ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 epidemic has caused serious and long-lasting health and social harm. Vaccination is considered as the most effective way to prevent the COVID-19 epidemic. Patients with mental disorders are at high risk of COVID-19 infection who are in urgent need to get protection. However, due to the particularity of their conditions, whether these patients should be vaccinated has become a tough issue that obsesses doctors, patients with mental disorders, and their families. In light of this issue, this article provides expert advice on the safety, legal and ethical issues of vaccination for patients with mental disorders to regulate the vaccination of these vulnerable populations against COVID-19.Copyright © 2022 Chinese Journal of Psychiatry. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 epidemic has caused serious and long-lasting health and social harm. Vaccination is considered as the most effective way to prevent the COVID-19 epidemic. Patients with mental disorders are at high risk of COVID-19 infection who are in urgent need to get protection. However, due to the particularity of their conditions, whether these patients should be vaccinated has become a tough issue that obsesses doctors, patients with mental disorders, and their families. In light of this issue, this article provides expert advice on the safety, legal and ethical issues of vaccination for patients with mental disorders to regulate the vaccination of these vulnerable populations against COVID-19. © 2022 Chinese Journal of Psychiatry. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
The limited and coordinated use of travel measures to control the international spread of disease, based on scientific evidence and respect for human rights, are core tenets of the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Health Regulations (IHR). Yet, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been near universal and largely uncoordinated use of travel measures by national governments, characterized by wide variation in what measures have been used, when and how they have been applied, and whom they have been applicable to. Given the significant social and economic impacts caused by travel measures, analyses to date have sought to understand the effectiveness of specific measures, in reducing importation and onward spread of SARS-CoV-2, or needed efforts to strengthen compliance with the IHR. There has been limited study of the role of national-level policy making to explain these widely varying practices. Applying path dependency theory to Canadian policies on travel measures, this paper analyses the interaction between science and politics during four key periods of the pandemic response. Bringing together systematic reviews of the scientific literature with parliamentary records, we argue that the evidentiary gap on travel measures during the initial pandemic wave was filled by political and economic influences that shaped when, how and for whom testing and quarantine measures for travelers were applied. These influences then created a degree of path dependency that limited the capacity of government officials to change policy during subsequent waves of the pandemic. This was accompanied by frequent government claims of reliance on science and evidence but limited transparency about what and how scientific evidence informed policy decisions. We argue that, over time, this further politicized the issue of travel measures and undermined public trust. We conclude that fuller understanding of the interaction between science and politics in national decision-making about border management during the COVID-19 pandemic is essential to future efforts to strengthen international coordination under the IHR. Copyright © 2022 Piper, Gomis and Lee.
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 containment has become a top global public health concern. China has obtained a phased achievement in containing COVID-19 pandemic, during the process, primary medical institutions and general practitioner teams in regional medical consortiums have played a key role. To better guide and standardize the development of regional medical consortiums, give full play to the bridge role and grid management of general medicine in COVID-19 pandemic containment, and consolidate the achievements of COVID-19 pandemic containment further, we invited a group of related experts to develop the Expert Advice on Community-based Grid Containment of COVID-19 Pandemic by the General Practice Network & Regional Medical Consortium(the First Version for Trial Implementation)(hereinafter referred to as the Expert Advice) following in-depth analysis and thorough consideration of literature review results, suggestions extensively collected and practical evidence, which mainly includes the following aspects: the essential characters of the general practice network & regional medical consortium, organizational structure, contents and separation of responsibilities and duties, operation mechanism, content of the work, workflow, training and assessment. We hope the Expert Advice will contribute to the construction and operation of the general practice network & regional medical consortium in various regions for COVID-19 containment. Copyright © 2022 by the Chinese General Practice.
ABSTRACT
The drivers of the harassment and intimidation of researchers are complex, widespread, and global in their reach and were being studied across many disciplines even before COVID-19. This policy briefing reviews some of the scholarship on this wide-ranging problem but focuses on what can be done to help ensure that Canadians fully benefit from the work of Canada's researchers while also preserving the security and safety of those researchers. It identifies policies and actions that can be implemented in the near term to gather information on the problem, better frame public research communications, and ensure that mechanisms are readily available to support researchers who are threatened. The policy briefing is concerned with researchers, but these behaviours are also harming journalists, politicians, public health communicators, and many others more fully in the public eye than researchers. Some recommendations here may help to address this wider problem.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Social distancing policies to ensure physical distance between people have become a crucial strategy in the battle against the spread of the coronavirus. The aim of this project is to analyze and compare social distancing policies implemented in Denmark and Sweden in 2020. Despite many similarities between the two countries, their response to the coronavirus pandemic differed markedly. Whereas authorities in Denmark initiated mandatory regulations and many severe restrictions, Swedish authorities predominantly promoted voluntary recommendations. METHODS: The project is an interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers in Denmark and Sweden with different disciplinary backgrounds. The project is based on a comparative analysis, an approach that attempts to reach conclusions beyond single cases and to explain differences and similarities between objects of analysis and relations between objects against the backdrop of their contextual conditions. Data will be gathered by means of document analysis, qualitative interviews, and a questionnaire survey to address three research questions: (1) What social distancing policies regarding the coronavirus have been formulated and implemented, who are the policymakers behind the policy measures, which implementers are expected to implement the measures, and who are the targets that the measures ultimately seek to influence? (2) How have the social distancing policies and policy measures been justified, and what types of knowledge form the basis for the measures? and (3) What are the differences and similarities in citizens' perceptions of acceptability and compliance with social distancing policy measures in relation to the coronavirus? DISCUSSION: To create a structure for addressing the three research questions, the project applies a theoretical framework informed by the policy and implementation science literatures. The framework consists of five interdependent domains that have an impact on policy implementation: (1) policymakers, (2) policy characteristics, (3) implementers, (4) targets, and (5) policy environment. Details of the framework are provided in the article.