Search

The race against COVID-19 has been intense and painful and many of us are now looking for a way to move on. We may try to seize a degree of comfort and security by convincing ourselves that we are among the "fittest"—that is, among those who have managed to survive—who can now hope for a "new-normal" time, relatively unscathed. But this isn't what we should be hoping for. Our world, and ourselves, will never be free of COVID-19 or its insidious effects. COVID-19, like climate change, is a threat multiplier and the challenges it has raised are now indelibly engraved in our vulnerable, interconnected lives. Rather than vainly hoping for a return to an imaginary, erstwhile "normal" what we need is something more fundamental: a new version of hope that embraces a courage to learn what we need to do, to enable us to live a future to which we aspire. Perhaps counter-intuitively, we need to accept that the COVID-19 experience has already changed us deeply and hope that we can learn from this and from the future changes that the pandemic will give rise to. We need to radicalize our responses to the challenges, enabling ourselves to learn new lessons about old but increasingly pertinent topics, such as the realities of human fragility, and inter-connection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intense public interest in scientific claims about COVID-19, concerning its origins, modes of spread, evolution, and preventive and therapeutic strategies, has focused attention on the values to which scientists are assumed to be committed and the relationship between science and other public discourses. A much discussed claim, which has stimulated several inquiries and generated far-reaching political and economic consequences, has been that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately engineered at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and then, either inadvertently or otherwise, released to the public by a laboratory worker. This has been pursued despite a clear refutation, through comprehensive genomic analysis, of the hypothesis that the virus was deliberately engineered and the failure of detailed investigations to identify any evidence in support of a laboratory leak. At the same time a substantial, established body of knowledge about the many factors underlying the emergence of novel zoonotic diseases has been largely ignored—including climate change and other mechanisms of environmental destruction, tourism, patterns of trade, and cultural influences. The existence and conduct of these debates have raised questions about the vulnerability of science to manipulation for political purposes. Scientific discourses are vulnerable because: (i) claims can be made with no more than probabilistic force; (ii) alleged "facts" are always subject to interpretation, which depends on social, ethical, and epistemological assumptions; and (iii) science and scientists are not inherently committed to any single set of values and historically have served diverse, and sometimes perverse, social and political interests. In the face of this complexity, the COVID-19 experience highlights the need for processes of ethical scrutiny of the scientific enterprise and its strategic deployment. To ensure reliability of truth claims and protection from corrupting influences robust ethical discourses are required that are independent of, and at times even contrary to, those of science itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Testing in public health programs has long been recognised as beneficial but has often been experienced by community members as intrusive and paternalistic. Cervical screening has been seen as even more threatening by women who have experienced sexual violence or come from culturally and linguistically diverse communities. A simple and natural solution to these formidable barriers, increasingly recognised in recent years, has been presented by the advent of self‐testing. This article recounts the struggle to encourage medical practitioners to accept patient self‐testing. It emphasises the importance of scrutinising our own personal prejudices, listening to the community, and being open to novel strategies that ensure inclusiveness and respect for those whose interests we are seeking to serve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The NSW Government has proposed a blanket lifting of COVID-19 restrictions when the proportion of fully vaccinated people rate reaches 70% of the adult population. If implemented, this would have devastating effects on Aboriginal populations. At the present time, vaccination rates in Aboriginal communities remain low. Once restrictions are lifted, unvaccinated people will be at high risk of infection. The risks of serious illness and death among Aboriginal people from a variety of medical conditions are significantly greater than for the wider population. This is also the case with COVID-19 in First Nations populations around the world. The vulnerability of Aboriginal people is an enduring consequence of colonialism and is exacerbated by the fact that many live in overcrowded and poorly maintained houses in communities with under-resourced health services. A current workforce crisis and the demographic structure of the population have further hindered the effectiveness of vaccination programmes. Aboriginal organisations have called on state and federal governments to delay any substantial easing of restrictions until full vaccination rates among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations aged 16 years and older reach 90-95%. They have also called for additional support in the form of supply of vaccines, enhancement of workforce capacity and appropriate incentives to address hesitancy. Australia remains burdened by the legacy of centuries of harm and damage to its First Nations people. Urgent steps must be taken to avoid a renewed assault on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focus of discussion about the ethical issues associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has been on the great suffering to which it has given rise. However, there may be some unexpected positive outcomes that also emerge from the global disaster. The rupturing of entrenched systems and processes, the challenging of certainties that seemed beyond question, and the disruption of the assumed consensus of modernity may contribute to a rediscovery of the challenges that compose an ethical life. Elements of such a process are evident in the surge of community support and mutual caring, of spontaneous acts of joyous solidarity, of suspension of past conflicts, and exploration of new forms of reconciliation. The experiences are tentative and the outcomes uncertain, but at least for a moment the hope of a new way forward has been raised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surveillance is a core function of all public health systems. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have deployed traditional public health surveillance responses, such as contact tracing and quarantine, and extended these responses with the use of varied technologies, such as the use of smartphone location data, data networks, ankle bracelets, drones, and big data analysis. Applying Foucault's (1979) notion of the panopticon, with its twin focus on surveillance and self-regulation, as the preeminent form of social control in modern societies, we examine the increasing levels of surveillance enacted during this pandemic and how people have participated in, and extended, this surveillance, self-regulation, and social control through the use of digital media. Consideration is given to how such surveillance may serve public health needs and/or political interests and whether the rapid deployment of these extensive surveillance mechanisms risks normalizing these measures so that they become more acceptable and then entrenched post-COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]