Search

In the summer of 2021, European governments removed most NPIs after experiencing prolonged second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most countries failed to achieve immunization rates high enough to avoid resurgence of the virus. Public health strategies for autumn and winter 2021 have ranged from countries aiming at low incidence by re-introducing NPIs to accepting high incidence levels. However, such high incidence strategies almost certainly lead to the very consequences that they seek to avoid: restrictions that harm people and economies. At high incidence, the important pandemic containment measure ‘test-trace-isolate-support’ becomes inefficient. At that point, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its numerous harmful consequences can likely only be controlled through restrictions. We argue that all European countries need to pursue a low incidence strategy in a coordinated manner. Such an endeavour can only be successful if it is built on open communication and trust.

publishedVersion

The SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant is spreading rapidly in Europe, even in countries with high levels of vaccination, including those that have moved quickly with booster vaccinations. We write as health professionals and researchers from across Europe to call for concerted European action to address the immediate threat and to move rapidly to develop joint plans to tackle future variants of concern effectively. EU Member States have accepted the principle of a European Health Union and have put in place measures to create a Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority.3 They now need to show that they can work together in ways that they have not always done before. [Excerpt from article], peer-reviewed

How will the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic develop in the coming months and years? Based on an expert survey, we examine key aspects that are likely to influence the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The challenges and developments will strongly depend on the progress of national and global vaccination programs, the emergence and spread of variants of concern (VOCs), and public responses to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). In the short term, many people remain unvaccinated, VOCs continue to emerge and spread, and mobility and population mixing are expected to increase. Therefore, lifting restrictions too much and too early risk another damaging wave. This challenge remains despite the reduced opportunities for transmission given vaccination progress and reduced indoor mixing in summer 2021. In autumn 2021, increased indoor activity might accelerate the spread again, whilst a necessary reintroduction of NPIs might be too slow. The incidence may strongly rise again, possibly filling intensive care units, if vaccination levels are not high enough. A moderate, adaptive level of NPIs will thus remain necessary. These epidemiological aspects combined with economic, social, and health-related consequences provide a more holistic perspective on the future of the COVID-19 pandemic. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

How will the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic develop in the coming months and years? Based on an expert survey, we examine key aspects that are likely to influence the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The challenges and developments will strongly depend on the progress of national and global vaccination programs, the emergence and spread of variants of concern (VOCs), and public responses to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). In the short term, many people remain unvaccinated, VOCs continue to emerge and spread, and mobility and population mixing are expected to increase. Therefore, lifting restrictions too much and too early risk another damaging wave. This challenge remains despite the reduced opportunities for transmission given vaccination progress and reduced indoor mixing in summer 2021. In autumn 2021, increased indoor activity might accelerate the spread again, whilst a necessary reintroduction of NPIs might be too slow. The incidence may strongly rise again, possibly filling intensive care units, if vaccination levels are not high enough. A moderate, adaptive level of NPIs will thus remain necessary. These epidemiological aspects combined with economic, social, and health-related consequences provide a more holistic perspective on the future of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Human enhancement continues to be hotly debated by both ‘professionals’ andacademics, and increasingly also by the general public. This is no surprise, given thatthe idea of making human beings better – individually and collectively – has existedfor centuries. Parents appear to be especially receptive to new ways of improving thequalities of their offspring – first and foremost their cognitive abilities – in the hopeof giving them the best life possible. At the same time, children as not-yetautonomous persons are vulnerable to the decisions made on their behalf. Thisdynamic has led to a long-running philosophical debate about the moralpermissibility of paediatric enhancement. Unfortunately, this debate has somewhatstalled at the point of disagreement on general permissibility, with both sidesstrongly relying on the notion of well-being to support their respective positions.Rapid progress in the sciences, including the development of the new CRISPR-Cas9technique, holds much promise for effective cognitive enhancement in children, andthis makes proper ethical assessment an urgent matter.Arguing that enhancement is here to stay and that prohibition is not a feasible optionin a globalised world, I suggest that the debate should instead focus on whatcognitive enhancement in children is likely to mean for the welfare of children.Addressing the question of whether enhancement of intellectual abilities in childrenis likely to lead to the creation of ‘superhuman’ disabled children – that is, childrenwith superior or even yet-unseen cognitive capacities but a disability in some othersense (medical, social or both) – I draw on evidence from various fields, includingeducation, law, disability studies and sociology, to demonstrate that the positiveeffect of cognitive ability on individual well-being is frequently overestimated andcan thus not serve as a moral justification for cognitive enhancement. Furthermore,the current legal environment with regard to children with higher intellectual abilitiesgives cause for concern about the well-being of future cognitively enhanced childrenand urges us to address prevailing shortcomings in educational provision beforedeliberately engaging in the creation of more cognitive potential. Suggesting that anymoral judgment about cognitive enhancement should focus strongly on the endspursued, I argue that the welfare of children is endangered not so much by the newpossibilities and methods of enhancement as by the failure to fully appreciatechildren’s need for the provision of appropriate opportunities to match theirindividual abilities.