Search

English-language reporting on the continuing difficulties in accessing Evusheld reflects the marginalization of immunocompromised people in discussions about the public policy response to Covid-19. Moreover, the lack of available data on global Evusheld access, particularly in low-income countries, has emerged as a key form of nonknowledge that must be redressed within public health research. Through examining how knowledge about domestic and global barriers to Evusheld access circulates, and does not circulate, within The New York Times , this paper identifies a case study of the social production of ignorance related to a key issue in the Covid-19 pandemic. Drawing on science and technology studies, the history of science and media studies, I situate these trends in the context of longer explanatory histories of nonknowledge. First, through a critical discourse analysis of the New York Times' reporting on Evusheld access in the U.S., I trace the individualizing framework evident in many articles to longstanding trends in reporting on health and illness, and to the structural marginalization of immunocompromised people in U.S. Secondly, I argue that the near-total absence of reporting on Evusheld access in low-income countries is consistent with the longstanding structural neglect of health crises in the global south. • New York Times coverage of preventative treatment Evusheld rarely discusses access barriers. • Access barriers discussed are largely logistical rather than structural. • The perspectives of immunocompromised people are rarely included in Times articles on Evusheld. • Failure to include voices from impacted communities contributes to agnogenesis. • Centering the perspectives of constituencies most impacted by a health crisis will advance health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Life expectancy in the United States is decreasing. Health disparities are widening. Growing evidence for and integration of social and structural determinants into theory and practice has not yet improved outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic reinforced the fact. In this paper, we argue that the biomedical model and its underlying scientific paradigm of causal determinism, which currently dominate population health, cannot meet population health needs. While criticism of the biomedical model is not new, this paper advances the field by going beyond criticism to recognize the need for a paradigm shift. In the first half of the paper, we present a critical analysis of the biomedical model and the paradigm of causal determinism. In the second half, we outline the agentic paradigm and present a structural model of health based on generalizable, group-level processes. We use the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic to illustrate the practical applications of our model. It will be important for future work to investigate the empirical and pragmatic applications of our structural model of population health. • Population health must move beyond the biomedical model. • This requires going beyond the model to critique the paradigm of causal determinism. • The agentic paradigm is an alternative to causal determinism. • The structural model is an alternative to the biomedical model. • The structural model highlights structural resilience and congruence in the population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Delta-Omicron wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (Wave 4) in the United States occurred in Fall of 2021 through Spring of 2022. Although vaccinations were widely available, this was the deadliest period to date in the U.S., and the toll was especially high in rural areas, exacerbating an existing rural mortality penalty. This paper uses county-level multilevel regression models and publicly available data for 47 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. We describe differences in COVID-19 case and mortality rates across the rural-urban continuum during Wave 4 of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a progressive modeling approach, we evaluate the relative contribution of a range of explanatory factors for the rural disadvantage we observe, including: pre-pandemic population health composition, vaccination rates, political partisanship, socioeconomic composition, access to broadband internet rate, and primary care physicians per capita. Results show that rural counties had higher observed burdens of cases and deaths in Wave 4 compared to more urban counties. The most remote rural counties had Wave 4 COVID-19 mortality rates 52% higher than the most urban counties. Older age composition, worse pre-pandemic population health, lower vaccination rates, higher share of votes cast for Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential election, and lower socioeconomic composition completely explained the rural disadvantage in reported COVID-19 case rates in Wave 4, and accounting for these factors reversed the observed rural disadvantage in COVID-19 mortality. In models of mortality rate, Trump vote share had the largest effect size, followed by the percentage of the population age 50 or older, the poverty rate, the pre-pandemic mortality rate, the share of residents with a 4-year college degree, and the vaccination rate. These findings add to a growing literature describing the disproportionate toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural America, highlighting the combined effect of multiple sources of rural disadvantage. • Rural counties had higher case and death rates in the Delta-Omicron wave. • Rural counties had up to 51% more deaths per capita than the most urban counties. • Age, health, and SES composition partially explained the rural disadvantage. • Vaccination and Trump vote share were separate factors in the rural disadvantage. • Multiple sources of disadvantage combined in rural areas to produce poor outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted ethnic minorities in the global north, evidenced by higher rates of transmission, morbidity, and mortality relative to population sizes. Orthodox Jewish neighbourhoods in London had extremely high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rates, reflecting patterns in Israel and the US. The aim of this paper is to examine how responsibilities over health protection are conveyed, and to what extent responsibility is sought by, and shared between, state services, and 'community' stakeholders or representative groups, and families in public health emergencies. The study investigates how public health and statutory services stakeholders, Orthodox Jewish communal custodians and households sought to enact health protection in London during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020–March 2021). Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted across these cohorts. Findings demonstrate that institutional relations – both their formation and at times fragmentation – were directly shaped by issues surrounding COVID-19 control measures. Exchanges around protective interventions (whether control measures, contact tracing technologies, or vaccines) reveal diverse and diverging attributions of responsibility and authority. The paper develops a framework of public health relations to understand negotiations between statutory services and minority groups over responsiveness and accountability in health protection. Disaggregating public health relations can help social scientists to critique who and what characterises institutional relationships with minority groups, and what ideas of responsibility and responsiveness are projected by differently-positioned stakeholders in health protection. • COVID-19 produced diverse responses and relations around health protection in London. •Pandemic preparedness can be enhanced by mapping possible partners in localities. •Establishing public health partnerships requires adequate resources. •Public health services cannot defer responsibility entirely to local partners. •Households are key constituents of public health relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many parts of the world nursing home residents have experienced a disproportionate risk of exposure to COVID-19 and have died at much higher rates than other groups. There is a critical need to identify the factors driving COVID-19 risk in nursing homes to better understand and address the conditions contributing to their vulnerability during public health crises. This study investigates the characteristics associated with COVID-19 cases and deaths among residents in U.S. nursing homes from 2020 to 2021, with a focus on geospatial and racial inequalities. Using data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and LTCFocus, this paper uses zero-inflated negative binomial regression models, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Local Moran's I to generate statistical and geospatial results. Our analysis reveals that majority Hispanic facilities have alarmingly high COVID-19 cases and deaths, suggesting that these facilities have the greatest need for policy improvements in staffing and financing to reduce racial inequalities in nursing home care. At the same time we also detect COVID-19 hot spots in rural areas with predominately White residents, indicating a need to rethink public messaging strategies in these areas. The top states with COVID-19 hot spots are Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Oklahoma. This research provides new insights into the socio-spatial contexts and inequities that contribute to the vulnerability of nursing home residents during a pandemic. • Geographic and racial inequalities are important indicators of covid-19 risk. • Covid-19 cases & deaths are high among facilities with majority Hispanic residents. • Facilities with majority Hispanic residents have high covid-19 vaccination rates. • Most covid-19 hot spots of cases & deaths are in predominantly White, rural areas. • The top states with covid-19 hot spots of cases & deaths are KY, PA, IL, and OK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on U.S. population health has been devastating, it has not affected everyone equally. The risks of hospitalization and death from the disease are relatively low for the population as a whole, but much higher for specific subpopulations defined by age, health status, and race or ethnicity. The extent to which Americans perceive these disparities is an open question, with potentially important political implications. Recognition of unequal impacts may prime concerns about justice and fairness, making Americans more concerned and willing to support government intervention. On the other hand, belief that the pandemic primarily threatens "other people" or out-groups may reduce, rather than increase, a person's concern. Partisanship and media consumption habits are also likely to play a role in these perceptions, as they do in most issues related to COVID-19. In this paper, we use original survey data from the Cooperative Election Study (N = 1000) to explore Americans' perceptions of which groups are most harmed by the pandemic, the demographic and political determinants of these perceptions, and the relationship of these perceptions with their opinions about COVID-related mitigation policy. We find that, on average, people perceived accurately that certain groups (e.g., Black Americans, older people) were more affected, but these group perceptions varied by demographic and political characteristics of respondents. We find, in contrast with recent experimental evidence, that the perception that populations of color were harmed was associated with more support for pandemic mitigation strategies. More research should investigate the relationships among pandemic politics and the racial dynamics of the target populations most affected. • In fall 2020, survey participants recognized groups harmed by COVID based on age. • They had lower recognition of racial groups harmed, lowest for Native Americans. • Perceptions of groups harmed varies by information exposure and politics. • Perceiving group disparities was associated with more support for pandemic policy. • The racial dynamics surrounding the politics of COVID-19 requires more attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A major challenge in managing disasters during a pandemic is assessing the inequalities in society and protecting vulnerable people. The objective of this paper is to geographically understand the discrimination and inequality against minorities by COVID-19. This study designed a locational discrimination index (LDI) to measure COVID-19 discrimination against minorities at county-level in the US. LDI is the difference between the death proportion of a minority and the proportion of a minority's population. If LDI >0 is significant, COVID-19 discrimination is identified against a minority in a county. I further developed a locational minority inequality index (LMII), and LMII of a minority is directly quantified by comparing its LDI with the LDI of the majority population (i.e., the White population in the US). If LMII>0 is significant, a significant health inequality is confirmed against a minority in a county. In the US, I found 157 counties with significant discrimination against Black people, and 103 counties with significant inequality against Black people; 58 counties with significant discrimination against the American Indian population, but 38 counties with significant inequality against the American Indian population; 17 counties with significant discrimination against Native Hawaiians, but only 8 counties with significant inequality; for Hispanic people, 47 counties had significant discrimination, and 64 counties had significant inequality; for Asians, 7 counties had significant discrimination, but 28 had significant inequality. LDI, LMII, and the thematic mapping provide novel insight into COVID-19 discrimination and inequalities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time anyone has quantitatively and statistically defined and mapped COVID-19 discrimination and inequality against minorities at a county-level across the US. Based on this, governments and communities could make efficient decisions and take effective action to addressthe significant discrimination and inequality against Black, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Hispanic, and Asian people, which can be applied to other pandemics or public health disasters in the USA or other countries. • The significant discrimination and inequality of COVID-19 are tested and mapped. • Locational discrimination index to quantify minority's vulnerability is developed. • Locational minority inequality index is developed to further compare inequality in vulnerability. • COVID-19 caused significant spatial inequality between minorities and the white population in the USA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research in several countries shows higher Covid-19 vaccination willingness and uptake among physicians than nurses. Our paper aims to characterize and explain this difference. In early 2021, we surveyed 1047 U.S. primary care professionals who served adolescents, ages 11–17. The national sample included physicians (71%) as well as nurses and advanced practice providers. The survey assessed the three domains of the Increasing Vaccination Model: thinking and feeling , social processes , and direct behavior change. Covid-19 vaccine uptake was higher among physicians than among nurses and advanced practice providers (91% vs. 76%, p <.05). Overall, in the thinking and feeling domain, higher confidence in Covid-19 vaccination, higher perceived susceptibility to the disease, and stronger anticipated regret were associated with higher vaccine uptake (all p <.05). In the social processes domain, perceiving more positive social norms for Covid-19 vaccination, receiving recommendations to get the vaccine, and wanting to help others were associated with higher vaccine uptake (all p <.05). In the direct behavior change domain, receiving an invitation to get the vaccine and better access to vaccination were associated with higher uptake (both p <.05). Of these variables, most of the thinking and feeling and social processes variables mediated the association of training with vaccine uptake. Physicians had higher Covid-19 vaccine uptake than nurses and advanced practice providers, corresponding with their more supportive vaccine beliefs and social experiences. Efforts to reach the remaining unvaccinated cohort can build on these findings. • Covid-19 vaccine uptake among advanced practice providers and nurses was lower than in physicians. • Vaccine confidence and social norms explained the difference in Covid-19 vaccine uptake. • Recommendations from employers and providers suppressed some differences in vaccination. • Behavioral nudges – invitation and incentives – were associated with more vaccine uptake. • Offers directions and contexts for future vaccination interventions and programs in the U.S. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the first longitudinal study of sex disparities in COVID-19 cases and mortalities across U.S. states, derived from the unique 13-month dataset of the U.S. Gender/Sex COVID-19 Data Tracker. To analyze sex disparities, weekly case and mortality rates by sex and mortality rate ratios were computed for each U.S. state, and a multilevel crossed-effects conditional logistic binomial regression model was fitted to estimate the variation of the sex disparity in mortality over time and across states. Results demonstrate considerable variation in the sex disparity in COVID-19 cases and mortalities over time and between states. These data suggest that the sex disparity, when present, is modest, and likely varies in relation to context-sensitive variables, which may include health behaviors, preexisting health status, occupation, race/ethnicity, and other markers of social experience. • First report of findings from unique longitudinal dataset of sex-disaggregated COVID-19 data in U.S. states. • Sex disparities in COVID-19 are highly heterogeneous in magnitude and direction and vary across states and over time. • Gender-related and other social and contextual factors likely shape COVID-19 sex disparities. • Single-factor approaches are ill-positioned to explain patterns in sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the role of social capital in mitigating the mental health harms of social/mobility restrictions instigated in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. We test whether: (a) social capital continued to predict lower mental distress during the pandemic; and (b) whether social capital buffered (moderated) the harm of social/mobility restrictions on psychological distress. In addition, we test the level at which social capital mitigation effects operated, i.e., at the individual- and/or contextual-level. To do so, we apply multilevel models to three waves of the COVID-19 Household Impact Survey consisting of probability samples of U.S. adults (with the average interview completion rate of 93%). In a novel approach, we explore two modes of capturing contextual social capital: aggregated individual-level survey responses and independently measured social capital indices (SCIs). Findings show that at the individual level social capital was associated with lower psychological distress. It also buffered the harm of restrictions: increasing restrictions had a weaker effect on distress among individuals interacting with neighbors more frequently. Importantly, mitigating processes of contextual social capital appeared conditional on how it was measured. Using aggregated survey responses, contextual social capital had no direct effect on distress but exerted an additional buffering role: individuals in counties with higher average neighbor-interaction experienced a weaker impact of restrictions. Using the independent SCI measures, we found county social capital reduced distress. However, its negative effect on distress becomes increasingly weaker the more restrictions an individual reported: where individuals reported lower restrictions, higher county SCI reduced distress; however, where individuals reported higher restrictions, higher county SCI had no effect on distress. More restrictive environments thus cut individuals off from the benefits of higher county social capital as measured using the SCI. • Individual social capital (SC) is associated with lower psychological distress. • Individual SC buffers the negative effect of mobility restrictions on distress. • People with higher ecological SC experienced a weaker effect of mobility restrictions. • Those living in higher SC counties reported less distress but only with fewer restrictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much attention on the spread and impact of the ongoing pandemic has focused on institutional factors such as government capacity along with population-level characteristics such as race, income, and age. This paper draws on a growing body of evidence that bonding, bridging, and linking social capital - the horizontal and vertical ties that bind societies together - impact public health to explain why some U.S. counties have seen higher (or lower) excess deaths during the COVID19 pandemic than others. Drawing on county-level reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) since February 2020, we calculated the number of excess deaths per county compared to 2018. Starting with a panel dataset of county observations over time, we used coarsened exact matching to create smaller but more similar sets of communities that differ primarily in social capital. Controlling for several factors, including politics and governance, health care quality, and demographic characteristics, we find that bonding and linking social capital reduce the toll of COVID-19 on communities. Public health officials and community organizations should prioritize building and maintaining strong social ties and trust in government to help combat the pandemic. • This study examines excess death rates during the COVID19 pandemic among US counties. • We use a panel dataset of counties over 6 time-steps from February to September 2020. • We identified more comparable samples using coarsened exact matching, different only by social capital. • Bonding and linking social capital were associated with fewer excess deaths in US counties. • Bonding social capital was effective in spring, and linking social capital in summer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

2020 in the United States was marked by two converging crises—the COVID-19 pandemic and the large-scale uprisings in support of Black lives. These crises were met with both a counterproductive and inadequate response from the federal government. We examine these converging crises at the individual, social, and political scales. The biological realities of COVID-19 impact different populations in widely varied ways—the poor, the elderly, Black, Indigenous, and people of color, and those living with comorbidities get sick and die at the highest rates. Social distancing guidelines shifted millions of people to work-from-home and millions more lost their jobs, even as care laborers, preponderantly women, Black, Indigenous, and people of color, were asked to put their and their loved ones' lives on the line for the continuation of all of our lives. These biological, social, and economic crises have been punctuated by civil unrest, as millions took to the streets for racial justice, noting the unequal impacts of the pandemic. These converging crises have laid bare decades of neoliberal and neoconservative policies and ideologies, undergirded as they have been by racial capitalism, for their fundamental uncaringness. In this paper, we argue that this pandemic not only made a wider population more acutely aware of the necessity and importance of the need to care and for caring labors, but also that we stand at the precipice of potentiality--of producing a more caring society. To frame our argument, we draw on Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Margaret Lock's (1987) framework of three bodies—individual, social, and political—to unpack the multi-scalar entanglements in the differential impacts of COVID-19, questions of care, and their articulation in the current political-economic context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a notable increase in the expression of prejudicial and xenophobic attitudes that threaten the wellbeing of minority groups and contribute to the overall public health toll of the virus. However, while there is evidence documenting the growth in discrimination and xenophobia, little is known about how the COVID-19 outbreak is activating the expression of such negative attitudes. The goal of the current paper therefore was to investigate what aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic may be contributing to this rise in expressions of prejudice and xenophobia. More specifically, this study used an experimental design to assess the effects of using stigmatized language to describe the virus as well as the threat to physical health and economic wellbeing posed by the virus on COVID-19 prejudice. Data were collected from a national sample of 1451 adults residing within the United States. Results from 2 × 2 x 2 between-subjects analyses of covariance demonstrated that emphasizing the connection between China and COVID-19, rather than framing the virus neutrally, increased negative attitudes toward Asian Americans, beliefs that resources should be prioritized for Americans rather than immigrants, and general xenophobia. Emphasizing the severity of the economic impact of the virus also increased beliefs that Asian Americans are a threat to resources and general xenophobia. In contrast, messages which emphasized the serious health risks of COVID-19 did not increase bias toward Asian Americans or xenophobia. Our findings suggest that specific types of public health messaging related to infectious diseases, especially framing the virus in terms of its country of origin or its likely economic impact, may elicit prejudice and xenophobia. Public health campaigns that emphasize the severity of the virus, however, are not likely to trigger the same negative attitudes. Implications for public health responses to health crises are discussed. • The framing of COVID-19 information shapes prejudice and xenophobia. • Emphasizing COVID-19's origin in China increases anti-Asian and xenophobic attitudes. • Emphasizing severe economic harm also increases negative outgroup attitudes. • Messaging about the health threat of the virus is unrelated to outgroup bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]