Avoiding a crisis at Christmas: a systematic review of adverse health effects or 'Chrishaps' caused by traditional hazard sources and COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To complement the 2020 ANZJPH editorial "How COVID-safe Santa can save Christmas". In addition to a concise update regarding SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, we aimed to explore some risks of Christmas in terms of adverse health effects, which we call 'Chrishaps'. Our overall study question was "which hazards have been scientifically associated with old Christmas essentials such as decoration, gifts, menus, and Santa himself, as well as new challenges associated with COVID-19?" METHOD: We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Open Grey databases systematically and Google unsystematically. RESULTS: Thirty-six pertinent articles - most of them case reports or retrospective analyses - documented Chrishaps. CONCLUSION: Overall results suggested that Chrishaps come in different shapes and guises. Implications for public health: Chrishaps pose a potential minor public health threat that should be borne in mind every festive season. Assessing and discussing specific public health implications of Chrishaps requires systematic risk research to be conducted.

Risk, Responsibility, Rudeness, and Rules: The Loneliness of the Social Distance Warrior.

We have a responsibility to obey COVID-19 rules, in order to minimize risk. Yet it is still seen as rude to challenge people who do not respect those rules, when in fact the opposite is true; it is rude to increase risk to others. In this paper I analyse the relationship between risk, responsibility, and rudeness by analysing the evolution of the main governmental slogans and rules and explore the complex relationship between simplicity, safety, and perceived fairness of these rules, and how these features in turn influence the extent to which we act responsibly. I begin by exploring the relationship between rudeness and risk in our interactions about coronavirus, before going on to analyse the importance of clear rules in minimizing tension between us, illustrating the argument with various slogans including "stay at home," "stay alert," and the now infamous "rule of six," which is actually at least three different rules. Ultimately, we are faced with a paradox: people annoyed about complex/unfair rules are less likely to obey them, even if that means rules will apply for longer and even though it was noncompliance with earlier simpler rules that means new rules are necessary. And if rules make less or no sense it is harder to try to get people to follow them in your own capacity as a citizen; it is hard to police rules that are seen as arbitrary or unfair.

The Cost of Coronavirus Obligations: Respecting the Letter and Spirit of Lockdown Regulations.

We all now know that the novel coronavirus is anything but a common cold. The pandemic has created many new obligations for all of us, several of which come with serious costs to our quality of life. But in some cases, the guidance and the law are open to a degree of interpretation, leaving us to decide what is the ethical (or unethical but desired) course of action. Because of the high cost of some of the obligations, a conflict of interest can arise between what we want to do and what it is right to do. And so, some people choose to respect only the letter of the law, but not the spirit, or not to respect even the spirit of the guidelines. This paper identifies and describes the new obligations imposed on us all by the pandemic, considers their costs in terms of the good life, and provides an ethical analysis of two personal and two public cases in terms of the letter and spirit of the guidance and legislation.

COVID-19 and "natural" experiments arising from physical distancing: a hypothetical case study from chronobiology.

With countless "natural" experiments triggered by the COVID-19-associated physical distancing, one key question comes from chronobiology: "When confined to homes, how does the reduced exposure to natural daylight arising from the interruption of usual outdoor activities plus lost temporal organization ordinarily provided from workplaces and schools affect the circadian timing system (the internal 24 h clock) and, consequently, health of children and adults of all ages?" Herein, we discuss some ethical and scientific facets of exploring such natural experiments by offering a hypothetical case study of circadian biology.