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.