Search

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

Despite strong expertise and a sophisticated scientific advisory system, the UK's response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been, and continues to be, weak in terms of preventing death and illness, and damage to the economy. This article argues that an important reason for this failure has been that the policies of the UK government have at critical times failed to take adequate account of scientific evidence, while at the same time attempts have been made to blame scientists for resulting policy failures. This paper analyses the role of scientific advice in addressing Covid-19 in the UK and draws three lessons for how such expertise can be better deployed in the future. It argues that: (1) Government scientific advisors and advisory bodies should be more independent of political influence and interference; (2) Government scientific advisors should be empowered to challenge misrepresentation and misuse by decision-makers of the scientific evidence, and undermining of public-health policies; and (3) Government scientific advice should be more transparent and advisors should engage more proactively with the public. Acting on these lessons will be important for ongoing handling of the current crisis, for the current UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry, and for the UK's preparedness for future crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People living on a low income are less likely to access palliative care in the UK; however, beyond the statistics, little is known about the impact of poverty on attitudes towards death and experiences of dying and bereavement. Covid-19 has disproportionally affected poorer communities and foregrounded issues of social and health inequalities including experiences of loss and grief. Whilst this might suggest an opportune moment for embracing inclusive health-promoting approaches to palliative care, this paper argues that the centrality of concepts such as choice within such approaches, and assumptions about what constitutes a 'good death', disregard the ways in which structural, social and economic aspects of poverty interface with attitudes towards and experiences of dying, and may exacerbate inequalities in death and dying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gender norms, roles and relations differentially affect women, men, and non-binary individuals' vulnerability to disease. Outbreak response measures also have immediate and long-term gendered effects. However, gender-based analysis of outbreaks and responses is limited by lack of data and little integration of feminist analysis within global health scholarship. Recognising these barriers, this paper applies a gender matrix methodology, grounded in feminist political economy approaches, to evaluate the gendered effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and response in four case studies: China, Hong Kong, Canada, and the UK. Through a rapid scoping of documentation of the gendered effects of the outbreak, it applies the matrix framework to analyse findings, identifying common themes across the case studies: financial discrimination, crisis in care, and unequal risks and secondary effects. Results point to transnational structural conditions which put women on the front lines of the pandemic at work and at home while denying them health, economic and personal security – effects that are exacerbated where racism and other forms of discrimination intersect with gender inequities. Given that women and people living at the intersections of multiple inequities are made additionally vulnerable by pandemic responses, intersectional feminist responses should be prioritised at the beginning of any crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including, examining marginalized mortalities and ordinary deaths within the context of structural inequalities; and exploring the unnatural ways in which death is distributed and understood.

How do governments ensure public compliance with protective policies that restrict individual liberties during a crisis? In this article, the British public's reaction to mask mandates during the Covid-19 pandemic is examined. We argue that providing information about health risks makes people more willing to comply and that the effectiveness of the information depends on the source. This argument is tested with the help of aggregate public opinion and individual-level experimental data collected in the UK in 2020 and we find that the British public adapted its willingness to wear a mask rapidly and in line with government regulation. Moreover, results from a survey experiment show that simply providing information about risk is sufficient to elevate people's willingness to wear masks. Interestingly, there is no clear partisan divide in the willingness to comply, suggesting that government messages about risk and responsibility encourage individuals to make sacrifices in times of crisis regardless of which party they support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Orthodox Christians globally reacted to the possibility of contagion and risk in dialogue with theological positions about materials, their own long history which includes surviving previous pandemics and plagues, governmental and civil expectations and edicts, and pious – but often unofficial – understandings about protection and the sacrality of religious artefacts and the space of the temple. This article draws upon primary ethnographic research amongst Orthodox Christians in the UK, Serbia, Greece and Russia, as well as news articles about and primary ecclesiastical documents from Orthodox Churches more widely, to highlight commonalities and divergences in Orthodox Christian responses to the pandemic. Examining both the theological basis, and socio-political differences, this article considers how the Orthodox theology of apophaticism and relationality impacts wider discourses of contagion (both positive and negative), and consequently compliance with public health initiatives. Comparison across diverse Orthodox settings suggests that Orthodox Christians are concerned with the neighbour – both in terms of who may be watching (and reporting) them, and who may fall sick because of them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study provides a detailed analysis of the main reasons why BAME communities are impacted more by the COVID-19 pandemic. The study focuses on matters of public health inequalities, socioeconomic inequalities, and disproportionate poverty in the UK. In doing so, the study analyzes the up-to-date conditions of COVID-19 in the UK against the available governmental data on BAME communities, based on three key areas of occupational risks, household conditions, and poverty rates. Governmental data from 2018, 2019, and 2020 are used to evaluate these areas. The results of the study showed disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 on BAME and White ethnics in the UK. The impacts also highlighted inequalities such as twice higher poverty in BAME communities than the White population, as well as more cases of overcrowded households, intergenerational living, higher-risk jobs, and long-lasting issues that require further attention. There were also significant socio-economic inequalities that were found in BAME communities with a higher rate of COVID-19 cases. The study provides more evidence that supports existing literature on BAME communities affected by the COVID-19. The reasons for their higher vulnerability are addressed through accurate and up-to-date evidence. Further studies should highlight the role of socio-economic inequalities discussed in this study to help the improvement of public health and relevant institutions that could diminish our inequalities beyond the timeline of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]