Global economic crisis, energy use, CO2 emissions, and policy roadmap amid COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as one of the deadliest infectious diseases on the planet. Millions of people and businesses have been placed in lockdown where the main aim is to stop the spread of the virus. As an extreme phenomenon, the lockdown has triggered a global economic shock at an alarming pace, conveying sharp recessions for many countries. In the meantime, the lockdowns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have drastically changed energy consumption patterns and reduced CO2 emissions throughout the world. Recent data released by the International Monetary Fund and International Energy Agency for 2020 further forecast that emissions will rebound in 2021. Still, the full impact of COVID-19 in terms of how long the crisis will be and how the consumption pattern of energy and the associated levels of CO2 emissions will be affected are unclear. This review aims to steer policymakers and governments of nations toward a better direction by providing a broad and convincing overview on the observed and likely impacts of the pandemic of COVID-19 on the world economy, world energy demand, and world energy-related CO2 emissions that may well emerge in the next few years. Indeed, given that immediate policy responses are required with equal urgency to address three things-pandemic, economic downturn, and climate crisis. This study outlines policy suggestions that can be used during these uncertain times as a guide.

Infectious disease, the climate, and the future.

Emergence and resurgence of infectious diseases are serious threats to population health. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused an enormous human toll and health crisis. Responses to the pandemic are significantly affecting the global economy. What is most concerning about COVID-19 is not the virus itself, but rather that it may compound with other and more serious crises. Climate change will likely affect human health, economy, and the society more than disease outbreaks. Governments at all levels, from local to international, can chart a greener, healthier, and equitable course for the future, investing in strategies and technologies that minimize and prevent risks, including those posed by climate change and the pandemic, promoting obligations to drastically reduce emissions, enhancing societal equality, improving community resilience, and achieving sustainable development goals.

Sexual Behavior Change Among Gay and Bisexual Men During the First COVID-19 Pandemic Wave in the United States.

BACKGROUND: After decades of navigating HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, gay and bisexual men are responding to new and uncertain risks presented by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic by adapting their sexual behavior. METHODS: This paper uses data from a national sample of 728 gay and bisexual men collected from April 10 to May 10, 2020, to examine changes to sexual behavior in response to the first wave of the pandemic in the USA. We also assess whether behavior modifications are associated with exposure to statewide public health measures, including Stay-at-Home orders. RESULTS: Sexual minority men report significant changes to their sexual behavior and partner selection during the first wave. Nine out of 10 men reported having either one sexual partner or no sexual partner in the last 30 days at the time of interview, a decrease compared to just before the pandemic for nearly half of men surveyed. Reporting no sexual partners in the last 30 days was significantly predicted by increased exposure to a Stay-at-Home order. Sexual minority men also reduced interactions with casual partners, increased no-contact sexual behaviors (e.g., masturbation and virtual sex), and engaged in new strategies to reduce their risks of infection from partners. HIV-positive men were particularly likely to adopt strategies including avoiding casual partners and avoiding public transportation to meet sexual partners. CONCLUSION: Sexual minority men's behavior changes during the first wave may have reduced the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on their communities. Despite substantial changes in sexual behavior for most men in our sample during the initial first wave, we identify some concerns around the sustainability of certain behavioral changes over time and nondisclosure of COVID-19 symptoms to partners.

Effective incentives for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

In this study, we examined the relative effectiveness of prestige-based incentives (vaccination of an expert scientist/president/politician/celebrity/religious leader), conformist incentives (vaccination of friends and family) and risk-based incentives (witnessing death or illness of a person from the disease) for increasing participants' chances of getting vaccinated with respect to their coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine intention. We conducted a cross-cultural survey using demographically representative samples from the UK (n = 1533), USA (n = 1550) and Turkey (n = 1567). The most effective incentives in all three countries were vaccination of an expert scientist, followed by vaccination of friends and family members and knowing someone dying from the disease. Vaccination of an expert scientist was significantly more effective at increasing vaccine intention than any other incentive. Vaccine incentives, regardless of the incentive type, were much less effective for those who originally refused the COVID-19 vaccine than for those who were hesitant to receive the vaccine. Although the percentage of vaccine-hesitant participants was highest in Turkey, the mean effectiveness scores of incentives were also the highest in Turkey, suggesting that an informed vaccine promotion strategy can be successful in this country. Our findings have policy applicability and suggest that positive vaccination messages delivered by expert scientists, vaccination of friends and family and risk-based incentives can be effective at increasing vaccine uptake.

The Psychology of COVID-19 Booster Hesitancy, Acceptance and Resistance in Australia.

COVID-19 booster vaccinations have been recommended as a primary line of defence against serious illness and hospitalisation. This study identifies and characterises distinct profiles of attitudes towards vaccination, particularly the willingness to get a booster dose. A sample of 582 adults from Australia completed an online survey capturing COVID-related behaviours, beliefs and attitudes and a range of sociodemographic, psychological, political, social and cultural variables. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) identified three subgroups: Acceptant (61%), Hesitant (30%) and Resistant (9%). Compared to the Acceptant group, the Hesitant and Resistant groups were less worried about catching COVID-19, used fewer official COVID-19 information sources, checked the news less, were lower on the agreeableness personality dimension and reported more conservatism, persecutory thinking, amoral attitudes and need for chaos. The Hesitant group also reported checking the legitimacy of information sources less, scored lower on the openness to new experiences personality dimension and were more likely than the Resistant and Acceptant groups to report regaining freedoms (e.g., travel) and work requirements or external pressures as reasons to get a booster. The Resistant group were higher on reactance, held more conspiratorial beliefs and rated their culture as being less tolerant of deviance than the Hesitant and Acceptant groups. This research can inform tailored approaches to increasing booster uptake and optimal strategies for public health messaging.

Solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from a nine-country interview study in Europe.

Calls for solidarity have been an ubiquitous feature in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we know little about how people have thought of and practised solidarity in their everyday lives since the beginning of the pandemic. What role does solidarity play in people's lives, how does it relate to COVID-19 public health measures and how has it changed in different phases of the pandemic? Situated within the medical humanities at the intersection of philosophy, bioethics, social sciences and policy studies, this article explores how the practice-based understanding of solidarity formulated by Prainsack and Buyx helps shed light on these questions. Drawing on 643 qualitative interviews carried out in two phases (April-May 2020 and October 2020) in nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, German-speaking Switzerland and the UK), the data show that interpersonal acts of solidarity are important, but that they are not sustainable without consistent support at the institutional level. As the pandemic progressed, respondents expressed a longing for more institutionalised forms of solidarity. We argue that the medical humanities have much to gain from directing their attention to individual health issues, and to collective experiences of health or illness. The analysis of experiences through a collective lens such as solidarity offers unique insights to understandings of the individual and the collective. We propose three essential advances for research in the medical humanities that can help uncover collective experiences of disease and health crises: (1) an empirical and practice-oriented approach alongside more normative approaches; (2) the confidence to make recommendations for practice and policymaking and (3) the pursuit of cross-national and multidisciplinary research collaborations.

Telehealth as a Tool to Transform Pediatric Care: Views from Stakeholders.

Background and Objectives: The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic generated rapid telehealth expansion. Most prior telehealth studies focus on a single program or health condition, leaving a knowledge gap regarding the most appropriate and effective means of allocating telehealth services and funding. This research seeks to evaluate a wide range of perspectives to inform pediatric telehealth policy and practice. Methods: In 2017, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center) issued a Request for Information to inform the Integrated Care for Kids model. Researchers identified 55 of 186 responses that addressed telehealth and analyzed them based on grounded theory principles overlaid with a constructivist approach to contextualize Medicaid policies, respondent characteristics, and implications for specific populations. Results: Respondents noted several health equity issues that telehealth could help to remedy, including timely care access, specialist shortages, transportation and distance barriers, provider-to-provider communication, and patient and family engagement. Implementation barriers reported by commenters included reimbursement restrictions, licensure issues, and costs of initial infrastructure. Respondents raised savings, care integration, accountability, and increased access to care as potential benefits. Discussion and Conclusions: The pandemic demonstrated that the health system can implement telehealth rapidly, although telehealth cannot be used to provide every aspect of pediatric care such as vaccinations. Respondents highlighted the promise of telehealth, which is heightened if telehealth supports health care transformation rather than replicating how in-office care is currently provided. Telehealth also offers the potential to increase health equity for some populations of pediatric patients.

Oral health inequalities-Developments in research, policy and practice over the last 50 years.

At times of major geopolitical conflict, macroeconomic crisis and the 'aftershocks' of the COVID-19 syndemic still having a global impact, it is the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in society who undoubtedly suffer the most. During these turbulent and uncertain times, it is essential that sufficient policy attention is given to tackling the persistent and stark health inequalities that exist both between and within countries. This commentary aims to critically reflect on developments in oral health inequalities research, policy and practice over the last 50 years. Despite often challenging political contexts, progress has undoubtedly been made in our understanding of the nature and underlying social, economic and political causes of oral health inequalities. A developing body of global research has highlighted patterns of inequalities in oral health that exist across the lifecourse, but less progress has been made in implementing and evaluating policy interventions to tackle these unfair and unjust inequalities in oral health. At a global level through WHO leadership, oral health is at a 'tipping point' with a unique window of opportunity for policy change and development. Transformative policy and system reforms co-produced with community and other key stakeholders are now urgently needed to tackle oral health inequalities.

Unintended consequences of communicating rapid COVID-19 vaccine policy changes- a qualitative study of health policy communication in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The success of the COVID-19 vaccination roll-out depended on clear policy communication and guidance to promote and facilitate vaccine uptake. The rapidly evolving pandemic circumstances led to many vaccine policy amendments. The impact of changing policy on effective vaccine communication and its influence in terms of societal response to vaccine promotion are underexplored; this qualitative research addresses that gap within the extant literature. METHODS: Policy communicators and community leaders from urban and rural Ontario participated in semi-structured interviews (N = 29) to explore their experiences of COVID-19 vaccine policy communication. Thematic analysis was used to produce representative themes. RESULTS: Analysis showed rapidly changing policy was a barrier to smooth communication and COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. Continual amendments had unintended consequences, stimulating confusion, disrupting community outreach efforts and interrupting vaccine implementation. Policy changes were most disruptive to logistical planning and community engagement work, including community outreach, communicating eligibility criteria, and providing translated vaccine information to diverse communities. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine policy changes that allow for prioritized access can have the unintended consequence of limiting communities' access to information that supports decision making. Rapidly evolving circumstances require a balance between adjusting policy and maintaining simple, consistent public health messages that can readily be translated into action. Information access is a factor in health inequality that needs addressing alongside access to vaccines.

Stay home, stay safe? Public health assumptions about how we live with COVID.

The COVID pandemic has had an uneven impact on families and communities, exacerbating existing structural disadvantage. We demonstrate that the construction of the pandemic by policymakers as primarily a medical problem has shaped the public health response in such a way as to hide the resulting lack of access to necessities for many and deterioration in people's wellbeing. We interviewed social welfare service providers in an urban area of high cultural and linguistic diversity and low socioeconomic advantage, about their experiences in the 2021 lockdown period. Our findings highlight the unanticipated impacts of the public health response on people who cannot be recognised in the normative subjects constructed by policy. We bring to the fore the hidden experiences behind the government-reported COVID health statistics and explore the (dis)integration of services that support survival. To avoid worsening structural disadvantage, policy responses to crisis require conceptualising the problem and its solutions from diverse standpoints, built on an understanding of the different elements that shape who we are and the way we live.

Flattening the Curve after the Initial Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Data-Driven Modeling Analysis for the Omicron Pandemic in China.

China is relaxing COVID-19 measures from the "dynamic zero tolerance" (DZT) level. The "flatten-the-curve" (FTC) strategy, which decreases and maintains the low rate of infection to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system by adopting relaxed nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) after the outbreak, has been perceived as the most appropriate and effective method in preventing the spread of the Omicron variant. Hence, we established an improved data-driven model of Omicron transmission based on the age-structured stochastic compartmental susceptible-latent-infectious-removed-susceptible model constructed by Cai to deduce the overall prevention effect throughout China. At the current level of immunity without the application of any NPIs, more than 1.27 billion (including asymptomatic individuals) were infected within 90 days. Moreover, the Omicron outbreak would result in 1.49 million deaths within 180 days. The application of FTC could decrease the number of deaths by 36.91% within 360 days. The strict implementation of FTC policy combined with completed vaccination and drug use, which only resulted in 0.19 million deaths in an age-stratified model, will help end the pandemic within about 240 days. The pandemic would be successfully controlled within a shorter period of time without a high fatality rate; therefore, the FTC policy could be strictly implemented through enhancement of immunity and drug use.

The ethics of firing unvaccinated employees.

Some organisations make vaccination a condition of employment. This means prospective employees must demonstrate they have been vaccinated (eg, against measles) to be hired. But it also means organisations must decide whether existing employees should be expected to meet newly introduced vaccination conditions (eg, against COVID-19). Unlike prospective employees who will not be hired if they do not meet vaccination conditions, existing employees who fail to meet new vaccination conditions risk being fired The latter seems worse than the former. Hence, objections to vaccination mandates commonly centre on the harms that will be visited on existing employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated. However, because this objection does not necessarily entail the claim that vaccination is unnecessary for the effective and safe performance of certain jobs, those making this objection should have less of an objection, or no objection at all (at least on these grounds), to introducing vaccination requirements in some cases for prospective employees. Yet, in this paper, I shall argue that if one has reason to believe vaccination requirements can be justified for prospective employees, one should also believe they are justified for existing employees despite any asymmetry in consequences experienced by the two groups. As a consequence, common objections made against vaccination mandates grounded solely in the harms that may be experienced by existing employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated should be considered unpersuasive.

Corrigendum: Saving more lives on time: Strategic policy implementation and financial inclusion for safe abortion in Indonesia during COVID-19 and beyond.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fgwh.2022.901842.].

Embedding rapid reviews in health policy and systems decision-making: Impacts and lessons learned from four low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Demand for rapid evidence-based syntheses to inform health policy and systems decision-making has increased worldwide, including in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To promote use of rapid syntheses in LMICs, the WHO's Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (AHPSR) created the Embedding Rapid Reviews in Health Systems Decision-Making (ERA) Initiative. Following a call for proposals, four LMICs were selected (Georgia, India, Malaysia and Zimbabwe) and supported for 1 year to embed rapid response platforms within a public institution with a health policy or systems decision-making mandate. METHODS: While the selected platforms had experience in health policy and systems research and evidence syntheses, platforms were less confident conducting rapid evidence syntheses. A technical assistance centre (TAC) was created from the outset to develop and lead a capacity-strengthening program for rapid syntheses, tailored to the platforms based on their original proposals and needs as assessed in a baseline questionnaire. The program included training in rapid synthesis methods, as well as generating synthesis demand, engaging knowledge users and ensuring knowledge uptake. Modalities included live training webinars, in-country workshops and support through phone, email and an online platform. LMICs provided regular updates on policy-makers' requests and the rapid products provided, as well as barriers, facilitators and impacts. Post-initiative, platforms were surveyed. RESULTS: Platforms provided rapid syntheses across a range of AHPSR themes, and successfully engaged national- and state-level policy-makers. Examples of substantial policy impact were observed, including for COVID-19. Although the post-initiative survey response rate was low, three quarters of those responding felt confident in their ability to conduct a rapid evidence synthesis. Lessons learned coalesced around three themes - the importance of context-specific expertise in conducting reviews, facilitating cross-platform learning, and planning for platform sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: The ERA initiative successfully established rapid response platforms in four LMICs. The short timeframe limited the number of rapid products produced, but there were examples of substantial impact and growing demand. We emphasize that LMICs can and should be involved not only in identifying and articulating needs but as co-designers in their own capacity-strengthening programs. More time is required to assess whether these platforms will be sustained for the long-term.

"My Biggest Fear Is She'll Die Alone": Care Partner Perspectives of Institutional COVID-19 Visitor Restrictions in Ontario, Canada.

In March 2020, the Government of Ontario, Canada implemented public health measures, including visitor restrictions in institutional care settings, to protect vulnerable populations, including older adults (> 65 years), against COVID-19 infection. Prior research has shown that visitor restrictions can negatively influence older adults' physical and mental health and can cause increased stress and anxiety for care partners. This study explores the experiences of care partners separated from the person they care for because of institutional visitor restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. We interviewed 14 care partners between the ages of 50 and 89; 11 were female. The main themes that emerged were changing public health and infection prevention and control policies, shifting care partner roles as a result of visitor restrictions, resident isolation and deterioration from the care partner perspective, communication challenges, and reflections on the impacts of visitor restrictions. Findings may be used to inform future health policy and system reforms.