A SARS-CoV-2 outbreak associated with five air force bases and a nightclub following the lifting of COVID-19-related social restrictions, United Kingdom, July-to-September 2021.

We describe the management of two linked severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks, predominantly amongst 18-35-year-olds, in a UK county in July-to-September 2021, following the lifting of national coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated social restrictions. One was associated with a nightclub and one with five air force bases. On week beginning 2nd August 2021, air force contact tracing teams detected 68 cases across five bases within one county; 21 (30.9%) were associated with a night-time economy venue, 13 (19.1%) with night-time economy venues in the county's main town and at least one case per base (n = 6, 8.8%) with a particular nightclub in this town, which itself had been associated with 302 cases in the previous week (coinciding with its reopening following a national lockdown). In response, Public Health England/United Kingdom Health Security Agency, air force and local authority teams collaboratively implemented communication strategies and enhanced access to SARS-CoV-2 testing and vaccination. Key challenges included attempting to encourage behaviours that reduce likelihood of transmission to a population who may have considered themselves at low risk from severe COVID-19. This report may inform future preparation for, and management of, easing of potential future pandemic-related social restrictions, and how an outbreak in this context may be addressed.

Social Vulnerability and Mental Health Inequalities in the "Syndemic": Call for Action.

Covid-19 is referred to as a "syndemic," i.e., the consequences of the disease are exacerbated by social and economic disparity. Poor housing, unstable work conditions, caste, class, race and gender based inequities and low incomes have a profound effect on mental health and wellbeing. Such disparities are increasing between, among and within countries and are exacerbated by human rights violations, in institution and in society, stigma and discrimination. Social capital can mediate health outcomes, through trust and reciprocity, political participation, and by mental health service systems, which can be coercive or more open to demand of emancipation and freedom. Societal inequalities affect especially vulnerable groups, and Covid itself had a wider impact on the most socially vulnerable and marginalized populations, suffering for structural discrimination and violence. There are complex relations among these social processes and domains, and mental health inequalities and disparity. Participation and engagement of citizens and community organizations is now required in order to achieve a radical transformation in mental health. A Local and Global Action Plan has been launched recently, by a coalition of organizations representing people with lived experience of mental health care; who use services; family members, mental health professionals, policy makers and researchers, such as the International Mental Health Collaborating Network, the World Federation for Mental Health, the World Association for Psychosocial Rehabilitation, the Global Alliance of Mental Illness Advocacy Networks (GAMIAN), The Mental Health Resource Hub in Chennai, India, The Movement for Global Mental Health (MGMH) and others. The Action Plan addresses the need for fundamental change by focusing on social determinants and achieving equity in mental health care. Equally the need for the politics of wellbeing has to be embedded in a system that places mental health within development and social justice paradigm, enhancing core human capabilities and contrasting discriminatory practices. These targets are for people and organizations to adopt locally within their communities and services, and also to indicate possible innovative solutions to Politics. This global endeavor may represent an alternative to the global mental discourse inspired by the traditional biomedical model.

Social Vulnerability and Mental Health Inequalities in the “Syndemic”: Call for Action

Covid-19 is referred to as a “syndemic,” i.e., the consequences of the disease are exacerbated by social and economic disparity. Poor housing, unstable work conditions, caste, class, race and gender based inequities and low incomes have a profound effect on mental health and wellbeing. Such disparities are increasing between, among and within countries and are exacerbated by human rights violations, in institution and in society, stigma and discrimination. Social capital can mediate health outcomes, through trust and reciprocity, political participation, and by mental health service systems, which can be coercive or more open to demand of emancipation and freedom. Societal inequalities affect especially vulnerable groups, and Covid itself had a wider impact on the most socially vulnerable and marginalized populations, suffering for structural discrimination and violence. There are complex relations among these social processes and domains, and mental health inequalities and disparity. Participation and engagement of citizens and community organizations is now required in order to achieve a radical transformation in mental health. A Local and Global Action Plan has been launched recently, by a coalition of organizations representing people with lived experience of mental health care;who use services;family members, mental health professionals, policy makers and researchers, such as the International Mental Health Collaborating Network, the World Federation for Mental Health, the World Association for Psychosocial Rehabilitation, the Global Alliance of Mental Illness Advocacy Networks (GAMIAN), The Mental Health Resource Hub in Chennai, India, The Movement for Global Mental Health (MGMH) and others. The Action Plan addresses the need for fundamental change by focusing on social determinants and achieving equity in mental health care. Equally the need for the politics of wellbeing has to be embedded in a system that places mental health within development and social justice paradigm, enhancing core human capabilities and contrasting discriminatory practices. These targets are for people and organizations to adopt locally within their communities and services, and also to indicate possible innovative solutions to Politics. This global endeavor may represent an alternative to the global mental discourse inspired by the traditional biomedical model.

Crisis management for surgical teams and their leaders, lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic; A structured approach to developing resilience or natural organisational responses.

BACKGROUND: Multiple industries and organisations are afflicted by and respond to institutional crises daily. As surgeons, we respond to crisis frequently and individually such as with critically unwell patients or in mass casualty scenarios; but rarely, do we encounter institutional or multi-institutional crisis with multiple actors as we have seen with the COVID-19 pan-demic. Businesses, private industry and the financial sector have been in a more precar-ious position regarding crisis and consequently have developed rapid response strate-gies employing foresight to reduce risk to assets and financial liquidity. Moreover, large nationalised governmental organisations such as the military have strategies in place ow-ing to a rapidly evolving geopolitical climate with the expectation of immediate new chal-lenges either in the negotiating room or indeed the field of conflict. Despite both nation-alised and privatised healthcare systems existing, both appeared ill-prepared for the COVID-19 global crisis. METHODS: A narrative review of the literature was undertaken exploring the approach to crisis man-agement and models used in organisations exposed to institutional crises outside the field of medicine. RESULTS: There are many parallels between the organisational management of private business institutions, large military organisations and surgical organisational management in healthcare. Models from management consultancies and the armed forces were ex-plored discussed and adapted for the surgical leader providing a framework through which the surgical leader can bring about an successful response to an institutional crisis and ensure future resilience. CONCLUSION: We believe that healthcare, and surgeons (as leaders) in particular, can learn from these other organisations and industries to engage appropriate generic operational plans and contingencies in preparation for whatever further crises may arise in the future, both near and distant. As such, following a review of the literature, we have explored a number of models we believe are adaptable for the surgical community to ensure we remain a dy-namically responsive and ever prepared profession.