Interpret the “7+3” of the ninth edition of the new crown prevention and control plan!

Spread the love

Author: yelihua source: seeking truth (id:gh_a2f5eb6a8f0c)

Talk to readers about the ninth edition of the new crown prevention and control program (hereinafter referred to as the program).

The first part of the plan briefly introduces the characteristics of the pathogen and the pathological changes inside the body after infection, and then introduces the clinical manifestations and medical methods, which are similar to the previous eight versions.

After all, no matter how the novel coronavirus mutates, it is still the novel coronavirus, which will not mutate into beriberi. Therefore, there is no point in the first part.

Below, there is something different from before.

The first difference is the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

1. It is clear that the main virus spreading in China is Omicron. The clinical manifestation of Omicron is different from that of other strains. The most important is the incubation period, which is only 2-4 days. This is the basis and reason for all changes.

2. On the basis of the incubation period of Omicron, the patient should be treated for symptoms. If the asymptomatic person has been isolated in the shelter for 7 days, and the nucleic acid CT value is greater than 35 for two consecutive days, or is negative, he can go home. If it is less than 35, continue to isolate it until 35 and put it back.

3. On the basis of the short incubation period of Omicron, the isolated personnel can stay at home for 7 days after returning home.

4. Delimit the scope of close contact, define the standard of close contact in detail according to the characteristics of the incubation period of Omicron, change the intensive management time to 7-day centralized isolation + 3-day home isolation. In addition, 6 times of nucleic acid should be performed. If the epidemic breaks out in a large scale, it can be changed to 5+5

5. The secondary close connection will no longer be isolated in a centralized way, and it can be isolated at home for 7 days.

The second difference is the change of social containment measures.


For specific measures, please refer to the above table directly.

The general change is that in high-risk areas, there is no medium risk of new downgrade in 7 days and no low risk of new downgrade in 3 days. There is no new low risk of downgrade in 7 days in medium risk areas.

If all the close contacts of the case are under control, the risk of transmission in the workplace and residence is small, so the risk can not be defined.

The third part of the change is to clarify the epidemic prevention measures for cross regional travel.

Those who have been living in high-risk areas for 7 days will be isolated for 5 times in 7 days. Those who have lived in medium risk areas for 7 days will be isolated for 3 times in 7 days.

Low risk personnel should not be isolated.

The fourth change is the epidemic prevention measures of different industries, which can be directly referred to the following table.


Overall, there are only four major changes. All the changes were based on Omicron’s own characteristics of communication.

If the incubation period of the next variety is prolonged or shortened, corresponding changes will be made. With the arrival of winter, corresponding adjustments will be made to the measures. If someone interprets this as a step-by-step liberalization, it is purely their own brain tonic.

The standards have been issued and the implementation methods have been established. Is there anything that can be improved in this standard?

I have two personal suggestions.

First, I personally suggest establishing a sound training system for disease control personnel.

At present, the quality of disease control personnel varies from place to place, and the actual combat experience varies from place to place. There is a real epidemic. In some places, epidemic prevention has failed, and in some places, epidemic prevention will be excessive. As a result, unified standards have not been implemented and unified results cannot be achieved.

Therefore, I personally suggest that one or more online teaching audio-visual materials be issued to make the experience of excellent epidemic prevention areas into typical cases for promotion and dissemination, summarize the experience and lessons of failed epidemic prevention areas, and publicize the typical cases of excessive epidemic prevention. The quality of disease control personnel has been improved, and they are well aware of excessive and failed epidemic prevention.

So that the implementation can be unified, so as to avoid the spread of the epidemic and the one size fits all approach to epidemic prevention.

Second, separate the management sites of overseas infected persons from residential areas.

When an overseas case comes in, it is easy to cause an overflow of community transmission. I personally suggest that the entry isolation point for overseas personnel and the infectious disease hospital should be set far away from the residential area to prevent the overflow in the management cycle. Cause unnecessary epidemic situation and economic losses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *