Undoing elimination: Modelling Australia's way out of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the middle of 2020, with its borders tightly closed to the rest of the world, Australia almost achieved the local elimination of COVID-19 and subsequently maintained 'COVID-zero' in most parts of the country for the following year. Australia has since faced the relatively unique challenge of deliberately 'undoing' these achievements by progressively easing restrictions and reopening. Exploring the role of mathematical modelling in navigating a course through the pandemic through qualitative interviews with modellers and others working closely with modelling, we argue that each of these two significant phases of Australia's COVID-19 experience can be understood as distinct forms of 'model society'. This refers at once to the society enacted through the governance of risk, and to the visions of societal outcomes - whether to be sought or to be avoided - that are offered up by models. Each of the two model societies came about through a reflexive engagement with risk facilitated by models, and the iterative relationship between the representations of society enacted within models and the possibilities that these representations generate in the material world beyond them.

"It's professional but it's personal": Participation, personal connection, and sustained disagreement in drug policy reform.

While there is widespread agreement as to the importance of increasing participation in drug policy design, drug policy literature contains limited reflection on the practices that may support inclusion and collaboration amongst policy actors, particularly when disagreement and difference are an intrinsic part of participation. Drawing on qualitative interviews and ethnographic fieldwork with actors engaged in an Australian illicit drug policy reform campaign, this paper examines how particular modes of personal connection mattered in establishing and maintaining working relationships between a range of differently situated actors. Through engagement with this case study, we argue that modes of personal connection marked by qualities such as being frank; engaged; not forcing consensus; enacting respect; listening in order to understand; and acting in ways that respected the obligations and limits that came with people's roles while also recognising one another as more than those roles, were particularly important qualities that supported connection across difference. Such personal connections seem to have been even more important for the engagement of people representing more marginal positionalities. Arguing that personal connection is already an element of both inclusion and exclusion in drug policy creation, we suggest that policy actors interested in contributing to a more diverse and rigorous policy participation space attend to how people connect, with whom, and with what space for disagreement, while also taking seriously the labour of such connection across difference.

How do care environments shape healthcare? A synthesis of qualitative studies among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how care is shaped through the material practices and spaces of healthcare environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) of qualitative research. PARTICIPANTS: Studies included qualitative research investigating the experiences of healthcare workers involved in the care of individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: 134 articles were identified in the initial sampling frame with 38 studies involving 2507 participants included in the final synthesis. Three themes were identified in the analysis: (1) the hospital transformed, (2) virtual care spaces and (3) objects of care. Through the generation of these themes, a synthesising argument was developed to demonstrate how material spaces and practices of healthcare shape care delivery and to provide insights to support healthcare providers in creating enabling and resilient care environments. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study demonstrate how healthcare environments enable and constrain modes of care. Practices of care are shaped through the materiality of spaces and objects, including how these change in the face of pandemic disruption. The implication is that the healthcare environment needs to be viewed as a critical adaptive element in the optimisation of care. The study also develops a versatile and coherent approach to CIS methods that can be taken up in future research.

Uncomfortable science: How mathematical models, and consensus, come to be in public policy.

We explore messy translations of evidence in policy as a site of 'uncomfortable science'. Drawing on the work of John Law, we follow evidence as a 'fluid object' of its situation, also enacted in relation to a hinterland of practices. Working with the qualitative interview accounts of mathematical modellers and other scientists engaged in the UK COVID-19 response, we trace how models perform as evidence. Our point of departure is a moment of controversy in the public announcement of second national lockdown in the UK, and specifically, the projected daily deaths from COVID-19 presented in support of this policy decision. We reflect on this event to trace the messy translations of "scientific consensus" in the face of uncertainty. Efforts among scientists to realise evidence-based expectation and to manage the troubled translations of models in policy, including via "scientific consensus", can extend the dis-ease of uncomfortable science rather than clean it up or close it down. We argue that the project of evidence-based policy is not so much in need of technical management or repair, but that we need to be thinking altogether differently.

Established Tables and Emergent Huddles: Exploring the Processes of Participation Associated With the Policy Changes to Opioid Pharmacotherapy Treatment in Australia in the Context of COVID-19

In this paper we document and analyze emergent participatory processes in drug policy, focusing on the relations between established modes of engagement and emergent participatory formats. We do this through analysis of a case example, attending to policy changes to opioid pharmacotherapy treatment in the context of COVID-19 in Australia. Semistructured interviews (n = 22) were undertaken between August 2020 and March 2021 with people closely involved in the recent policy changes and discussions surrounding opioid pharmacotherapy treatment in Australia. The analysis of the interview accounts followed work which has forged relational, co-productionist and materialist understandings of participation. Two figures of participation were encountered in the interview accounts: the tables of participation and the huddles of participation. The tables seemingly represented a standardized set of bureaucratic mechanisms for the inclusion of the “voices” of people who use drugs. The huddles emerged as a responsive and less coherent set of ad hoc participatory collectives in the context of rapid policy changes during COVID-19. Instead of viewing emergence as distinct from existing participatory formats, emergence was conceptualized ecologically in this article—that is in relation to established forms of participation. As the institutionally mandated tables served the basis for the emergent huddles of participation in this case study, it demonstrates that even the most foreclosed participatory structures can adapt and be responsive to evolving situations of need, perhaps also in ordinary times and not just in emergency conditions. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Contemporary Drug Problems is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Making pandemics big: On the situational performance of Covid-19 mathematical models.

In this paper, we trace how mathematical models are made 'evidence enough' and 'useful for policy'. Working with the interview accounts of mathematical modellers and other scientists engaged in the UK Covid-19 response, we focus on two weeks in March 2020 prior to the announcement of an unprecedented national lockdown. A key thread in our analysis is how pandemics are made 'big'. We follow the work of one particular device, that of modelled 'doubling-time'. By following how modelled doubling-time entangles in its assemblage of evidence-making, we draw attention to multiple actors, including beyond models and metrics, which affect how evidence is performed in relation to the scale of epidemic and its policy response. We draw attention to: policy; Government scientific advice infrastructure; time; uncertainty; and leaps of faith. The 'bigness' of the pandemic, and its evidencing, is situated in social and affective practices, in which uncertainty and dis-ease are inseparable from calculus. This materialises modelling in policy as an 'uncomfortable science'. We argue that situational fit in-the-moment is at least as important as empirical fit when attending to what models perform in policy.

"A matter of time": Evidence-making temporalities of vaccine development in the COVID-19 media landscape.

This article investigates how evidence of the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines is enacted in news media via a focus on the temporality of vaccine development. We argue that time constitutes a crucial object of and mechanism for knowledge production in such media and investigate how time comes to matter in vaccine evidence-making communication practices. In science communication on vaccine development, the vaccine object (along with the practices through which it is produced) undergoes a material-discursive shift from an imagined "rushed" product to being many years in the making and uninhibited by unnecessarily lengthy processes. In both these enactments of vaccine development, time itself is constituted as evidence of vaccine efficacy and safety. This article traces how time (performed as both calendar time and as a series of relational events) is materialized as an affective and epistemic object of evidence within public science communication by analyzing the material-discursive techniques through which temporality is enacted within news media focused on the timeline of COVID-19 vaccine development. We contend that time (as evidence) is remade through these techniques as an ontopolitical concern within the COVID-19 vaccine assemblage. We furthermore argue that science communication itself is an important actor in the hinterland of public health practices with performative effects and vital evidence-making capacities.

Futures-oriented drugs policy research: Events, trends, and speculating on what might become.

One concern in the field of drugs policy is how to make research more futures-oriented. Tracing trends and events with the potential to alter drug futures are seen as ways of becoming more prepared. This challenge is made complex in fast evolving drug markets which entangle with shifting social and material relations at global scale. In this analysis, we argue that drugs policy research orientates to detection and discovery based on the recent past. This narrows future-oriented analyses to the predictable and probable, imagined as extensions of the immediate and local present. We call for a more speculative approach; one which extends beyond the proximal, and one which orientates to possibilities rather than probabilities. Drawing on ideas on speculation from science and technology and futures studies, we argue that speculative research holds potential for more radical alterations in drugs policy. We encourage research approaches which not only valorise knowing in relation to what might happen but which conduct experiments on what could be. Accordingly, we trace how speculative research makes a difference by altering the present through making deliberative interventions on alternative policy options, including policy scenarios which make a radical break with the present. We look specifically at the 'Big Event' and 'Mega Trend' as devices of speculative intervention in futures-oriented drugs policy research. We illustrate how the device of Mega Trend helps to trace as well as to speculate on some of the entangling elements affecting drug futures, including in relation to climate, environment, development, population, drug production, digitalisation, biotechnology, policy and discourse.

Mathematical models as public troubles in COVID-19 infection control: following the numbers.

Mathematical models are key actors in policy and public responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The projections from COVID-19 models travel beyond science into policy decisions and social life. Treating models as 'boundary objects', and focusing on media and public communications, we 'follow the numbers' to trace the social life of key projections from prominent mathematical models of COVID-19. Public deliberations and controversies about models and their projections are illuminating. These help trace how projections are 'made multiple' in their enactments as 'public troubles'. We need an approach to evidence-making for policy which is emergent and adaptive, and which treats science as an entangled effect of public concern made in social practices. We offer a rapid sociological response on the social life of science in the emerging COVID-19 pandemic to speculate on how evidence-making might be done differently going forwards.

Making evidence and policy in public health emergencies: lessons from COVID-19 for adaptive evidence-making and intervention

Background: In public health emergencies, evidence, intervention, decisions and translation proceed simultaneously, in greatly compressed timeframes, with knowledge and advice constantly in flux. Idealised approaches to evidence-based policy and practice are ill equipped to deal with the uncertainties arising in evolving situations of need. Key points for discussion: There is much to learn from rapid assessment and outbreak science approaches. These emphasise methodological pluralism, adaptive knowledge generation, intervention pragmatism, and an understanding of health and intervention as situated in their practices of implementation. The unprecedented challenges of novel viral outbreaks like COVID-19 do not simply require us to speed up existing evidence-based approaches, but necessitate new ways of thinking about how a more emergent and adaptive evidence-making might be done. The COVID-19 pandemic requires us to appraise critically what constitutes 'evidence-enough' for iterative rapid decisions in-the-now. There are important lessons for how evidence and intervention co-emerge in social practices, and for how evidence-making and intervening proceeds through dialogue incorporating multiple forms of evidence and expertise. Conclusions and implications: Rather than treating adaptive evidence-making and decision making as a break from the routine, we argue that this should be a defining feature of an 'evidence-making intervention' approach to health.

Modelling the pandemic: attuning models to their contexts.

The evidence produced in mathematical models plays a key role in shaping policy decisions in pandemics. A key question is therefore how well pandemic models relate to their implementation contexts. Drawing on the cases of Ebola and influenza, we map how sociological and anthropological research contributes in the modelling of pandemics to consider lessons for COVID-19. We show how models detach from their implementation contexts through their connections with global narratives of pandemic response, and how sociological and anthropological research can help to locate models differently. This potentiates multiple models of pandemic response attuned to their emerging situations in an iterative and adaptive science. We propose a more open approach to the modelling of pandemics which envisages the model as an intervention of deliberation in situations of evolving uncertainty. This challenges the 'business-as-usual' of evidence-based approaches in global health by accentuating all science, within and beyond pandemics, as 'emergent' and 'adaptive'.