Aggressive measures, rising inequalities, and mass formation during the COVID-19 crisis: An overview and proposed way forward.

A series of aggressive restrictive measures were adopted around the world in 2020-2022 to attempt to prevent SARS-CoV-2 from spreading. However, it has become increasingly clear the most aggressive (lockdown) response strategies may involve negative side-effects such as a steep increase in poverty, hunger, and inequalities. Several economic, educational, and health repercussions have fallen disproportionately on children, students, young workers, and especially on groups with pre-existing inequalities such as low-income families, ethnic minorities, and women. This has led to a vicious cycle of rising inequalities and health issues. For example, educational and financial security decreased along with rising unemployment and loss of life purpose. Domestic violence surged due to dysfunctional families being forced to spend more time with each other. In the current narrative and scoping review, we describe macro-dynamics that are taking place because of aggressive public health policies and psychological tactics to influence public behavior, such as mass formation and crowd behavior. Coupled with the effect of inequalities, we describe how these factors can interact toward aggravating ripple effects. In light of evidence regarding the health, economic and social costs, that likely far outweigh potential benefits, the authors suggest that, first, where applicable, aggressive lockdown policies should be reversed and their re-adoption in the future should be avoided. If measures are needed, these should be non-disruptive. Second, it is important to assess dispassionately the damage done by aggressive measures and offer ways to alleviate the burden and long-term effects. Third, the structures in place that have led to counterproductive policies should be assessed and ways should be sought to optimize decision-making, such as counteracting groupthink and increasing the level of reflexivity. Finally, a package of scalable positive psychology interventions is suggested to counteract the damage done and improve humanity's prospects.

Aggressive measures, rising inequalities, and mass formation during the COVID-19 crisis: An overview and proposed way forward

A series of aggressive restrictive measures were adopted around the world in 2020–2022 to attempt to prevent SARS-CoV-2 from spreading. However, it has become increasingly clear the most aggressive (lockdown) response strategies may involve negative side-effects such as a steep increase in poverty, hunger, and inequalities. Several economic, educational, and health repercussions have fallen disproportionately on children, students, young workers, and especially on groups with pre-existing inequalities such as low-income families, ethnic minorities, and women. This has led to a vicious cycle of rising inequalities and health issues. For example, educational and financial security decreased along with rising unemployment and loss of life purpose. Domestic violence surged due to dysfunctional families being forced to spend more time with each other. In the current narrative and scoping review, we describe macro-dynamics that are taking place because of aggressive public health policies and psychological tactics to influence public behavior, such as mass formation and crowd behavior. Coupled with the effect of inequalities, we describe how these factors can interact toward aggravating ripple effects. In light of evidence regarding the health, economic and social costs, that likely far outweigh potential benefits, the authors suggest that, first, where applicable, aggressive lockdown policies should be reversed and their re-adoption in the future should be avoided. If measures are needed, these should be non-disruptive. Second, it is important to assess dispassionately the damage done by aggressive measures and offer ways to alleviate the burden and long-term effects. Third, the structures in place that have led to counterproductive policies should be assessed and ways should be sought to optimize decision-making, such as counteracting groupthink and increasing the level of reflexivity. Finally, a package of scalable positive psychology interventions is suggested to counteract the damage done and improve humanity's prospects.

The SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in High Income Countries Such as Canada: A Better Way Forward Without Lockdowns.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused tragic morbidity and mortality. In attempt to reduce this morbidity and mortality, most countries implemented population-wide lockdowns. Here we show that the lockdowns were based on several flawed assumptions, including "no one is protected until everyone is protected," "lockdowns are highly effective to reduce transmission," "lockdowns have a favorable cost-benefit balance," and "lockdowns are the only effective option." Focusing on the latter, we discuss that Emergency Management principles provide a better way forward to manage the public emergency of the pandemic. Specifically, there are three priorities including the following: first, protect those most at risk by separating them from the threat (mitigation); second, ensure critical infrastructure is ready for people who get sick (preparation and response); and third, shift the response from fear to confidence (recovery). We argue that, based on Emergency Management principles, the age-dependent risk from SARS-CoV-2, the minimal (at best) efficacy of lockdowns, and the terrible cost-benefit trade-offs of lockdowns, we need to reset the pandemic response. We can manage risk and save more lives from both COVID-19 and lockdowns, thus achieving far better outcomes in both the short- and long-term.

COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink.

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic in 2020. In response, most countries in the world implemented lockdowns, restricting their population's movements, work, education, gatherings, and general activities in attempt to "flatten the curve" of COVID-19 cases. The public health goal of lockdowns was to save the population from COVID-19 cases and deaths, and to prevent overwhelming health care systems with COVID-19 patients. In this narrative review I explain why I changed my mind about supporting lockdowns. The initial modeling predictions induced fear and crowd-effects (i.e., groupthink). Over time, important information emerged relevant to the modeling, including the lower infection fatality rate (median 0.23%), clarification of high-risk groups (specifically, those 70 years of age and older), lower herd immunity thresholds (likely 20-40% population immunity), and the difficult exit strategies. In addition, information emerged on significant collateral damage due to the response to the pandemic, adversely affecting many millions of people with poverty, food insecurity, loneliness, unemployment, school closures, and interrupted healthcare. Raw numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths were difficult to interpret, and may be tempered by information placing the number of COVID-19 deaths in proper context and perspective relative to background rates. Considering this information, a cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 finds that lockdowns are far more harmful to public health (at least 5-10 times so in terms of wellbeing years) than COVID-19 can be. Controversies and objections about the main points made are considered and addressed. Progress in the response to COVID-19 depends on considering the trade-offs discussed here that determine the wellbeing of populations. I close with some suggestions for moving forward, including focused protection of those truly at high risk, opening of schools, and building back better with a economy.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital and intensive care in the first phase of the pandemic in Canada: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical data on patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide clinicians and public health officials with information to guide practice and policy. The aims of this study were to describe patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital and intensive care, and to investigate predictors of outcome to characterize severe acute respiratory infection. METHODS: This observational cohort study used Canadian data from 32 selected hospitals included in a global multisite cohort between Jan. 24 and July 7, 2020. Adult and pediatric patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received care in an intensive care unit (ICU) and a sampling of up to the first 60 patients receiving care on hospital wards were included. We performed descriptive analyses of characteristics, interventions and outcomes. The primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality, with secondary analyses of the length of hospital and ICU stay. RESULTS: Between January and July 2020, among 811 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19, the median age was 64 (interquartile range [IQR] 53-75) years, 495 (61.0%) were men, 46 (5.7%) were health care workers, 9 (1.1%) were pregnant, 26 (3.2%) were younger than 18 years and 9 (1.1%) were younger than 5 years. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 7 (IQR 3-10) days. The most common symptoms on admission were fever, shortness of breath, cough and malaise. Diabetes, hypertension and cardiac, kidney and respiratory disease were the most common comorbidities. Among all patients, 328 received care in an ICU, admitted a median of 0 (IQR 0-1) days after hospital admission. Critically ill patients received treatment with invasive mechanical ventilation (88.8%), renal replacement therapy (14.9%) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (4.0%); 26.2% died. Among those receiving mechanical ventilation, 31.2% died. Age was an influential predictor of mortality (odds ratio per additional year of life 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.09). INTERPRETATION: Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 commonly had fever, respiratory symptoms and comorbid conditions. Increasing age was associated with the development of critical illness and death; however, most critically ill patients in Canada, including those requiring mechanical ventilation, survived and were discharged from hospital.