COVID-19: Fear, quackery, false representations and the law.

Fear, anxiety and even paranoia can proliferate during a pandemic. Such conditions, even when subclinical, tend to be a product of personal and predispositional factors, as well as shared cultural influences, including religious, literary, film, and gaming, all of which can lead to emotional and less than rational responses. They can render people vulnerable to engage in implausible conspiracy theories about the causes of illness and governmental responses to it. They can also lead people to give credence to simplistic and unscientific misrepresentations about medications and devices which are claimed to prevent, treat or cure disease. In turn such vulnerability creates predatory opportunities for the unscrupulous. This article notes the eruption of quackery during the 1889-1892 Russian Flu and the 1918-1920 Spanish Flu and the emergence during 2020 of spurious claims during the COVID-19 pandemic. It identifies consumer protection strategies and interventions formulated during the 2020 pandemic. Using examples from the United States, Japan, Australia and the United Kingdom, it argues that during a pandemic there is a need for three responses by government to the risks posed by conspiracy theories and false representations: calm, scientifically-based messaging from public health authorities; cease and desist warnings directed toward those making extravagant or inappropriate claims; and the taking of assertive and well publicised legal action against individuals and entities that make false representations in order to protect consumers rendered vulnerable by their emotional responses to the phenomenology of the pandemic.

COVID-19 in the homeless population: a scoping review and meta-analysis examining differences in prevalence, presentation, vaccine hesitancy and government response in the first year of the pandemic.

AIMS: People experiencing homelessness (PEH) have been identified as being increasingly susceptible to Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), with policies enacted to test, isolate, increase hygiene practices and prioritise vaccines among this population. Here, we conduct a scoping review of the current evidence-base pertaining to the prevalence and presentation of COVID-19 in PEH, COVID-vaccine hesitancy rates and government interventions enacted within the first year of the pandemic for PEH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase and MedRxiv databases for studies reporting primary data on COVID-19 prevalence and clinical characteristics in PEH, vaccine uptake for PEH and policies enacted targeting PEH. Study qualities were assessed with The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's set of Study Quality. RESULTS: Eighty-three studies were included in our final analysis. The overall prevalence of symptomatic COVID-19 infection in PEH is estimated at 35%. The most common symptoms found were cough and shortness of breath, followed by fever. Concerns regarding vaccine hesitancy amongst PEH related to thoroughness of COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, side effects and mistrust of the government. The main strategies implemented by governments were mass testing, adaption of healthcare service provision, provision of alternative housing, encouraging personal hygiene (hand sanitation and mask wearing), and inter-organisational communication. DISCUSSION: In our meta-analysis, 35% of PEH with a COVID-19 infection presented symptomatically; the low prevalence of symptomatic COVID-19 infection suggests widespread testing following outbreaks would be beneficial for this group of individuals. Temporary recuperation units and measures for housing stability in the pandemic, namely provision of alternative housing and stopping evictions, were found to be highly effective. High rates of vaccine hesitancy means that education and encouragement towards vaccination would be beneficial for this vulnerable population, where comorbidities are common. Finally increased focus in research should be placed on the mental health burden of COVID-19 and the pandemic on PEH moving forwards.

'Evidence' within local authority decision making.

Michael Cook looks at the role of an embedded Public Health Information Specialist highlighting the ways the core evidence, information and knowledge skills are used to progress Public Health activity in local government settings. Acknowledging the current pandemic, he explores how COVID-19 has dominated all aspects of health and social care, and outlines how evidence services have work within these complex Public Health systems to lead the local response and recovery efforts.

Public Health Interventions' Effect on Hospital Use in Patients With COVID-19: Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Different states in the United States had different nonpharmaceutical public health interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The effects of those interventions on hospital use have not been systematically evaluated. The investigation could provide data-driven evidence to potentially improve the implementation of public health interventions in the future. OBJECTIVE: We aim to study two representative areas in the United States and one area in China (New York State, Ohio State, and Hubei Province), and investigate the effects of their public health interventions by time periods according to key interventions. METHODS: This observational study evaluated the numbers of infected, hospitalized, and death cases in New York and Ohio from March 16 through September 14, 2020, and Hubei from January 26 to March 31, 2020. We developed novel Bayesian generalized compartmental models. The clinical stages of COVID-19 were stratified in the models, and the effects of public health interventions were modeled through piecewise exponential functions. Time-dependent transmission rates and effective reproduction numbers were estimated. The associations of interventions and the numbers of required hospital and intensive care unit beds were studied. RESULTS: The interventions of social distancing, home confinement, and wearing masks significantly decreased (in a Bayesian sense) the case incidence and reduced the demand for beds in all areas. Ohio's transmission rates declined before the state's "stay at home" order, which provided evidence that early intervention is important. Wearing masks was significantly associated with reducing the transmission rates after reopening, when comparing New York and Ohio. The centralized quarantine intervention in Hubei played a significant role in further preventing and controlling the disease in that area. The estimated rates that cured patients become susceptible in all areas were small (<0.0001), which indicates that they have little chance to get the infection again. CONCLUSIONS: The series of public health interventions in three areas were temporally associated with the burden of COVID-19-attributed hospital use. Social distancing and the use of face masks should continue to prevent the next peak of the pandemic.