Search

This Special Issue of Global Public Health on Politics & Pandemics brings together 26 articles and commentaries that address diverse aspects of the politics of COVID-19 and related issues. These papers are grouped together in six topical areas: theories and politics of global health, health systems and policies, country responses, social inequalities, social responses, and the politics of science and technology. The goal of the Special Issue is to give readers a sense of the range of topics that have been a focus for research in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and to provide diverse examples of how research and analysis on the political dimensions of the pandemic can contribute to confronting the COVID-19 crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper uses the vocabulary of 'medical populism' to identify and analyse the political constructions of (and responses to) the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil, the Philippines, and the United States from January to mid-July 2020, particularly by the countries' heads of state: Jair Bolsonaro, Rodrigo Duterte, and Donald Trump. In all three countries, the leaders' responses to the outbreak can be characterised by the following features: simplifying the pandemic by downplaying its impacts or touting easy solutions or treatments, spectacularizing their responses to crisis, forging divisions between the 'people' and dangerous 'others', and making medical knowledge claims to support the above. Taken together, the case studies illuminate the role of individual political actors in defining public health crises, suggesting that medical populism is not an exceptional, but a familiar response to them. This paper concludes by offering recommendations for global health in anticipating and responding to pandemics and infectious disease outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the COVID-19 pandemic now affects the entire world, countries have had diverse responses. Some responded faster than others, with considerable variations in strategy. After securing border control, primary health care approaches (public health and primary care) attempt to mitigate spread through public education to reduce person-to-person contact (hygiene and physical distancing measures, lockdown procedures), triaging of cases by severity, COVID-19 testing, and contact-tracing. An international survey of primary care experts' perspectives about their country's national responseswas conducted April to early May 2020. This mixed method paper reports on whether they perceived that their country's decision-making and pandemic response was primarily driven by medical facts, economic models, or political ideals; initially intended to develop herd immunity or flatten the curve, and the level of decision-making authority (federal, state, regional). Correlations with country-level death rates and implications of political forces and processes in shaping a country's pandemic response are presented and discussed, informed by our data and by the literature. The intersection of political decision-making, public health/primary care policies and economic strategies is analysed to explore implications of COVID-19's impact on countries with different levels of social and economic development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How can governing digital health for infectious disease outbreaks be enhanced? In many ways, the COVID-19 pandemic has simultaneously represented both the potential and marked limitations of digital health practices for infectious disease outbreaks. During the pandemic's initial stages, states along with Big Data and Big Tech actors unleashed a scope of both established and experimental digital technologies for tracking infections, hospitalisations, and deaths from COVID-19 – and sometimes exposure to the virus SARS-CoV-2. Despite the proliferation of these technologies at the global level, transnational and cross-border integration, and cooperation within digital health responses to COVID-19 often faltered, while digital health regulations were fragmented, contested, and uncoordinated. This article presents a critiquing reflection of approaches to conceptualising, understanding, and implementing digital health for infectious disease outbreaks, observed from COVID-19 and previous examples. In assessing the strengths and limitations of existing practices of governing digital health for infectious disease outbreaks, this article particularly examines 'informal' digital health to build upon and consider how digitised responses to addressing and governing infectious disease outbreaks may be reconceptualised, revisited, or revised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public health crises alter political landscapes. This article investigates social movement strategies during and between the HIV and COVID-19 pandemics. We conducted a set of eighteen in-depth interviews with eleven leaders of organisations working with sex workers, sexual minorities, and transgender people around India, all of whom had been actively involved in HIV prevention programs, before and after the arrival of COVID-19 in India. First HIV, and then COVID-19, altered the political landscape for these groups in relation to three types of institutions: (1) donors (by creating dramatic increases and decreases in the amount, type, and conditions of global funding and deepening inequalities among organisations) (2) the state (by shifting the balance of advocacy and human rights work toward immediate relief); and (3) other social movements (by expanding solidarities across groups but also placing them in competition for limited resources). We argue that, to weather these dramatic shifts, organisations relied on internal alliances and resources built in and after periods of crisis. In this way, despite the differences between the two pandemics, the legacies of HIV shaped the response to COVID-19. Though responses to COVID-19 seem improvised and temporary, they build on a longer-term social movement infrastructure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic in March 2020, significant research and attention has focused on countries' abilities and interests in enacting response measures to the spread of the coronavirus including lockdowns, travel restrictions, and vaccination programmes to contain infections, hospitalisations, and deaths. As the pandemic has continued, much discussion has also centred on the ability of islands to control borders, enact public health measures, and keep the virus out or controlled, owing in part to presumed islandness characteristics of isolation and remoteness. Drawing from ongoing empirical examples of island experiences in the context of COVID-19, this article examines to what extent islandness impacts health concerns and health responses within aspects of global health security and health systems. In considering how islands around the world have been implementing health security measures regarding COVID-19, linkages or suggested linkages among islands, global health security, and pandemics indicate the lack of exceptionality of islands and archipelagos. That is, how islandness or lack thereof is managed ends up being far more important for global health security outcomes than islandness itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the end of 2019, a new virus named SARS-CoV-2 emerged in China, provoking coronavirus disease 2019 or COVID-19. Self-isolation and quarantine as key strategies to overcoming the spread of the disease have had major, micro, and macroscopic consequences. This commentary, therefore, seeks to review critical factors impacting the COVID-19 pandemic through the spectrum of levels, categorising effects in the WHO's ecological framework (individual, relational, community, and societal aspects). We further describe the management of the crisis at each level to help guide health personnel, communities, governments, and international policymakers in understanding how their actions fit into a larger picture as they seek to manage the crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]