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.

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.

Different Paths and Potentials to Harm Reduction in Different Welfare States: Drug Consumption Rooms in the United Kingdom, Denmark, and France

The harm reduction approach entered British national policy after the Thatcher government-which was no friend of the welfare state-accepted the 1988 recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which asserted that preventing HIV transmission was more important than insisting that people stop using heroin.16 Rates of HIV and hepatitis C among people who inject drugs are still much lower in the United Kingdom than in the United States. Since the 1990s, support for harm reduction in UK policy and funding has waxed and waned. Cuts to treatment budgets, recommissioning of treatment services, and a push for people to leave treatment drug-free were followed byannual increases in drug-related deaths starting in 2013 and a decrease in the number of people in treatment.20 The most recent UK government drug strategy (published in December 2021) makes little direct mention of harm reduction but does include it in the wide range of services in which GBP780 million of new funding is to be invested from 2022 to 2025 in England.21 The UK government is also reviving punitive rhetoric alongside its new investment in treatment services, blaming drug users rather than blanket prohibition for the harms of organized crime and ruling out DCRs on spurious legal grounds.22 It was left to an activist with a lived experience of problematic drug use to set up the first overdose prevention service in the United Kingdom, which they did in a secondhand vehicle on the streets of Glasgow in 2020-2021. Graduated goals meant that treatment "should not only aim to 'heal' addiction, but to provide rehabilitating measures while drug abuse continues"28(p132) and should include basic improvement of physical health and improvement of the situation of those who use drugs, including through abstinence. Danish drug policy as It was developed during the 1960s and 1970s was based on the Ideas that criminal sanctions should reduce the supply of drugs and that social welfare measures should reduce the demand for drugs.29 This meant that possession of Illicit drugs for personal use was depenalized from 1969 to 2004.

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.

COVID-19 and the health of people who use drugs: What is and what could be?

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has changed the world as we know it, and continues to do so. How COVID-19 affects people who use drugs, the environments in which they live, and capacities of response, warrants immediate attention. This special issue begins to map how COVID-19 is altering the health of people who use drugs, including in relation to patterns of drug use, service responses, harms that may relate to drug use, interventions to reduce risk of harms, COVID-19 health, and drug policies. We emphasise the need to envisage COVID-19 and its effects as a matter of intersecting 'complex adaptive systems': that is, the impacts of COVID-19 extend beyond the virus and related illness conditions to encompass multiple social, cultural, economic, policy and political effects; and these affect the health of people who use drugs directly as well as indirectly by altering the risk and enabling environments in which they live. We synthesize emergent evidence on the impact of COVID-19 on the health of people who use drugs. A key concern we identify is how to sustain policy and service delivery improvements prompted by COVID-19. We need to maintain an ethos of emergent adaptation and experimentation towards the creation of safer environments in relation to the health of people who use drugs.

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'.

A model society: maths, models and expertise in viral outbreaks

Viral outbreaks and public health emergencies obligate an urgent need for evidence to inform rapid responses. In the case of SARS-Cov-2, a novel virus linked to the fast-moving COVID-19 pandemic, mathematical models projecting disease outbreaks and the potential effects of interventions are playing a critical role. Modelled projections are not only evidence-making policy decisions, but are afforded power-of-acting in public understandings and in social life. We propose here that COVID-19 is coming to be known in maths and models. We trace this process not only in policy but in media stories of maths, mathematicians and models. We accentuate the social life of maths and models, which feed citizen science and social actions in relation to COVID-19. There are general lessons from the emergent evidence-making of COVID-19 for how we do science for public health.