Emergencies, executive power, and Ireland's Response to the Covid-19 pandemic

This chapter discusses the key restrictions Ireland enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It focuses on particular measures that most people in Ireland have experienced directly;namely, measures restricting a person's liberty and movements, and what businesses, events, and associations were permitted to operate. Like many states, Ireland enacted an emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Irish Constitution does make express provision for a state of emergency to be declared by the Oireachtas. In addition to constitutional norms, Ireland is also a signatory to several international human rights treaties relevant to the state's response to the pandemic. In July 2020, the Irish Health Service Executive launched the CovidTracker App, which was designed to assist with track and trace efforts. In 2021, Ireland began its vaccination programme against COVID-19. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

VIRTUALLY DECIDED: A MIXED-METHODS EXPLORATION OF PATIENT, PROVIDER, AND SYSTEM-LEVEL FACTORS INFLUENCING VA CARDIOLOGISTS' PROVISION OF TELEMEDICINE

BACKGROUND: Virtual cardiology care, defined as care delivered by phone or video, expanded rapidly in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and remains a significant proportion of all VA cardiology care. However, factors influencing whether a visit is conducted virtually are poorly understood. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, we first analyzed a nationwide cohort of Veterans who had a cardiology visit before COVID-19 (1/1/2019-3/ 10/2020), some of whom had follow-up visits before COVID and others afterwards (3/10-2020-3/10/2021). We assessed the hazard of receiving cardiology-related video care and any virtual care with a survival model adjusted for baseline patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics;we performed analyses with and without adjustment for geographic region via Veterans Integrated Service Network location (VISN). Then, we conducted qualitative interviews with VA cardiologists to further characterize the variation identified in the hazard of video and virtual care utilization. RESULTS: We analyzed 416,621 Veterans;average patient age was 69.1 years and 5.0% were female. Older, low-income, and rural-dwelling Veterans had a lower hazard (i.e. time to event) of using video care (adjusted hazard ratio for ages 75 and older 0.80, 95% CI 0.75-0.86;for low-income status 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.98;for highly rural residents 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87). The hazard ratios for a video-based encounter varied across geographic regions, with adjusted hazard ratios for use of video care as low as 0.06 (95% CI 0.04-0.07) compared to the reference region with highest use of video care. In our qualitative assessment, cardiologists (N=7) suggested patient, provider, and system-level factors influencing visit modality. At the patient level, clinicians perceived that older, lower-income, and rural-dwelling Veterans had more difficulty accessing video technology, but also benefited disproportionately from virtual care from the convenience of avoiding travel to a VA facility. At the provider level, clinicians preferred virtual care for routine follow-up visits and visits for conditions when most pertinent information could be collected from history (e.g. stable coronary artery disease). At the system level, clinicians noted explicit and implicit nudges toward certain modalities, such as differential productivity accounting (e.g. video visits counting as more productivity units than phone visits) and praise for high video care users, and differed in their perception of whether the system or clinician primarily drove choice of visit modality. CONCLUSIONS: Likelihood and timing of virtual cardiology care varies across VA patients and sites due to patient, clinician, and system factors. VA cardiologists perceive variability in the degree to which autonomy over visit modality choice lies with providers versus the system. Policies intended to alter visit modality mix should consider these types of influences as well as varying autonomy in modality choice.

“An Immaculate Keeper of My Social Media Feed”: Social Media Usage in Body Justice Communities During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This article examines how individuals proximate to online body justice communities utilized and experienced social media during COVID-19. The majority of research during the pandemic has been quantitative and survey-based;it has also tended to center (dis)information spread or mental health concerns. Our qualitative interviews with 44 individuals offer nuanced insights into what social media meant to people during quarantine, how they used it, and how they reflected on their experience of it. Five major themes emerged through reflexive, thematic analysis of the interview data: changed temporal rhythms, influx of toxic content, resource building, additive and subtractive actions, and algorithmic awareness. Some participants described social media as an increasingly harmful influence in their lives during the pandemic due to compulsive usage and exposure to “toxic content” like misinformation, weight stigma, and homophobia. At the same time, participants noted how social media positively enabled social connection, education, and activation around social justice. Across both of these extremes, many elaborated on the intensive, self-reflective labor of cultivating their accounts so that they mirrored their identities and the kinds of experiences they wanted to have online while preventing the infiltration of unwanted content. In addition to offering new insights into social media usage in body justice communities during COVID-19, our data suggest alternative ways of understanding how individuals manage their experience of social media, curate their social media feeds through additive and subtractive actions, and frequently reflect on how their choices interact with platform algorithms. © The Author(s) 2022.

Locked up and down: Incarceration, care, and art in a pandemic

There has been recent criticism of the lack of care in the UK economy, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has exacerbated inequality and disadvantage faced by those most vulnerable in society. This article focuses on the importance of care in the practices of Clean Break-an internationally recognized theater, education, and advocacy organization that puts the stories of women with experience of the criminal justice system center stage. Drawing centrally on the work of Joan Tronto and Berenice Fisher, we argue that Clean Break's pandemic activities, that is in crisis, have a deep connection to the central place of care within its practices since its inception. We extend the care ethic concept to specifically include art as a form of care. Using textual analysis of the play, Shower Scene, developed in the Clean Break 2 Metres Apart pandemic-response program, we argue that Clean Break offers an example of what care can and does entail in practice, with positive impacts for its stakeholders.

Derogations, deprivation of liberty and the containment stage of pandemic responses

In a recent article in this journal, Professor Tom Hickman defends the UK Government’s decision not to derogate from the ECHR in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In making this argument, Hickman engages with my previous article in this journal where I advocated for derogations in response to the pandemic. The purpose of this article is to respond to Hickman’s arguments. First, I contend that a narrow interpretation of art.5.1(e) of the ECHR to allow deprivation of liberty only of those who are infected or may be infected would not unduly restrict state action in the early—or containment—stage of a disease outbreak. Secondly, requiring derogation for emergency powers in the containment stage of a disease outbreak does not water down the definition of a “public emergency threatening the life of the nation” in art.15 of the ECHR. Finally, I dispel the contention that my original argument was based upon a conception of art.15 as discretionary;rather, my argument is based upon how states ought to act when the law in question is unclear. To that end, legal analysis must remain acutely aware of how law ought to be interpreted and not simply focused on predicting what courts may decide. © 2021 Thomson Reuters and Contributors.

On the value of derogations from the european convention on human rights in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A rejoinder

In his article, “Article 15 Derogations: Are They Really Necessary during the COVID-19 Pandemic” Professor Dzehtsiarou offers a rebuttal of my contention that derogations should be used to accommodate exceptional powers enacted to confront the very real threat posed by COVID-19. Dzhetisarou’s argument is essentially a “business as usual model” and to his position, I wish to raise two principal objections. First, he falls into what I term the “objectivity trap” of emergencies which leads him to believe that emergency powers may be quarantined to the duration of the pandemic without the need for art.15. Secondly, his argument that derogation will not make much difference vis-à-vis accommodation through the ordinary proportionality test is actually an argument in favour of derogations not against them. © 2020 Thomson Reuters and Contributors.

Derogating from the European convention on human rights in response to the coronavirus pandemic: If not now, when?

This article contends that art.15 ECHR should be used to accommodate what have become known as “lockdown” powers necessary to confront the coronavirus pandemic. In this way, such exceptional powers can be quarantined to exceptional situations. Using art.5 ECHR and the right to liberty as an illustrative example, this article demonstrates that far from protecting human rights standards, failure to use Article 15 ECHR risks normalising exceptional powers and permanently recalibrating human rights protections downwards. © 2020 Thomson Reuters and Contributors.