The Supreme Court Is Harming Public Health and the Environment.

This Viewpoint looks back at the US Supreme Court's 2021 and 2022 terms and forward to the 2023 term and beyond with a focus on decisions that affect health care, public health and safety, environmental policy, and social equity.

Fix the backlash against public health.

Societies generally have reacted to deadly epidemics by strengthening health systems, including laws. Under American federalism (the constitutional division of power between states and the federal government), individual states hold primary public health powers. State legislatures have historically granted health officials wide-ranging authority. After the anthrax attacks in the United States in 2001, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supported the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, which granted public health officials even more expansive powers to declare a health emergency and respond swiftly. But all that ended with COVID-19, as state legislatures and courts gutted this authority. The next pandemic could be far deadlier than COVID-19, but when the public looks to federal and state governments to protect them, they may find that health officials have their hands tied behind their backs.

Impact of Public Health and Social Measures on the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States and Other Countries: Descriptive Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The United States of America has the highest global number of COVID-19 cases and deaths, which may be due in part to delays and inconsistencies in implementing public health and social measures (PHSMs). OBJECTIVE: In this descriptive analysis, we analyzed the epidemiological evidence for the impact of PHSMs on COVID-19 transmission in the United States and compared these data to those for 10 other countries of varying income levels, population sizes, and geographies. METHODS: We compared PHSM implementation timing and stringency against COVID-19 daily case counts in the United States and against those in Canada, China, Ethiopia, Japan, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe from January 1 to November 25, 2020. We descriptively analyzed the impact of border closures, contact tracing, household confinement, mandated face masks, quarantine and isolation, school closures, limited gatherings, and states of emergency on COVID-19 case counts. We also compared the relationship between global socioeconomic indicators and national pandemic trajectories across the 11 countries. PHSMs and case count data were derived from various surveillance systems, including the Health Intervention Tracking for COVID-19 database, the World Health Organization PHSM database, and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. RESULTS: Implementing a specific package of 4 PHSMs (quarantine and isolation, school closures, household confinement, and the limiting of social gatherings) early and stringently was observed to coincide with lower case counts and transmission durations in Vietnam, Zimbabwe, New Zealand, South Korea, Ethiopia, and Kazakhstan. In contrast, the United States implemented few PHSMs stringently or early and did not use this successful package. Across the 11 countries, national income positively correlated (r=0.624) with cumulative COVID-19 incidence. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that early implementation, consistent execution, adequate duration, and high adherence to PHSMs represent key factors of reducing the spread of COVID-19. Although national income may be related to COVID-19 progression, a country's wealth appears to be less important in controlling the pandemic and more important in taking rapid, centralized, and consistent public health action.

Determinants of Shielding Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associations With Well-being Among National Health Service Patients: Longitudinal Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The UK National Health Service (NHS) classified 2.2 million people as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, advising them to "shield" (to not leave home for any reason). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure the determinants of shielding behavior and associations with well-being in a large NHS patient population for informing future health policy. METHODS: Patients contributing to an ongoing longitudinal participatory epidemiology study (Longitudinal Effects on Wellbeing of the COVID-19 Pandemic [LoC-19], n=42,924) received weekly email invitations to complete questionnaires (17-week shielding period starting April 9, 2020) within their NHS personal electronic health record. Question items focused on well-being. Participants were stratified into four groups by self-reported CEV status (qualifying condition) and adoption of shielding behavior (baselined at week 1 or 2). The distribution of CEV criteria was reported alongside situational variables and univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Longitudinal trends in physical and mental well-being were displayed graphically. Free-text responses reporting variables impacting well-being were semiquantified using natural language processing. In the lead up to a second national lockdown (October 23, 2020), a follow-up questionnaire evaluated subjective concern if further shielding was advised. RESULTS: The study included 7240 participants. In the CEV group (n=2391), 1133 (47.3%) assumed shielding behavior at baseline, compared with 633 (13.0%) in the non-CEV group (n=4849). CEV participants who shielded were more likely to be Asian (odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% CI 1.49-2.76), female (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.45), older (OR per year increase 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02), living in a home with an outdoor space (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06-1.70) or three to four other inhabitants (three: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15-1.94; four: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.01), or solid organ transplant recipients (OR 2.85, 95% CI 2.18-3.77), or have severe chronic lung disease (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30-2.04). Receipt of a government letter advising shielding was reported in 1115 (46.6%) CEV participants and 180 (3.7%) non-CEV participants, and was associated with adopting shielding behavior (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.82-3.95 and OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.04-3.99, respectively). In CEV participants, shielding at baseline was associated with a lower rating of mental well-being and physical well-being. Similar results were found for non-CEV participants. Concern for well-being if future shielding was required was most prevalent among CEV participants who had originally shielded. CONCLUSIONS: Future health policy must balance the potential protection from COVID-19 against our findings that shielding negatively impacted well-being and was adopted in many in whom it was not indicated and variably in whom it was indicated. This therefore also requires clearer public health messaging and support for well-being if shielding is to be advised in future pandemic scenarios.

Failure in initial stage containment of global COVID-19 epicenters.

With multiple virus epicenters, COVID-19 has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Consequently, many countries have implemented different policies to manage this crisis including curfew and lockdown. However, the efficacy of individual policies remains unclear with respect to COVID-19 case development. We analyzed available data on COVID-19 cases of eight majorly affected countries, including China, Italy, Iran, Germany, France, Spain, South Korea, and Japan. Growth rates and doubling time of cases were calculated for the first 6 weeks after the initial cases were declared for each respective country and put into context with implemented policies. Although the growth rate of total confirmed COVID-19 cases in China has decreased, those for Japan have remained constant. For European countries, the growth rate of COVID-19 cases considerably increased during the second time interval. Interestingly, the rates for Germany, Spain, and France are the highest measured in the second interval and even surpass the numbers in Italy. Although the initial data in Asian countries are encouraging with respect to case development at the initial stage, the opposite is true for European countries. Based on our data, disease management in the 2 weeks following the first reported cases is of utmost importance.

National identity predicts public health support during a global pandemic.

Changing collective behaviour and supporting non-pharmaceutical interventions is an important component in mitigating virus transmission during a pandemic. In a large international collaboration (Study 1, N = 49,968 across 67 countries), we investigated self-reported factors associated with public health behaviours (e.g., spatial distancing and stricter hygiene) and endorsed public policy interventions (e.g., closing bars and restaurants) during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-May 2020). Respondents who reported identifying more strongly with their nation consistently reported greater engagement in public health behaviours and support for public health policies. Results were similar for representative and non-representative national samples. Study 2 (N = 42 countries) conceptually replicated the central finding using aggregate indices of national identity (obtained using the World Values Survey) and a measure of actual behaviour change during the pandemic (obtained from Google mobility reports). Higher levels of national identification prior to the pandemic predicted lower mobility during the early stage of the pandemic (r = -0.40). We discuss the potential implications of links between national identity, leadership, and public health for managing COVID-19 and future pandemics.