The impact of COVID-19 on access to canine integrative medical care in Michigan, USA, and Ontario and British Columbia, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of the COVID-19 associated restrictions on the ability of owners in Michigan (MI), USA versus Ontario (ON) and British Columbia (BC), Canada, to obtain care for their chronically painful dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. POPULATION: A total of 90 owners met the inclusion criteria for the study. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to owners at four veterinary integrative medicine (IM) clinics during July and August 2020. Two clinics in MI and one each in ON and BC were recruited. Owners were asked about availability of IM care preceding and during COVID-19 restrictions and their opinions of the impact of COVID-19 on their dog's health. The survey asked where owners sought care for their dogs, types of chronic conditions treated, therapeutic modalities used, and if owners had a medical background. Comparisons were made within and between groups. Thematic analysis, Fisher's exact test, chi-square analyses, McNemar's and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for paired comparisons were performed (p < 0.05). RESULTS: During COVID-19 restrictions, access to IM care was better for dogs in ON and BC than in MI (p < 0.001). The negative effect of the pandemic restrictions to IM care on quality of life was perceived greater by owners in MI than those in ON and BC (p < 0.001). The owners' medical backgrounds had no effect on attempts to access care during this time (p = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results suggest that a widespread disease in humans had an adverse impact on animal welfare. Providers of veterinary care should use this experience to establish protocols to ensure continuity of care for chronically painful animals in the event of a similar situation in the future.

Infected by Bias: Behavioral Science and the Legal Response to COVID-19.

This Article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the contribution of behavioral science to the legal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the descriptive level, the Article shows how different psychological phenomena such as loss aversion and cultural cognition influenced the way policymakers and the public perceived the pandemic, and how such phenomena affected the design of laws and regulations responding to COVID-19. At the normative level, the Article compares nudges (i.e., choice-preserving, behaviorally informed tools that encourage people to behave as desired) and mandates (i.e., obligations backed by sanctions that dictate to people how they must behave). The Article argues that mandates rather than nudges should serve in most cases as the primary legal tool used to regulate behavior during a pandemic. Nonetheless, this Article highlights ways in which nudges can complement mandates.

Tailoring Public Health Policies.

In an effort to contain the spread of COVID-19, many states and countries have adopted public health restrictions on activities previously considered commonplace: crossing state borders, eating indoors, gathering together, and even leaving one's home. These policies often focus on specific activities or groups, rather than imposing the same limits across the board. In this Article, I consider the law and ethics of these policies, which I call tailored policies.In Part II, I identify two types of tailored policies: activity-based and group-based. Activity-based restrictions respond to differences in the risks and benefits of specific activities, such as walking outdoors and dining indoors. Group-based restrictions consider differences between groups with respect to risk and benefit. Examples are policies that treat children or senior citizens differently, policies that require travelers to quarantine when traveling to a new destination, and policies that treat individuals differently based on whether they have COVID-19 symptoms, have tested positive for COVID-19, have previous COVID-19 infection, or have been vaccinated against COVID-19. In Part III, I consider the public health law grounding of tailored policies in the principles of "least restrictive means" and "well-targeting." I also examine how courts have analyzed tailored policies that have been challenged on fundamental rights or equal protection grounds. I argue that fundamental rights analyses typically favor tailored policies and that equal protection does not preclude the use of tailored policies even when imperfectly crafted. In Part IV, I consider three critiques of tailored policies, centering on the claims that they produce inequity, cause harm, or unacceptably limit liberty. I argue that we must evaluate restrictions comparatively: the question is not whether tailored policies are perfectly equitable, wholly prevent harm, or completely protect liberty, but whether they are better than untailored ones at realizing these goals in a pandemic. I also argue that evaluation must consider indirect harms and benefits as well as direct and apparent ones.

Examining Public Concerns and Attitudes toward Unfair Events Involving Elderly Travelers during the COVID-19 Pandemic Using Weibo Data.

The Chinese government has launched a digital health code system to detect people potentially exposed to the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease and to curb its spread. Citizens are required to show the health code on their smartphones when using public transport. However, many seniors are not allowed to use public transport due to their difficulties in obtaining health codes, leading to widespread debates about these unfair events. Traditionally, public perceptions and attitudes toward such unfair events are investigated using analytical methods based on interviews or questionnaires. This study crawled seven-month messages from Sina Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter, and developed a hybrid approach integrating term-frequency-inverse-document-frequency, latent Dirichlet allocation, and sentiment classification. Results indicate that a rumor about the unfair treatment of elderly travelers triggered public concerns. Primary subjects of concern were the status quo of elderly travelers, the provision of transport services, and unfair event descriptions. Following the government's responses, people still had negative attitudes toward transport services, while they became more positive about the status quo of elderly travelers. These findings will guide government authorities to explore new forms of automated social control and to improve transport policies in terms of equity and fairness in future pandemics.

The association of mode of location activity and mobility with acute coronary syndrome: a nationwide ecological study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to study the effect of social containment mandates on ACS presentation during COVID-19 pandemic using location activity and mobility data from mobile phone map services. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) including all ACS presentations during the pandemic until 7 May 2020. Using a count regression model, we adjusted for day of the week, daily weather and incidence of COVID-19. RESULTS: A 10% increase in activity around areas of residence was associated with 38% lower rates of ACS hospitalizations, whereas increased activity relating to retail and recreation, grocery stores and pharmacies, workplaces and mode of mobility was associated with 10-20% higher rates of ACS hospitalizations. CONCLUSION: Government policy regarding social containment mandates has important public health implications for medical emergencies such as ACS and may explain the decline in ACS presentations observed during COVID-19 pandemic.

Spring in London with Covid-19: a personal view.

This is a personal view from London as the Covid-19 pandemic continues to spread here and the situation changes from day to day. As such it can only be a snapshot caught in time; it is not a diary of events. The Coronavirus Act 2020 gives Government enormous powers and was passed by Parliament in one day of debate immediately before it closed early for the Easter break. In March, the government imposed a "lockdown: the closure of all" but "essential" businesses and people other than essential workers must work from home but are allowed out for exercise and food shopping but must maintain 2 m apart, the "social distancing rule". The aim is to suppress the spread of the virus, reduce the death toll and "protect the National Health Service (NHS)" which needed time to empty wards and expand its intensive care unit (ICU) capability to deal with an expected influx of thousands of very sick patients. I discuss whether this strategy is working, how and why it has rapidly been altered to respond to criticism. Why was the Government so slow to seek the help of private laboratories to assist with testing? Why was the personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance altered only after criticism? I look at the impact of the lockdown on the UK economy, the changes to practice of medicine and speeding of scientific research. Cooperating with the lockdown has its price; is it harming the health and mental health of children, people living in households with potentially abusive partners or parents and those who are disabled or financially desperate? Is the cure worse than the disease? The Economy is being devastated by the lockdown and each day of lockdown it is worse. Is litigation being seeded even now by the pandemic? Notwithstanding unprecedented Government financial help many businesses are on the edge of collapse, people will lose their jobs and pensioners income. The winners include pharmacies, supermarkets, online food retailers, Amazon, online apps, providers of video games, services, streaming and scientific research laboratories, manufacturers of testing kits, ventilators, hand sanitisers, coffins, undertakers, etc. The British public is cooperating with lockdown but are we less productive at home? Parents with babies and children often child minders, school, grandparents or paid help which is not now available. Will current reliance on video-conferencing and video calls permanently change the way we work and will we need smaller city offices? Will we travel less? Will medical and legal practice and civil and criminal trials be generally carried out remotely? Will social distancing with self-isolation and job losses and business failures fuel depression? Is Covid-19 comparable to past epidemics like the Plague and Spanish flu?

Notes From the Field: Vape Shop Business Operations Compliance in the Wake of COVID-19.

The novel 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the closing of all but essential businesses in California. However, several nonessential businesses have remained open in Southern California despite the mandated "stay at home" order issued by the governor. As part of an ongoing vape shop project involving 88 participating shops, this study investigated the number of vape shops that remained open amidst the coronavirus outbreak and related mandates. Examination of shop social media websites and telephone calls to shops revealed that 61.4% (n = 54) have remained open, particularly within Korean/Asian and Hispanic/Latino ethnic locations (32 of the 54 shops). Importantly, walk-in service was much higher within Hispanic/Latino locations compared to African American, Korean/Asian, or non-Hispanic White neighborhoods (p = 0.03). It is not known if shops that stayed open were in direct violation of the order, didn't know all the details of the order, or found a loophole in the order and believed that they were an essential business. Better communication between the vape shop industry and public health officials during this pandemic is needed.