Search

In this paper we explore the impact of the emerging COVID-19 pandemic on the governance of healthcare in the Netherlands. In doing so, we re-examine the idea that a crisis necessarily leads to processes of transition and change by focusing on crisis as a specific language of organizing collective action instead. Framing a situation as a crisis of a particular kind allows for specific problem definitions, concurrent solutions and the inclusion and exclusion of stakeholders. Using this perspective, we examine the dynamics and institutional tensions involved in governing healthcare during the pandemic. We make use of multi-sited ethnographic research into the Dutch healthcare crisis organization as it responded to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on decision-making at the regional level. We tracked our participants through successive waves of the pandemic between March 2020 and August 2021 and identified three dominant framings of the pandemic-as-crisis: a crisis of scarcity, a crisis of postponed care and a crisis of acute care coordination. In this paper, we discuss the implications of these framings in terms of the institutional tensions that arose in governing healthcare during the pandemic: between centralized, top-down crisis management and local, bottom-up work; between informal and formal work; and between existing institutional logics. • The COVID-19 pandemic is framed as a crisis of different kinds in healthcare. • Framing impacts decision-making and inclusion of stakeholders. • Ethnographic research provides insights into the consequences of these frames. [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]

The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced dramatic adversities for public health around the world, especially in low and middle-income countries. While research has shown the pandemic to have direct effects on a variety of major economic and health crises, its impact on health-related behaviors is not clear. In this paper, I examine how exposure to the pandemic affects alcohol use and smoking in Peru, which experienced one of the highest COVID-related death rates albeit implementing one of the strictest lockdown policies in the world. I find that post pandemic consumption of alcohol and smoking in the last 30 days decreases by 41.3% and 44.1% respectively when compared to pre-pandemic rates. I also conclude that the intensity of engaging in these behaviors change such that the frequency of consuming alcohol in the last 30 days, binge drinking and the probability of smoking daily falls. While drinking behavior returns to pre-pandemic levels, the negative effect on smoking weakens but remains for almost two years preceding the pandemic. • Estimates changes in alcohol consumption and smoking due to the pandemic in Peru. • Alcohol use and smoking decreases at both the extensive and intensive margins. • The largest fall in drinking and smoking was immediately after the lockdown. • Alcohol consumption returns to the pre-pandemic level by the end of 2021. • The reduction in smoking weakens but perdures by the end of 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extant research on COVID-19 suggests that many socio-economic determinants, by affecting personal behavior, have influenced the evolution of the pandemic. In this paper we study the role played in this regard by average levels of self-esteem in the public. There are reasons to believe that both low and very levels of self-esteem may have an effect on the spread of COVID-19, for opposite reasons. On the one hand, people with low self-esteem may not worry enough to behave in the way recommended (and prescribed, through non-pharmaceutical interventions) by the authorities; people with very high self-esteem, on the other hand, may be over-confident and fail to follow the prescriptions, believing that they do not need them. In this study we test this hypothesis by means of a quantitative cross-country analysis, using a hybrid model and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Our results suggest the existence of a U-shaped relationship between the trend of COVID-19 and average levels of self-esteem in a country. • Self-esteem played a positive role in containing COVID-19 pandemic contagion when is at a low level. • There is empirical evidence of a transformation of this relationship with higher levels of self-esteem. • The relationship is therefore U-shaped. • This finding confirms previous results regarding the negative effects of high levels of self-esteem on social outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The information set from which individuals make their decision on vaccination includes signals from trusted agents, such as governments, community leaders and the media. By implementing restrictions, or by relaxing them, governments can provide a signal about the underlying risk of the pandemic and indirectly affect vaccination take-up. Rather than focusing on measures specifically designed to increase vaccine acceptance, this paper studies how governments' non-pharmaceutical policy responses to the pandemic can modify the degree of preventive health behavior, including vaccination. To do so, we use repeated waves of a global survey on COVID-19 Beliefs, Behaviors and Norms covering 18 countries from October 2020 to March 2021. Controlling for the usual determinants, we explore how individuals' willingness to get vaccinated is affected by changes in government restriction measures (as measured by the Oxford Stringency Index). This relationship is mediated by individual characteristics, social norms (social pressure to conform with what most people do), and trust in government institutions. Our results point to a complex picture as the implementation of restrictions is associated with increased acceptance in some contexts and decreased acceptance in others. The stringency of government restrictions has significant positive correlations with vaccine acceptance in contexts of weak social norms of vaccine acceptance and lower trust in government. In countries or communities with tighter social norms and high trust in health authorities, vaccine acceptance is high but less sensitive to changes in policies. These results suggest that the effect of government policy stringency is stronger among individuals who report lower trust and weaker social norms of vaccine acceptance. • Reports results from the analysis of an online survey on health behaviors during the COVID-19 • Provides evidence on the relationship between vaccine acceptance and lockdown policies • Finds stricter non-pharmaceutical interventions are associated with higher vaccine acceptance • Shows that this association is stronger for individuals with lower trust in health authorities [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we trace how mathematical models are made 'evidence enough' and 'useful for policy'. Working with the interview accounts of mathematical modellers and other scientists engaged in the UK Covid-19 response, we focus on two weeks in March 2020 prior to the announcement of an unprecedented national lockdown. A key thread in our analysis is how pandemics are made 'big'. We follow the work of one particular device, that of modelled 'doubling-time'. By following how modelled doubling-time entangles in its assemblage of evidence-making, we draw attention to multiple actors, including beyond models and metrics, which affect how evidence is performed in relation to the scale of epidemic and its policy response. We draw attention to: policy; Government scientific advice infrastructure; time; uncertainty; and leaps of faith. The 'bigness' of the pandemic, and its evidencing, is situated in social and affective practices, in which uncertainty and dis-ease are inseparable from calculus. This materialises modelling in policy as an 'uncomfortable science'. We argue that situational fit in-the-moment is at least as important as empirical fit when attending to what models perform in policy. • Pandemics are performed as crises of uncertain yet catastrophic potential. • Mathematical models are forms of scalar narrative affording epidemics their scale. • Models and projections are made useful as evidence in their situated policy events. • Calculations are given agency as affects in the evidencing of pandemics. • Modelling pandemics is a site of 'uncomfortable science' and 'dis-ease'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]