Search

The controversy over vaccines, which has recently intensified following the COVID-19 pandemic, provokes heated debates, with both advocates and opponents raising allegations of bias and fraud in research. Researchers whose work raises doubts about the safety of certain vaccines claim to be victims of discriminatory treatment aimed at suppressing dissent, including the unjustified retraction of their published research. Such practices have previously been discussed in other controversial fields in science (e.g., AIDS, the environment, and water fluoridation) but not in the field of vaccines. The purpose of this study was to analyze, for the first time, the subjective views of researchers whose papers were retracted. Study participants are active researchers, most with international reputations in their respective fields. They perceived retraction as a means of censoring and silencing critical voices with the aim of preserving the pro-vaccination agenda of interested parties. Participants also reported additional measures aimed at harming them personally and professionally. These findings point to the need for a fair, open, and honest discourse about the safety of vaccines for the benefit of public health and the restoration of trust in science and medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted societies globally. Public health institutions were tasked with responding to the pandemic in a dynamic and uncertain context. This paper sheds light on the experiences of COVID-19 response actors as they navigated multi-dimensional crises associated with the pandemic in general and vaccine hesitancy in particular. This research was conducted during the initial phase of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Flanders, Belgium. Participants included informants across all levels of the COVID-19 vaccination strategy including but not limited to those producing scientific knowledge, providing policy input, or implementing public health directives locally. 'Crisis' was identified as a recurring theme in interviews with informants. The paper highlights multi-dimensional crises experienced by informants such as the: (i) crisis of prioritization, (ii) crisis of communication, (iii) crisis of the changing image of science, (iv) crisis of epistemic agency and autonomy, and (v) crisis of trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In some countries, far-reaching 'lockdown' measures to contain the spread of coronavirus were implemented early in 2020. In Austria, these early measures were met with a high degree of compliance among the country's population. In this paper, we draw upon qualitative interviews, and ask how people made sense of the restrictions imposed during the first lockdown in April 2020 and what shaped their compliance. Empirical research has so far tried to explain compliance by means of people's disposition and motivations as well as demographic and social characteristics. Instead of focussing on who is compliant, we aim to understand how people practice compliance. We do this by approaching compliance through the concepts of values and practice. First, our findings indicate that people assess whether measures are suitable and legitimate in relation to the values of science, the law, and morality. Second, people assign additional personal value to compliance by stressing its positive implications on their own lives. By adopting a nuanced perspective on compliance as inextricably linked to peoples' values and practices, our paper critically contributes to the political and scholarly discussion of pandemic public health measures. Understanding compliance through the lens of values shows how people make sense of the measures in the context of their everyday lives, helping us to move away from a binary understanding of (non-)compliance that has become morally charged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The news media has consistently promoted weight loss as a solution to the "obesity epidemic", despite research refuting the connection between fatness and health. In this paper, I examine the framing of weight loss in news articles during lockdown months of 2020, addressing whether healthist ideologies about weight loss persisted or declined during the pandemic. Most articles reflected a healthism lens, encouraging weight loss to achieve good health and to prevent COVID-19. However, some articles rejected weight loss or utilized a Health at Every Size perspective. This study has implications for research on body surveillance, neoliberalism, public health, and media reporting about weight loss and COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mobile applications for digital contact tracing have been developed and introduced around the world in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Proposed as a tool to support 'traditional' forms of contact-tracing carried out to monitor contagion, these apps have triggered an intense debate with respect to their legal and ethical permissibility, social desirability and general feasibility. Based on a large-scale study including qualitative data from 349 interviews conducted in nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, German-speaking Switzerland, the United Kingdom), this paper shows that the binary framing often found in surveys and polls, which contrasts privacy concerns with the usefulness of these interventions for public health, does not capture the depth, breadth, and nuances of people's positions towards COVID-19 contact-tracing apps. The paper provides a detailed account of how people arrive at certain normative positions by analysing the argumentative patterns, tropes and (moral) repertoires underpinning people's perspectives on digital contact-tracing. Specifically, we identified a spectrum comprising five normative positions towards the use of COVID-19 contact-tracing apps: opposition, scepticism of feasibility, pondered deliberation, resignation, and support. We describe these stances and analyse the diversity of assumptions and values that underlie the normative orientations of our interviewees. We conclude by arguing that policy attempts to develop and implement these and other digital responses to the pandemic should move beyond the reiteration of binary framings, and instead cater to the variety of values, concerns and expectations that citizens voice in discussions about these types of public health interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers around the globe have increasingly invested in digital health technologies to support the 'test, track and trace' approach of containing the spread of the novel coronavirus. These technologies include mobile 'contact tracing' applications (apps), which can trace individuals likely to have come into contact with those who have reported symptoms or tested positive for the virus and request that they self-isolate. This paper takes a critical public health perspective that advocates for 'genuine participation' in public health interventions and emphasises the need to take citizen's knowledge into account during public health decision-making. In doing so, it presents and discusses the findings of a UK interview study that explored public views on the possibility of using a COVID-19 contact-tracing app public health intervention at the time the United Kingdom (UK) Government announced their decision to develop such a technology. Findings illustrated interviewees' range and degree of understandings, misconceptions, and concerns about the possibility of using an app. In particular, concerns about privacy and surveillance predominated. Interviewees associated these concerns much more broadly than health by identifying with pre-existent British national narratives associated with individual liberty and autonomy. In extending and contributing to ongoing sociological research with public health, we argue that understanding and responding to these matters is vital, and that our findings demonstrate the need for a forward-looking, anticipatory strategy for public engagement as part of the responsible innovation of the COVID-19 contact-tracing app in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper documents environmental health conditions and healthcare access challenges faced by internally displaced people (IDPs) from Borno State living in informal settlements in Lagos, Nigeria, in 2020, during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. This qualitative study with 32 IDPs suggests a high vulnerability to COVID-19. Their accommodation often lacked basic sanitation including water and toilet facilities; overcrowding and high population density restricted ability to adhere to social distancing; and IDPs experienced serious consequences from lockdown, as the majority depended on daily wages, and did not receive food packages or other support from the State. Finally, there were obstacles to accessing healthcare. We highlight the importance of an integrated approach, consolidating the efforts of communities, non-governmental organisations, environmental and public health, and international organisations to address the health and well-being issues of IDPs in urban informal settlements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article documents, contextualizes, and theorizes the significance of technological divides and inequalities of access, along with diverse accommodations, adaptations, resistances, and alternatives to health and communications technologies that have unfolded in two South American countries during the COVID-19 emergency: Ecuador and Argentina. Based on a shared qualitative interview methodology that focused on issues of social inequality and digital divides, perceptions of and experiences with public health systems, and levels of trust relative to governmental, media, and other sources of information about the pandemic, our emergent comparative analysis demonstrates both shared and divergent patterns. While interview data from both countries emphasize deepening crises of poverty and inequality that reverberate in differential access and usage of communications technologies, there are distinct patterns with regard to confidence in medical systems and public health information. In Argentina, citizens may question or doubt official sources of information and public health systems but, on the whole, tend to maintain higher levels of cautious trust, while in Ecuador, an erosion of trust, along with higher levels of cultural diversity, drives an adaptive response towards systems and practices of medical pluralism, particularly in indigenous and rural contexts. Explanations for these differences may lie in the distinct forms the project of colonial modernity, and resistance or adherence to it, has taken in each country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]