-wet to contain about 600 μL of coating solution (abbreviated as Filterwet). The amount of NaCl salt (Wsalt in mg/cm2) coated on the filter per unit area, considering that the filters thickness is constant, was easily controlled by changing the coating solution volume (Vsalt in μL) during drying of pre-wet filter (radius: 3 cm, Wsalt = 3.011 + 0.013 × Vsat, n = 7) (Fig. S2). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) mapping analysis showed the formation of homogeneous NaCl coating during drying, as also confirmed by X-ray diffraction (XRD) (Fig. 1a,b and Supplementary Fig. S3). Both the formation of NaCl coating on PP fibers and presence of surfactant in the coating formulation appeared to alter the filter surface properties from hydrophobic (bare filter; contact angle, θc = 133.0 ± 4.7°) to completely hydrophilic (salt-coated filter; θc ~ 0°, n = 10) (Fig. 1c and Supplementary Fig. S4). Hydrophilic nature of salt coating can greatly improve adhesion of viral aerosols to PP fibers compared to Filterbare, as seen in Raman microscope images (Fig. 1d and Supplementary Fig. S5).Figure 1: Mask with salt-coated filter for prevention and deactivation of airborne pathogens.(a) SEM image of Filterwet+600μL (top left) and EDX mapping images of Na (red), Cl (green), and NaCl (combination of Na and Cl mapping images), showing the formation of NaCl coating, as also confirmed by XRD spectra (b) of Filterbare, Filterwet, Filterwet+100μL, Filterwet+300μL, Filterwet+600μL, Filterwet+900μL and Filterwet+1200μL (labelled as Bare, wet, wet+100 μL, wet+300 μL, wet+600 μL, wet+900 μL and wet+1200 μL, respectively; miller indices corresponding to NaCl crystal are shown at the top of XRD spectra for each position). (c) Optical microscope images for contact angle measurements using 3 μL DI water droplets on (i) Filterbare and (ii) Filterwet+600μL (n = 10). (d) Microscope images of aerosol on (i) Filterbare and (ii) Filterwet+600μL (n = 10).Filtration efficiency against viral aerosols and protective efficacy in vivoFiltration efficiency of salt-coated filters was tested against aerosols with volumetric mean diameter (VMD) of 2.5–4 μm containing H1N1 pandemic influenza virus (A/California/04/2009, abbreviated as CA/09) at different pressure conditions (see Fig. 2a for transmission electron microscope (TEM) image of H1N1 virus). Interestingly, as shown in Fig. 2b, Filterbare did not exhibit any significant level of resistance against penetration of virus under our experimental conditions (i.e., 0% filtration efficiency). Conversely, salt-coated filters showed substantially increasing filtration efficiency with pressure and amount of coated salt. In particular, in the case of Filterwet+600μL, filtration efficiency varied from 43 to 70%, with increasing pressure from 3 to 17 kPa, and Filterwet+1200μL exhibited persistent, high-level efficiency (~85%) (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.85).Figure 2: Filtration efficiency of salt-coated filters.(a) TEM image of CA/09 H1N1 influenza virus. (b) Pressure-dependent filtration efficiency (n = 8–10, mean ± standard deviation (SD)). (c–f) Effects of filtration efficiency on protective efficacy in vivo. Body weight change of mice after infection with the dosages of penetrated virus (n = 12, mean ± SD) (c), survival rates (mean; 100% means that all mice in the group survived as penetrated dosages were lower than lethal dose) (d), lung virus titers (n = 4, mean ± SD) (e), and lung inflammatory cytokine (interferon-γ (IFN-γ)) assay (n = 11, mean ± SD) (f). Legends: filters are labelled as in Fig. 1b.To probe the effects of filtration efficiency on protective efficacy, in vivo experiments were performed using mice intranasally (IN) infected with penetrated dosages of H1N1 virus under breathing pressure (~10 kPa)29. As shown in Fig. 2c, similarly to negative control groups (mice infected with lethal dose of virus stock and aerosolized virus), mice exposed to a dose penetrated through the bare filter showed rapid body weight loss, followed by death within 10 days after infection, in good agreement with the observed 0% filtration efficiency (Fig. 2b). In contrast, mice groups exposed to virus derived from salt-coated filters resulted in 100% survival rate (Fig. 2d). Furthermore, lungs of mice from negative control groups exhibited severe lung infection 4 days after challenge (Fig. 2e). Conversely, mice groups exposed to virus derived from salt-coated filters showed significantly lower levels of lung viral titers (t-test, P < 0.005). This is consistent with lower levels of inflammatory cytokines, interferon-γ (IFN-γ), from salt-coated filter groups compared to negative control and bare filter groups (t-test, P < 0.001) (Fig. 2f).Deactivation of virus on salt-functionalized filtersInfluenza virus stability tests were performed to investigate the effects of salt coating. The same amount of recovered viruses from the PP fibers was used, and, in the case of bare filters, viral aerosols exposure was conducted in the absence of pressure due to 100% penetration of viral aerosols. Unlike bare filters (Fig. S6a(i)), formation of micron-sized NaCl phase represents a typical feature of salt-coated filters due to recrystallization of NaCl salt, following local dissolution upon aerosols exposure (SEM images in Fig. S6a, ii to iv, and EDX mapping in Fig. S6b). In contrast to 8% HA activity loss of virus adsorbed onto Filterbare, salt-coated filters exhibited almost complete HA activity loss within 5 min of incubation (Fig. 3a). Such dramatic virus destabilization on salt-coated filters is further supported by negligible levels of viral titers compared to Filterbare with incubation time (t-test, P < 0.001) (Fig. 3b). It is also noted that virus titers exhibited significant decrease with increase of incubation time and amount of coated salt (ANOVA general linear model, P < 0.001). TEM analysis showed that influenza virus on Filterbare experiences morphological change into non-spherical shape during aerosol drying (Fig. 3c(i)). Notably, influenza virus was severely damaged on salt-coated filters even at 5 min of incubation (Fig. 3c(ii)). From microscopic analysis, aerosol drying time was about 3 min, indicating that destruction of virus observed at 5 min is associated with drying-induced salt crystallization. Physical damage of virus due to crystallization was similarly reported as a major destabilizing factor of inactivated influenza virus30,31. Lower levels of native fluorescence and nile red fluorescence from virus recovered from salt-coated filters accounted for more severe conformational change of antigenic proteins and destabilization of viral envelope, respectively, consistent with TEM analysis (t-test, P < 0.001) (Fig. 3d). In parallel, we investigated the separate effect of salt concentration increase on virus stability during the aerosol drying process, irrespective of crystal growth. As displayed in Supplementary Fig. S7, the materials collected in suspension from Filterwet+600μL induced visible morphological transformation of the virus (Supplementary Fig. S7b) compared to suspension of Filterbare (Supplementary Fig. S7a). This can be attributed to the high salt/surfactant concentration and osmotic pressure, which have been well-known to destabilize proteins and viruses31,32,33. Therefore, the marked virus destabilization on salt-coated PP fibers can be explained by the combined effects of salt concentration increase during drying and evaporation-induced salt crystallization.Figure 3: Inactivation of virus adsorbed on salt-coated filters.(a,b) HA activity (a) and virus titer (b) displaying the effects of incubation time on the remaining activity of virus (n = 4–8, mean ± SD). (c) TEM images of viruses reconstituted, after incubation for 5 and 60 min, from (i) Filterbare and (ii) Filterwet+600μL. (d) Native fluorescence/nile red fluorescence of viruses incubated for 60 min (n = 12, mean ± SD). (e,f) Body weight change of mice after infection with virus recovered from filters after incubation for 60 min (n = 12, mean ± SD) (e), and lung virus titers (n = 6, mean ± SD) (f). Asterisk (*): below detection limit. Legends: filters are labelled as in Fig. 1b.To verify in vitro virus stability on the filters, an in vivo study was performed by infecting mice with virus incubated for 60 min on PP filters. As shown in Fig. 3e, Filterbare group exhibited 5% body weight loss at day 9 post-infection, reaching a body weight lower than that of salt-coated filter groups by 10–15%. Thus, significantly higher lung virus titers in the negative control group were observed in contrast to no detectable titers in the salt-coated filter groups (Fig. 3f).Strain-nonspecific virus deactivation and effects of storage under harsh environmental conditions on salt coating stabilityBroad-spectrum protection of salt-coated filters against multiple subtypes of viral aerosols was evaluated by investigating both lethal infectivity by penetrated virus in vivo and infectivity by virus collected on filters during filtration in vitro using A/Puerto Rico/08/1934 (PR/34 H1N1) and A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (VN/04 H5N1). Similarly to CA/09 H1N1, 100% of mice survived viral infection (PR/34 and VN/04), with no evidence of weight loss, due to higher filtration efficiency of salt-coated filter than that of bare filter (Fig. 4a). This is supported by no significant level of viral titer in the lung. In addition, as shown in Fig. 4b, salt-coated PP filters destroyed adsorbed influenza viruses irrespective of both subtypes and amount of coated salts.Figure 4: Strain- and environment-dependent performance of salt-coated filters.(a) Body weight change of mice infected with penetrated PR/34 H1N1 and VN/04 H5N1 viruses through Filterwet+600μL (n = 12, mean ± SD). (b) Virus titers of recovered viruses from bare and salt-coated filters (n = 4, mean ± SD; data for Filterwet, Filterwet+600μL and Filterwet+1200μL are overlapped). (c,d) Body weight change (c) and survival rate (d) of mice infected with dosage of penetrated virus through Filterwet+600μL before and after exposure to harsh environmental conditions (37 °C and 70% RH) for 1 day (filled square and open square overlap in (d)). (e) EDX mapping image of NaCl-coated Filterwet+600μL after incubation for 15 days at 37 °C and 70% RH (combination of Na (red) and Cl (green) mapping images). (f) XRD spectra of Filterwet+600μL before and after incubation at 37 °C 70% for 1 day and 15 days. Legends: filters are labelled as in Fig. 1b.The stability of salt coating on PP fibers was tested under harsh environmental conditions. Incubation at 37 °C and 70% relative humidity (RH) for 1 day did not cause any significant difference in filtration efficiency (t-test, P = 0.718) (Supplementary Fig. S8). As a result, all mice infected with dosage of penetrated virus through the filter stored at high temperature and RH displayed 100% survival with 7% of body weight loss (Fig. 4c,d). Even after 15 days of incubation, salts remained to coat PP fibers (Fig. 4e, and Supplementary Fig. S9a,b), despite change in grain orientation due to recrystallization (Fig. 4f, and Supplementary Fig. S10a,b).DiscussionDevelopment of a universally applicable, low-cost, and efficient mechanism for virus negation is regarded as a major challenge in public health against general airborne biological threats. This led us to propose a new concept of personal/public preventive and control measures using salt-recrystallization against pathogenic aerosols based on two hypotheses. The salt-coating can enhance adsorption of virus on the filter fibers and inactivate virus by the increase of osmotic pressure followed by the crystallization of salts. As shown in Fig. 2b, salt-coated filters exhibited significantly higher levels of filtration efficiency than bare filters. Notably, the bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE) reported by the mask manufacturer is 99%. The different value of filtration efficiency for bare filters obtained under our experimental conditions may be partially due to the use of aerosols with different biological origins. The FDA-recognized ASTM F2101 – 14 standard for evaluation of BFE exposes surgical masks to Staphylococcus aureus aerosols, by employing S. aureus ATCC 653834, which has an average diameter of about 1 μm. In this study, filtration efficiency was calculated following exposure of bare and salt-coated filters to influenza virus, which exhibits a smaller diameter than that of S. aureus by one order of magnitude. Additionally, whereas during BFE evaluation all three layers of surgical masks are used, in this work filtration efficiency refers to mask filters (middle layer). It is worth noting that the conditions for BFE standard evaluation (such as flow rate and time of application of flow) do not coincide with the experimental procedure we used for measurement of the filtration efficiency, which may further contribute to the different result. The enhanced filtration efficiency of salt-coated filters against influenza virus aerosols as compared to bare filters can be explained by the observed wetting of aerosols, favoring greater adhesion to salt-coated filters. Furthermore, the significant improvement in filtration efficiency resulted in complete protection of mice against lethal influenza aerosols, which demonstrates the high level of protection provided by salt-coated filters, outperforming currently used bare filters.Rapid loss of HA activity and viral infectivity on salt-coated filters can be explained by physical destruction of virus during recrystallization of coated salts. When the salt-coated filter is exposed to virus aerosols, salt crystals below the aerosol droplet dissolve to increase osmotic pressure to virus. Due to evaporation, the salt concentration of the droplet significantly increases and reaches the solubility limit, leading to recrystallization of salt. As a consequence, virus particles are exposed to increasing osmotic pressure during the drying process and are physically damaged by crystallization. As shown in Fig. 3e,f, the superior advantage of physically destroying the virus adsorbed to the salt-coated PP filters through natural salt crystallization process was further confirmed in vivo. According to previous reports, hyperosmotic stress (>541 mOsm) and crystallization induce membrane perturbation with irreversible deformation of the viral envelope and structural virus damage, respectively, resulting in infectivity loss of virus30,31. Therefore, our data support that the extensive level of infectivity loss associated with a salt recrystallization process caused by physical contact between virus aerosols and salt coating can be used in developing virus negation systems that are reusable without reprocessing.Similarly to CA/09 H1N1 aerosols, increased protection in vivo due to higher filtration efficiency of salt-coated filters compared to bare filters and deactivation of virus on salt-coated filters were observed following exposure to PR/34 H1N1 and VN/04 H5N1 (Fig. 4a,b). This suggests that salt-coated filters prevent virus penetration and destroy virus attached to the filter in a non-specific way. Furthermore, the performance of salt-coated filters was not degraded by storage at 37 °C and 70% RH, demonstrating that salt recrystallization-based filters can ensure protection even under harsh environmental conditions. Notably, for demonstration of the concept of salt-recrystallization based virus deactivation system, NaCl salt was used, which has a critical RH of 75% at 30 °C35. However, salts with higher critical RH can be easily used, such as ammonium sulfate, potassium chloride and potassium sulfate, which have critical RH of 80%, 84% and 96.3% at 30 °C, respectively35. This suggests that salt-coated filters may be developed for specific environmental conditions.In conclusion, we demonstrated that the developed salt-recrystallization based filtration system provides high filtration efficiency and successfully deactivates multiple subtypes of adsorbed viruses. Moreover, we have shown that stability of the salt coating is not compromised by high temperature and humidity, which suggests safe use and long-term storage/reuse at such environmental conditions. Although our tests are based on exposure to different types of influenza virus, the significance of these results for personal and public protective measures may be generally extended to enveloped respiratory viruses where infection and transmission can occur by aerosol. Our salt-coated filter unit can promise the development of long-term stable, versatile airborne pathogen negation system, without safety concerns. In fact, the destruction mechanism of viruses solely depends on the simple, yet robust naturally occurring salt recrystallization process, combining the destabilizing effects of salt crystal growth and concentration increase during drying of aerosols. This idea can be easily applied to a wide range of existing technologies to obtain low-cost, universal personal and public means of protection against airborne pathogens, such as masks and air filters in hospitals. Therefore, we believe that salt-recrystallization based virus deactivation system can contribute to global health by providing a more reliable means of preventing transmission and infection of pandemic or epidemic diseases and bioterrorism.MethodsBare and salt-coated filter samples preparationThe commercial surgical masks had a three-ply structure. The middle layer is the filter media, whereas the inner and outer layers provide support and protect the filter against wear and tear. The metal nose clips and elastic ear loops were removed and circular samples (radius: 3 cm) were cut from the masks. The PP filters (middle layer) were isolated by removing the inner and outer protective layers (bare filters, Filterbare). The coating solution was prepared by dissolving sodium chloride (NaCl; Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) in filtered DI water (0.22 μm pore size; Corning, Tewksbury, MA) under stirring at 400 rpm and 90 °C, followed by the addition of Tween 20 (Fisher Scientific) to a final concentration of 29.03 w/v% of NaCl and 1 v/v% of Tween 20. To obtain the salt-coated filters, the mask bare PP filters were pre-wet to contain approximately 600 μL of coating solution by incubating overnight at room temperature. Any remaining dry areas were removed by applying gentle strokes with tweezers to the filters while immersed in the coating solution. Subsequently, the filters were deposited in the desired volume of coating solution (0, 100, 300, 600, 900 and 1200 μL, of which corresponding membranes are abbreviated as Filterwet, Filterwet+100μL, Filterwet+300μL, Filterwet+600μL, Filterwet+900μL, and Filterwet+1200μL, respectively) on petri dishes (60 × 15 mm; Fisher Scientific) to control the amount of NaCl per unit area and dried in an oven (Isotemp Incubator, Fisher Scientific) at 37 °C for 1 day.Influenza virus preparationInfluenza viruses A/California/04/2009 (CA/09, H1N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34 (PR/34, H1N1) and A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (VN/04, H5N1) were grown in 10-day old embryonated hen eggs, in which H5N1 virus was derived by reverse genetics from HPAI A/Vietnam/1203/200436. Influenza viruses were purified from allantoic fluid using discontinuous sucrose gradient (15%, 30% and 60%) layers following the previously reported procedure37.Aerosols exposure to filtersFor experiments involving aerosols exposure, an aerosol chamber (L × W × H = 145 × 145 × 150 mm; Emka Inc., Middletown, PA) was used (Fig. S11). It has a connection to the vacuum line and a circular aperture in the top wall (diameter: 22 mm) to exactly accommodate the cylindrical part (diameter: 20 mm, height; 20 mm) of the nebulizer unit that is below the aerosol generator (Aeroneb Lab Nebulizer System; Aerogen, Galway, Ireland). Bleach was used as trap between the chamber and the vacuum pump (Welch 2522C-10, 22 L/min; Niles, IL). The filters were placed on top of the chamber aperture and the nebulizer unit was inserted, ensuring the tight seal of the filters against the side of the aperture. 5 μL of virus stock were added to the nebulizer unit, aerosols (VMD 2.5–4 μm from manufacturer specifications) were generated for 30 sec and subsequently the desired vacuum level (3, 10 or 17 kPa) was applied, by manual control, three times in 1 sec cycles. Notably, in the case of bare filters, pressure was only applied for filtration efficiency tests.For all assays and analysis, suspensions of the filters were prepared as follows, unless otherwise indicated. To reconstitute virus adsorbed onto filters, virus-laden filters were immersed in 400 μL of sterilized DI water for about 5 min, and then removed after vortexing from the suspension. The virus suspension was centrifuged at 19,800 g and 4 °C for 10 min (Centrifuge 5810 R, Eppendorf, Hauppauge, NY), followed by resuspension of pellets in 70 μL of DI water to eliminate any interference from materials in supernatant during assays.Filtration efficiency testsThe filters were exposed to the virus aerosols at 3, 10 and 17 kPa and suspensions of the filters were obtained, as described above. The filtration efficiency was calculated as the ratio of the amount of virus (i.e., total proteins measured from the virus) reconstituted from the filter to that from the virus in the exposure aerosols. The concentration of virus in aerosols was determined by generating viral aerosols into a 15 mL centrifuge tube, containing 1 mL of DI water. After vortexing, virus concentrations (i.e., total protein concentration) were measured with bicinchoninic acid assay (BCA protein assay kit; Thermo Fischer scientific, Waltham, IL) with bovine serum albumin as a standard. In the case of virus reconstituted from salt-coated filters, virus-laden filter suspension was replaced with DI water prior to BCA assay.In vivo infection testsLethal infectivity of influenza viruses (CA/09 H1N1) was examined in 8 week old female inbred BALB/c mice (Nara Biotech; Seoul, Korea) by using the intranasal route. For bare and salt-coated filters, 12 mice per group were infected with individual penetration dosage of influenza virus through each filter. The penetration dosage of the virus through the filters (Filterbare, Filterwet, Filterwet+600μL, and Filterwet+1200μL) was calculated from the filtration efficiency at 10 kPa (near breathing pressure) using the relationship: penetration dosage = virus dosage in lethal aerosol × penetration efficiency (%)/100, where penetration efficiency (%) = 100 − filtration efficiency (%). To examine the effects of the aerosolization process on the viral infectivity change, two mice groups were infected with a lethal dose of virus before and after aerosol formation, which served as negative control groups. Body weight changes and survival rate of mice were monitored daily for 15 days. Mice with body weight loss greater than 25% were euthanized. All animal protocols were approved by the Kyung Hee University (KHU) Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). All animal experiments and husbandry involved in this work were conducted under the approved protocols and guidelines of KHU IACUC. KHU IACUC operates under National Veterinary Research and Quarantine Service (NVRQS), and animal welfare law and regulations of the WOAH-OIE (World organization for animal health).To test strain-dependent lethal infection behavior, mice (12 per group) were infected with the penetrated dosage of viral aerosols (PR/34 H1N1 and VN/04 H5N1 viruses) through Filterwet+600μL at 10 kPa. Time-dependent body weight change was monitored in the same manner described above.Lung viral titer and lung inflammatory cytokine assays after infectionOn day 4 after infection 6 mice of each group were sacrificed for the collection of lung samples. Lung virus titers were measured on six-well plates containing confluent MDCK cell monolayers. Inflammatory cytokines (IFN-γ) were determined using BD OptEIA mouse IFN-γ ELISA kit (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA) following the manufacturer’s procedure.Test of viral infectivity change on filtersTo investigate the effects of salt-coating on viral infectivity loss, lethal influenza aerosols were exposed to four different types of filters (Filterbare, Filterwet, Filterwet+600μL, and Filterwet+1200μL). Since Filterbare exhibited almost complete penetration upon pressure application, aerosols were exposed to the bare filter in the absence of pressure and samples were carefully handled to prevent mechanical agitation. To measure time-dependent stability change of virus, virus-laden filters were incubated at ambient conditions for 0, 5, 15, and 60 min after aerosol exposure, and suspended in DI water to reconstitute virus at each time point. In vitro stability of virus was characterized by measuring hemagglutinin activity (HA) and virus titers at the same concentration as lethal dose30. The conformational stability of antigenic proteins was characterized by measuring intrinsic fluorescence using 0.1 mg/mL of virus suspension38. To investigate morphological change of virus, lipid stability of viral wall was characterized by nile red fluorescence (Sigma Aldrich), a fluorescent lipid stain, following manufacturer’s protocol39. A decrease in fluorescence intensity can be used to examine the level of disintegration of the virus. Both intrinsic and nile red fluorescence were measured by using a fluorimeter (LB 50B; PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA). Intensity changes of fluorescent spectra were compared relative to those of a control from virus stock.To test infectivity difference observed from in vitro findings, in vivo study was performed for the virus reconstituted from the filters (Filterbare, Filterwet, Filterwet+600μL, and Filterwet+1200μL) after incubation for 60 min at RT (aerosol exposure at 10 kPa, except for Filterbare). 12 mice per group were infected with a lethal dose of virus collected from each type of filter. Body weight change and lung virus titers were measured as described above.Effects of environmental conditions on the performance of salt-coated filterSalt-coated filters (Filterwet, Filterwet+600μL, and Filterwet+1200μL) were stored at 37 °C, 70% RH in an incubator (Maru Max; Rcom, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea) for 15 days. Every day, the filters were collected and incubated at ambient conditions for 5 min. At 1-day incubation, filtration efficiency was measured at 10 kPa from Filterwet+600μL, followed by in vivo infection test. Lethal infectivity between two different filter groups (before and after incubation at 37 °C, 70% RH) was compared by measuring body weight change and survival rate of mice after exposure to lethal CA/09 H1N1 aerosols. XRD analysis was performed to salt-coated filters incubated for 1 and 15 days, and SEM/EDX mapping analysis for 15-day incubated samples.Contact angle measurements and imaging of aerosolsThe bare and salt-coated filters were fixed with carbon tape (Ted Pella, Inc., Redding, CA) to a metal, flat substrate and 3 μL of DI water were added on the surface of the filters. The contact angles were measured from images collected with an optical microscope (10× lens, Motic SMZ-140; Motic, Richmond, Canada) at RT. Images of aerosols on filter fibers were obtained using a dispersive Raman microscope (Nicolet Almega XR; Fisher Scientific).Aerosol drying time on filtersThe bare and salt-coated filters were fixed with carbon tape to a metal, flat substrate and exposed to aerosols generated from 5 μL of Sulforhodamine B Dye solution (1 mM, Sigma-Aldrich). Aerosol drying time was determined with timer by observation with optical microscope.Electron microscopy analysisFor virus stability tests, bare and salt-coated filters were exposed to CA/09 H1N1 aerosols and, after 5 and 60 min incubation, virus was recovered by suspension of the filters, as described above. To study the effects of the coating formulation during aerosol drying independently from crystal growth, bare and salt-coated filters were immersed in DI water and removed after 60 min. Subsequently, virus was incubated in the obtained suspension for 60 min. Additionally, the virus suspension was centrifuged at 19,800 g and 4 °C for 10 min to collect the samples and suspend them in DI water. For TEM analysis (200 kV, JEOL JEM 2100; JEOL, Peabody, MA), samples were deposited on copper grid (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA) and negatively stained with solution comprised of phosphotungstic acid hydrate (1.5 w/v%, pH = 7.0; Sigma-Aldrich, Oakville, Canada).To identify the morphology of salt-coated filters and recrystallized salts, SEM/EDX analysis was performed for bare and salt-coated filters after coating with 10 nm thick gold layer. Scanning electron microscopy analysis (Hitachi S-3000N; Hitachi, Toronto, Canada) was operated in secondary electron mode at 20 kV and EDX analysis was obtained with EDX detector (Oxford Instruments, Concord, MA).XRD analysisTo confirm the formation of crystalline NaCl coating during drying process and its stability during storage at 37 °C and 70% RH, XRD analysis (BRU-1098; Bruker, Billerica, MA) was performed at different coating conditions. Filters (1 × 1 cm) were mounted on a slide glass for XRD analysis (θ–2θ mode) using a CuKα radiation.Statistical analysisTo compare multiple conditions, Student’s t-test, One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and general linear model were used (Minitab release 14; Minitab, State College, PA). P value of less than 0.05 was considered to be significant.Additional InformationHow to cite this article: Quan, F.-S. et al. Universal and reusable virus deactivation system for respiratory protection. Sci. Rep. 7, 39956; doi: 10.1038/srep39956 (2017).Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.\n \n\n References1Tellier, R. Review of aerosol transmission of influenza A virus. Emerging Infect. Dis. 12, 1657–1662 (2006).2Weber, T. P. & Stilianakis, N. I. Inactivation of influenza A viruses in the environment and modes of transmission: a critical review. J. Infect. 57, 361–373 (2008).3Duy, J. et al. Circulating microRNA profiles of Ebola virus infection. Sci. Rep. 6, 24496 (2016).4Morse, S. S., Garwin, R. L. & Olsiewski, P. J. Next flu pandemic: what to do until the vaccine arrives? Science 314, 929–929 (2006).5CDC. Laboratory performance evaluation of N95 filtering facepiece respirators, 1996. MMWR, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 47, 1045 (1998).6Seto, W. H. et al. Effectiveness of precautions against droplets and contact in prevention of nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Lancet 361, 1519–1520 (2003).7Bałazy, A. et al. Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks? Am. J. Infect. Control 34, 51–57 (2006).8Loeb, M. et al. Surgical mask vs N95 respirator for preventing influenza among health care workers: a randomized trial. JAMA 302, 1865–1871 (2009).9Bunyan, D., Ritchie, L., Jenkins, D. & Coia, J. E. Respiratory and facial protection: a critical review of recent literature. J. Hosp. Infect. 85, 165–169 (2013).10Zhu, C., Lin, C. H. & Cheung, C. S. Inertial impaction-dominated fibrous filtration with rectangular or cylindrical fibers. Powder Technol. 112, 149–162 (2000).11Lee, K. W. & Liu, B. Y. H. Theoretical study of aerosol filtration by fibrous filters. Aerosol Sci. Tech. 1, 147–161 (1982).12Duarte Fo, O. B., Marra, W. D., Kachan, G. C. & Coury, J. R. Filtration of electrified solid particles. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res 39, 3884–3895 (2000).13Kraemer, H. F. & Johnstone, H. F. Collection of aerosol particles in presence of electrostatic fields. Ind. Eng. Chem. 47, 2426–2434 (1955).14Ranz, W. E. & Wong, J. B. Impaction of dust and smoke particles on surface and body collectors. Ind. Eng. Chem. 44, 1371–1381 (1952).15Siegel, J. D., Rhinehart, E., Jackson, M. & Chiarello, L. 2007 guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents in health care settings. Am. J. Infect. Control 35, S65–S164 (2007).16Coia, J. E. et al. Guidance on the use of respiratory and facial protection equipment. J. Hosp. Infect. 85, 170–182 (2013).17Ratnesar-Shumate, S. et al. Evaluation of physical capture efficiency and disinfection capability of an iodinated biocidal filter medium. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 8, 1–18 (2008).18Lee, J. H., Wu, C. Y., Wysocki, K. M. & Farrah, S. & Wander, J. Efficacy of iodine-treated biocidal filter media against bacterial spore aerosols. J. Appl. Microbiol. 105, 1318–1326 (2008).19Badrossamay, M. R. & Sun, G. Acyclic halamine polypropylene polymer: effect of monomer structure on grafting efficiency, stability and biocidal activities. React. Funct. Polym. 68, 1636–1645 (2008).20Zhao, N. & Liu, S. Thermoplastic semi-IPN of polypropylene (PP) and polymeric N-halamine for efficient and durable antibacterial activity. Eur. Polym. J. 47, 1654–1663 (2011).21Cerkez, I., Worley, S. D., Broughton, R. M. & Huang, T. S. Antimicrobial surface coatings for polypropylene nonwoven fabrics. React. Funct. Polym. 73, 1412–1419 (2013).22Davison, A. M. Pathogen inactivation and filtration efficacy of a new anti-microbial and anti-viral surgical facemask and N95 against dentistry-associated microorganisms. International dentistry Australasian edition 7, 36–42 (2012).23Borkow, G., Zhou, S. S., Page, T. & Gabbay, J. A novel anti-influenza copper oxide containing respiratory face mask. PLoS One 5, e11295 (2010).24Borkow, G. & Gabbay, J. Putting copper into action: copper-impregnated products with potent biocidal activities. FASEB J. 18, 1728–1730 (2004).25Li, Y., Leung, P., Yao, L., Song, Q. W. & Newton, E. Antimicrobial effect of surgical masks coated with nanoparticles. J. Hosp. Infect. 62, 58–63 (2006).26Lee, J. H. et al. Assessment of iodine-treated filter media for removal and inactivation of MS2 bacteriophage aerosols. J. Appl. Microbiol. 107, 1912–1923 (2009).27Lore, M. B. et al. Performance of conventional and antimicrobial-treated filtering facepiece respirators challenged with biological aerosols. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 9, 69–80 (2012).28Rengasamy, S., Fisher, E. & Shaffer, R. E. Evaluation of the survivability of MS2 viral aerosols deposited on filtering face piece respirator samples incorporating antimicrobial technologies. Am. J. Infect. Control 38, 9–17 (2010).29Windisch, W., Hennings, E., Sorichter, S., Hamm, H. & Criee, C. P. Peak or plateau maximal inspiratory mouth pressure: which is best? Eur. Respir. J. 23, 708–713 (2004).30Choi, H.-J. et al. Stability of influenza vaccine coated onto microneedles. Biomaterials 33, 3756–3769 (2012).31Choi, H.-J. et al. Stability of whole inactivated influenza virus vaccine during coating onto metal microneedles. J. Control. Release 166, 159–171 (2013).32Baldwin, R. L. How hofmeister ion interactions affect protein stability. Biophys. J. 71, 2056–2063 (1996).33Choi, H.-J. et al. Effect of osmotic pressure on the stability of whole inactivated influenza vaccine for coating on microneedles. PLoS one 10, e0134431 (2015).34ASTM International. ASTM F2101 - 14 Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Bacterial Filtration Efficiency (BFE) of Medical Face Mask Materials, Using a Biological Aerosol of Staphylococcus aureus (2014).35Adams, J. R. & Merz, A. R. Hygroscopicity of fertilizer materials and mixtures. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 21, 305–307 (1929).36Song, J.-M. et al. Protective immunity against H5N1 influenza virus by a single dose vaccination with virus-like particles. Virology 405, 165–175 (2010).37Quan, F. S. et al. A bivalent influenza VLP vaccine confers complete inhibition of virus replication in lungs. Vaccine 26, 3352–3361 (2008).38Choi, H.-J., Ebersbacher, C. F., Kim, M., Kang, S. & Montemagno, C. D. A mechanistic study on the destabilization of whole inactivated influenza virus vaccine in gastric environment. PLoS one 8, e66316 (2013).39Greenspan, P., Mayer, E. P. & Fowler, S. D. Nile red: a selective fluorescent stain for intracellular lipid droplets. J. Cell Biol. 100, 965–973 (1985).Download referencesAcknowledgementsThis research was financially supported by startup funds from University of Alberta (H.J.C.), and grants from National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) (NRF-2014R1A2A2A01004899) and Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI15C2928).Author informationAuthor notesFu-Shi Quan and Ilaria Rubino: These authors contributed equally to this work.AffiliationsDepartment of Medical Zoology, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, 130-701, KoreaFu-Shi QuanDepartment of Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1H9, CanadaIlaria Rubino, Brendan Koch & Hyo-Jick ChoiDepartment of Biomedical Science, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, 130-701, KoreaSu-Hwa LeeAuthorsSearch for Fu-Shi Quan in:Search for Ilaria Rubino in:Search for Su-Hwa Lee in:Search for Brendan Koch in:Search for Hyo-Jick Choi in:ContributionsH.J.C. conceived and designed the experiments. F.S.Q., I.R., S.H.L., B.K., and H.J.C. performed the experiments. F.S.Q., I.R., S.H.L., B.K., and H.J.C. analyzed the data. I.R. and H.J.C. wrote the manuscript. F.S.Q. and B.K. edited the manuscript.Corresponding authorCorrespondence to\n Hyo-Jick Choi.Ethics declarations\n \n Competing interests\n The authors declare no competing financial interests.\n \n Supplementary informationRights and permissionsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Reprints and PermissionsAbout this articleCite this articleQuan, F., Rubino, I., Lee, S. et al. Universal and reusable virus deactivation system for respiratory protection.\n Sci Rep 7, 39956 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39956Download citationReceived: 04 August 2016Accepted: 30 November 2016Published: 04 January 2017DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39956\n\n \n \n \n Further reading\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Survival of Microorganisms on Nonwovens Used for the Construction of Filtering Facepiece Respirators\n \n \n \n \n Katarzyna Majchrzycka, Małgorzata Okrasa, Justyna Szulc, Anita Jachowicz[…] & Beata Gutarowska- Show fewer authors\n \n \n International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\n (2019)\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Respiratory Protection against Pandemic and Epidemic Diseases\n \n \n \n \n Ilaria Rubino & Hyo-Jick Choi\n \n \n Trends in Biotechnology\n (2017)\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n CommentsBy submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate."],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]}]}],["text","WIKILINK\n最新科技資訊\n\n \n口罩能否反復使用？浸鹽水後可100%讓H1N1病毒滅活，但對其他病毒需謹慎 | 《科學報告》期刊\nFebruary 5, 2020 admin\n曉查發自凹非寺 \n量子位報道 | 公眾號 QbitAI\n一場新冠肺炎讓中國的口罩嚴重告急。\n\n每齣一次門就要廢掉一個口罩，傢裏的口罩即將用完，藥店和網上都買不到，真是急死人瞭。\n\n彆怕，早在2016年，來自韓國慶熙大學的研究者就發現，口罩隻需用普通食鹽水處理後，就具有瞭一定的殺滅病毒能力，至少對2009年爆發的H1N1流感病毒有效。\n\n他們將處理後的口罩來過濾充滿H1N1病毒的空氣，然後再給小白鼠呼吸，結果發現小鼠的存活率達到瞭100%。\n\n\n\n\n \n空氣中的病毒濃度達到瞭緻死量。作為對照，如果使用普通醫用口罩過濾，小白鼠在4天後就會齣現嚴重的肺炎，10天後全部死亡。\n\n這篇文章發錶在2017年1月Nature旗下的Scientific Reports期刊上。\n\n\n\n△實驗中用到的過濾裝置\n早在3年前，該文章就預測瞭口罩短缺的可能性。\n\n作者在開頭說，在疫病大流行時期，生産能力不足和製造過程耗時，會導緻口罩供應有限。\n\nN95口罩雖然可以過濾空氣中形成的病毒氣溶膠，但是在嚴重的疫情麵前，大規模使用N95口罩是不切實際的，而且價格昂貴。\n\n過去的SARS、H1N1、MERS都錶明，醫用外科口罩是被公眾最廣泛采用的個人防護措施，盡管人們對它的效果存在爭議。\n\n因此需要開發一種通用、低成本且有效的防護病毒機製，最好能用在普通醫用口罩上。\n\n\n\n\n\n\n研究人員配置瞭濃度29.03 w/v%的氯化鈉溶液，並在其中加入瞭一些Tween 20錶麵活性劑，將口罩浸潤，然後在37℃的環境下乾燥一天。\n\n文章指齣，經過這種方法處理後的口罩無需再次處理即可重復使用。最終實驗發現，塗有氯化鈉的口罩上的病毒在5分鍾後就失去瞭活性。\n\n\n\n\n\n\n從顯微鏡分析來看，病毒氣溶膠乾燥時間約為3分鍾，錶明在5分鍾時觀察到的病毒破壞與乾燥引起的鹽結晶有關。\n\n作者推測，可能是帶有水分的病毒被吸附在口罩錶麵，濕潤後又重結晶的鹽破壞瞭病毒的結構。\n\n既然對H1N1病毒，自然就有網友很好奇，這種處理方法是否也對新型冠狀病毒有效。\n\n一些網友對此提齣瞭質疑，認為鹽結晶可能減小瞭口罩的通氣量，而且實驗隻對H1N1病毒進行瞭驗證，是否實用還有待商榷。\n\n所以在未經實驗驗證的情況下，請不要用這種方法來過濾新型冠狀病毒。口罩還是要保證一用一換，切不可自行處理後就重復使用，否則仍有被感染的風險。\n\n論文地址：\nhttps://www.nature.com/articles/srep39956#Sec8\n\n— 完 —\n\n"],["id","obwrpyiajxnx"],["createdAt","2020-02-09T01:53:22.130Z"]]}],["reply",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","tmgTKHABd3n3h-WYriSs"],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","_1YnAG8BV0DITCqGm7go"],["name","uienwt"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",18]]}],["type","OPINIONATED"],["text","目前沒有證據顯示鹽水有助於消除新型冠狀病毒。用鹽殺菌的原理是應用在醃漬食物，讓細菌無法生長，但人不可能用高濃度的鹽水來浸泡口罩，因此傳言指稱用淡鹽水漱口是沒有效果的。"],["reference","https://tfc-taiwan.org.tw/articles/2119\n"],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","【錯誤】網傳「鐘院士的防病毒高招：建議各位去醫院或其他公共場合之前用淡鹽水漱一下嚥喉部位，回家後再漱一次...」？"],["url","https://tfc-taiwan.org.tw/articles/2119"],["summary","【錯誤】網傳「鐘院士的防病毒高招：建議各位去醫院或其他公共場合之前用淡鹽水漱一下嚥喉部位，回家後再漱一次...」？\n \n \n\n網傳「鐘院士的防病毒高招：建議各位去醫院或其他公共場合之前用淡鹽水漱一下嚥喉部位，回家後再漱一次...」，經查：\n\n一、中國工程院院士、中國「新型冠狀病毒聯防聯控工作機制科研攻關組」組長鐘南山的團隊指出，此傳言為網路謠言。\n\n二、專家指出，鹽水漱口不能預防新型冠狀病毒。\n\n因此，此傳言為「錯誤」訊息。\n\n背景\n\n社群平台、通訊軟體流傳訊息指出：「鐘院士的防病毒高招：建議各位去醫院或其他公共場合之前用淡鹽水漱一下嚥喉部位，回家後再漱一次...由於病毒或細菌首先通過鼻腔潛伏於咽部，淡鹽水可以在第一時間殺滅它們，從而達到預防感染的目的」？\n\n\n\n圖1：社群平台流傳訊息擷圖\n\n查核\n\n爭議點一、鐘南山是否有發出此警告？\n\n鐘南山是衛生領域的中國工程院院士，日前接任中國「新型冠狀病毒聯防聯控工作機制科研攻關組」的組長，是中國2003年抗SARS的重要專家。鐘南山團隊所在的廣州醫科大學附屬第一醫院官方微博帳號，於2020年1月22日發布闢謠貼文，指出此貼文為網路謠言。\n\n\n\n圖2：鐘南山團隊發布闢謠貼文擷圖\n\n爭議點二、「用鹽水漱口」可以預防武漢肺炎嗎？傳言指稱「由於病毒或細菌首先通過鼻腔潛伏於咽部，淡鹽水可以在第一時間殺滅它們，從而達到預防感染的目的」，是否屬實？\n\n鐘南山團隊所在的廣州醫科大學附屬第一醫院官方微博指出，鹽水漱口有助於清潔口腔和咽喉，但新型冠狀病毒侵犯的是呼吸道，漱口並沒有辦法清潔呼吸道。目前也沒有證據顯示鹽水有助於消除新型冠狀病毒。\n\n查核中心透過新興科技媒體中心，採訪中興大學獸醫病理生物學研究所教授吳弘毅。他表示，用鹽殺菌的原理是應用在醃漬食物，讓細菌無法生長，但人不可能用高濃度的鹽水來清洗鼻腔或咽喉，因此傳言指稱用淡鹽水漱口是沒有效果的。此外，生理食鹽水反而是病毒可以停留比較久的環境。\n\n台灣感染症醫學會理事長、台大醫院小兒部主任黃立民說，病毒很快就會進入細胞，所以去用鹽水清洗鼻腔或咽喉，並沒有任何作用，而且，鹽水也沒有消毒殺菌的作用。\n\n查核中心採訪長庚大學新興病毒感染研究中心主任施信如，她說此種方法沒有科學根據，也沒有辦法達到預防感染的效果。\n\n結論\n\n一、中國工程院院士、中國「新型冠狀病毒聯防聯控工作機制科研攻關組」組長鐘南山的團隊指出，此傳言為網路謠言。\n\n二、專家指出，鹽水漱口不能預防新型冠狀病毒。\n\n因此，此傳言為「錯誤」訊息。\n\n參考資料\n\n廣州醫科大學附屬第一醫院官方微博"],["topImageUrl","https://tfc-taiwan.org.tw/sites/default/files/upload/node/field_blog_images/image1_2.png"],["error",null]]}]}],["createdAt","2020-02-09T03:52:23.478Z"]]}]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["article",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["replyCount",1],["references",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["type","LINE"]]}]}],["replyRequestCount",5],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","j4S8C_naTRAXPvsA2Ma5ynggq8IjSbQRVemeRSEOwL3LzNZM8"],["name","乂愛冒險的鹽埔甘乃迪乂"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",0]]}],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","2020 coronavirus pandemic in Vietnam"],["url","https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Vietnam"],["summary","The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic was confirmed to have spread to Vietnam on 23 January 2020.[2] As of 2 April 2020, there were 227 confirmed cases, with 75 recoveries and 0 deaths.[1]The country's response to the outbreak has received acclaim for its effectiveness and transparency, as well as its low-cost model, in contrast to China, the rest of Southeast Asia and even to Europe and North America and is compared to how South Korea has responded, despite economically more behind; though not without controversies.[3][4][5]\n\n\nTimeline\n\n\nCOVID-19 cases in Vietnam (vte) Deaths Recoveries Active cases\nDate\n\n# of cases\n2020-01-23\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2(+2)\n\n(n.a.)\n⋮\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2(=)\n\n(=)\n2020-01-28\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2\n\n(=)\n⋮\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2(=)\n\n(=)\n2020-01-31\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n5(+3)\n\n(+150%)\n2020-02-01\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n6(+1)\n\n(+20%)\n2020-02-02\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n7(+1)\n\n(+17%)\n2020-02-03\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n8(+1)\n\n(+14%)\n2020-02-04\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n10(+2)\n\n(+25%)\n2020-02-05\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n10\n\n(=)\n2020-02-06\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n12(+2)\n\n(+20%)\n2020-02-07\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n13(+1)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-02-08\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n13\n\n(=)\n2020-02-09\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n14(+1)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-02-10\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n14\n\n(=)\n2020-02-11\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n15(+1)\n\n(+7%)\n2020-02-12\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n15\n\n(=)\n2020-02-13\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(+1)\n\n(+7%)\n⋮\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(=)\n\n(=)\n2020-02-18\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(+1)\n\n(=)\n2020-02-19\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(+1)\n\n(=)\n2020-02-20\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(+1)\n\n(=)\n⋮\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(=)\n\n(=)\n2020-02-26\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16\n\n(=)\n⋮\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n16(=)\n\n(=)\n2020-03-06\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n17(+1)\n\n(+6%)\n2020-03-07\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n20(+3)\n\n(+15%)\n2020-03-08\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n30(+10)\n\n(+50%)\n2020-03-09\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n31(+1)\n\n(+3%)\n2020-03-10\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n34(+3)\n\n(+10%)\n2020-03-11\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n38(+4)\n\n(+12%)\n2020-03-12\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n44(+6)\n\n(+16%)\n2020-03-13\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n47(+3)\n\n(+7%)\n2020-03-14\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n53(+6)\n\n(+13%)\n2020-03-15\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n57(+4)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-03-16\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n61(+4)\n\n(+7%)\n2020-03-17\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n66(+5)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-03-18\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n76(+10)\n\n(+15%)\n2020-03-19\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n85(+9)\n\n(+12%)\n2020-03-20\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n91(+6)\n\n(+7%)\n2020-03-21\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n94(+3)\n\n(+3%)\n2020-03-22\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n113(+19)\n\n(+20%)\n2020-03-23\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n123(+10)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-03-24\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n134(+11)\n\n(+9%)\n2020-03-25\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n141(+7)\n\n(+5%)\n2020-03-26\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n153(+12)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-03-27\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n163(+10)\n\n(+7%)\n2020-03-28\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n174(+11)\n\n(+7%)\n2020-03-29\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n188(+14)\n\n(+9%)\n2020-03-30\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n203(+15)\n\n(+8%)\n2020-03-31\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n207(+4)\n\n(+2%)\n2020-04-01\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n218(+11)\n\n(+5%)\n2020-04-02\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n227(+9)\n\n(+4%)\nSources:Ministry of Health of Vietnam (Chart from Vietnam Ministry of Health)\n\nJanuary\nOn 23 January, Vietnam confirmed the first two cases of COVID-19, a Chinese man (#1) travelling from Wuhan to Hanoi to visit his son who lived in Vietnam, and his son (#2), who was believed to have contracted the disease from his father. They were hospitalised on 22 January at Chợ Rẫy Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City.[6] On 24 January, Acting Minister of Health Vũ Đức Đam ordered the activation of the Emergency Epidemic Prevention Centre.[7] On 29 January, the son fully recovered and was discharged.[8] His father was discharged on 12 February.[9]A week later, three positive cases were confirmed by the Ministry of Health, involving Vietnamese nationals who had returned from Wuhan. Case No. 3 (25-yr-old female) was quarantined and cured in Thanh Hóa Province, while the other two cases (#4: 29-yr-old male; #5: 23-yr-old female) are hospitalised in Hanoi.[10][11] Case No. 5 was discharged on 3 February, fully recovered and tested negative with the virus.[12]\nFebruary\nOn 1 February, a 25-year-old woman (#6) was declared coronavirus-positive in Khánh Hòa Province. She has worked as a receptionist and had direct contact with the Chinese father and son (cases #1–2).[13] This case was discharged from the hospital on 4 February.[14] Noticeably, this case was the first domestic transmission in Vietnam, leading to an epidemic declaration signed by the Vietnamese Prime Minister and calls for border tightening, aviation permits revoked, and visa restriction.[15][16][17][18]On 2 February, a Vietnamese American (#7) got infected with coronavirus, due to two-hour layover in Wuhan airport during his trip from the US.[19]On 3–4 February, Vietnam announced their eighth and ninth case: a 29-year-old female (#8) and a 30-year-old male (#9). They belonged to the same training team with the previous confirmed cases of three (cases #3-through-5).[20][21]Later on 4 February, the 10th case was identified. A 42-year-old female met and greeted with the case No. 5 during Lunar New Year holiday.[22] Mother (49-year-old, #11) and younger sister (16-year-old, #12) of the case No. 5 were also transmitted on 6 February.[23]On 7 February, Vietnam confirmed their 13th case, a 29-year-old worker, who is a member of the same training crew with 5 previously confirmed cases (case #3,4,5,8,9).[24] Earlier of the same day, Vietnam declared to have successfully cultured and isolated the virus in the lab. This is one of the few countries able to do this, aside from Singapore, Australia, Japan and China.[25]On 9 February, a 55-year-old woman, a neighbour of case No. 5, tested positive; the 14th case.[26]On 10 February, three more cases: #4, #5 and #9 were declared to be recovered.[27]The 15th case was identified on 11 February, a 3-month-old grandchild of case No. 10.[28]On 13 February, father of case No. 5 was tested positive, making the number of cases in Vietnam 16.[29]On 25 February, the 16th was released from the hospital after being tested negative from the COVID-19, temporarily made Vietnam cleared from COVID-19 outbreak.[30] However, quarantine measures continue to be imposed until further notice.[31]\nMarch\nOn 6 March night, Hanoi urgently announced a new case of coronavirus, the first one found in the capital of Vietnam. The patient, a 26-year-old woman, had been traveling across Europe during the outbreak. She had been exhibiting several symptoms, but didn't notify the authorities about her travel history or health conditions.[32] The government has isolated roughly 200 people who had close contact, live on the same street, or were on the same flight as the patient.[33][34] The incident also sparked a wave of stockpiling purchases across the city.[35]On 7 March afternoon, a 27-year-old Vietnamese was put into quarantine in Ninh Binh Province, after he was diagnosed with COVID-19, making this the 18th case. The patient had been in Daegu for several days.[36] Just 2 hours later, the Vietnamese Ministry of Health confirmed 2 more cases, both related to the 17th case.[37]On 8 March, another case in Hanoi was announced, which was a 61-year-old man.[38] Later this day, 9 more cases was announced, with 4 cases in Quảng Ninh, 2 cases in Lào Cai, 2 cases in Đà Nẵng and 1 case in Thừa Thiên - Huế. All of them were on the same flight with case #17.[39]On 9 March evening, a 49-year-old British man was put into quarantine in Quảng Nam Province, related to patient number 17.[40]On 10 March, a 24-year-old Vietnamese woman was announced positive with the virus and had close contact with case #17 while in London. After she acknowledged that case #17 was infected, she flew back to Vietnam in a private jet with quarantined cabin to seek healthcare in her home country.[41] Later that day, another British man was found infected with the virus, who was on the same flight with case #17.[42] Before the end of the day, the 34th case was identified, a 51-year-old businesswoman who had visited the United States, with a brief transit in Korea and Qatar during the trip.[43]On 11 March, Vietnam confirmed their 35th case of COVID-19, a 29-year-old woman who works in an electronics supermarket in Da Nang, and had physical contact with two infected British tourists.[44] Within the same day, 3 more case were discovered, all are related to patient number 34.[45]On 12 March morning, Vietnamese Ministry of Health reported the 39th case of the country. This case is a 29-year-old tour guide in Hanoi, who had contact with patient number 24 during a trip to Ninh Binh.[46] Evening of the same day, five more cases were announced, all are related to patient number 34.[47]On 13 March, 3 more cases were announced.[48][49]On 14 March, 6 cases were announced. Aside from cases related to flight VN0054 and patient 34, there are 3 unrelated cases: A Vietnamese came back from Paris, a Vietnamese overseas student who has been travelling across Europe, and a Czech national.[50]On 16 March, a new case was reported in Vietnam, known as the 61st patient. The patient, a Muslim from the Cham minority, had participated in the Tablighi Jamaat in Sri Petaling mosque, Malaysia, where he got infected before returning to Vietnam and attended the Jamiul Muslimin Mosque in Ho Chi Minh City before returning home in Ninh Thuận. Due to the wide range of people he contacted, it raised the fear of the patient being a super spread patient. Eventually, the Vietnamese authorities decided to isolate and quarantine the whole province, as well as shut the mosque.[51][52][53] Subsequently, a new-found case connected with the man were also discovered the following days.[54] On 22 March, another case also related to the Islamic activities is a fellow Muslim who returned from Malaysia also attended in the same Sri Petaling mosque, before went back to Vietnam and still did Islamic praying five times a day in Jamiul Anwar mosque, despite being asked to quarantine at home.[55]On 22 March, Vietnam recorded over fourteen new patients, surpassing over 100 patients for the first time. Many returned from various countries, including Britain, Malaysia, and France; which are severely hit by the coronavirus.[56]On 26 March, 12 more cases were confirmed.[57]\nCases\nAs of 2 April 2020, there were 9 new cases with 12 new recoveries, bringing the tally to 227 confirmed cases and 75 recovered cases with no confirmed deaths.[1]\n\n\nCase details\nDetails of the confirmed cases in Vietnam (as of 2 April 2020)\n\nCase\n\nDate\n\nAge\n\nGender\n\nNationality\n\nPlace of detection\n\nPlace of treatment\n\nBeen to Wuhan, Hubei\n\nBeen to Covid-19 countries (excluding China)\n\nStatus\n\nNote\n\nSource\n1\n\n23 January 2020\n\n66\n\nMale\n\n China\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCho Ray Hospital\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]2\n\n28\n\nMale\n\n China\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nSon of case 1\n\n[59][58]3\n\n30 January 2020\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nThanh Hoa\n\nThanh Hoa General Hospital\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]4\n\n29\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nVinh Phuc\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]5\n\n23\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]6\n\n1 February 2020\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nKhanh Hoa\n\nKhanh Hoa Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nRelated to cases 1 and 2\n\n[59][58]7\n\n2 February 2020\n\n73\n\nMale\n\n United States\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nHo Chi Minh City Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nStayed at Wuhan Tianhe International Airport before flying to Vietnam\n\n[59][58]8\n\n3 February 2020\n\n29\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nVinh Phuc\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]9\n\n4 February 2020\n\n30\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]10\n\n42\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBinh Xuyen District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nCousin of case 5\n\n[59][58]11\n\n6 February 2020\n\n49\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nMother of case 5\n\n[59][58]12\n\n16\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nSister of case 5\n\n[59][58]13\n\n7 February 2020\n\n29\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nTam Dao Health Centre\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[59][58]14\n\n9 February 2020\n\n55\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nNeighbor of case 5\n\n[59][58]15\n\n11 February 2020\n\n3 months\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nVietnam National Children's Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nGrandchildren of case 10\n\n[59][58]16\n\n13 February 2020\n\n50\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBinh Xuyen District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nFather of case 5\n\n[59][58]17\n\n6 March 2020\n\n26\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nVisited to United Kingdom, Italy and France. Related to flight VN54 cluster\n\n[60][61]18\n\n7 March 2020\n\n27\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Binh\n\nNinh Binh General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nWorked in Daegu\n\n[62]19\n\n64\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nAunt of case 17\n\n[37]20\n\n27\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nDriver of case 17\n21\n\n8 March 2020\n\n61\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nFlight VN54 cluster\n\n[39][63]22\n\n60\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nDa Nang\n\nDa Nang Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n23\n\n66\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n24\n\n67\n\nFemale\n\n Ireland\n\nQuang Ninh\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n25\n\n50\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n26\n\n58\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n27\n\n70\n\nFemale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n28\n\n69\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nLao Cai\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n29\n\n70\n\nFemale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n30\n\n66\n\nFemale\n\n Great Britain\n\nThua Thien Hue\n\nHue Central Hospital (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n31\n\n9 March 2020\n\n49\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nQuang Nam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n[64][58]32\n\n10 March 2020\n\n24\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nHo Chi Minh City Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nFriend and related to case 17 at London before flied to Vietnam\n\n[65]33\n\n58\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nQuang Nam\n\nHue Central Hospital (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nFlight VN54 cluster\n\n[66]34\n\n51\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBinh Thuan\n\nBinh Thuan General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nVisited United States and Qatar\n\n[58]35\n\n11 March 2020\n\n29\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nDa Nang\n\nDa Nang Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nRelated to cases 22 and 23 in Da Nang\n\n[45][58]36\n\n64\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBinh Thuan\n\nBinh Thuan General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nHelper of case 34\n37\n\n37\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nEmployee of case 34\n38\n\n28\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nDaughter-in-law of case 34\n39\n\n25\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nTour guide for case 24\n\n[67][58]40\n\n12 March 2020\n\n59\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBinh Thuan\n\nBinh Thuan General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nHusband of case 34\n\n[47][58]41\n\n28\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nSon of case 34\n42\n\n2\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nGranddaughter of case 34\n43\n\n47\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nClose contact with case 38\n44\n\n13\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nSon of case 37\n45\n\n13 March 2020\n\n25\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nClose contact with case 34\n\n[50][58]46\n\n30\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nFlight attendant on flight VN54\n47\n\n43\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nHelper of case 17\n48\n\n14 March 2020\n\n31\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nClose contact with case 34\n49\n\n71\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nThua Thien Hue\n\nHue Central Hospital (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nHusband of case 30, related to flight VN54 cluster\n50\n\n24\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nQuang Ninh\n\n2nd Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n51\n\n50\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n52\n\n22\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n53\n\n53\n\nMale\n\n Czech Republic\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n54\n\n15 March 2020\n\n33\n\nMale\n\n Latvia\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n\n[68][69][58]55\n\n35\n\nMale\n\n Germany\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n56\n\n30\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n57\n\n66\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nQuang Nam\n\nQuang Nam General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nSame flight as case 46\n58\n\n16 March 2020\n\n26\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n59\n\n30\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nFlight attendant on flight VN54\n60\n\n29\n\nMale\n\n France\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n61\n\n42\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Thuan\n\nNinh Thuan General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n62\n\n17 March 2020\n\n18\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nQuang Ninh\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n63\n\n20\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n64\n\n36\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n65\n\n28\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nColleague of case 45 and 48\n66\n\n21\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n67\n\n18 March 2020\n\n36\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Thuan\n\nNinh Thuan General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nSame flight as case 61\n68\n\n41\n\nMale\n\n United States\n\nDa Nang\n\n199 Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n69\n\n30\n\nMale\n\n Germany\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n70\n\n19\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n71\n\n19\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n72\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n France\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nGirlfriend of case 60\n73\n\n11\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHai Duong\n\nThanh Mien District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\nSame flight as case 46 and 59\n74\n\n23\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBac Ninh\n\nBac Ninh General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n75\n\n40\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n76\n\n52\n\nMale\n\n France\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n77\n\n19 March 2020\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n78\n\n22\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n79\n\n48\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n80\n\n18\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nSon of case 79\n81\n\n20\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n82\n\n16\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n83\n\n50\n\nFemale\n\n United States\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n84\n\n21\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n85\n\n20\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n86\n\n20 March 2020\n\n54\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nBach Mai Hospital nurses\n87\n\n34\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n88\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n89\n\n22\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n90\n\n21\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n91\n\n43\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nHo Chi Minh City Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nPilot of Vietnam Airlines, related to Bar Buddha cluster\n92\n\n21 March 2020\n\n21\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n93\n\n20\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n94\n\n64\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n95\n\n22 March 2020\n\n20\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n96\n\n21\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n97\n\n34\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to Bar Buddha cluster\n98\n\n34\n\nMale\n\n Great Britain\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n99\n\n29\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n100\n\n55\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n101\n\n26\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nDong Thap\n\nSa Dec General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nPassengers on flight VN50\n102\n\n9\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n103\n\n22\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n104\n\n33\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n105\n\n35\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nTra Vinh\n\nTra Vinh Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n106\n\n20\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n107\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nDischarged\n\nDaughter of case 86\n108\n\n19\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n109\n\n42\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n110\n\n19\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n111\n\n25\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n112\n\n30\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n113\n\n18\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n114\n\n23 March 2020\n\n19\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n115\n\n44\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nDaughter of case 94\n116\n\n29\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nDoctor who infected from his patients\n117\n\n30\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nTay Ninh\n\nTay Ninh General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nVisited Cambodia\n118\n\n23\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n119\n\n29\n\nMale\n\n United States\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nFV Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n120\n\n27\n\nMale\n\n Canada\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nClose contact with case 91\n121\n\n58\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n122\n\n24\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nDa Nang\n\nDa Nang Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorked as a bartender in Bangkok, Thailand\n123\n\n17\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nBen Tre\n\nBinh Dai District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n124\n\n24 March 2020\n\n52\n\nMale\n\n Brazil\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to Bar Buddha cluster\n\n[70][58]125-126\n\n22-28\n\n1 male, 1 female\n\n South Africa\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n2 In-patient\n127\n\n23\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n128-132\n\n20-30\n\n4 males, 1 female\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n1 In-patient, 4 Discharged\n\n\n133\n\n66\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nLai Chau\n\nLai Chau General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nInfected from Bach Mai Hospital\n134\n\n10\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nThanh Hoa\n\nBim Son General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n135\n\n25 March 2020\n\n27\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nDa Nang\n\nDa Nang Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n136-140\n\n21-36\n\n3 males, 2 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n3 In-patient, 2 Discharged\n141\n\n29\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nDoctor infected by his patients\n142\n\n26 March 2020\n\n26\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n143\n\n58\n\nFemale\n\n South Africa\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n144\n\n22\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nTra Vinh\n\nTra Vinh Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n145\n\n34\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCan Tho\n\nCan Tho Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n146\n\n17\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHa Tinh\n\nCau Treo General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n147\n\n19\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n148\n\n58\n\n France\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n149\n\n40\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nQuang Ninh\n\n2nd Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n150\n\n55\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n151\n\n45\n\nFemale\n\n Brazil\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nClose contact with case 124\n152\n\n27\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nSister of case 127\n153\n\n60\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n154\n\n27 March 2020\n\n23\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCan Tho\n\nCan Tho Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n155-156\n\n21\n\n1 male, 1 female\n\n Vietnam\n\nBac Lieu\n\nBac Lieu General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n2 In-patient\n\n\n157\n\n31\n\nFemale\n\n Great Britain\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to Bar Buddha cluster\n158-159\n\n33-45\n\n2 males\n\n Brazil\n\nHo Chi Minh City Hospital of Tropical Diseases\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n2 In-patient\n160\n\n30\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n161\n\n88\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nInfected from Bach Mai Hospital\n162\n\n63\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nDaughter-in-law of case 161\n163\n\n43\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nDuc Giang Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nGrand daughter of case 161\n164-166\n\n28 March 2020\n\n23-58\n\n2 males, 1 female\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Binh\n\nNinh Binh General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n3 In-patient\n\n\n167\n\n20\n\nFemale\n\n Denmark\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n168-169\n\n49\n\n2 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n2 In-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n170\n\n27\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Binh\n\nKim Son District General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to Bach Mai Hospital cluster\n171\n\n19\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\n\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n172\n\n\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\n\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nDaughter-in-law of case 133\n173\n\n\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\n\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n174\n\n\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\n\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n175-177\n\n29 March 2020\n\n38-57\n\n1 male, 2 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\n\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n3 In-patient\n178\n\n44\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nThai Nguyen\n\nDai Tu District General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n179\n\n62\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nThanh Hoa\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n180-182\n\n19-33\n\n1 male, 2 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Binh\n\nNinh Binh General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n3 In-patient\n\n\n183\n\n43\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nClose contact with case 148\n184\n\n42\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n185\n\n38\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nInfected from Bach Mai Hospital\n186\n\n52\n\nFemale\n\n France\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\nWife of case 76\n187\n\n30\n\nMale\n\n United States\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nDischarged\n\n\n188\n\n44\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n189-196\n\n30 March 2020\n\n21-49\n\n8 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n8 In-patient\n197\n\n41\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nInfected from Bach Mai Hospital\n198-202\n\n23-61\n\n5 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n4 In-patient, 1 Discharged\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n203\n\n35\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\n\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n204\n\n31 March 2020\n\n10\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nCan Gio District Medical Centre\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n205\n\n41\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n206\n\n48\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nDriver of cases 124 and 151\n207\n\n49\n\nMale\n\n Brazil\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nHusband of case 151 and colleague of case 124\n208\n\n1 April 2020\n\n38\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n209\n\n55\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to case 163\n210\n\n26\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHa Tinh\n\nCau Treo General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n211\n\n23\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNinh Binh\n\nNinh Binh General Hospital\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n212\n\n35\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\nIn-patient\n\n\n213\n\n40\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to Bach Mai Hospital cluster\n214-215\n\n31-45\n\n1 male, 1 female\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n2 In-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n216-218\n\n25-48\n\n3 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n3 In-patient\n\n\n219\n\n2 April 2020\n\n59\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to case 133 and infected from Bach Mai Hospital\n220-222\n\n20-28\n\n1 male, 2 females\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n3 In-patient\n\n\n223\n\n29\n\nFemale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nWorking at Bach Mai Hospital\n224\n\n39\n\nMale\n\n Brazil\n\nHo Chi Minh City\n\nCu Chi Field Hospital\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nRelated to case 158\n225-226\n\n22-35\n\n2 males\n\n Vietnam\n\nHanoi\n\nHanoi National Hospital of Tropical Diseases (2nd Branch)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n2 In-patient\n\n\n227\n\n31\n\nMale\n\n Vietnam\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\nIn-patient\n\nSon of case 209\nPreventive measures\nOn 16 March 2020, the Vietnamese government requested that everyone wear face masks when going to public areas to protect themselves and others.[71]\nThe rising number of patients had caused serious concerns. Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyễn Xuân Phúc ordered measures to prevent and counter the spread of the disease into Vietnam,[72] as well as to warn Vietnamese citizens to avoid visiting areas with outbreaks.[73] Deputy minister Đỗ Xuân Tuyên said that Vietnam is considering closing the border with China as a necessary countermeasure.[74] Saigon Tourist announced that it cancelled all tours to or with transit in Wuhan.[75] On 24 January, the Civil Aviation Administration of Vietnam ordered the cancellation of all flights from and to Wuhan.[76][77]In February 2020, Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training suspended all school activities across the country until the end of March as part of quarantine measures against the spreading of the virus, and later extended this till the middle of April until further notice.[78] Aggressive measures were also taken to combat possible outbreaks, from 14 days quarantine to restriction of outdoor activities (some sources believe it was more than 20 to 40 days under quarantine),[79] the Vietnam People's Armed Forces also takes part on patrolling and controlling measures.[80]Rumours also spread that Chinese nationals fled to Vietnam from Guangxi from a video, which triggered public reactions that Chinese nationals might be escaping from the coronavirus outbreak. It was later denied by the Vietnamese and Chinese governments as misleading. The Agence France-Presse also condemned the footage as fake.[81]South Korean nationals are also reportedly screened due to the rampant outbreak of COVID-19 in South Korea, which has extensive trade relationship with Vietnam.[82][83]\nImpact and response\nStockpiling\nStores across Vietnam were quickly sold out of surgical masks and hand sanitisers after the initial cases of coronavirus were reported. This followed a similar trend in many other Asian countries due to the outbreak.[84] Interim Health Minister Vũ Đức Đam urged the public to remain calm during the outbreak, and to avoid excessive emergency shopping.[85] Vietnamese authorities also arrested people using the outbreak to profiteer.[86]\nEconomy\nLike most of the world's economy, Vietnam was hit hard by the outbreak, due to the slowdown of private and national industries, the downturn of stock exchanges and the lower number of incoming tourists, though Vietnam is expected to be harmed less than China.[87]\nSport\nThe outbreak also forced 2020 V.League 1 to be delayed to 7 March until further announcement, which affected the preparation of Vietnam national football team for the upcoming 2022 World Cup qualification.[88][89] It also caused the Vietnamese Grand Prix of the 2020 Formula One World Championship to be postponed until further notice. [90] [91]\nResponse\nVietnam has prepared for the epidemic as early as the very first case in China emerged, around mid-December 2019. Vietnam's Deputy Prime Minister Vũ Đức Đam stated that the Government Office, Army forces and Minister of Health have worked out various plans in case the number of affected cases burst out.[92] The Deputy Prime Minister added that the country \"has won the first round\" in the fight against the virus with 16 confirmed cases, 16 recoveries, and 0 death.[93]Vietnamese response has gathered praises from several figures, comparing it to the fast Vietnamese response back in 2003 when the SARS outbreak occurred when Vietnam became the first country to be cleared of SARS. United States Ambassador to Vietnam, Daniel Kritenbrink, had praised Vietnam for its fast measures against the outbreak.[94] US delegation also praised Vietnam for its quarantine efforts, and have cooperated with the Vietnamese Embassy in the United States.[95]However, Vietnam also received criticism for its response. President of Ho Chi Minh City People's Committee, Nguyễn Thành Phong, admitted the lack of facilities and said that if the city has to take over 1.000 patients, it will go past its 'red limit'.[96] Overseas Vietnamese accused the government of its passive reactions and censorship.[97]\nRacism and xenophobia\nAsia Times reported that \"A number of Vietnamese hotels and guesthouses have reportedly hung signs on their doors saying that Chinese guests are not welcome, while many Vietnamese have gone online to demand the closure of all border crossings with China.\"[98] Signs suggesting that Chinese customers are not accepted were seen in front of a shop in Phu Quoc and a restaurant in Da Nang.[99]Islamophobia was also reported due to the increasing number of the infects coming from the Vietnamese Muslim community returning from Malaysia following their attendance to the Tablighi Jamaat festival in Sri Petaling mosque, and two to three patients did not obey the self-quarantine law in Vietnam but still attend Islamic events in Ho Chi Minh City, leading to fury and demand to imprison the Muslim population, even among Vietnamese celebrities.[100]\nIn popular culture\nVietnam's National Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health commissioned artists to release the song \"Ghen Cô Vy\" (\"Jealous Coronavirus\") which recommended correct handwashing technique[101] and was a remake of 2017 song \"Ghen\" (Jealous), has gone viral amidst the coronavirus outbreak, first earned praises from John Oliver in his talk show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and became increasingly popular among public and frequently duplicated by netizens, with UNICEF recommended the video to fight back the fear of coronavirus.[102][103]\nReferences\n\n^ a b c d e \"TRANG TIN VỀ DỊCH BỆNH VIÊM ĐƯỜNG HÔ HẤP CẤP COVID-19\" (in Vietnamese). BỘ Y TẾ (Ministry of Health).\n\n^ Coleman, Justine (23 January 2020). \"Vietnam reports first coronavirus cases\". The Hill. Archived from the original on 18 February 2020. Retrieved 18 February 2020.\n\n^ How Vietnam Learned From China’s Coronavirus Mistakes Trien Vinh Le and Huy Quynh Nguyen March 17, 2020\n\n^ \"[Op-ed] Why Vietnam has been the world's number 1 country in dealing with coronavirus\". 4 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Vietnam's coronavirus offensive wins praise for low-cost model\". www.ft.com. Retrieved 30 March 2020.\n\n^ Phương, Lê (23 January 2020). \"Hai người viêm phổi Vũ Hán cách ly tại Bệnh viện Chợ Rẫy\" [Two people with Wuhan pneumonia were isolated at Cho Ray Hospital]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 23 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.\n\n^ \"Yêu cầu kích hoạt ngay trung tâm phòng chống dịch khẩn cấp bệnh viêm phổi do virus corona\" [Request immediate activation of the corona virus emergency pneumonia centre]. Người Lao Động (in Vietnamese). 24 January 2020. Retrieved 24 January 2020.\n\n^ Phương, Lê (28 January 2020). \"One of Vietnam's first confirmed coronavirus patients recovers\". VnExpress. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 29 January 2020.\n\n^ Phương, Lê (12 January 2020). \"Bệnh nhân viêm phổi corona thứ hai ở TP HCM xuất viện\" [Second recovered COVID-19 patient in HCMC]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 12 February 2020. Retrieved 12 January 2020.\n\n^ \"3 người Việt đầu tiên nhiễm nCoV đã đi qua những đâu?\" [Where did the first 3 Vietnamese people infected with nCoV go?]. Thanh Niên (in Vietnamese). 31 January 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.\n\n^ Thùy, Hoàng (30 January 2020). \"Ba người Việt Nam nhiễm viêm phổi Vũ Hán\" [Three Vietnamese are infected with Wuhan pneumonia]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 2 February 2020.\n\n^ Quỳnh, Thúy; Hoàng, Lê (3 February 2020). \"Bệnh nhân nhiễm virus corona đầu tiên xuất viện\" [Patients infected with corona virus first discharged]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 17 February 2020. Retrieved 11 February 2020.\n\n^ Ngọc, Xuân (1 February 2020). \"Ca thứ 6 Việt Nam nhiễm virus corona\" [Case 6 in Vietnam with corona virus]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 1 February 2020. Retrieved 2 February 2020.\n\n^ Ngọc, Xuân (4 February 2020). \"Bệnh nhân viêm phổi thứ ba xuất viện\" [The third pneumonia patient discharged]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 5 February 2020. Retrieved 11 February 2020.\n\n^ \"Vietnam declares novel coronavirus epidemic\". Vietnam News Agency. 1 February 2020. Archived from the original on 1 February 2020. Retrieved 1 February 2020 – via Vietnam+.\n\n^ Khang, Minh; Huệ, Nguyễn (31 January 2020). \"Quảng Ninh đóng cửa các điểm xuất hàng trên tuyến biên giới giáp Trung Quốc\" [Quang Ninh closes export points on its border with China]. VTC News (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 1 February 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.\n\n^ Thắng, Tiến (31 January 2020). \"Người dân lên Móng Cái để sang Trung Quốc được yêu cầu quay về\" [People who went to Mong Cai to go to China were asked to return]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 1 February 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.\n\n^ Phùng, Tuấn (1 February 2020). \"Dừng toàn bộ chuyến bay giữa Việt Nam và Trung Quốc từ chiều nay\" [Stop the entire flight between Vietnam and China from this afternoon]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 1 February 2020. Retrieved 1 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (2 February 2020). \"Ca thứ 7 ở Việt Nam nhiễm virus corona\" [Case 7 in Vietnam with corona virus]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 2 February 2020. Retrieved 3 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (3 February 2020). \"Ca thứ 8 mắc virus corona ở Việt Nam\" [Case 8 infected with corona virus in Vietnam]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 3 February 2020. Retrieved 3 February 2020.\n\n^ Lê, Chi (4 February 2020). \"Ca thứ 9 ở Việt Nam nhiễm virus corona\" [Case 9 in Vietnam with corona virus]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 4 February 2020. Retrieved 4 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (4 February 2020). \"Ca nhiễm virus thứ 10 ở Việt Nam\" [Case 10 in Vietnam with corona virus]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 4 February 2020. Retrieved 4 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (6 February 2020). \"Thêm 2 người Vĩnh Phúc dương tính nCoV\" [2 more Vĩnh Phúc people were positive for nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 6 February 2020. Retrieved 6 February 2020.\n\n^ Lê, Chi (7 February 2020). \"Ca dương tính nCoV thứ 13 tại Việt Nam\" [13th case of nCoV positive in Vietnam]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 7 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (7 February 2020). \"Việt Nam nuôi cấy thành công nCoV\" [Vietnam succeeds in isolating novel coronavirus]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 7 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (9 February 2020). \"Thêm một người Vĩnh Phúc dương tính nCoV\" [Another case in Vĩnh Phúc Province with nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 9 February 2020. Retrieved 9 February 2020.\n\n^ Quỳnh, Thúy; Lê, Chi (10 February 2020). \"Ba bệnh nhân viêm phổi corona xuất viện\" [Three patients with coronary pneumonia discharged]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 10 February 2020. Retrieved 11 February 2020.\n\n^ Lê, Chi (11 February 2020). \"Bé gái Vĩnh Phúc 3 tháng tuổi dương tính nCoV\" [3-month-old Vinh Phuc girl was positive for nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 11 February 2020. Retrieved 11 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (13 February 2020). \"Ca thứ 16 tại Việt Nam dương tính nCoV\" [The 16th case in Vietnam was positive for nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 13 February 2020. Retrieved 13 February 2020.\n\n^ Hằng, Thu (25 February 2020). \"Bệnh nhân thứ 16 nhiễm virus corona xuất viện hôm nay\" [The 16th patient infected with corona virus discharged from the hospital today]. Zing.vn (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 25 February 2020.\n\n^ Nguyen, Sen (28 February 2020). \"Coronavirus miracle? Vietnam says all its infected patients cured\". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 29 February 2020. Retrieved 1 March 2020.\n\n^ Anh, L.; Long, X.; Tuệ, C.; Điểu, T. (6 March 2020). \"Hà Nội có 1 ca dương tính nCoV, là ca thứ 17 ở Việt Nam\" [Hanoi had 1 positive case of nCoV, the 17th case in Vietnam]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 6 March 2020. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ Định, Tất; Táo, Hoàng; Tuân, Viết; Thạnh, Võ; Thành, Đắc (8 March 2020). \"Cách ly hàng trăm người liên quan 'bệnh nhân 17'\" [Isolated hundred of peoples related to 'No. 17 Patient']. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 8 March 2020. Retrieved 8 March 2020.\n\n^ Hải, Võ; Định, Tất; Huy, Giang (6 March 2020). \"Hà Nội cách ly khu phố có ca nhiễm nCoV\" [Hanoi to quarantine the street where No. 17 Patient lives]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 8 March 2020.\n\n^ Huy, Giang (7 March 2020). \"Nhiều gia đình mua đồ tích trữ lúc nửa đêm\" [Many families gathering foods at midnight]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 8 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (7 March 2020). \"Ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 18 ở Việt Nam\" [The 18th nCoV case in Vietnam]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ a b Nga, Lê (7 March 2020). \"Thêm hai người dương tính nCoV tại Hà Nội\" [2 more nCoV cases in Vietnam]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ Lê, Chi (8 March 2020). \"Việt Nam công bố ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 21\" [Vietnam announced the 21st case of nCoV infection]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 8 March 2020. Retrieved 8 March 2020.\n\n^ a b Nga, Lê (8 March 2020). \"Thêm 9 người dương tính nCoV\" [An additional 9 people were positive for nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 9 March 2020. Retrieved 8 March 2020.\n\n^ Huệ, Bích (9 March 2020). \"Bệnh nhân thứ 31 nhiễm virus corona ở Việt Nam\" [The 31st patient infected with coronavirus in Vietnam]. Zing.vn (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ Phương, Lê (10 March 2020). \"Việt Nam công bố ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 32\" [Vietnam announced the 32nd case of nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 10 March 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2020.\n\n^ Thành, Đắc; Nga, Lê (10 March 2020). \"Việt Nam công bố ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 33\" [Vietnam announced the 33rd case of nCoV infection]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 10 March 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê; Quốc, Việt (10 March 2020). \"Việt Nam công bố ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 34\" [Vietnam announced the 34th case of nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 11 March 2020. Retrieved 12 March 2020.\n\n^ Đông, Nguyễn; Nga, Lê (11 March 2020). \"Việt Nam ghi nhận ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 35\" [Vietnam recorded the 35th case of nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 11 March 2020. Retrieved 12 March 2020.\n\n^ a b Lê, Chi (11 March 2020). \"Ba ca nhiễm nCoV mới ở Bình Thuận\" [Three new nCoV infections in Bình Thuận]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 12 March 2020. Retrieved 12 March 2020.\n\n^ Lê, Chi (12 March 2020). \"Công bố ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 39\" [Announcing the 39th case of nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 12 March 2020. Retrieved 12 March 2020.\n\n^ a b Nga, Lê; Quốc, Việt (12 March 2020). \"Thêm 5 người ở Bình Thuận dương tính nCoV\" [5 more people in Bình Thuận were positive for nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 12 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê; Quốc, Việt (13 March 2020). \"Nam thanh niên ở TP HCM nhiễm nCoV\" [Young men in HCMC are infected with nCoV]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 14 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (13 March 2020). \"Công bố ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 46 và 47\" [Announcement of 46th and 47th cases of nCoV infection]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 14 March 2020.\n\n^ a b Lê, Chi (14 March 2020). \"Thêm 4 người nhiễm nCoV tại Hà Nội, Quảng Ninh, TP HCM\" [4 more people infected with nCoV in Hanoi, Quảng Ninh, HCMC]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 14 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Saigon mosque closed after followers' contact with Covid-19 patient\". VnExpress. 16 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Việt Nam records 61st COVID-19 patient\". Viet Nam News. 16 March 2020. Retrieved 17 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Ninh Thuận phong tỏa khu dân cư Văn Lâm 3\". thanhnien.vn (in Vietnamese). 16 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Ninh Thuan man confirmed 67th COVID-19 patient\". VGP News. 18 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Cách ly tại nhà, bệnh nhân thứ 100 mắc Covid-19 vẫn đi lễ 5 lần/ngày\". baomoi.com (in Vietnamese). 22 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Thêm 14 người mắc Covid-19, cả nước có 113 bệnh nhân\". news.zing.vn (in Vietnamese). 22 March 2020.\n\n^ \"COVID-19 cases in Vietnam stand at 153\". en.vietnamplus.vn. 26 March 2020.\n\n^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y \"Thống kê tình hình dịch bệnh COVID-19\" [Statistics on COVID-19 disease situation] (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 13 February 2020. Retrieved 16 February 2020 – via Ministry of Health, Vietnam.\n\n^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Thành, Tiến (13 February 2020). \"Đường lây nhiễm 16 ca dương tính nCoV\" [16 cases of nCoV positive infection]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 14 February 2020. Retrieved 16 February 2020.\n\n^ \"Bệnh Covid-19 xuất hiện ở Hà Nội\" [Covid-19 disease appeared in Hanoi]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). 6 March 2020. Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Vietnam confirms 17th Covid-19 patient\". VnExpress. 7 March 2020. Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Lê (7 March 2020). \"Ca nhiễm nCoV thứ 18 ở Việt Nam\" [The 18th case of nCoV in Vietnam]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ Huệ, Bích; Anh, Phương; Quyên, Hà (8 March 2020). \"9 người nước ngoài mắc Covid-19 cùng chuyến bay với bệnh nhân thứ 17\" [9 foreigners with Covid-19 on the same flight as 17th patient]. Zing.vn (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ Thạnh, Võ; Thành, Đắc (11 March 2020). \"Ba bệnh nhân Covid-19 ở Huế sức khỏe ổn định\" [Three Covid-19 patients in Huế were in stable condition]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 15 March 2020. Retrieved 11 March 2020.\n\n^ Xuân, Kim (10 March 2020). \"Việt Nam phát hiện trường hợp nhiễm COVID-19 thứ 32\" [Vietnam detected the 32nd COVID-19 infection]. VTV (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 10 March 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Ca nhiễm Covid-19 thứ 33 cùng trên chuyến bay VN0054 với bệnh nhân 17\" [33rd Covid-19 case on flight VN0054 with patient 17]. Voice of Vietnam (in Vietnamese). 10 March 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2020.\n\n^ Anh, Lan (11 March 2020). \"Đang chờ kết quả xét nghiệm lần 4 của bệnh nhân nghi là ca thứ 39\" [Waiting for the 4th test results of patients suspected to be the 39th case]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 11 March 2020. Retrieved 11 March 2020.\n\n^ \"TP HCM thêm 3 ca dương tính nCoV\" [3 more nCoV cases in Ho Chi Minh City]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). 23 March 2020. Retrieved 23 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Lãnh đạo tỉnh Đồng Tháp họp khẩn trong đêm khi có 4 ca dương tính với COVID-19 về từ Anh\" [4 COVID-19 cases in Dong Thap Province]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). 22 March 2020. Retrieved 23 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Thêm 11 ca dương tính nCoV\" [More 11 nCoV cases in]. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). 24 March 2020. Retrieved 24 March 2020.\n\n^ \"All in Vietnam must wear face mask in public places for coronavirus prevention\". The Star. 16 March 2020. Retrieved 21 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Prime Minister reveals plans to fight the deadly coronavirus\". Việt Nam News. 28 January 2020. Archived from the original on 30 January 2020. Retrieved 8 February 2020.\n\n^ \"Thủ tướng yêu cầu kiểm tra chặt các cửa khẩu trước dịch virus corona\" [The Prime Minister requested a strict inspection of border gates before the corona virus outbreak]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). 23 January 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2020.\n\n^ Linh, Thùy (22 January 2020). \"Phòng dịch viêm phổi lạ: Phân loại người bệnh ngay từ khâu đăng ký\" [Prevention of strange pneumonia: Classification of patients right from the registration stage]. Lao Động (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 23 January 2020.\n\n^ Tú, Anh (23 January 2020). \"Công ty lữ hành Việt hủy chuyến đi Trung Quốc, tránh quá cảnh Vũ Hán\" [Vietnamese travel company cancelled the trip to China, avoiding transit in Wuhan]. Zing.vn (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 23 January 2020.\n\n^ Phùng, Tuấn (24 January 2020). \"Hàng không Việt Nam dừng bay đến Vũ Hán\" [Vietnamese aviation stopped flying to Wuhan]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 24 January 2020.\n\n^ Hà, Mai (24 January 2020). \"Việt Nam hủy toàn bộ chuyến bay đi, đến Vũ Hán vì dịch viêm phổi cấp\" [Vietnam cancelled all flights to and from Wuhan due to acute pneumonia]. Thanh Niên (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 24 January 2020.\n\n^ Hùng, Thanh (14 February 2020). \"Sinh viên tiếp tục nghỉ học, hoãn thi\" [Students continue to miss school, postpone the exam]. Sài Gòn Giải Phóng (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 25 February 2020.\n\n^ \"Vietnam quarantines area with 10,000 residents over coronavirus\". AFP. 13 February 2020. Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 25 February 2020 – via Radio France Internationale.\n\n^ Anh, Lan (22 February 2020). \"Nỗ lực dập dịch COVID-19: Việt Nam dùng nhiều biện pháp chưa có tiền lệ\" [COVID-19 outbreak effort: Vietnam uses many unprecedented measures]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 25 February 2020.\n\n^ \"This video circulated online weeks before the novel coronavirus was first reported\". AFP Hong Kong. 21 February 2020. Retrieved 25 February 2020 – via AFP Fact Check.\n\n^ Lam, Truc (25 February 2020). \"South Korean visitors expose holes in coronavirus response\". VnExpress. Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 25 February 2020.\n\n^ Đông, Sỹ (25 February 2020). \"Người về từ vùng dịch Hàn Quốc phải bị cách ly, không có quyền chọn khách sạn\" [People who come back from the Korean region must be isolated, no right to choose hotel]. Thanh Niên (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 25 February 2020.\n\n^ Stuart Hunter, Gregor; Choong, Rebecca (24 January 2020). \"Virus Panic Causes Face Mask Supplies to Run Out Across Asia\". Time. Archived from the original on 26 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Le (6 February 2020). \"Don't panic and stockpile food, health ministry advises\". VnExpress. Archived from the original on 15 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ Hiệp, Nghĩa (14 February 2020). \"Lợi dụng dịch bệnh để trục lợi: Cần xử lý nghiêm khắc\" [Taking advantage of epidemics to seek personal benefits: Enforcement is strictly required]. Báo Dân tộc và Phát triển (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 15 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Dịch Covid-19: 'Việt Nam đang hứng chịu thiệt hại lớn về kinh tế'\" [Covid-19: 'Vietnam is suffering from great economic losses']. BBC News Tiếng Việt (in Vietnamese). 23 February 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.\n\n^ Thịnh, Quang (2 February 2020). \"Virus corona khiến các giải bóng đá Việt Nam tạm hoãn\" [Corona virus caused the Vietnam football tournament to be postponed]. Zing.vn (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 15 March 2020.\n\n^ Ninh, Trung (24 February 2020). \"Vì sao Lịch thi đấu V-League 2020 vẫn phải chờ?\" [Why is the V-League 2020 Schedule still waiting?]. Thanh Niên (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 15 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Bahrain and Vietnam Grands Prix postponed | Formula 1®\". www.formula1.com. Retrieved 28 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Formula 1: Vietnam Grand Prix postponed due to coronavirus\". CNA. Retrieved 28 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Le (25 February 2020). \"Phó Thủ tướng: 'Việt Nam thắng trận đầu chống Covid-19'\" [Deputy Prime Minister: 'Vietnam won the first match against Covid-19']. VnExpress (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 2 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ Nga, Le (25 February 2020). \"Vietnam wins first round of coronavirus fight: Deputy PM\". VnExpress. Archived from the original on 15 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ PhoBolsaTV (19 February 2020). Đại sứ Mỹ Daniel Kritenbrink: \"Ấn tượng với mức độ hợp tác và minh bạch của chính phủ VN\" [US Ambassador Daniel Kritenbrink: \"Impressed with the level of cooperation and transparency of the Vietnamese government\"] (video) (07:14) (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 9 March 2020 – via YouTube.\n\n^ Đăng, Nhật (22 February 2020). \"Mỹ tin Việt Nam sẽ chống COVID-19 hiệu quả, sắp cử đoàn sang hợp tác\" [The US believes that Vietnam will fight COVID-19 effectively, about to send a delegation to co-operate]. Tuổi Trẻ (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 15 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Chủ tịch TP HCM: 'Nếu 1.000 người nhiễm bệnh là vỡ trận' - VnExpress\". Tin nhanh VnExpress. Retrieved 30 March 2020.\n\n^ Văn, Trân (26 February 2020). \"COVID-19, nên nhìn Iran mà ngẫm…\" [COVID-19, should look at Iran and reflect...]. Voice of America Tiếng Việt (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 6 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Vietnam walls off viral China at its peril\". Asia Times. 30 January 2020. Archived from the original on 1 March 2020. Retrieved 1 March 2020.\n\n^ \"Anti-China sentiments, racism spreading along with coronavirus\". New York Post. Archived from the original on 16 February 2020. Retrieved 16 February 2020.\n\n^ \"Nguyễn Sin tức giận đòi bỏ tù bệnh nhân thứ 100 - Netizen - Tin trong ngày\". Việt Giải Trí. 23 March 2020. Retrieved 30 March 2020.\n\n^ Puhak, Janine; Hein, Alexandria (5 March 2020). \"Coronavirus-inspired TikTok dance reminds social-media users to wash hands\". Fox News. Retrieved 7 March 2020.\n\n^ Illmer, Andreas (6 March 2020). \"Coronavirus: Vietnam's handwashing song goes global\". BBC News. Retrieved 9 March 2020.\n\n^ O'Kane, Caitlin (4 March 2020). \"Catchy PSA about coronavirus turns into viral TikTok challenge about washing your hands\". CBS News. Retrieved 8 March 2020.\n\n\nExternal links\nLatest Updates on the Coronavirus cases in Vietnam – Ministry of Health of Vietnam\nCoronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases and historical data by Johns Hopkins University"],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Coronavirus miracle? Vietnam says all its infected patients cured | Vietnam News | Al Jazeera"],["url","https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2020/02/infected-patients-vietnam-cured-coronavirus-miracle-200228035007608.html"],["summary","World Health Organization officials and health experts say swift response crucial in containing virus in the country."],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","【武漢肺炎】另類療法建功？曬太陽殺菌劑漱口　越南首錄患者出院"],["url","https://www.hk01.com/%E7%86%B1%E7%88%86%E8%A9%B1%E9%A1%8C/430217/%E6%AD%A6%E6%BC%A2%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E-%E6%9B%AC%E5%A4%AA%E9%99%BD%E6%AE%BA%E8%8F%8C%E5%8A%91%E6%BC%B1%E5%8F%A3-%E8%B6%8A%E5%8D%97%E9%A6%96%E5%90%8D%E7%A2%BA%E8%A8%BA%E6%82%A3%E8%80%85%E5%BA%B7%E5%BE%A9%E5%87%BA%E9%99%A2?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=fbpost_link&utm_campaign=hottopics"],["summary","最後更新日期：2020-02-05 19:48武漢新型冠狀病毒肺炎疫情持續，越南25歲女子阮秋莊（Nguyen Thu Trang）早前確診，已連續6天沒有發燒，周一（3日）終可出院，成為當地首宗出院病例。同時，越南首2名確診患者其中一人亦告康復，院方表示，採取的治療方法包括曬太陽、做戶外運動及殺菌劑漱口等，但強調治療因人而異，且療法並未獲世界衛生組織（WHO）建議。李自超（右）周二（4日）獲准出院，但要求繼續留在醫院照顧父親。（網上片段截圖）阮秋莊來自越南中北部的清化省（Thanh Hoa），在日本一間位於越南的企業工作，早前被公司派往武漢受訓約2個月，上月17日搭乘中國南方航空班機返回越南，之後出現發燒、咳嗽與胸痛等症狀，送進清化省綜合醫院接受治療。清化省綜合醫院院長黎文士（Le Van Sy）表示，阮秋莊的病毒檢測結果呈陽性，立即進行隔離治療，院方採取了衛生部的治療方案，密切監察其狀態，針對症狀治療包括使用抗生素，以及採用其他支持性療法（給予氧氣、保守的靜脈輸液等）。阮秋莊接受10日的隔離治療，在過去連續6日未有發燒，健康狀況回復穩定，再次接受檢測結果呈陰性，發燒、咳嗽或胸痛等症狀消失，周一上午獲准出院。阮秋莊說，當醫生指她可以出院的一刻，她極度驚喜，「我感到很幸福，很想念父母和家人，春節期間大家都為我擔心」。同時，越南首兩宗確診患者──來自中國的28歲男子李自超（Li Zichao）及其66歲父親李鼎（Li Ding），同在胡志明市的大水鑊醫院（Cho Ray Hospital）接受治療。院方表示，李自超從上月27日起多次新型冠狀病毒檢測結果均呈陰性，宣布他已經痊癒；李鼎則由於患有糖尿病、高血壓等其他疾病，因此治療難度較大，但日前的病毒檢測結果亦首次呈陰性。李自超周二（4日）獲准出院，但要求繼續留在醫院照顧父親，他說：「我要對願意治療我的醫生和護士表示感謝，他們不僅治癒了我，且在精神上支持我。」院方透露，李自超服用過退燒藥，但沒有使用抗生素，每日上午在醫院的天台曬太陽及做運動，而在隔離病房期間會打開窗戶呼吸新鮮空氣，以及讓房間接受太陽光照射，確保室內保持溫暖，此外，他每日均以殺菌劑漱口。熱帶疾病部門醫師 Le Quoc Hung指出，治療方法並未獲世界衛生組織（WHO）建議，但團隊決定以自身的經驗及其他科學根據來照顧病患，例如讓他們漱口，而目前仍沒有治療新型冠狀病毒的官方資料，普遍的建議是支持性療法，治療方法亦因人而異。▼世界各地如何面對武漢肺炎疫情"],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]}]}],["text","越南曾經在2/26，原有的16位確診病人全部康復。\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Vietnam\n\n越南似乎沒有使用針對病毒的藥\n\"There's no medication for this virus yet. We rely on fundamental principles,\" \nhttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2020/02/infected-patients-vietnam-cured-coronavirus-miracle-200228035007608.html\n\n而是 :\n\"每日上午在醫院的天台曬太陽及做運動，而在隔離病房期間會打開窗戶呼吸新鮮空氣，以及讓房間接受太陽光照射\"\nhttps://www.hk01.com/%E7%86%B1%E7%88%86%E8%A9%B1%E9%A1%8C/430217/%E6%AD%A6%E6%BC%A2%E8%82%BA%E7%82%8E-%E6%9B%AC%E5%A4%AA%E9%99%BD%E6%AE%BA%E8%8F%8C%E5%8A%91%E6%BC%B1%E5%8F%A3-%E8%B6%8A%E5%8D%97%E9%A6%96%E5%90%8D%E7%A2%BA%E8%A8%BA%E6%82%A3%E8%80%85%E5%BA%B7%E5%BE%A9%E5%87%BA%E9%99%A2?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=fbpost_link&utm_campaign=hottopics"],["id","5y4njwi9e7u8"],["createdAt","2020-04-02T21:45:44.744Z"]]}],["reply",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","wQyCUHEBrhVJn3LNg3-r"],["user",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["id","r_6F7mcBP8WrztivFgAI"],["name","Pei-Chi Lo"],["avatarUrl",null],["level",14]]}],["type","RUMOR"],["text","內容易讓人誤解：\n　\n1.「越南沒有用針對病毒的藥」：目前全世界【皆無】治療COVID-19實證有效的藥物。\n　\n2.「採取治療方式包括曬太陽、開窗、做運動」：皆為【未經實證】的治療方式。目前各國多採支持性療法(保守的靜脈輸液、給氧等)，並有多個治療方式的臨床試驗進行中。\n　\n3.「越南在2/26原有16位確診病人全部康復」：正確，但亦須了解，越南迄今(4月6日)已有245個確診病人，已恢復的病人則是95人。"],["reference","WHO、我國疾管署官網皆提及「目前並無藥物已被證實可治療COVID-19」、「多採支持性療法」：\nhttps://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses#\nhttps://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/Page/vleOMKqwuEbIMgqaTeXG8A\n\nWHO闢謠專區-曬太陽並無法預防COVID-19的感染，請見「Exposing yourself to the sun..」段：\nhttps://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters\n　\n越南衛生部官網-確診及恢復人數統計：\nhttps://ncov.moh.gov.vn/"],["hyperlinks",{"__iterable":"List","data":[{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Q&A on coronaviruses"],["url","https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses#"],["summary","Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses found in both animals and humans. Some infect people and are known to cause illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).\n\n\n\n\nMore on coronavirus\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n A novel coronavirus (CoV) is a new strain of coronavirus that has not been previously identified in humans. The new, or “novel” coronavirus, now called 2019-nCoV, had not previously detected before the outbreak was reported in Wuhan, China in December 2019. \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n No, 2019-nCoV is from the same family of viruses as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV) but it is not the same virus. \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n As with other respiratory illnesses, infection with 2019-nCoV can cause mild symptoms including a runny nose, sore throat, cough, and fever. It can be more severe for some persons and can lead to pneumonia or breathing difficulties. More rarely, the disease can be fatal. Older people, and people with pre-existing medical conditions (such as, diabetes and heart disease) appear to be more vulnerable to becoming severely ill with the virus. \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Detailed investigations found that SARS-CoV was transmitted from civet cats to humans in China in 2002 and MERS-CoV from dromedary camels to humans in Saudi Arabia in 2012. Several known coronaviruses are circulating in animals that have not yet infected humans. As surveillance improves around the world, more coronaviruses are likely to be identified\nThe animal source of the 2019-nCoV has not yet been identified. This does not mean you can catch 2019-nCoV from any animal or from your pet. It’s likely that an animal source from a live animal market in China was responsible for some of the first reported human infections. To protect yourself, when visiting live animal markets, avoid direct unprotected contact with live animals and surfaces in contact with animals.\nThe consumption of raw or undercooked animal products should be avoided. Raw meat, milk or animal organs should be handled with care, to avoid cross-contamination with uncooked foods, as per good food safety practices.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n No, at present there is no evidence that companion animals or pets such as cats and dogs have been infected or have spread 2019-nCoV.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Stay aware of the latest information on the outbreak, available on WHO website, and take care of your health by doing the following:\n\n Wash your hands frequently with an alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water\n Why? Washing your hands with an alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water kills the virus if it is on your hands. \n \n Maintain social distancing – maintain at least 1 metre (3 feet) distance between yourself and other people, particularly those who are coughing, sneezing and have a fever.\n Why? When someone who is infected with a respiratory disease, like 2019-nCoV, coughs or sneezes they project small droplets containing the virus. If you are too close, you can breathe in the virus \n \n Avoid touching eyes, nose and mouth\n Why? Hands touch many surfaces which can be contaminated with the virus. If you touch your eyes, nose or mouth with your contaminated hands, you can transfer the virus from the surface to yourself. \n \n If you have fever, cough and difficulty breathing, seek medical care early. Tell your health care provider if you have travelled in an area in China where 2019-nCoV has been reported, or if you have been in close contact with someone with who has travelled from China and has respiratory symptoms.\n Why? Whenever you have fever, cough and difficulty breathing it’s important to seek medical attention promptly as this may be due to a respiratory infection or other serious condition. Respiratory symptoms with fever can have a range of causes, and depending on your personal travel history and circumstances, 2019-nCoV could be one of them.\n \n If you have mild respiratory symptoms and no travel history to or within China, carefully practice basic respiratory and hand hygiene and stay home until you are recovered, if possible.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Wearing a medical mask can help limit the spread of some respiratory disease. However, using a mask alone is not guaranteed to stop infections and should be combined with other prevention measures including hand and respiratory hygiene and avoiding close contact – at least 1 metre (3 feet) distance between yourself and other people. \nWHO advises on rational use of medical masks thus avoiding unnecessary wastage of precious resources and potential mis-use of masks (see Advice on the use of masks). This means using masks only if you have respiratory symptoms (coughing or sneezing), have suspected 2019-nCoV infection with mild symptoms or are caring for someone with suspected 2019-nCoV infection. A suspected 2019-nCoV infection is linked to travel in an area in China where 2019-nCoV has been reported, or close contact with someone who has travelled from China and has respiratory symptoms.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Before putting on a mask, wash hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water \n Cover mouth and nose with mask and make sure there are no gaps between your face and the mask\n Avoid touching the mask while using it; if you do, clean your hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water\n Replace the mask with a new one as soon as it is damp and do not re-use single-use masks \n To remove the mask: remove it from behind (do not touch the front of mask); discard immediately in a closed bin; wash hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water\n\n\n(see Advice on the use of masks)\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n People living or travelling in an area where the 2019-nCoV virus is circulating may be at risk of infection. At present, 2019-nCoV is circulating in China where the vast majority of people infected have been reported. Those infected from other countries are among people who have recently traveled from China or who have been living or working closely with those travellers, such as family members, co-workers or medical professionals caring for a patient before they knew the patient was infected with 2019-nCoV. \nHealth workers caring for persons who are sick with 2019-nCoV are at higher risk and must protect themselves with appropriate infection prevention and control procedures. People living outside of areas in China where the virus is circulating are not at risk of infection with 2019-nCoV. \nWHO is continuously monitoring the epidemiology of this outbreak to better understand where the virus is circulating and how people can protect themselves from infection. For more information, see WHO’s latest situation reports: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports/\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n While we still need to learn more about how 2019-nCoV affects people, thus far, older people, and people with pre-existing medical conditions (such as diabetes and heart disease) appear to be more at risk of developing severe disease. \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n The new coronavirus is a respiratory virus which spreads primarily through contact with an infected person through respiratory droplets generated when a person, for example, coughs or sneezes, or through droplets of saliva or discharge from the nose. It is important that everyone practice good respiratory hygiene. For example, sneeze or cough into a flexed elbow, or use a tissue and discard it immediately into a closed bin. It is also very important for people to wash their hands regularly with either alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n It is still not known how long the 2019-nCoV virus survives on surfaces, although preliminary information suggests the virus may survive a few hours. Simple disinfectants can kill the virus making it no longer possible to infect people. \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n People with 2019-nCoV infection, the flu, or a cold typically develop respiratory symptoms such as fever, cough and runny nose. Even though many symptoms are alike, they are caused by different viruses. Because of their similarities, it can be difficult to identify the disease based on symptoms alone. That’s why laboratory tests are required to confirm if someone has 2019-nCoV. \nAs always, WHO recommends that people who have cough, fever and difficulty breathing should seek medical care early. Patients should inform health care providers if they have travelled in the 14 days before they developed symptoms, or if they have been in close contact with someone with who has been sick with respiratory symptoms.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n The incubation period is the time between infection and the onset of clinical symptoms of disease. Current estimates of the incubation period range from 2-11 days, and these estimates will be refined as more data become available. Based on information from other coronavirus diseases, such as MERS and SARS, the incubation period of 2019-nCoV could be up to 14 days. \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Understanding the time when infected patients may spread the virus to others is critical for control efforts. Detailed medical information from people infected is needed to determine the infectious period of 2019-nCoV. According to recent reports, it may possible that people infected with 2019-nCoV may be infectious before showing significant symptoms. However, based on currently available data, the people who have symptoms are causing the majority of virus spread. \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Yes, it is safe. People receiving packages are not at risk of contracting the new coronavirus. From experience with other coronaviruses, we know that these types of viruses don’t survive long on objects, such as letters or packages.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n No, antibiotics do not work against viruses, they only work on bacterial infections. The novel coronavirus is a virus and, therefore, antibiotics should not be used as a means of prevention or treatment. \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n To date, there is no specific medicine recommended to prevent or treat the novel coronavirus. However, those infected with 2019-nCoV should receive appropriate care to relieve and treat symptoms, and those with severe illness should receive optimized supportive care. Some specific treatments are under investigation and will be tested through clinical trials. WHO is helping to coordinate efforts to develop medicines to treat nCoV with a range of partners.\nIf you want to protect yourself from getting infected with the new coronavirus, you should maintain basic hand and respiratory hygiene, and safe food practices and avoiding close contact, when possible, with anyone showing symptoms of respiratory illness such as coughing and sneezing.\nThe following measures ARE NOT specifically recommended as 2019-nCoV remedies as they are not effective to protect yourself and can be even harmful:\n\n Taking vitamin C\n Smoking\n Drinking tradition herbal teas \n Wearing multiple masks to maximize protection\n Taking self-medication such as antibiotics \n\nIn any case, if you have fever, cough and difficulty breathing seek medical care early to reduce the risk of developing a more severe infection and be sure to share your recent travel history with your health care provider."],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","疾病介紹"],["url","https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/Page/vleOMKqwuEbIMgqaTeXG8A"],["summary","前言\n冠狀病毒(CoV)為一群有外套膜之RNA病毒，外表為圓形，在電子顯微鏡下可看到類似皇冠的突起因此得名。可再細分為四個屬: alpha, beta, gamma, and delta。已知會感染人類的冠狀病毒包括alpha CoV的HCoV-229E , HCoV-NL63以及beta CoV的HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-OC43, MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV。冠狀病毒是造成人類與動物疾病的重要病原體。\n\n已知宿主\n除已知會感染人類的六種冠狀病毒以外，其他的動物宿主包括蝙蝠(最大宗)、豬、牛、火雞、貓、狗、雪貂等。並有零星的跨物種傳播報告。\n\n傳播途徑\n大部分的人類冠狀病毒以直接接觸帶有病毒的分泌物或飛沫傳染為主。有部分動物的冠狀病毒會讓動物出現腹瀉症狀，可以在糞便當中找到病毒，可能藉此造成病毒傳播。\n\n臨床表現與嚴重程度\n人類感染冠狀病毒以呼吸道症狀為主，包括鼻塞、流鼻水、咳嗽、發燒等一般上呼吸道感染症狀。另外也有少部分會出現較嚴重的呼吸道疾病，如肺炎等。一般人類感染冠狀病毒以五歲以下兒童為主，但也有成年人與老年人罹患肺炎的報告，或使得原先的慢性阻塞性肺病之病情加重。偶有死亡個案但比例甚低。MERS-CoV與SARS-CoV的臨床表現則比一般人類冠狀病毒嚴重許多。如SARS的個案有兩成需要加護病房治療，致死率約一成。\n\n動物感染冠狀病毒會有腹瀉等腸胃道症狀，故研究者也懷疑人類感染冠狀病毒可能有類似症狀。但目前都未能獲得證實。\n\n另外有零星報告指出，部分的冠狀病毒可以感染神經細胞，故可能造成神經系統疾病如腦炎等。也有一份報告指出冠狀病毒感染和川崎症可能相關，但未能獲得證實。\n\n診斷與治療\n冠狀病毒不容易以組織培養方式分離出來。PCR 為人類冠狀病毒之檢驗首選，且可研究其流行病學與病毒演化。也可採行免疫螢光抗原染色法。\n\n目前所有的冠狀病毒並無特定推薦的治療方式，多為採用支持性療法。SARS流行期間曾有許多抗病毒藥物被使用來治療病患，但其效果均未被確認。\n\n預防方式\n目前未有疫苗可用來預防冠狀病毒感染。建議的預防措施與其他呼吸道感染相同，包括勤洗手、妥善處理口鼻分泌物等等。"],["topImageUrl","https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Images/logo_square.jpg"],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","Myth busters"],["url","https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters"],["summary","Are hand dryers effective in killing the new coronavirus?No. Hand dryers are not effective in killing the 2019-nCoV. To protect yourself against the new coronavirus, you should frequently clean your hands with an alcohol-based hand rub or wash them with soap and water. Once your hands are cleaned, you should dry them thoroughly by using paper towels or a warm air dryer.\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Can an ultraviolet disinfection lamp kill the new coronavirus?UV lamps should not be used to sterilize hands or other areas of skin as UV radiation can cause skin irritation.\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n How effective are thermal scanners in detecting people infected with the new coronavirus?Thermal scanners are effective in detecting people who have developed a fever (i.e. have a higher than normal body temperature) because of infection with the new coronavirus.However, they cannot detect people who are infected but are not yet sick with fever. This is because it takes between 2 and 10 days before people who are infected become sick and develop a fever.\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Can spraying alcohol or chlorine all over your body kill the new coronavirus?No. Spraying alcohol or chlorine all over your body will not kill viruses that have already entered your body. Spraying such substances can be harmful to clothes or mucous membranes (i.e. eyes, mouth). Be aware that both alcohol and chlorine can be useful to disinfect surfaces, but they need to be used under appropriate recommendations.\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Is it safe to receive a letter or a package from China?Yes, it is safe. People receiving packages from China are not at risk of contracting the new coronavirus. From previous analysis, we know coronaviruses do not survive long on objects, such as letters or packages.\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Can pets at home spread the new coronavirus (2019-nCoV)?At present, there is no evidence that companion animals/pets such as dogs or cats can be infected with the new coronavirus. However, it is always a good idea to wash your hands with soap and water after contact with pets. This protects you against various common bacteria such as E.coli and Salmonella that can pass between pets and humans.\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Do vaccines against pneumonia protect you against the new coronavirus?No. Vaccines against pneumonia, such as pneumococcal vaccine and Haemophilus influenza type B (Hib) vaccine, do not provide protection against the new coronavirus.The virus is so new and different that it needs its own vaccine. Researchers are trying to develop a vaccine against 2019-nCoV, and WHO is supporting their efforts.Although these vaccines are not effective against 2019-nCoV, vaccination against respiratory illnesses is highly recommended to protect your health.\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Can regularly rinsing your nose with saline help prevent infection with the new coronavirus?No. There is no evidence that regularly rinsing the nose with saline has protected people from infection with the new coronavirus. There is some limited evidence that regularly rinsing nose with saline can help people recover more quickly from the common cold. However, regularly rinsing the nose has not been shown to prevent respiratory infections.\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Can eating garlic help prevent infection with the new coronavirus?Garlic is a healthy food that may have some antimicrobial properties. However, there is no evidence from the current outbreak that eating garlic has protected people from the new coronavirus.\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Does putting on sesame oil block the new coronavirus from entering the body?No. Sesame oil does not kill the new coronavirus. There are some chemical disinfectants that can kill the 2019-nCoV on surfaces. These include bleach/chlorine-based disinfectants, either solvents, 75% ethanol, peracetic acid and chloroform. However, they have little or no impact on the virus if you put them on the skin or under your nose. It can even be dangerous to put these chemicals on your skin.\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Does the new coronavirus affect older people, or are younger people also susceptible?People of all ages can be infected by the new coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Older people, and people with pre-existing medical conditions (such as asthma, diabetes, heart disease) appear to be more vulnerable to becoming severely ill with the virus. WHO advises people of all ages to take steps to protect themselves from the virus, for example by following good hand hygiene and good respiratory hygiene. \n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Are antibiotics effective in preventing and treating the new coronavirus?No, antibiotics do not work against viruses, only bacteria. The new coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is a virus and, therefore, antibiotics should not be used as a means of prevention or treatment.However, if you are hospitalized for the 2019-nCoV, you may receive antibiotics because bacterial co-infection is possible.\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Are there any specific medicines to prevent or treat the new coronavirus?To date, there is no specific medicine recommended to prevent or treat the new coronavirus (2019-nCoV).However, those infected with the virus should receive appropriate care to relieve and treat symptoms, and those with severe illness should receive optimized supportive care. Some specific treatments are under investigation, and will be tested through clinical trials. WHO is helping to accelerate research and development efforts with a range or partners."],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]},{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["title","TRANG CHỦ - Bộ Y tế"],["url","https://ncov.moh.gov.vn/"],["summary","- 16 người mắc COVID-19 tính từ ngày 23/1 đến ngày 13/2 đã được chữa khỏi bệnh hoàn toàn (giai đoạn 1). - 79 bệnh nhân mắc COVID-19 tính từ ngày 6/3 đến 5/4 được chữa khỏi (giai đoạn 2) gồm: BN17, BN18, BN19, BN22, BN23, BN24, BN25, BN27,BN29, BN32, BN33, BN34, BN35, BN37, BN38, BN39, BN40, BN41, BN42, BN43, BN45, BN46, BN47, BN48, BN49, BN51, BN53, BN 54, BN55, BN56, BN57, BN58, BN59, BN60, BN61, BN62, BN63, BN64, BN66, BN67, BN68, BN69, BN70, BN71, BN73, BN75, BN76, BN77, BN78, BN79, BN80, BN81, BN82, BN83, BN85, BN88, BN89, BN90, BN93, BN99, BN100, BN107, BN110, BN112, BN113, BN117, BN118, BN121, BN122, BN129, BN130, BN 131, BN132, BN138, BN140, BN154, BN179, BN187, BN198\n*BN245: nữ, 21 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Quỳnh Lưu, Nghệ An, nhân viên làm móng tại Tây Ban Nha. Bệnh nhân từ Tây Ban Nha đến Nga, nối chuyến từ Nga về Việt Nam ngày 25/3 trên chuyến bay SU290. \n\n*BN244: nữ, 44 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Bố Trạch, Quảng Bình, nhân viên phục vụ quán ăn nhanh tại Đức. Bệnh nhân từ Đức đến Nga, nối chuyến từ Nga về Việt Nam ngày 25/3 trên chuyến bay SU290. \n*BN243: nam, 47 tuổi, cư trú tại huyện Mê Linh, TP Hà Nội. Ngày 12/3, bệnh nhân đưa vợ đi khám bệnh tại Khoa Miễn dịch - Dị ứng, Bệnh viện Bạch Mai và về trong ngày, ăn uống tại quán cơm đường Giải Phóng đối diện cổng bệnh viện. \n\n*BN242: nữ, 34 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Cẩm Xuyên, tỉnh Hà Tĩnh, sinh sống và làm việc tại Nga. Ngày 25/3, bệnh nhân từ Nga về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay SU290. \n\n*BN241: nam, 20 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Quận 2, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Bệnh nhân là du học sinh tại Anh. Ngày 21/3/2020 từ Anh về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay số hiệu VN0050.\n\n*BN240: nữ, 29 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Lục Nam, tỉnh Bắc Giang, làm việc tại Thái Lan. Ngày 20/3, bệnh nhân về Hà Nội trên chuyến bay VN618. Trước khi về Việt Nam, bệnh nhân có tham gia buổi liên hoan với gia đình BN166.\n\n*BN239: nam, 71 tuổi, địa chỉ tại Tam Dương, tỉnh Vĩnh Phúc. Ngày 11 và 18/3 đi khám, điều trị tại Khoa Tiêu hóa, Bệnh viện Bạch Mai và có mua đồ ăn ở căng tin bệnh viện.\n\n*BN238: nữ, 17 tuổi, địa chỉ tại Thạch Hà, tỉnh Hà Tĩnh; là lao động tự do và có ở cùng bạn (BN 210) tại Thái Lan. Ngày 17/3, bệnh nhân từ Thái Lan về Việt Nam, nhập cảnh qua Cửa khẩu Cha Lo ngày 18/3.\n\n*BN237: nam, 64 tuổi, quốc tịch Thụy Điển, đến Việt Nam từ cuối tháng 12/2019, di chuyển tới một số địa phương và lưu trú tại Hà Nội từ 22/3/2020 đến nay.\n\n*BN236: nữ, 26 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh, lưu trú tại Quận 2, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Ngày 14/3/2020, bệnh nhân có tới quán bar Buddha, tiếp xúc với trường hợp bệnh COVID-19.\n\n*BN235: nam, 25 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh. Ngày 14/3/2020 có đi quán Bar Buddha (TP. Hồ Chí Minh).\n\n*BN234: nữ, 69 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại huyện Buôn Đôn, tỉnh Đăk Lăk. Ngày 17/3/2020, bệnh nhân từ Paris về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay số hiệu VN2106.\n\n*BN233: nữ, 24 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Diễn Châu, Nghệ An. Bệnh nhân từ nước ngoài về trên chuyến bay SU290, nhập cảnh ngày 27/3.\n\n*BN232: nam, 67 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Bà Rịa-Vũng Tàu. Bệnh nhân từ nước ngoài về trên chuyến bay SU290, nhập cảnh ngày 27/3.\n\n*BN231: nữ, 57 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại huyện Na Rì, tỉnh Bắc Kạn, là nhân viên Công ty Trường Sinh.\n\n*BN230: nữ, 28 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại tỉnh Hà Tĩnh. Bệnh nhân từ nước ngoài về, nhập cảnh ngày 20/3.\n\n*BN229: nữ, 30 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại tỉnh Hà Tĩnh. Bệnh nhân từ nước ngoài về, nhập cảnh ngày 20/3.\n\n*BN228: nam, 29 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại tỉnh Bắc Giang. Bệnh nhân từ nước ngoài về, nhập cảnh ngày 20/3.\n\n* BN227: nam, 31 tuổi, là con của BN209, có tiếp xúc gần tại gia đình trong khoảng thời gian từ 16-25/3.\n\n* BN226: nam, 22 tuổi, về nước cùng chuyến bay với BN 212 ngày 27/3.\n\n* BN225: nam, 35 tuổi, quê An Dương, Hải Phòng, làm việc ở Nga 10 năm nay, về nước trên chuyến bay SU290 ngày 25/3/2020\n\n* BN224: nam, 39 tuổi, quốc tịch Brazil, có địa chỉ tại Quận 2, TP Hồ Chí Minh. Bệnh nhân có thời gian sống cùng phòng với BN158 tại chung cư Masteri.\n\n* BN223: nữ, 29 tuổi ở Hải Hậu, Nam Định, chăm sóc người thân tại Khoa Phục hồi chức năng, Bệnh viện Bạch Mai từ 11/3.\n\n* BN222: nữ, 28 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Long Biên, Hà Nội; sống và làm việc tại Mỹ. Ngày 20/3, bệnh nhân về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay mang số hiệu JL751.\n\n* BN221: nữ, 24 tuổi, quốc tịch Việt Nam, du học sinh tại Canada. Ngày 24/3, bệnh nhân từ Canada về Việt Nam, có quá cảnh ở Đài Bắc, Đài Loan.\n\n* BN220: nam, 20 tuổi, quốc tịch Việt Nam, từ Pháp về nước ngày 17/3.\n\n* BN219: nữ, 59 tuổi, quê Hưng Yên; chăm sóc người bệnh tại Khoa Thần kinh Bệnh viện Bạch Mai, cùng phòng bệnh với BN133 ngày 16/3.\n\n* BN218: nữ 43 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Phú Xá, Thái Nguyên. Bệnh nhân về nước trên chuyến bay SU290 ngày 25/3/2020\n\n* BN217: nữ, 25 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Nam Đàn, Nghệ An. Bệnh nhân từ Nhật Bản về nước ngày 25/3/2020 trên chuyến bay NH857.\n\n* BN216: nữ, 48 tuổi, từ Đức trở về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay SU 290 ngày 23/3.\n\n* BN215: nam, 31 tuổi, nhân viên công ty Trường Sinh, có địa chỉ tại Đống Đa, Hà Nội.\n\n* BN214: nữ, 45 tuổi, nhân viên Công ty Trường Sinh, cung cấp dịch vụ cho Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n* BN213: nữ, 40 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Thanh Oai, Hà Nội. Do sốt 38,6 độ C nên bệnh nhân đã cùng chồng đến khám tại Trung tâm nhiệt đới, Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n*BN212: nữ, 35 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Hưng Hà, Thái Bình. Bệnh nhân cùng chồng từ Nga về Việt Nam ngày 27/3 trên chuyến bay mang số hiệu SU290.\n\n*BN211: nữ, 23 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Đống Đa, Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Mỹ. Ngày 19/3, bệnh nhân từ Mỹ về Việt Nam, quá cảnh Abu Dhabi và Bangkok, đến Hà Nội ngày 20/3/2020\n\n*BN210: nữ, 26 tuổi, có địa chỉ ở huyện Can Lộc, tỉnh Hà Tĩnh. Bệnh nhân từ Thái Lan về nước ngày 20/3, trước đó có tiếp xúc gần với BN146.\n\n*BN209: nữ, 55 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Long Biên, Hà Nội. Từ ngày 18/3 đến 24/3, bệnh nhân có tiếp xúc gần với BN163 tại bếp ăn công ty Xăng Dầu Khu vực I.\n\n*BN 208: nữ, 38 tuổi, là nhân viên công ty Trường Sinh cung cấp dịch vụ tại Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n* BN207: nam, 49 tuổi, quốc tịch Brazil trú tại Quận 2, TP Hồ Chí Minh. Bệnh nhân là chồng BN151 và là đồng nghiệp BN14.\n\n* BN206: nam, 48 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại Quận 2, TPHCM; là lái xe riêng của BN124 và BN151, hàng ngày đưa đón hai người đến các chi nhánh công ty tại Đồng Nai và TP Hồ Chí Minh.\n\n* BN205: nam, 41 tuổi, nhân viên Công ty Trường Sinh, cung cấp dịch vụ cho Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n* BN 204: nam, 10 tuổi có địa chỉ tại Quận 2, TP.HCM. Bệnh nhân đi từ CH Czech tới Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ vào ngày 14/03/2020 và từ Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ về tới Việt Nam ngày 15/3/2020 (cùng chuyến bay với BN83) trên chuyến bay số hiệu TK162.\n\n* BN203: nữ, 35 tuổi, quốc tịch Việt Nam. Bệnh nhân đi từ Hy Lạp về trên chuyến bay TK162, quá cảnh ở Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ, nhập cảnh Việt Nam ngày 17/3/2020.\n\n* BN202: nữ, 57 tuổi, là nhân viên công ty Trường Sinh làm việc tại căng tin Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n* BN201: nữ, 23 tuổi, là nhân viên công ty Trường Sinh làm việc tại căng tin Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n* BN200: nữ, 61 tuổi, là nhân viên công ty Trường Sinh làm việc tại căng tin Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n* BN199: nữ, 57 tuổi, là nhân viên công ty Trường Sinh làm việc tại căng tin Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n* BN198: nữ, 53 tuổi, là nhân viên công ty Trường Sinh làm việc tại căng tin Bệnh viện Bạch Mai. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN197: nam, 41 tuổi, địa chỉ khu đô thị Thanh Hà, Hà Nội. Ngày 12/3/2020, bệnh nhân có đến khám tại Trung tâm Bệnh Nhiệt đới, Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n* BN196: nữ, 34 tuổi, là nhân viên công ty Trường Sinh làm việc tại căng tin Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n* BN195: nữ, 41 tuổi, là nhân viên công ty Trường Sinh làm việc tại căng tin Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n*BN194: nữ, sinh năm 1978, làm việc tại công ty Trường Sinh cung cấp dịch vụ cho BV Bạch Mai\n\n*BN193: nữ, sinh năm 1999, làm việc tại công ty Trường Sinh cung cấp dịch vụ cho BV Bạch Mai\n\n*BN192: nữ, sinh năm 1997, làm việc tại công ty Trường Sinh cung cấp dịch vụ cho BV Bạch Mai\n\n*BN191: nữ, sinh năm 1984, làm việc tại công ty Trường Sinh cung cấp dịch vụ cho BV Bạch Mai\n\n*BN190: nữ, sinh năm 1971, làm việc tại công ty Trường Sinh cung cấp dịch vụ cho BV Bạch Mai\n\n*BN189: nữ, 46 tuổi, địa chỉ tại Nông Cống, Thanh Hóa, là nhân viên thuộc bộ phận chuyển phát nước sôi của Công ty Trường Sinh tại Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n* BN188: nữ, 44 tuổi, địa chỉ tại Mỹ Đức, Hà Nội, là nhân viên của công ty Trường Sinh cung cấp nước sôi cho Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n* BN187: nam, 30 tuổi, quốc tịch Mỹ, trú tại Tây Hồ, Hà Nội. Từ nước ngoài về sân bay Nội Bài trên chuyến bay VN0054 ngày 13/03/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN186: nữ, 52 tuổi, quốc tịch Pháp, là vợ của bệnh nhân số 76, đến Sân bay Tân Sơn Nhất ngày 10/03/2020 trên chuyến bay TK162.\n\n* BN185: nam, 38 tuổi, địa chỉ tại Hoài Đức, Hà Nội. Bệnh nhân vào chăm anh rể điều trị tại Khoa Thần kinh – Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n* BN184: nữ, 42 tuổi, địa chỉ tại Diễn Châu, Nghệ An, là nhân viên bán hàng và chuyển phát nước sôi của Công ty Trường Sinh.\n\n* BN183: nữ, 43 tuổi, địa chỉ tại Cầu Giấy, Hà Nội; là phóng viên có tiếp xúc gần với bệnh nhân số 148 ngày 12/3/2020.\n\n* BN182: nữ, 19 tuổi, ở Hà Nội, du học sinh từ Thuỵ Sỹ (quá cảnh) Thái Lan về Nội Bài ngày 20/03/2020 trên chuyến bay VN618.\n\n* BN181: nam, 33 tuổi ở Hà Nội, từ Thái Lan về Việt Nam ngày 20/03/2020 trên chuyến bay TG564.\n\n* BN180: nữ, 27 tuổi địa chỉ tại Mỹ Đức, Hà Nội, du học sinh tại Pháp (quá cảnh Thái Lan) về Nội Bài ngày 20/03/2020 trên chuyến bay TG564.\n\n*BN179: 62 tuổi, có địa chỉ ở quận Hà Đông, TP Hà Nội, từ nước ngoài về trên chuyến bay EK394, nhập cảnh ngày 18/03. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n*BN178: nữ, 44 tuổi, làm việc tại công ty Trường Sinh cung cấp dịch vụ cho BV Bạch Mai. Hiện bệnh nhân được cách ly, điều trị tại Đại Từ, Thái Nguyên.\n\n*BN177: nữ, 49 tuổi, làm việc tại công ty Trường Sinh cung cấp dịch vụ cho BV Bạch Mai, tiếp xúc với nhiều người.\n\n*BN176: nữ, 38 tuổi, làm việc tại công ty Trường Sinh cung cấp dịch vụ cho BV Bạch Mai, tiếp xúc với nhiều người.\n\n*BN175: nam, 57 tuổi, làm việc tại công ty Trường Sinh cung cấp dịch vụ cho BV Bạch Mai, tiếp xúc với nhiều người.\n\n* BN 174: nữ, làm việc tại nhà ăn Bệnh viện Bạch Mai\n\n* BN 173: nữ, quốc tịch Việt Nam, sống và làm việc Mátxcơva (LB Nga) về nước ngày 25/3/2020.\n\n* BN 172: nữ, là con dâu bệnh nhân số 133, chăm sóc bệnh nhân 23 ngày.\n\n* BN171: nữ, 19 tuổi, có địa chỉ tại quận 10, TP. Hồ Chí Minh, là du học sinh tại Mỹ. Bệnh nhân từ Mỹ về, quá cảnh ở Philippines, nhập cảnh Việt Nam ngày 13/3/2020.\n\n* BN170: nam, 27 tuổi ở huyện Kim Sơn, tỉnh Ninh Bình. Ngày 20 - 22/3 ở Bệnh viện Bạch Mai chăm bố chữa bệnh, đến mua và ăn cơm 5 lần ở quầy số 1 căng tin Bệnh viện Bạch Mai.\n\n* BN169, BN168: nữ, là nhân viên cung cấp nước sôi của Bệnh viện Bạch Mai (sẽ cập nhật thêm).\n\n* BN167: nữ, 20 tuổi, quốc tịch Đan Mạch, ngày 8/3/2020 cùng bạn nhập cảnh sân bay Hà Nội trên chuyến bay số hiệu QR976.\n\n* BN166: nữ, 25 tuổi ở Lục Nam, Bắc Giang. Bệnh nhân sống tại Thái Lan, về Việt Nam ngày 20/03/2020 trên chuyến bay mang số hiệu TG564.\n\n* BN165: nam, 58 tuổi ở Đông Anh, Hà Nội. Bệnh nhân từ Anh về Việt Nam ngày 23/03/2020 trên chuyến bay mang số hiệu VN0054.\n\n* BN164: nam, 23 tuổi ở Rạch Giá, Kiên Giang. Bệnh nhân là du học sinh tại Anh, về Việt Nam ngày 23/03/2020 trên chuyến bay mang số hiệu VN0054.\n\n* BN163: nữ, 43 tuổi (cháu gái BN161), trú tại Long Biên, Hà Nội , là người vào chăm sóc BN161.\n\n* BN162: nữ, 63 tuổi, con dâu BN161, trú tại Thượng Thanh, Long Biên, là người vào chăm sóc BN161.\n\n* BN161: nữ, 88 tuổi , trú tại Văn Lâm, Hưng Yên, là người nằm cùng phòng với BN133 tại Phòng điều trị tự nguyên, Khoa Thần kinh Bệnh viện Bạch Mai từ ngày 17-22/3/2020 .\n\n* BN160: nữ, 30 tuổi, trú tại TP Bảo Lộc, tỉnh Lâm Đồng, đã tiếp xúc với chị gái bị COVID-19 tại Tây Ban Nha, ngày 23/3/2020 về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay SU292.\n\n*BN159: nam, quốc tịch Brazil, 33 tuổi, trú tại quận 2, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Bệnh nhân có tiếp xúc ca bệnh dương tính trong quán bar Buddha ngày 14/3/2020.\n\n* BN158: nam, quốc tịch Brazil, 45 tuổi trú quận 2, TP. Hồ Chí Minh, có tiếp xúc với ca bệnh dương tính trong quán bar Buddha ngày 14/03/2020.\n\n*BN157: nữ, quốc tịch Anh, 31 tuổi, trú tại quận 4, TP. Hồ Chí Minh, là người có tiếp xúc với ca bệnh dương tính trong quán bar Buddha. \n\n*BN156: nam, 21 tuổi quê TP Trà Vinh, là du học sinh tại Anh. Ngày 22/3/2020, bệnh nhân bay từ London (Anh) về tới Cần Thơ trên chuyến bay số hiệu VN0050, chung chuyến bay với BN145.\n\n* BN155: nữ, 21 tuổi, địa chỉ tại thị trấn Ân Thi, tỉnh Hưng Yên, là sinh viên trường Đại học tại Anh. Ngày 22/3/2020 từ Anh về tới Cần Thơ trên chuyến bay số hiệu VN0050, cùng chuyến bay với BN145.\n\n* BN154: nữ, 23 tuổi, trú tại TP Hạ Long, Quảng Ninh, là du học sinh tại Anh. Ngày 22/3/2020, bệnh nhân bay từ Anh về tới Cần Thơ trên chuyến bay số hiệu VN0050, chung chuyến bay với BN145. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN153: nữ, 60 tuổi trú tại quận Hải Châu, TP. Đà Nẵng. Bệnh nhân sang Australia thăm người thân và trở về Việt Nam ngày 21/3/2020 trên chuyến bay số hiệu VN772.\n\n* BN152: nữ, 27 tuổi trú tại quận Tân Phú, TP. Hồ Chí Minh, là chị gái sống cùng nhà với BN127 (nam nhân viên quán Bar Buddha).\n\n* BN151: nữ, quốc tịch Brazil, 45 tuổi, trú tại Quận 2, TP. Hồ Chí Minh, là đồng nghiệp, tiếp xúc gần với BN124.\n\n* BN150: nam, 55 tuổi trú tại Quận 1, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Ngày 13/3/2020 cùng vợ từ Hoa Kỳ về Việt Nam, quá cảnh tại Đài Loan - Trung Quốc trên chuyến bay của hãng hàng không EVA Air, số hiệu BR395. \n\n* BN149: nam, 40 tuổi ở Long Biên, Hà Nội, là lao động tự do tại Bang Hessen - CHLB Đức. Ngày 23/3/2020 về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay VN36 của Vietnam Airlines.\n\n* BN148: nam, 58 tuổi, quốc tịch Pháp thường trú ở Đống Đa, Hà Nội, là du khách từ Pháp đến Việt Nam ngày 12/03/2020 trên chuyến bay VN0018.\n\n* BN147: nam, 19 tuổi ở Cầu Giấy, Hà Nội, là du học sinh từ Anh, đáp chuyến bay VN0054 của Vietnam Airlines về Nội Bài ngày 21/03/2020.\n\n* BN146: nữ, 17 tuổi ở huyện Nghi Lộc, Nghệ An, đi từ Thái Lan về ngày 20/03/2020, trước đó có tiếp xúc gần với ca dương tính xác định tại Đà Nẵng.\n\n* BN145: nam, 34 tuổi trú quận Tân Phú, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Bệnh nhân đáp chuyến bay VN0050 của Hãng hàng không VietnamAirlines, số ghế 28A, về tới sân bay Cần Thơ ngày 22/3/2020.\n\n* BN144: nam, 22 tuổi, trú tại quận Phú Nhuận, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Bệnh nhân từ Anh về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay của Vietnam Airlines VN0050 ngày 22/3/2020.\n\n* BN143: nữ, 58 tuổi, quốc tịch Nam Phi thường trú quận Tân Phú, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Từ Hoa Kỳ, quá cảnh tại Đài Loan và về tới Việt Nam ngày 21/3/2020 trên chuyến bay số hiệu BR395.\n\n* BN142: nam, 26 tuổi ở huyện Bình Chánh, TP.Hồ Chí Minh, là du học sinh tại Hoa Kỳ. Bệnh nhân từ Hoa Kỳ và về tới Việt Nam ngày 10/3/2020 trên chuyến bay có số hiệu BR395.\n\n* BN141: bác sỹ, 29 tuổi, làm việc tại Khoa Cấp cứu, Bệnh viện Bệnh Nhiệt đới Trung ương cơ sở Đông Anh, bị lây khi thao tác thiết lập máy thở cho BN28, phơi nhiễm cùng ngày với một bác sĩ khác là BN116.\n\n* BN140: nam, 21 tuổi ở Tây Hồ, Hà Nội, là du học sinh từ Anh, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 21/03/2020 trên chuyến bay VN0054. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN139: nữ, 24 tuổi ở Hai Bà Trưng, Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Anh, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 21/03/2020 trên chuyến bay VN0054.\n\n* BN138: nam, 23 tuổi ởĐống Đa, Hà Nội, là học sinh từ Anh, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 21/03/2020 trên chuyến bay VN0054. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN137: nam, 36 tuổi ở Yên Thành, Nghệ An, là du khách từ Đức, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 15/03/2020.\n\n* BN136: nữ, 23 tuổi ở Hoàng Mai, Hà Nội. Bệnh nhân là học sinh từ Mỹ, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 16/03/2020.\n\n* BN135: nữ 27 tuổi (địa chỉ của bố mẹ ở quận Lê Chân, TP.Hải Phòng). Ngày 19/3/2020 bệnh nhân khởi hành từ Copenhagen, Đan Mạch, quá cảnh tại Doha và Bangkok, nhập cảnh Việt Nam ngày 21/3/2020 trên chuyến bay số hiệu PG947.\n\n* BN134: nam, 10 tuổi ở Thạch Thất, Hà Nội, từ nước ngoài về Nội Bài ngày 18/03/2020 trên chuyến bay SU290.\n\n* BN133: nữ, 66 tuổi ở Tân Phong, Lai Châu, trong tháng 3/2020 có đến Bệnh viện Bạch Mai điều trị bệnh và 22/03/2020 trở về nhà tại tỉnh Lai Châu.\n\n* BN132: nữ, 25 tuổi, địa chỉ ở Quận Long Biên, Hà Nội, từ Tây Ban Nha về nước, quá cảnh tại Nga và về tới Nội Bài ngày 22/03/2020 trên chuyến bay SU290. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN131: nam, 23 tuổi, địa chỉ ở Quận Bình Chánh, TP. Hồ Chí Minh, từ Tây Ban Nha về nước, quá cảnh tại Nga và về tới Nội Bài ngày 22/03/2020 trên chuyến bay SU290. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN130: nam, 30 tuổi, địa chỉ ở Quận Bình Chánh, TP. Hồ Chí Minh, từ Tây Ban Nha về nước, quá cảnh tại Nga và về Nội Bài ngày 22/03/2020 trên chuyến bay SU290. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN129: nam, 20 tuổi ở Nghĩa Tân, Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Anh, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 20/03/2020 trên chuyến bay VN0054. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN128: nam, 20 tuổi ở Lê Chân, TP. Hải Phòng, là du học sinh tại Anh, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 20/03/2020 trên chuyến bay VN0054.\n\n* BN127: nam, 23 tuổi, trú tại Quận Tân Phú, TP. Hồ Chí Minh, là nhân viên phục vụ bàn (theo ca 21h00 - 04h00) tại quán Bar Buddha - Quận 2.\n\n* BN126: nam, quốc tịch Nam Phi, 28 tuổi, trú tại Quận 7, TP Hồ Chí Minh, là bạn với BN125.\n\n* BN125: nữ, quốc tịch Nam Phi, 22 tuổi, trú tại Quận 7, TPHCM, đã từng đến quán bar Buddha từ 21h30 ngày 14/3/2020 đến 03h00 ngày 15/3/2020.\n\n* BN124: nam, 52 tuổi, quốc tịch Brazil, trú tại Quận 2, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Ngày 14/3/2020, bệnh nhân có đến quán bar Buddha.\n\n* BN123: nữ, 17 tuổi, trú tại huyện Bình Đại, tỉnh Bến Tre sống tại Sarawar - Malaysia được 3-4 tháng nay. Bệnh nhân từ Malaysia sang Brunei và trở về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay số hiệu BI381 ngày 17/3/2020.\n\n*BN122: nữ, 24 tuổi ở huyện Can Lộc, tỉnh Hà Tĩnh, là nhân viên quán rượu tại Bangkok – Thái Lan. Ngày 20/3/2020, bệnh nhân từ Sân bay Quốc tế Suvarnabhumi - Thái Lan về đến Cảng hàng không quốc tế Đà Nẵng trên chuyến bay số hiệu TG947. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN121: nam, 58 tuổi, trú tại Quận Tân Bình, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Ngày 19/3/2020 nhập cảnh Cảng hàng không quốc tế Tân Sơn Nhất trên chuyến bay số hiệu NH831 từ New York- Hoa Kỳ về Việt Nam, quá cảnh tại Narita - Nhật Bản. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN120: nam, quốc tịch Canada, 27 tuổi, trú tại Quận 2, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Bệnh nhân từ Canada vào Việt Nam từ ngày 11/2/2020 đến nay, bệnh nhân trực tiếp tiếp xúc với BN91 từ ngày 14/3/2020 tại một số quán ăn, nơi vui chơi, trong đó có quán Bar Buddha.\n\n* BN119: nam, 29 tuổi, quốc tịch Mỹ, trú tại Quận Bình Thạnh, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Từ ngày 01/3 đến ngày 15/3/2020, bệnh nhân thường xuyên di chuyển giữa Việt Nam, Indonesia, Thái Lan và về lại Việt Nam ngày 15/3/2020.\n\n*BN118: nữ, 23 tuổi, trú tại huyện Châu Phú, tỉnh An Giang. Hai tuần gần đây bệnh nhân từ Việt Nam sang Campuchia làm nhân viên casino Galaxy và về Việt Nam ngày 19/3/2020 qua cửa khẩu Mộc Bài-Tây Ninh. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n*BN117: nam, 30 tuổi, trú tại huyện Tân Hưng, Long An, làm nghề công nghệ thông tin. Từ ngày 09/3/2020 đến ngày 19/3/2020, bệnh nhân du lịch ở Campuchia và về Việt Nam qua cửa khẩu Mộc Bài-Tây Ninh. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN116: nam, 29 tuổi, quốc tịch Việt Nam, bác sỹ khoa Cấp cứu, Bệnh viện Bệnh nhiệt đới trung ương cơ sở Đông Anh, tham gia chống dịch COVID-19 từ 31/1/2020.\n\n* BN115: nữ, 44 tuổi, quốc tịch Việt Nam, sống tại Cộng Hòa Séc (là con gái của BN94). Bệnh nhân về Việt Nam và nhập cảnh qua sân bay Nội Bài ngày 18/03/2020 trên chuyến bay SU290 với BN94 và BN93.\n\n* BN114: nam, 19 tuổiở Hoàng Mai, Hà Nội, là du học sinh Việt Nam tại Hà Lan về nước ngày 15/03/2020 trên chuyến bay SQ176 (quá cảnh tại Singapore).\n\n* BN113: nữ, 18 tuổi ở Hoàn Kiếm, Hà Nội, là du học sinh Anh về nước trên chuyến bay VN054 ngày 18/03/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN112: nữ, 30 tuổi ở Hoàn Kiếm, Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Pháp. Sáng 18/3/2020 về tới sân bay Nội Bài trên chuyến bay VN018. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN111: nữ, 25 tuổi ở Hải Hậu, Nam Định, là du học sinh tại Pháp, về Việt Nam ngày 18/03/2020 trên chuyến bay VN018.\n\n* BN110: nữ, 19 tuổi ở Đống Đa, Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Mỹ, về Việt Nam ngày 19/03/2020 (quá cảnh tại Nhật Bản, sau đó từ Nhật Bản về Hà Nội trên chuyến bay JL751 (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN109: nam, 42 tuổi ở Hoàng Mai, Hà Nội, là giảng viên một trường đại học của Anh, về nước ngày 15/3/2020 (quá cảnh qua Bangkok, Thái Lan sau đó từ Thái Lan về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay TG560).\n\n* BN108: nam, 19 tuổi ở Cầu Giấy, Hà Nội, là du học sinh Việt Nam tại Anh về nước ngày 18/3/2020 trên chuyến bay VN054.\n\n* BN107: nữ, 25 tuổi, là con gái và sống cùng BN86, thường trú tại Thanh Xuân, Hà Nội. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN106, BN105: là hành khách trên chuyến bay của hãng hàng không AirAsia số hiệu AK575 từ Malaysia về tới sân bay Cần Thơ sáng ngày 18/3/2020, gồm:\n\n- BN106: Bệnh nhân nữ, quốc tịch Việt Nam, 20 tuổi, địa chỉ ở huyện Châu Phú, An Giang. \n\n- BN105: Bệnh nhân nữ, quốc tịch Việt Nam, 35 tuổi, địa chỉ ở huyện Chợ Mới, An Giang.\n\n* BN04, BN103, BN102, BN101: đi cùng trên chuyến bay của Hãng Hàng không Vietnam Airlines số hiệu VN0050 từ Anh về sân bay Cần Thơ sáng ngày 18/3/2020, gồm:\n\n- BN104: nữ, 33 tuổi ở Quận 12, TP. Hồ Chí Minh.\n\n- BN103: nam, 22 tuổi, địa chỉ ở Quận Phú Nhuận, TPHCM.\n\n- BN102: nữ, 9 tuổi, địa chỉ ở Quận Hoàn Kiếm, Hà Nội.\n\n- BN101: nữ, 26 tuổi, địa chỉ ở Tp.Vũng Tàu, Bà Rịa-Vũng Tàu.\n\n* BN100: nam, 55 tuổi ở Quận 8, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Ngày 03/3/2020, bệnh nhân từ Kuala Lumpur - Malaysia về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay của hãng hàng không AsiaAir số hiệu AK524. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN99: 29 tuổi, ở Quận Bình Thạnh, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Bệnh nhân từ Paris – Pháp về tới sân bay Tân Sơn Nhất ngày 18/3/2020 trên chuyến bay của hãng hàng không AirFrance số hiệu AF258. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN98: nam, 34 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh, trú tại Quận 4, TP. Hồ Chí Minh (cùng phòng với BN97). Bệnh nhân từ Malaysia về sân bay Tân Sơn Nhất ngày 06/3/2020; cùng BN97 đến quán Bar Buddha ngày 14/3/2020.\n\n* BN97: nam, 34 tuổi quốc tịch Anh, trú tại Quận 4, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Bệnh nhân ở Malaysia trong 2 tuần trước khi về Việt Nam, ngày 14/3/2020 có đến quán Bar Buddha (nơi BN91 cũng tới cùng ngày).\n\n* BN96: nữ, 21 tuổi ở Quận 8, TP. Hồ Chí Minh; từ Pháp về Việt Nam, quá cảnh Dubai trên chuyến bay của hãng hàng không Emirates số hiệu EK392 và nhập cảnh sân bay Tân Sơn Nhất ngày 19/3/2020.\n\n* BN95: nam, 20 tuổi ở Quận Gò Vấp, TP. Hồ Chí Minh là du học sinh tại Pháp. Ngày 18/3/2020 về tới sân bay Tân Sơn Nhất từ Pháp, trên chuyến bay của hãng hàng không AirFrance số hiệu AF258.\n\n* BN94: nữ, 64 tuổi ở TP. Bắc Giang. Bệnh nhân sang Cộng hòa Séc thăm con gái, về Nội Bài ngày 18/03/2020 trên chuyến bay SU290 có cùng BN93.\n\n* BN93: nam, 20 tuổi, địa chỉ ở Đống Đa, TP. Hà Nội. Bệnh nhân là sinh viên du học Hungary, nhập cảnh tại sân bay Nội Bài ngày 18/03/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN92: nam, 21 tuổi trú tại TP. Đà Lạt, tỉnh Lâm Đồng, là du học sinh tại Pháp, về Việt Nam ngày 17/3/2020 trên chuyến bay của Qatar Airways số hiệu QR970. \n\n* BN91: nam, quốc tịch Anh, 43 tuổi, trú tại Quận 2, TP.HCM là phi công hãng hàng không Vietnam Airrline.\n\n* BN90: nữ, 21 tuổi, quốc tịch Việt Nam ở Quận Bình Thạnh, TP.HCM. Bệnh nhân từ Tây Ban Nha đi Dubai và về tới sân bay Tân Sơn Nhất ngày 16/3/2020 trên chuyến bay của hãng hàng không Emirates số hiệu EK392. (ĐÃ KHỎI BỆNH)\n\n* BN89: nữ, quốc tịch Việt Nam, 22 tuổi ở Quận 7, TP Hồ Chí Minh. Bệnh nhân về sân bay Tân Sơn Nhất khuya ngày 17/3/2020 từ Nhật Bản trên chuyến bay có số hiệu NH 831. (ĐÃ KHỎI BỆNH)\n\n* BN88: nữ, 25 tuổi trú tại Hà Đông, Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Anh, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 12/03/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN87: nữ, 34 tuổi, điều dưỡng làm việc tiếp đón tại khu cách ly Trung tâm Bệnh nhiệt đới thuộc Bệnh viện Bạch Mai. Qua rà soát cho thấy, bệnh nhân có nhiều lần tiếp xúc gần với BN86.\n\n* BN86: nữ 54 tuổi, điều dưỡng của Phòng khám ngoại trú HIV - Trung tâm Bệnh nhiệt đới thuộc Bệnh viện Bạch Mai, trở về sau kỳ nghỉ ở Côn Đảo.\n\n* BN85: nam, 20 tuổi ở Ba Đình, Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Anh, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 18/03/2020 trên chuyến bay VN0054. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN84: nam, 21 tuổi ở Đống Đa, Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Anh, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 18/03/2020 trên chuyến bay VN0054.\n\n* BN83: nữ, 50 tuổi, quốc tịch Hoa Kỳ, trú tại quận Bình Thạnh, TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Bệnh nhân đi Phuket - Thái Lan và từ Istanbul - Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ lên chuyến bay của hãng hàng không Turkish Airline, số hiệu TK162 về tới Việt Nam ngày 15/3/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN82: nữ, 16 tuổi ở Quận 5, TP.Hồ Chí Minh. Ngày 14/3/2020 cùng mẹ từ London - Anh đi Dubai và sau đó về Việt Nam ngày 15/3/2020 trên chuyến bay của hãng hàng không Emirates, số hiệu EK364. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN81: nam, 20 tuổi quê tỉnh Kom Tum. Ngày 14/3/2020 từ Paris - Pháp lên chuyến bay của hãng hàng không AirFrance, số hiệu AF258 và về tới Việt Nam ngày 15/3/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN80: nam, 18 tuổi quê tỉnh Bạc Liêu, con của BN79. Ngày 14/3/2020, cùng BN79 từ London (Anh) đi Dubai và sau đó về Việt Nam ngày 15/3 trên chuyến bay của hãng hàng không Emirates, số hiệu EK392. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN79: nữ, 48 tuổi quê tỉnh Bạc Liêu, sống tại Anh gần 2 năm nay. Ngày 14/3/2020, từ London (Anh) đi Dubai và sau đó về Việt Nam ngày 15/3 trên chuyến bay của hãng hàng không Emirates, số hiệu EK392. (ĐÃ KHỎI BỆNH)\n\n* BN78: nam, 22 tuổi quê quán Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Anh, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 17/03/2020 trên chuyến bay EK394. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN77: nữ, 25 tuổi quê quán Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Anh, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 17/03/2020 trên chuyến bay QR976. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN76: nam, 52 tuổi, quốc tịch Pháp, là hành khách trên chuyến bay TK162 nhập cảnh tại Cảng hàng không quốc tế Tân Sơn Nhất ngày 10/03/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN75: nữ, 40 tuổi, ở Quận 2, TP. Hồ Chí Minh, từ Việt Nam sang London - Anh thăm người thân và về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay VN50 của hãng hàng không VietnamAirline. (ĐÃ KHỎI BỆNH)\n\n* BN74: nam, 23 tuổi ở Lâm Thao, Phú Thọ trở về Việt Nam chuyến bay VN0018 ngày 16/03/2020.\n\n* BN73: nam, 11 tuổi ở Huyện Thanh Miện, Hải Dương, về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay VN0054 ngày 09/03/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN72: nữ, 25 tuổi, quốc tịch Pháp, là hành khách trên chuyến bay từ Pháp về Nội Bài ngày 09/03/2020\n\n* BN71: nữ, 19 tuổi, trú quán ở Hai Bà Trưng, Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Anh, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 16/03/2020 trên chuyến bay TK164. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN70: nam, 19 tuổi, trú quán ở Thanh Xuân, Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Anh, nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 16/03/2020 trên chuyến bay TK164. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN69: nam, 30 tuổi, quốc tịch Đức, tạm trú tại Quận Hai Bà Trưng, Hà Nội, là du khách, nhập cảnh Nội Bài ngày 13/03/2020 trên chuyến bay SU290. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN68: nam, 41 tuổi, quốc tịch Mỹ, lấy vợ người Việt Nam có địa chỉ tại TP. Đà Nẵng. Bệnh nhân đi từ Singapore đến TP Đà Nẵng trên chuyến bay MI 632 trưa ngày 14/3/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN67: nam, 36 tuổi trú quán huyện Thuận Nam, tỉnh Ninh Thuận, là người đi cùng BN61 đến Malaysia và về Việt Nam ngày 04/3/2020 trên chuyến bay VJ826. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN66: nữ, 21 tuổi, trú quận 7, TP.HCM. Ngày 14/3 bệnh nhân đi từ Mỹ ( Pennsylvania - Philadenphia) tới Toronto - Canada và quá cảnh ở Đài Loan, về tới Việt Nam ngày 16/3 trên chuyến bay BR 395. (ĐÃ KHỎI BỆNH)\n\n* BN65: nữ, 28 tuổi trú quận Gò Vấp, TP.HCM có tiếp xúc và làm việc cùng BN45,48 vào các ngày 7/3 và 10/3. \n\n* BN64: nữ, 35 tuổi, trú quận 8, TP.HCM đi cùng bạn trai từ Thuỵ Sỹ tới Dubai và về Việt Nam ngày 12/3/2020 trên chuyến bay EK392 từ Thuỵ Sỹ quá cảnh Dubai về Cảng hàng không sân bay Tân Sơn Nhất. (ĐÃ KHỎI BỆNH)\n\n* BN63: nữ, 20 tuổi trú quận Cầu Giấy, Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Anh nhập cảnh về Nội Bài ngày 15/03/2020 trên chuyến bay TG564. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN62: nam, 18 tuổi trú quận Hoàn Kiếm, Hà Nội, là du học sinh từ Anh về Việt Nam trên chuyến bay Vietnam Airlines từ Anh về Việt Nam ngày 16/03/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN61: nam giới 42 tuổi, trú quán huyện Thuận Nam, tỉnh Ninh Thuận từ Malaysia về sân bay Tân Sơn Nhất ngày 4/3/2020 trên chuyến bay VJ826. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN60: nam, 29 tuổi quốc tịch Pháp là hành khách trên chuyến bay từ Pháp về Nội Bài ngày 09/03/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN59: nữ 30 tuổi, trú quán quận Long Biên, Hà Nội, là tiếp viên trên chuyến bay từ Vương Quốc Anh về Việt Nam ngày 02/3/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN58: nữ 26 tuổi, trú quán quận Ba Đình, Hà Nội, là du học sinh tại Pháp, nhập cảnh tại Cảng Hàng không quốc tế Nội Bài ngày 15/3/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN57: nam 66 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh, là hành khách trên chuyến bay từ Anh về Nội Bài (cùng BN46 tại Hà Nội) sáng 09/03/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN56: nam, 30 tuổi quốc tịch Anh, là hành khách trên chuyến bay từ Anh về Nội Bài sáng 09/03/2020 (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN55: nam 35 tuổi, quốc tịch Đức, là hành khách trên chuyến bay VN0018 từ Pháp về Nội Bài sáng ngày 14/3/2020 (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN54: nam, sinh năm 1987, quốc tịch Latvia, từ Tây Ban Nha nhập cảnh TP. HCM ngày 8/3/2020 cùng vợ trên chuyến bay TK162. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN53: nam 53 tuổi, quốc tịch Cộng hoà Czech, nhập cảnh vào Việt Nam ngày 10/3 từ chuyến bay QR970 có quá cảnh tại sân bay Doha (Qatar). (ĐÃ KHỎI BỆNH)\n\n* BN52: nữ 22 tuổi tại Hà Nội, là du học sinh ở Châu Âu đi qua nhiều nước, về Nội Bài trên chuyến bay QR968 ngày 13/3/2020 .\n\n* BN51: nam 50 tuổi tại Hà Nội từ Paris về Việt Nam ngày 10/3/2020 (ĐÃ KHỎI) .\n\n* BN50: nữ 24 tuổi tại Hạ Long (Quảng Ninh), là hành khách trên chuyến bay từ London (Anh) về Việt Nam ngày 9/3/2020\n\n* BN49: nam 71 tuổi quốc tịch Anh, đi trên chuyến bay VN0054 từ London tới Hà Nội ngày 2/3/2020, là chồng của BN30. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN48: nam31 tuổi, trú quán tại quận 10, thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, ngồi chung xe ô tô với BN45 và cùng gặp gỡ với BN34 (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN47: nữ 43 tuổi tại Hà Nội, là giúp việc trong toà nhà của BN17, có tiếp xúc gần với BN17 (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN46: nữ 30 tuổi tại Hà Nội, là tiếp viên hàng không trên chuyến bay từ London (Anh) về Hà Nội ngày 09/3/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n* BN45: nam, trú quán tại quận Tân Bình, TP. Hồ Chí Minh có tiếp xúc gần với BN34 ngày 3/3/2020. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN44: nam13 tuổi, quê tỉnh Bình Thuận, tiếp xúc gần với BN37 \n\n* BN43: nữ 47 tuổi, quê Bình Thuận tiếp xúc gần với BN38 (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN42, BN41, BN40: quê tỉnh Bình Thuận, trong đó có bệnh nhi 02 tuổi có tiếp xúc gần với BN34 (03 ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN39: nam 25 tuổi, là hướng dẫn viên du lịch cư trú tại quận Cầu Giấy (Hà Nội), có tiếp xúc với BN24 khi dẫn đoàn khách nước ngoài đi du lịch tại tỉnh Ninh Bình (ĐÃ KHỎI).\n\n* BN38 (ĐÃ KHỎI), BN37 (ĐÃ KHỎI), BN36: quê ở Bình Thuận có tiếp xúc gần với BN34 đã được xác định mắc COVID-19 ngày 10/3/2020. \n\n* BN35: phụ nữ 29 tuổi, quốc tịch Việt Nam, ngày 4/3/2020 có tiếp xúc trực tiếp với hai người Anh (sau này xác định là BN22 và BN23) tại siêu thị Điện máy Xanh ở Đà Nẵng (ĐÃ KHỎI). \n\n* BN34: nữ 51 tuổi, quốc tịch Việt Nam, khởi hành từ Washington DC (Mỹ) về Việt Nam, quá cảnh tại sân bay Quốc tế Doha (Qatar) và sáng ngày 2/3/2020 nhập cảnh vào Việt Nam. (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN33: nam 58 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh, là hành khách cùng đi trên chuyến bay VN0054 từ Anh về Việt Nam (ĐÃ KHỎI).\n\n* BN32: nữ 24 tuổi sống tại Anh, quốc tịch Việt Nam, có tiếp xúc với BN17 hôm 27/2 tại Anh, đã trở về Việt Nam ngày 9/3/2020 . (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN31: nam 49 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh cùng đi trên chuyến bay VN0054 từ Anh về Việt Nam ngày 2/3/2020\n\n* BN22 đến BN30: là hành khách nước ngoài cùng đi trên chuyến bay VN0054 từ Anh về Việt Nam ngày 2/3/2020, cụ thể:\n\n- BN22: 60 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh (ĐÃ KHỎI) ; BN23: 66 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh (ĐÃ KHỎI) ; BN24: 58 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh (ĐÃ KHỎI); BN25: 70 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh (ĐÃ KHỎI); BN26: 50 tuổi, quốc tịch Ireland; BN27: 67 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh (ĐÃ KHỎI); BN28: 74 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh; BN29: 58 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh (ĐÃ KHỎI); BN30: nữ 66 tuổi, quốc tịch Anh;\n\n* BN21: nam 61 tuổi ở Hà Nội, là người ngồi gần hàng ghế trên chuyến bay với BN17 .\n\n* BN20 (Đã khỏi), BN19: 2 người tiếp xúc gần với BN17 đã xác định mắc COVID-19 ngày 6/3.\n\n* BN18: nam 27 tuổi, quê Thái Bình đến Daegu (Hàn Quốc) và trở về Việt Nam ngày 4/3/2020 (ĐÃ KHỎI)\n\n* BN17: nữ 26 tuổi tại Hà Nội đi thăm chị gái tại Anh và qua Italy, Pháp và trở về Hà Nội ngày 2/3/2020 (ĐÃ KHỎI)."],["topImageUrl",null],["error",null]]}]}],["createdAt","2020-04-06T17:21:02.914Z"]]}]]}]}],["searchArticles",{"__iterable":"List","data":[]}],["searchReplies",{"__iterable":"List","data":[]}]]}]]},"replyDetail":{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["state",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["isLoading",false],["isAuthLoading",false],["isReplyLoading",false]]}],["data",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["reply",null],["originalReplyConnection",null]]}]]},"auth":{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["state",{"__iterable":"Map","data":[["isLoading",false],["isDialogShown",false]]}],["user",null]]}}

Community Law Firm Singapore - Shengkai International Law Firm

現有回應

增加新回應

你可能也會對這些類似文章有興趣