Search

The spread of infectious diseases was further promoted due to busy cities, increased travel, and climate change, which led to outbreaks, epidemics, and even pandemics. The world experienced the severity of the 125 nm virus called the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a pandemic declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2019. Many investigations revealed a strong correlation between humidity and temperature relative to the kinetics of the virus's spread into the hosts. This study aimed to solve the riddle of the correlation between environmental factors and COVID-19 by applying RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses (ROSES) with the designed research question. Five temperature and humidity-related themes were deduced via the review processes, namely 1) The link between solar activity and pandemic outbreaks, 2) Regional area, 3) Climate and weather, 4) Relationship between temperature and humidity, and 5) the Governmental disinfection actions and guidelines. A significant relationship between solar activities and pandemic outbreaks was reported throughout the review of past studies. The grand solar minima (1450-1830) and solar minima (1975-2020) coincided with the global pandemic. Meanwhile, the cooler, lower humidity, and low wind movement environment reported higher severity of cases. Moreover, COVID-19 confirmed cases and death cases were higher in countries located within the Northern Hemisphere. The Blackbox of COVID-19 was revealed through the work conducted in this paper that the virus thrives in cooler and low-humidity environments, with emphasis on potential treatments and government measures relative to temperature and humidity. Highlights: • The coronavirus disease 2019 (COIVD-19) is spreading faster in low temperatures and humid area. • Weather and climate serve as environmental drivers in propagating COVID-19. • Solar radiation influences the spreading of COVID-19. • The correlation between weather and population as the factor in spreading of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aligning with global evidence related to migrants and COVID-19, the pandemic highlighted and exposed long-standing structural inequities in the context of migrant populations in Malaysia who experienced a disproportionate level of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 morbidity, as well as exacerbated precarity during COVID-19 owing to disruptions to their livelihoods, health, and life. Main body: Focusing on COVID-19 and migrant workers in Malaysia, this review addresses two research queries: (i) what are the policy responses of the government toward migrants with regard to COVID-19? (ii) what are the lessons learned from the Malaysian experience of COVID-19 and migrants that can inform pandemic preparedness, especially regarding migrant health policy? The review used Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework refined by Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien. In addition to the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO databases, and Malaysian English language newspapers, including the Malay Mail, Malaysiakini, and the New Straits Times, the search also included reports from the websites of government ministries and departments, such as the Immigration Department, Ministry of Human Resources, Ministry of Health, and the International Trade and Industry Ministry. Conclusion: Using the case example of Malaysia and the policy approach toward migrant populations in Malaysia during the height of the COVID pandemic in 2020 and 2021, this paper unravels complex pathways and inter-linkages between the contexts of migration and health which coalesced to engender and exacerbate vulnerability to disease and ill-health for the migrant workers. The lack of coordination and coherence in policies addressing migrant workers during the pandemic, the normalization of cheap and disposable labor in neoliberal economic regimes, and the securitization of migration were key factors contributing to the failure of migration policies to provide protection to migrant workers during COVID-19. The review suggests that policy approaches embodying the principles of Health in All Policies, a whole-of-society approach, and the promotion of safe, just, and regular migration, predicated on equity and inclusion, are integral to a comprehensive and effective response to pandemics such as COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Claims of inconsistency in epidemiological data have emerged for both developed and developing countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: In this paper, we apply first-digit Newcomb-Benford Law (NBL) and Kullback-Leibler Divergence (KLD) to evaluate COVID-19 records reliability in all 20 Latin American countries. We replicate country-level aggregate information from Our World in Data. Results: We find that official reports do not follow NBL's theoretical expectations (n = 978; chi-square = 78.95; KS = 4.33, MD = 2.18; mantissa =.54; MAD =.02; DF = 12.75). KLD estimates indicate high divergence among countries, including some outliers. Conclusions: This paper provides evidence that recorded COVID-19 cases in Latin America do not conform overall to NBL, which is a useful tool for detecting data manipulation. Our study suggests that further investigations should be made into surveillance systems that exhibit higher deviation from the theoretical distribution and divergence from other similar countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pandemics as health and humanitarian crises have exerted traceable impacts on food security. Almost all past and current pandemics have created a food crisis that affects a share of the global population and threaten global food security. With the more frequent outbreaks of emerging and re-emerging diseases or pandemics, this paper looks at the various types of impacts from the current coronavirus crisis and past pandemics to identify their major impact on food security. Scope: To this effect, key strategies that could be put in place to ensure the efficient resilience of food systems before, during, and after the pandemics to mitigate the negative impact of the pandemics on global food security are recommended. The most recent effects of the current coronavirus crisis have been disruptions in the flow of farm labourers and inefficient farm operations leading to postharvest food losses. Key findings and conclusions: Modification of diets between social groups has also been observed. Future response orientations to prevent and mitigate the effects of pandemics on food security will consider pro-active and adapted policy, program, and institutional actions towards the systemic development of global food systems as an interconnected network. Highlights: • Before the 20thcentury hunger and illnesses might be traced to climatic changes. • The catastrophes in human history elicit various reactions – defence, reflection. • In the 19thcentury, lower quality of food further exacerbated the effects of famines. • Skills required for effectivemanagement of the flow of goods and services are in high demand. • Alternative food resources exist during pandemic and food shortage. • Strategizing to ensure food access and self-sufficiency during a pandemic is possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, states were called upon by the World Health Organization to introduce and prioritise the collection of sex-disaggregated data. The collection of sex-disaggregated data on COVID-19 testing, infection rates, hospital admissions, and deaths, when available, has informed our understanding of the biology of the infectious disease. The collection of sex-disaggregated data should also better inform our understanding of the gendered impacts that contribute to risk of exposure to COVID-19. In China, the country with the longest history of fighting the COVID-19 infection, what research was available on the gender-differential impacts of COVID-19 in the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic?Methods: In this scoping review, we examine the first 6 months (January-June 2020) of peer-reviewed publications (n = 451) on sex and gender experiences related to COVID-19 in China. We conducted an exhaustive search of published Chinese and English language research papers on COVID-19 in mainland China. We used a COVID-19 Gender Matrix informed by the JPHIEGO gender analysis toolkit to examine and illuminate research into the gendered impacts of COVID-19 within China.Results: In China, only a small portion of the COVID-19-related research focused on gender experiences and differences. Near the end of the six-month literature review period, a small number of research items emerged on women healthcare workers, women's mental health, and pregnant women's access to care. There was an absence of research on the gendered impact of COVID-19 amongst populations. There was minimal consideration of the economic, social and security factors, including gender stereotypes and expectations, that affected different populations' experiences of infection, treatment, and lockdown during the period of review.Conclusion: At the outset of health emergencies in China, gender research needs to be prioritised during the first stage of an outbreak to assist with evaluation of the most effective public health measures, identifying access to healthcare and social welfare barriers amongst priority communities. Gender stereotypes and gendered differences lead to different patterns of exposure and treatment. The exclusion of this knowledge in real time affects the design of effective prevention and recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare workers are at a disproportionate risk of contracting COVID-19. The physical and mental repercussions of such risk have an impact on the wellbeing of healthcare workers around the world. Healthcare workers are the foundation of all well-functioning health systems capable of responding to the ongoing pandemic; initiatives to address and reduce such risk are critical. Since the onset of the pandemic healthcare organizations have embarked on the implementation of a range of initiatives designed to improve healthcare worker health and wellbeing.Methods: Through a qualitative collective case study approach where participants responded to a longform survey, the facilitators, and barriers to implementing such initiatives were explored, offering global insights into the challenges faced at the organizational level. 13 healthcare organizations were surveyed across 13 countries. Of these 13 participants, 5 subsequently provided missing information through longform interviews or written clarifications.Results: 13 case studies were received from healthcare provider organizations. Mental health initiatives were the most commonly described health and wellbeing initiatives among respondents. Physical health and health and safety focused initiatives, such as the adaption of workspaces, were also described. Strong institutional level direction, including engaged leadership, and the input, feedback, and engagement of frontline staff were the two main facilitators in implementing initiatives. The most common barrier was HCWs' fear of contracting COVID-19 / fear of passing COVID-19 to family members. In organizations who discussed infection prevention and control initiatives, inadequate personal protective equipment and supply chain disruption were highlighted by respondents.Conclusions: Common themes emerge globally in exploring the enablers and barriers to implementing initiatives to improve healthcare workers health and wellbeing through the COVID-19 pandemic. Consideration of the themes outlined in the paper by healthcare organizations could help influence the design and deployment of future initiatives ahead of implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Covid-19 presents a unique opportunity to transform democratic engagement in the governance of global public goods. In this paper, I describe a global public goods framework and how it relates to Covid-19 vaccines, and summarize some of the global responses to Covid-19. I discuss some of the global threats to health and prosperity posed by the inequitable distribution of vaccines, and propose transformative thinking to democratically engage citizens in the governance of global public goods. In recent years, public-private partnerships and philanthropic organizations have successfully stepped in to help international organizations like the UN and WHO provide global public goods, but they are not democratically elected or publicly accountable. Global public goods are critical to addressing Covid-19, future pandemic preparedness, global health policy, health equity, and the unfolding climate crisis. To make us more resistant and resilient to future global health crises we need transformative thinking to democratically engage global citizens. We need to lay the foundations for a 'global social contract' on global public goods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic depend on national preparedness systems that must be understood as components of global public health emergency preparedness systems, governed and coordinated through the World Health Organization's 2005 International Health Regulations. The pandemic has raised the question of why countries belonging to similar public health regimes, coordinated through the same global system, responded differently to the same threat. Comparing the responses of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, countries with similar public health regimes, the paper investigates to what degree national differences in COVID-19 policy response reflect significant differences in the policy preferences of national expert groups.Results: We employ a structured case comparison of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden to analyze their' politico-administrative pandemic preparedness systems and policy responses during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We use the results of an interdisciplinary expert survey completed in 2020 to analyze expert perceptions in two ways. First, we analyze expert perceptions of COVID-19 responses while controlling for national COVID-19 trajectories and experts' characteristics. Second, we analyze the distribution and effect of dominant global expert-held ideas across countries, showing the importance of dominant ideas for experts' perceptions and preferences for COVID-19 response.Conclusion: The study finds no evidence indicating that COVID-19 policy variation between the most similar cases of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are the result of differences in the policy preferences of national expert groups. Instead, our study highlights the importance of other factors than cross-national expert dissensus for explaining variation in pandemic response such as the politico-administrative organization of pandemic preparedness systems. Further, we find that expert support for dominant ideas such as a 'focused protection strategy' is associated with consistent policy preferences across locational, disciplinary, and geographic affiliations. Recognition of the latter should be a part of future discussions about how global ideas of pandemic preparedness are diffused transnationally and embedded in national politico-administrative systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Revised: Nov 6 2021The shortfalls of multilateral and regional organizations in respect of handling the COVID-19 pandemic have been well rehearsed by scholars and policy makers in multiple publications and statements. While the World Health Organization (WHO) and its regional offices have coordinated global responses, regional organizations, like the European Union, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or African Union, have played complementary roles. However, the response of different regions has varied, revealing multiple deficits in the structures of regional governance. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is a region affected by chronic ongoing conflicts and serious inequalities in health and welfare provision, reflected in the absence of concerted responses to the pandemic. Its young population has meant lower comparative mortality rates, but the socio-economic spill-over effects are grave in terms of interrupted education, high unemployment, particularly in respect to vulnerable communities like refugees and migrant workers. With the current situation remaining critical, this paper reviews the impact of COVID-19 on MENA and considers the variable performance of states and institutions to the pandemic, highlighting the shortfalls, but also opportunities for collective action. Drawing on data from the WHO, United Nations (UN), regional organizations, media and secondary sources, it first discusses the wider global-regional context; second, reviews the actions of regional bodies, like the League of Arab States, Gulf Cooperation Council and the cross-regional Organization of Islamic Cooperation; and third, looks at some country-specific situations where both evidence of good practice and the absence of appropriate regional level provision have exposed deep regional divides. It concludes with a call for more collaboration between states and international organizations: better regional coordination is urgently needed to supplement existing multilateral efforts. A collective local response to the COVID-19 pandemic could help transcend regional divides and spur much-needed security cooperation in other areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International air travel has been highlighted as a concern since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic with respect to importation of cases. We summarise the available evidence for in-flight transmission of wild type SARS-CoV-2 during 2020, and for imported COVID-19 clusters to cause outbreaks. This paper provides a data baseline prior to the emergence of new mutations causing SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, whose characteristics may increase the potential risk of in-flight transmission and imported outbreaks. The evidence on in-flight transmission of wild-type SARS-CoV-2 is limited, and is described in a small number of published reports. Most of the available evidence pertains to the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, during a period without non-pharmaceutical interventions such as distancing and in-flight mask wearing. There is considerable potential for outbreaks of COVID-19 from imported cases or clusters when public health guidance around quarantine of travellers and self-isolation of cases is not adhered to. Risks can be mitigated by measures such as: avoiding non-essential travel, targeted testing and quarantine of travellers from high incidence regions or regions of concern, managed quarantine processes, and protocols for rapid investigation and control of transmission from a possible variant of concern. Measures should be dynamically assessed and proportionate to the level of risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lagos state is the industrial nerve centre of Nigeria and was the epicentre of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Nigeria as it is now for the current Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak. This paper describes how the lessons learned from the Ebola outbreak in 2014 informed the emergency preparedness of the State ahead of the COVID-19 outbreak and guided response.Discussion: Following the Ebola outbreak in 2014, the Lagos State government provided governance by developing a policy on emergency preparedness and biosecurity and provided oversight and coordination of emergency preparedness strategies. Capacities for emergency response were strengthened by training key staff, developing a robust surveillance system, and setting up a Biosafety Level 3 laboratory and biobank. Resource provision, in terms of finances and trained personnel for emergencies was prioritized by the government. With the onset of COVID-19, Lagos state was able to respond promptly to the outbreak using the centralized Incident Command Structure and the key activities of the Emergency Operations Centre. Contributory to effective response were partnerships with the private sectors, community engagement and political commitment.Conclusion: Using the lessons learned from the 2014 Ebola outbreak, Lagos State had gradually prepared its healthcare system for a pandemic such as COVID-19. The State needs to continue to expand its preparedness to be more resilient and future proof to respond to disease outbreaks. Looking beyond intra-state gains, lessons and identified best practices from the past and present should be shared with other states and countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, intellectual property licensing through bilateral agreements and the Medicines Patent Pool were used to facilitate access to new COVID-19 therapeutics in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The lessons learnt from the application of the model to COVID-19 could be relevant for preparedness and response to future pandemics and other health emergencies. The speed at which affordable versions of a new product are available in LMICs is key to the realization of the potential global impact of the product. When initiated early in the research and development life cycle, licensing could facilitate rapid development of generic versions of innovative products in LMICs during a pandemic. The pre-selection of qualified manufacturers, for instance building on the existing network of generic manufacturers engaged during the COVID-19 pandemic, the sharing of know-how and the quick provision of critical inputs such as reference listed drugs (RLDs) could also result in significant time saved. It is important to find a good balance between speed and quality. Necessary quality assurance terms need to be included in licensing agreements, and the potentials of the new World Health Organization Listed Authority mechanism could be explored to promote expedited regulatory reviews and timely access to safe and quality-assured products. The number, capacity, and geographical distribution of licensed companies and the transparency of licensing agreements have implications for the sufficiency of supply, affordability, and supply security. To foster competition and support supply security, licenses should be non-exclusive. There is also a need to put modalities in place to de-risk the development of critical pandemic therapeutics, particularly where generic product development is initiated before the innovator product is proven to be effective and approved. IP licensing and technology transfer can be effective tools to improve the diversification of manufacturing and need to be explored for regional manufacturing for accelerated access at scale in in LMICs and supply security in future pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, striking a delicate balance between sustaining economic activity and safeguarding public health has become a crucial concern. The border closures for COVID-19 prevention have further intensified concerns for North Korea, which conducts over 90% of its trade with China and Russia, countries sharing its borders. Methods: This study aims to scrutinize North Korea's response to these competing imperatives by examining the impact of border closures on the country's trade dynamics with China and Russia. This study employed the difference-in-difference (DID) method to analyze transformations in North Korea's economic activity before and after the border closures, utilizing trade data and nighttime satellite imagery captured in 2019 and 2020. Results: The results reveal that North Korea actively reoriented its trade priorities towards Russia and accorded precedence to its epidemic prevention system over its economy during the pandemic. A noticeable increase in imports of food and pharmaceuticals was observed, indicating a significant rise in the inflow of these essential commodities. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, North Korea placed significant policy emphasis on preserving public health. However, due to economic hardships and food shortages, if the pandemic persists in the long term, it indicates the possibility of partial or complete lifting of border closures to mitigate these challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the contested politics of global health governance, though we still don't know enough about the dynamics of domestic pandemic responses, or about the relationship between the politics of those responses and the politics of global health governance, both of which have changed significantly in recent decades. Focusing on three cases (HIV/AIDS, SARS, and COVID-19) of cross-border infectious diseases, this article explores the trajectory of China's pandemic responses in the context of globalization. Attending to changing politics at domestic, international, and global levels, I argue that those responses have been a complex combination of China's domestic politics (e.g., priorities, institutions, leadership, and timing), its international relations (especially with the US), and its engagements with global health governance. It is concluded that the increasing divergence of pandemic responses in a time of ubiquitous global health crisis demands urgent attention to the connections (including contestations) between domestic pandemic responses and the evolvement of global health governance from a broader perspective that considers changes in geopolitics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Food insecurity is associated with inadequate nutrition and increased rates of chronic disease. The primary aim of this study was to assess self-reported food insecurity and the perceived impact of COVID-19 on food security, in two regional districts of Central Fiji, as part of a broader program of work on strengthening and monitoring food policy interventions. The secondary aim was to explore the relationship between food insecurity and salt, sugar and fruit and vegetable intake. Methods: Seven hundred adults were randomly sampled from the Deuba and Waidamudamu districts of Viti Levu, Fiji. Interview administered surveys were conducted by trained research assistants with data collected electronically. Information was collected on demographics and health status, food security, the perceived impact of COVID-19 on food security, and dietary intake. Food insecurity was assessed using nine questions adapted from Fiji's 2014/5 national nutrition survey, measuring markers of food insecurity over the last 12 months. Additional questions were added to assess the perceived effect of COVID-19 on responses. To address the secondary aim, interview administered 24-hour diet recalls were conducted using Intake24 (a computerised dietary recall system) allowing the calculation of salt, sugar and fruit and vegetable intakes for each person. Weighted linear regression models were used to determine the relationship between food insecurity and salt, sugar and fruit and vegetable intake. Results: 534 people participated in the survey (response rate 76%, 50.4% female, mean age 42 years). 75% (75.3%, 95% CI, 71.4 to 78.8%) of people reported experiencing food insecurity in the 12 months prior to the survey. Around one fifth of people reported running out of foods (16.8%, 13.9 to 20.2%), having to skip meals (19.3%, 16.2 to 22.9%), limiting variety of foods (19.0%, 15.9 to 22.5%), or feeling stressed due to lack of ability to meet food needs (19.5%, 16.4 to 23.0%). 67% (66.9%, 62.9 to 70.7%) reported becoming more food insecure and changing what they ate due to COVID-19. However, people also reported positive changes such as making a home garden (67.8%, 63.7 to 71.6%), growing fruit and vegetables (59.5%, 55.6 to 63.8%), or trying to eat healthier (14.7%, 12.0 to 18.0%). There were no significant associations between food insecurity and intakes of salt, sugar or fruit and vegetables. Conclusion: Participants reported high levels of food insecurity, exceeding recommendations for salt and sugar intake and not meeting fruit and vegetable recommendations, and becoming more food insecure due to COVID-19. Most participants reported making home gardens and/or growing fruit and vegetables in response to the pandemic. There is an opportunity for these activities to be fostered in addressing food insecurity in Fiji, with likely relevance to the Pacific region and other Small Island Developing States who face similar food insecurity challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent case studies indicate that the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak, one of the worst pre-2020 global biological catastrophes in modern history, helped some nations to better prepared their responses for the COVID-19 pandemic. While such national case studies explore how specific nations applied EVD-related policies in their domestic battle against the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no known study that assesses how many WHO nations learned from the West African crisis and to what scale. Objective: Applying the policy legacies analytical framework and a systematized literature review, this research examines how prior policy experiences with the 2014-16 EVD crisis as a large-scale emergent outbreak helped to inform and to condition WHO nations to proactively prepare their national policies and health systems for future threats, including ultimately COVID-19. Methods: A systematized literature review of 803 evaluated sources assesses to what extent Ebola-affected and non-affected nations directly modified governmental health systems in relation to this warning. The study further evaluates how nations with documented Ebola-related changes fared during COVID-19 compared to nations that did not. We present a categorical theoretical framework that allows for classifying different types of national response activities (termed conditioned learning). Results: Ten (90.9%) of 11 nations that were affected by 2014-16 Ebola crisis have documented evidence of repurposing their EVD-related policies to fight COVID-19. 164 (70.0%) of 234 non-EVD-affected nations had documented evidence of specifically adapting national systems to incorporate policy recommendations developed from the 2014-16 crisis, which informed their COVID-19 responses in 2020. Conclusions: The shock of 2014-16 EVD outbreak affected most nations around the world, whether they experienced Ebola cases. We further develop a categorical framework that helps characterised nations previous experiences with this biological catastrophe, providing a means to analyse to what extent that individual nations learned and how these EVD-related changes helped inform their COVID-19 response. Nations that demonstrated EVD-related conditioned learning nations tended to have more stringent COVID-19 responses before April 2020 and utilized documented response mechanisms developed out of the West African crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Yemen has been left in shambles and almost destroyed by its devastating civil war, and is now having to deal with the spread of coronavirus. The Yemeni people have been are left to fend for themselves and faced many problems such as hunger, the ongoing war, infections, diseases and lack of equipment even before the COVID-19 pandemic. All together it is a humanitarian crisis. Only around 50% of the hospitals and healthcare facilities are in full working condition, and even those that are functioning are operating at nowhere near full potential. Healthcare staff and facilities lack necessary essential equipment and money.Conclusion: As, sadly, is common in conflict-affected regions, the violence has brought with it a secondary disaster of infectious disease outbreaks. Yemen is not only battling COVID-19 amid a catastrophic war, but also has to deal with other diseases such as cholera, diphtheria and measles. A number of key measures are needed to support the current efforts against this deadly epidemic and its potential subsequent waves as well as to prevent further epidemics in Yemen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the past two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has cost millions of lives around the globe, caused major morbidity and provoked widespread economic and social disruption. In response, governments have enacted policies to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic. This research focuses in on policies aimed at increasing access to essential health products and services by comparing them to the global rules governing trade, investment and intellectual property. We have assessed whether these rules have or could have constrained countries in responding to this and future crises. The study identifies the nature and scope of the trade-related health sector policies implemented by our sample group of countries, selected because of their systemic significance: the United States, Germany, France, China, South Africa and India. Each policy is placed into one of five broad categories covered by trade and investment rules so that we could assess their consistency with those rules. Results: We found, among other things, that the types of trade-related health measures were quite diverse. The high-income countries in our study were the most active in the policy space and tended to rely on subsidies-based measures while the middle-income countries relied more heavily on export and import measures. Policies directly relevant to intellectual property protection were virtually non-existent. When evaluating the implemented policies against the global trade and investment rules, we found potential constraints under five different types of rules: those governing subsidies, import and export trade barriers, investment measures, government procurement and trade-related intellectual property. Conclusions: Given the tension between the global rules and the practices of policymaking during the pandemic, we conclude that the tension must be resolved in favor of governments making policy rather than relying on existing exceptions or pushing national governments to comply more exactly with the rules. Although the pandemic itself does not respect national borders, governance still generally occurs at the national level because national governments are often the only entities with both the legal authority and the practical ability to respond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to learn the challenges encountered by public health emergency preparedness systems, both in terms of problems encountered and adaptations during and after the first wave, as well as successful responses to them. Results: This work draws on published literature, interviews with countries and institutional documents as part of a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control project that aims to identify the implications for preparedness measurement derived from COVID-19 pandemic experience in order to advance future preparedness efforts in European Union member states. The analysis focused on testing and surveillance themes and five countries were considered, namely Italy, Germany, Finland, Spain and Croatia. Our analysis shown that a country's ability to conduct testing at scale was critical, especially early in the pandemic, and the inability to scale up testing operations created critical issues for public health operations such as contact tracing. Countries were required to develop new strategies, approaches, and policies under pressure and to review and revise them as the pandemic evolved, also considering that public health systems operate at the national, regional, and local level with respect to testing, contact tracing, and surveillance, and involve both government agencies as well as private organizations. Therefore, communication among multiple public and private entities at all levels and coordination of the testing and surveillance activities was critical. Conclusion: With regard to testing and surveillance, three capabilities that were essential to the COVID-19 response in the first phase, and presumably in other public health emergencies: the ability to scale-up testing, contact tracing, surveillance efforts; flexibility to develop new strategies, approaches, and policies under pressure and to review and revise them as the pandemic evolved; and the ability to coordinate and communicate in complex public health systems that operate at the national, regional, and local level with respect and involve multiple government agencies as well as private organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Vaccine equity has been a major concern during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the principle of vaccine equity, donor countries should apply the criterion of needs to make decisions about vaccine donation instead of considering recipient countries' economic status. We examine whether people follow the same criterion or consider other factors to decide which country to donate vaccines and how many vaccines should be delivered. Methods: We conducted online surveys with the design of conjoint experiment in the United States and Taiwan in 2021. 1,532 American citizens and 1,587 Taiwanese citizens were interviewed. The respondents were broadly quota-matched to their respective demographic proportions on the dimensions of age, gender, and education. We estimated the average marginal component effects (AMCEs) of the conjoint attributes by using the OLS regression models with standard errors clustered at the respondent level. Results: 15,320 and 15,870 decisions on vaccine donation generated by conjoint experiment respectively in the United States and Taiwan were included in the analysis. Both American and Taiwanese people tend to donate vaccines to countries that suffer severe consequences of COVID-19 and democracies compared to authoritarian countries. However, they are less willing to donate vaccines to those with higher levels of capability in response to COVID-19. Taiwanese people tend to donate vaccines to countries having formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan (AMCE 13.4%, 95% CI 11.8%-15.1%). Nonetheless, American people would rather donate vaccines to countries without formal diplomatic relations with the United States (AMCE − 4.0%, 95% CI -5.6%--2.4%). Conclusions: The findings reveal that politics plays a significant role in people's decisions about vaccine donation. Under electoral pressure, political leaders must think about how to respond to the public's preferences over vaccine donation to achieve vaccine equity and address the global health crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The coronavirus (COVID 19) pandemic is one of the most terrifying disasters of the twenty-first century. The non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented to control the spread of the disease had numerous positive consequences. However, there were also unintended consequences—positively or negatively related to the nature of the interventions, the target, the level and duration of implementation. This article describes the unintended economic, Psychosocial and environmental consequences of NPIs in four African countries. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Nigeria, Senegal and Uganda. A comprehensive conceptual framework, supported by a clear theory of change was adopted to encompass both systemic and non-systemic interventions. The data collection approaches included: (i) review of literature; (ii) analysis of secondary data for selected indicators; and (ii) key informant interviews with policy makers, civil society, local leaders, and law enforcement staff. The results were synthesized around thematic areas. Results: Over the first six to nine months of the pandemic, NPIs especially lockdowns, travel restrictions, curfews, school closures, and prohibition of mass gathering resulted into both positive and negative unintended consequences cutting across economic, psychological, and environmental platforms. DRC, Nigeria, and Uganda observed reduced crime rates and road traffic accidents, while Uganda also reported reduced air pollution. In addition, hygiene practices have improved through health promotion measures that have been promoted for the response to the pandemic. All countries experienced economic slowdown, job losses heavily impacting women and poor households, increased sexual and gender-based violence, teenage pregnancies, and early marriages, increased poor mental health conditions, increased waste generation with poor disposal, among others. Conclusion: Despite achieving pandemic control, the stringent NPIs had several negative and few positive unintended consequences. Governments need to balance the negative and positive consequences of NPIs by anticipating and instituting measures that will support and protect vulnerable groups especially the poor, the elderly, women, and children. Noticeable efforts, including measures to avoid forced into marriage, increasing inequities, economic support to urban poor; those living with disabilities, migrant workers, and refugees, had been conducted to mitigate the negative effects of the NIPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: African countries have not had the high case and death rates from COVID-19 as was predicted early in the pandemic. It is not well understood what factors modulated the rate of COVID-19 cases and death on the continent. Methods: We collated data from the World Bank data site, Our World in Data and Freedom House for African for 54 African countries who are members of the African Union. We used them as explanatory variables in two general linear model regression analyses. COVID cases and deaths per 100,000 obtained from WHO COVID-19 dashboard on August 12, 2021, as outcome variables in two prediction models. Results: GDP, percentage of population under 14 years of age, Maternal Mortality Ratio, number of international tourists visiting per year and public transportation closures were not significant in predicting COVID-19 cases. Higher percentage of unemployed adults in the population, lower percentage of the population over 25 years of age with secondary education, internal travel restrictions increased spread of COVID-19 while international travel restrictions were associated with lower COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population. Higher levels of democratization results in higher cases of COVID-19. Unemployment, education and democratization were still significant for COVID-19 death in the same direction as they were for COVID-19 cases. Number of tourism visitors per year was also associated with higher COVID-19 death rates but not with case rates. Conclusion: In African countries, internal movement restrictions enacted to inhibit COVID-19, had the opposite effect and enabled COVID-19 spread. Low Education levels and high unemployment were associated with having higher death rates from COVID-19. More studies are needed to understand the impact of tourism on COVID-19 and other infectious diseases arising from other regions on African countries, in order to put in place adequate control protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globalization has been declared dead or dying for many years, although recently, the number of voices declaring it 'over' has swelled [1]. As editors of a journal interrogating how globalization affects health, we confront the question: Have the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia's war against Ukraine, a breakdown in multilateralism, and the risk of a return to the stagflation of the 1970s finally sounded a death knell for the research and scholarship we have been publishing in the journal's 20-year history? We think not and argue below why, in our post-pandemic fractured and fractious era, it is vitally important to retain a focus on this messy construct short-handed as 'globalization.' [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The spread of COVID-19 has taken a toll on many countries and its healthcare system over the last two years. Governments have sought to mitigate the repercussions of the pandemic by implementing aggressive top-down control measures and introducing immense fiscal spending. Singapore is no exception to this trend. Owing to a whole-of-society approach, Singapore is still being lauded globally for its relatively successful record at controlling both community and trans-border spread. One notable effort by the Singapore government has taken place through its cross-sectoral collaborative partnerships with the private stakeholders behind the success.Methods/results: In an attempt to better explain Singapore's robust yet strategic response to COVID-19, this study focuses on how the experience of the SARS outbreak has informed the government's collaborative efforts with other stakeholders in society, beyond mere transnational cooperation. Taking a comparative case study approach in the specific context of Singapore, we perform a content analysis of related government documents, mainstream newspaper articles, and academic journal articles in an inductive manner. By closely comparing two global healthcare outbreaks, we note four differences in approach. First, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Singapore has focused on securing sufficient essential healthcare resources with contingency plans to strengthen preparedness. Second, the government has actively harnessed the capacity of private entities to promote the resilience of the healthcare system and the community. Third, Singapore's management policies have been made not only in a top-down, centralized style during the initial response stage, but also with a greater proportion of bottom-up approaches, particularly as the pandemic trudges on. More interestingly, the multi-faceted repercussions of COVID-19 have gradually opened the door to a greater variety of collaborative partnerships in sectors beyond healthcare services. The participating stakeholders include, but are not limited to, local and international business actors, non-profit organizations, academia and other countries. Lastly, as the pandemic has continued, the Singapore government has managed outward to tap the expertise and knowledge of the private sector, in particular leveraging science and technology to improve control measures and putting supportive programs into practice.Conclusion: The evidence from our focused analyses demonstrates that the nature and scale of the COVID-19 pandemic produced more collaborative partnerships between the public and private sectors in Singapore as compared with the SARS outbreak. What is more, our findings offer evidence that through adaptive learning from the prior global healthcare outbreak, plus some trial and error during the initial phase of the ongoing pandemic, public- and private-sector partners, both in and outside of the healthcare service sector, have tended to "act alike," working together to achieve a common goal. Both have been socially responsible, providing public services to people in need to promote the rapid resilience of the community, and sharing the associated risks. Overall, this study has deep and wide implications for other governments and policy makers who are still struggling to maximize essential resources and minimize the negative impacts of the healthcare crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health, social and economic crises triggered by the Coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19) can derail progress and achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. This commentary analyses the complex nexus of multi-dimensional impacts of the pandemic on people, prosperity, planet, partnership and peace. From our analysis, we generate a causal loop diagram explaining these complex pathways and proposed policy recommendations.Main Text: Health systems, health and wellbeing of people are directly affected by the pandemic, while impacts on prosperity, education, food security and environment are indirect consequences from pandemic containment, notably social measures, business and school closures and international travel restrictions. The magnitude of impacts is determined by the level of prior vulnerability and inequity in the society, and the effectiveness and timeliness of comprehensive pandemic responses.Conclusions: To exit the acute phase of the pandemic, equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines by all countries and continued high coverage of face masks and hand hygiene are critical entry points. During recovery, governments should strengthen preparedness based on the One Health approach, rebuild resilient health systems and an equitable society, ensure universal health coverage and social protection mechanisms for all. Governments should review progress and challenges from the pandemic and sustain a commitment to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The rapid emergence and global spread of COVID-19 have caused substantial global disruptions that have impacted malaria programs worldwide. Innovative strategies to enable countries aiming to eliminate malaria as well as those that are already certified as malaria-free, are needed to address malaria importation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. China was certified as malaria-free in 2021 and now aims to prevent the malaria re-establishment. Nonpharmaceutical interventions such as entry screening, quarantining, and health education for individuals returning from international travel during the COVID-19 pandemic present both opportunities and challenges to the management of imported malaria. This study aimed to describe and analyze the operational challenges associated with an integrated surveillance and case management program in which malaria re-establishment prevention measures were incorporated into the COVID-19 program in China.Methods: After the integration of malaria re-establishment prevention activities into the COVID-19 program for 10 months in Jiangsu Province, China, a focus-group discussion of public health workers working on preventing malaria re-establishment and controlling COVID-19 was held in June 2021, aiming to explore the operational challenges and lessons learned from the integrated approach.Results: From 01 August 2020 to 31 May 2021, 8,947 overseas travelers with Yangzhou as the final destination underwent 14-day managed quarantine and 14-day home isolation. Of these travelers, 5,562 were from malaria-endemic regions. A total of 26,026 education booklets and materials were distributed to expand malaria-related knowledge. Twenty-two patients with unknown fever were screened for malaria with rapid diagnostic tests, and one patient was confirmed to have imported malaria. The challenges associated with the implementation of the integrated malaria surveillance and case management program include neglect of malaria due to COVID-19, lack of a standard operating procedure for malaria screening, mobility of public health providers, and difficulties in respecting the timeline of the "1-3-7" surveillance strategy.Conclusions: China's experience highlights the feasibility of integrated case surveillance and management of existing infectious diseases and new emerging infections. It also demonstrates the importance of a sound public health infrastructure with adequate, trained field staff for screening, testing, contact tracing, and providing health education, all of which are crucial for the success of both malaria re-establishment prevention program and the effective control of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Apart from infecting a large number of people around the world and causing the death of many people, the COVID-19 pandemic seems to have changed the healthcare processes of other diseases by changing the allocation of health resources and changing people's access or intention to healthcare systems.Objective: To compare the incidence of endpoints marking delayed healthcare seeking in medical emergencies, before and during the pandemic.Methods: Based on a PICO model, medical emergency conditions that need timely intervention was selected to be evaluated as separate panels. In a systematic literature review, PubMed was quarried for each panel for studies comparing the incidence of various medical emergencies before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Markers of failure/disruption of treatment due to delayed referral were included in the meta-analysis for each panel.Result: There was a statistically significant increased pooled median time of symptom onset to admission of the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients; an increased rate of vasospasm of aneurismal subarachnoid hemorrhage; and perforation rate in acute appendicitis; diabetic ketoacidosis presentation rate among Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus patients; and rate of orchiectomy among testicular torsion patients in comparison of pre-COVID-19 with COVID-19 cohorts; while there were no significant changes in the event rate of ruptured ectopic pregnancy and median time of symptom onset to admission in the cerebrovascular accident (CVA) patients.Conclusions: COVID-19 has largely disrupted the referral of patients for emergency medical care and patient-related delayed care should be addressed as a major health threat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assessing the impact of government responses to Covid-19 is crucial to contain the pandemic and improve preparedness for future crises. We investigate here the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and infection threats on the daily evolution of cross-border movements of people during the Covid-19 pandemic. We use a unique database on Facebook users' mobility, and rely on regression and machine learning models to identify the role of infection threats and containment policies. Permutation techniques allow us to compare the impact and predictive power of these two categories of variables. Results: In contrast with studies on within-border mobility, our models point to a stronger importance of containment policies in explaining changes in cross-border traffic as compared with international travel bans and fears of being infected. The latter are proxied by the numbers of Covid-19 cases and deaths at destination. Although the ranking among coercive policies varies across modelling techniques, containment measures in the destination country (such as cancelling of events, restrictions on internal movements and public gatherings), and school closures in the origin country (influencing parental leaves) have the strongest impacts on cross-border movements. Conclusion: While descriptive in nature, our findings have policy-relevant implications. Cross-border movements of people predominantly consist of labor commuting flows and business travels. These economic and essential flows are marginally influenced by the fear of infection and international travel bans. They are mostly governed by the stringency of internal containment policies and the ability to travel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a timely reminder of the nature and impact of Public Health Emergencies of International Concern. As of 12 January 2022, there were over 314 million cases and over 5.5 million deaths notified since the start of the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic takes variable shapes and forms, in terms of cases and deaths, in different regions and countries of the world. The objective of this study is to analyse the variable expression of COVID-19 pandemic so that lessons can be learned towards an effective public health emergency response.Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study to understand the heterogeneity of cases and deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Correlation analysis and scatter plot were employed for the quantitative data. We used Spearman's correlation analysis to determine relationship strength between cases and deaths and socio-economic and health systems. We organized qualitative information from the literature and conducted a thematic analysis to recognize patterns of cases and deaths and explain the findings from the quantitative data.Results: We have found that regions and countries with high human development index have higher cases and deaths per million population due to COVID-19. This is due to international connectedness and mobility of their population related to trade and tourism, and their vulnerability related to older populations and higher rates of non-communicable diseases. We have also identified that the burden of the pandemic is also variable among high- and middle-income countries due to differences in the governance of the pandemic, fragmentation of health systems, and socio-economic inequities.Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates that every country remains vulnerable to public health emergencies. The aspiration towards a healthier and safer society requires that countries develop and implement a coherent and context-specific national strategy, improve governance of public health emergencies, build the capacity of their (public) health systems, minimize fragmentation, and tackle upstream structural issues, including socio-economic inequities. This is possible through a primary health care approach, which ensures provision of universal and equitable promotive, preventive and curative services, through whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an avalanche of scientific studies, drawing on many different types of data. However, studies addressing the effectiveness of government actions against COVID-19, especially non-pharmaceutical interventions, often exhibit data problems that threaten the validity of their results. This review is thus intended to help epidemiologists and other researchers identify a set of data issues that, in our view, must be addressed in order for their work to be credible. We further intend to help journal editors and peer reviewers when evaluating studies, to apprise policy-makers, journalists, and other research consumers about the strengths and weaknesses of published studies, and to inform the wider debate about the scientific quality of COVID-19 research.Results: To this end, we describe common challenges in the collection, reporting, and use of epidemiologic, policy, and other data, including completeness and representativeness of outcomes data; their comparability over time and among jurisdictions; the adequacy of policy variables and data on intermediate outcomes such as mobility and mask use; and a mismatch between level of intervention and outcome variables. We urge researchers to think critically about potential problems with the COVID-19 data sources over the specific time periods and particular locations they have chosen to analyze, and to choose not only appropriate study designs but also to conduct appropriate checks and sensitivity analyses to investigate the impact(s) of potential threats on study findings.Conclusions: In an effort to encourage high quality research, we provide recommendations on how to address the issues we identify. Our first recommendation is for researchers to choose an appropriate design (and the data it requires). This review describes considerations and issues in order to identify the strongest analytical designs and demonstrates how interrupted time-series and comparative longitudinal studies can be particularly useful. Furthermore, we recommend that researchers conduct checks or sensitivity analyses of the results to data source and design choices, which we illustrate. Regardless of the approaches taken, researchers should be explicit about the kind of data problems or other biases that the design choice and sensitivity analyses are addressing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, "nudging" has become a standard behavioral intervention at the individual level and for the design of social policies. Although nudges are effective, such interventions seem to be limited to a given space and time, and there is only scant evidence to support the contrary view. On the other hand, choice architects may utilize another type of intervention called "boosting," which shows the promise of generalized and lasting behavioral change. A government can use these tools to shape public policy. Behavioral interventions such as policy-making tools have their boundaries, as does the law. We argue that nudging and boosting may serve as active local or global aids in support of the legal system under certain circumstances. Nudging and boosting can also support the legal system, especially in relation to emerging social issues or events that are unprecedented, such as the recent global COVID-19 pandemic, where certain behavioral patterns are expected, but it would be difficult or impossible to enforce them through the law alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the first year and a half of the COVID-19 pandemic, COVAX has been the world's most prominent effort to ensure equitable access to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Launched as part of the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (Act-A) in June 2020, COVAX suggested to serve as a vaccine buyers' and distribution club for countries around the world. It also aimed to support the pharmaceutical industry in speeding up and broadening vaccine development. While COVAX has recently come under critique for failing to bring about global vaccine equity, influential politicians and public health advocates insist that future iterations of it will improve pandemic preparedness. So far COVAX's role in the ongoing financialization of global health, i.e. in the rise of financial concepts, motives, practices and institutions has not been analyzed. Methods: This article describes and critically assesses COVAX's financial logics, i.e. the concepts, arguments and financing flows on which COVAX relies. It is based on a review of over 109 COVAX related reports, ten in-depth interviews with global health experts working either in or with COVAX, as well as participant observation in 18 webinars and online meetings concerned with global pandemic financing, between September 2020 and August 2021. Results: The article finds that COVAX expands the scale and scope of financial instruments in global health governance, and that this is done by conflating different understandings of risk. Specifically, COVAX conflates public health risk and corporate financial risk, leading it to privilege concerns of pharmaceutical companies over those of most participating countries – especially low and lower-middle income countries (LICs and LMICs). COVAX thus drives the financialization of global health and ends up constituting a risk itself - that of perpetuating the downsides of financialization (e.g. heightened inequality, secrecy, complexity in governance, an ineffective and slow use of aid), whilst insufficiently realising its potential benefits (pandemic risk reduction, increased public access to emergency funding, indirect price control over essential goods and services). Conclusion: Future iterations of vaccine buyers' and distribution clubs as well as public vaccine development efforts should work towards reducing all aspects of public health risk rather than privileging its corporate financial aspects. This will include reassessing the interplay of aid and corporate subsidies in global health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]