Estimates of the value of life lost from COVID-19 in Ohio.

The economic burden of mortality due to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) extends beyond the lives lost. Data from the Ohio Department of Public Health and Social Security Administration was used to estimate the years of potential life lost, 72,274 and economic value of those lost lives, US$17.39 billion. These estimates may be used to assess the risk-trade off of COVID-19 mitigation strategies in Ohio.

Estimating global burden of COVID-19 with disability-adjusted life years and value of statistical life metrics.

BACKGROUND: Global burden of COVID-19 has not been well studied, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and value of statistical life (VSL) metrics were therefore proposed to quantify its impacts on health and economic loss globally. METHODS: The life expectancy, cases, and death numbers of COVID-19 until 30th April 2021 were retrieved from open data to derive the epidemiological profiles and DALYs (including years of life lost (YLL) and years loss due to disability (YLD)) by four periods. The VSL estimates were estimated by using hedonic wage method (HWM) and contingent valuation method (CVM). The estimate of willingness to pay using CVM was based on the meta-regression mixed model. Machine learning method was used for classification. RESULTS: Globally, DALYs (in thousands) due to COVID-19 was tallied as 31,930 from Period I to IV. YLL dominated over YLD. The estimates of VSL were US$591 billion and US$5135 billion based on HWM and CVM, respectively. The estimate of VSL increased from US$579 billion in Period I to US$2160 billion in Period IV using CVM. The higher the human development index (HDI), the higher the value of DALYs and VSL. However, there exits the disparity even at the same level of HDI. Machine learning analysis categorized eight patterns of global burden of COVID-19 with a large variation from US$0.001 billion to US$691.4 billion. CONCLUSION: Global burden of COVID-19 pandemic resulted in substantial health and value of life loss particularly in developed economies. Classifications of such health and economic loss is informative to early preparation of adequate resource to reduce impacts.

Combatting Covid-19. Or, "All Persons Are Equal but Some Persons Are More Equal than Others?"

Vaccines, when available, will prove to be crucial in the fight against Covid-19. All societies will face acute dilemmas in allocating scarce lifesaving resources in the form of vaccines for Covid-19. The author proposes The Value of Lives Principle as a just and workable plan for equitable and efficient access. After describing what the principle entails, the author contrasts the advantage of this approach with other current proposals such as the Fair Priority Model.

Public preferences for allocating absolute scarce critical healthcare resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: This paper aims to investigate the Portuguese general public views regarding the criteria that should guide critical COVID-19 patients to receive medical devices (ventilators and IUC beds) during the current pandemic context. Based on rationing principles and protocols proposed in ethical and medical literature the authors explore how Portuguese general public evaluates the fairness of five allocation principles: "prognosis", "severity of health condition", "patients age", "instrumental value" (frontline healthcare professionals should be prioritized during the pandemic) and "lottery". DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: An online questionnaire was used to collect data from a sample of 586 Portuguese citizens. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were used to define a hierarchy of prioritization criteria and to test for the association between respondents support to them and their socio-demographic and health characteristics. FINDINGS: Respondents gave top priority to prognosis when faced with absolute scarcity, followed closely by the severity of health condition, patient's age with instrumental value receiving lowest support, on average. However, when the age of the patients was confronted with survival, younger-first principle prevailed over recovery. In a pandemic context, lottery was considered the least fair allocation method. The findings suggest that respondents' opinions are aligned with those of ethicists but are partially in disagreement with the protocol suggested for Portugal. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study represents the first attempt to elicit public attitudes towards distributive criteria during a pandemic and, therefore, in a real context where the perception is that life and death decisions have to be made.

If fetuses are persons, abortion is a public health crisis.

Pro-life advocates commonly argue that fetuses have the moral status of persons, and an accompanying right to life, a view most pro-choice advocates deny. A difficulty for this pro-life position has been Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy, in which she argues that even if the fetus is a person, abortion is often permissible because a pregnant woman is not obliged to continue to offer her body as life support. Here, we outline the moral theories underlying public health ethics, and examine the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of public health considerations overriding individual rights. We argue that if fetuses are regarded as persons, then abortion is of such prevalence in society that it also constitutes a significant public health crisis. We show that on public health considerations, we are justified in overriding individual rights to bodily autonomy by prohibiting abortion. We conclude that in a society that values public health, abortion can only be tolerated if fetuses are not regarded as persons.

Meaning in life and demoralization: a mental-health reading perspective of suicidality in the time of COVID-19.

Consequences on mental health have been reported in general population, vulnerable individuals, psychiatric patients, and healthcare professionals. It is urgently necessary to study mental health issues in order to set priorities for public health policies and implement effective interventions. Suicidality is one of the most extreme outcomes of a mental health crisis. It is currently too early to know what the effect of COVID-19 will be on suicidality. However, authoritative commentary papers alert that most of the factors precipitating suicide are, and probably will be for a long time, present at several individual existence levels. A number of prevention measures and research considerations have been drawn up. A point of the latter, recommended by the International COVID-10 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration, states that "the COVID-19 suicide research response should be truly multidisciplinary. This will foster research that addresses the different aspects and layers of risk and resilience.It will also foster research that informs prevention efforts by taking a range of perspectives" (Niederkrotenthaler et al., 2020). In this light, we would like to propose a reading perspective of suicidality that takes into account Meaning in Life (MiL) and demoralization. Both of the constructs were studied in heterogeneous populations with extreme life situations having led to a fracture between a "before" and an "after", and play a role in affecting suicidality, respectively as resilience and risk factors. In clinical practice, during these unprecedent times, we wish that this more inclusive approach could: 1) contribute to prevention, by delineating more individualized suicidal risk profiles in persons conventionally non-considered at risk but here exposed to an extremely uncommon experience, 2) enrich supportive/psychotherapeutic interventions, by broadening the panel of means to some aspects constitutive of the existential condition of a person who is brutally confronted with something unexpected, incomprehensible and, in some ways, still unpredictable.

Diabolical dilemmas of COVID-19: An empirical study into Dutch society's trade-offs between health impacts and other effects of the lockdown.

We report and interpret preferences of a sample of the Dutch adult population for different strategies to end the so-called 'intelligent lockdown' which their government had put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a discrete choice experiment, we invited participants to make a series of choices between policy scenarios aimed at relaxing the lockdown, which were specified not in terms of their nature (e.g. whether or not to allow schools to re-open) but in terms of their effects along seven dimensions. These included health-related effects, but also impacts on the economy, education, and personal income. From the observed choices, we were able to infer the implicit trade-offs made by the Dutch between these policy effects. For example, we find that the average citizen, in order to avoid one fatality directly or indirectly related to COVID-19, is willing to accept a lasting lag in the educational performance of 18 children, or a lasting (>3 years) and substantial (>15%) reduction in net income of 77 households. We explore heterogeneity across individuals in terms of these trade-offs by means of latent class analysis. Our results suggest that most citizens are willing to trade-off health-related and other effects of the lockdown, implying a consequentialist ethical perspective. Somewhat surprisingly, we find that the elderly, known to be at relatively high risk of being affected by the virus, are relatively reluctant to sacrifice economic pain and educational disadvantages for the younger generation, to avoid fatalities. We also identify a so-called taboo trade-off aversion amongst a substantial share of our sample, being an aversion to accept morally problematic policies that simultaneously imply higher fatality numbers and lower taxes. We explain various ways in which our results can be of value to policy makers in the context of the COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Allocating medical resources fairly:the CSG bioethics guide.

On April 12, 2020, a bioethics guide for allocating scarce hospital resources during the current Covid-19 pandemic was posted on the website of the Consejo de Salubridad General(CSG) of the Government of Mexico. The guide, entitled Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia, was intended as a preliminary document, but the website posting did not describe it as a first step in the process. The publicity resulted in a wide array of comments and criticisms. That first version posted on the CSG website contained an age-based criterion for breaking a tie between two or more medically eligible patients who needed of a ventilator: younger patients would have prefer-ence over older ones. The final version of the guide eliminated that criterion and instead, relied on the leading public health principle, "save the most lives", without regard to personal characteristics other than the possibility of benefitting from the scarce medical resources.

El 12 de abril de 2020, se publicó en el sitio web del Consejo de Salubridad General (CSG) del Gobierno de México una guía de bioética para asignar recursos hospitalarios escasos durante la actual pandemia de Covid-19. La guía titulada Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia pretendía ser un documento pre-liminar, pero la publicación en el sitio web no lo describió como un primer paso en el proceso. La publicación resultó en una amplia gama de comentarios y críticas. La primera versión publicada en el sitio web del CSG contenía un cri-terio basado en la edad para romper el empate entre dos o más pacientes médicamente elegibles que necesitaran un ventilador: los pacientes más jóvenes tendrían preferencia sobre los de mayor edad. La versión final de la guía eliminó ese criterio y, en cambio, se basó en el principio principal de salud pública, "salvar la mayoría de las vidas", sin tener en cuenta las características personales que no sean la posibilidad de beneficiarse de los escasos recursos médicos.

Psychological caring and affection in times of pandemic: life-affirming political practices / Acolhimento psicológico e afeto em tempos de pandemia: práticas políticas de afirmação da vida / Recepción psicológica y afecto en tiempos de pandemia: prácticas políticas de afirmación de vida

Resumo Este artigo tem como proposição discorrer acerca do acolhimento psicológico enquanto uma prática política de afirmação da vida e da saúde no panorama nacional, onde as políticas públicas para tratar a pandemia de Covid-19 tomam rumos distanciados de uma noção mais ampla de cuidado. Inspiradas na vivência de atuar em um dispositivo de acolhimento de uma universidade pública nesse momento de pandemia, nosso objetivo neste texto consiste em discutir os desafios para ultrapassar um modelo clássico de "acolhimento" em psicologia. Fundamentadas na cartografia, percorremos 05 pistas: "a-pandemia-em-nós", "o acolhimento e seus rastros", "contato, contágio e a potência dos encontros", "o cuidado como revolução numa experiência viva de afirmação da vida" e "amparo e afeto numa prática engajada". Tais pistas problematizam a prática do acolhimento psicológico partindo da reconfiguração das fronteiras relacionais em situações extremas, no caso, a pandemia, bem como das afetações que esse intervir produz nesse campo de atuação.

Resumen Este artículo propone hablar de la recepción psicológica como práctica política de afirmación de la vida y la salud en el panorama nacional, donde las políticas públicas para hacer frente a la pandemia Covid-19 se alejan de una noción más amplia de cuidado. Inspirándonos en la experiencia de trabajar en un centro de acogida psicológica de una universidad pública en este momento pandémico, nuestro objetivo en este texto es discutir los desafíos para superar un modelo clásico de "recepción " en psicología. A partir de la cartografía, cubrimos 5 pistas: "la-pandemia-em-nosotros", "la acogida y sus huellas", "contacto, contagio y el poder de los encuentros ", "el cuidado como revolución en una experiencia viva de afirmación de vida" y "apoyo y afecto en una práctica comprometida". Tales pistas problematizan la práctica de la recepción psicológica a partir de la reconfiguración de los límites relacionales en situaciones extremas, en este caso la pandemia, así como de los afectos que esta intervención produce en este campo de acción.

Abstract This article proposes to discuss psychological care as a political practice of affirming life and health in the national scenery, in which public policies to address the Covid-19 pandemic have taken a step away from a broader notion of care. Inspired by the experience of working in a public university psychological care facility during this pandemic, our aim with this text is to discuss the challenges to overcome a classic model of "caring" in psychology. Based on cartography, we follow 5 clues: "the-pandemic-in-us", "the psychological care and its tracks", "contact, contagion and the power of encounters", "caring as a revolution in a living experience of affirmation of life" and "support and affection in a committed practice". Such clues problematize the practice of psychological care starting from the reconfiguration of relational boundaries in extreme situations, in this case, the pandemic, as well as from the affections that this intervention produces in psychology.

Disability, Disablism, and COVID-19 Pandemic Triage.

Pandemics such as COVID-19 place everyone at risk, but certain kinds of risk are differentially severe for groups already made vulnerable by pre-existing forms of social injustice and discrimination. For people with disability, persisting and ubiquitous disablism is played out in a variety of ways in clinical and public health contexts. This paper examines the impact of disablism on pandemic triage guidance for allocation of critical care. It identifies three underlying disablist assumptions about disability and health status, quality of life, and social utility, that unjustly and potentially catastrophically disadvantage people with disability in COVID-19 and other global health emergencies.

[Bioethics guide on scarce medical resource allocation in Mexico]. / Guía bioética de asignación de recursos de medicina crítica del Consejo de Salubridad General en México.

The bioethical inquiry about allocating fairly scarce health resources is not new, all countries around the world that were seriously afflicted by SARS-CoV-2 have issued triage guidelines in order to address the dilemmas raised by the pandemic. There is no question about the need to create bioethical guidelines, since its creation provides a degree of certainty that fair and ethical decisions are taken. This also prevents that decisions are made in solitary and maybe motivated by corrupted actions. In Mexico, the creation of this guideline was a proactive and preventive measure to what was unavoidable, the exponential contagion phase of the pandemical scenario caused by Covid-19. On April 30, 2020 the General Sanitary Council published the Bioethical Guide to Allocate Scarce Resources on Critical Care Medicine in Emergency Situation. This guide has at its core that principle of utmost importance in social justice which main thesis is: "All lives have the same value". The aim of this contribution is to provide the ethical and legal principles established in the aforementioned bioethi-cal guideline. In sum, a brief exploration of the ethical reasons that support a specific way to allocate scarce health resources is provided, as well as the foundations of the procedural part from a human rights-based approach.

El tema bioético sobre la asignación de recursos escasos no es nuevo, todos los países que han sido gravemente afectados por el SARS-CoV-2 han tenido que desarrollar y utilizar guías de triaje. Esto resulta más adecuado pues así la asignación de recursos limitados se hace de manera ética y justa, y no de manera discrecional y abierta a la corrupción. En México, en anticipación a la fase exponencial de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2, el 30 de abril el Consejo de Salubridad General publicó la Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia. Dicha guía tiene como base criterios de justicia social y parte de la tesis: todas las vidas tienen el mismo valor. Este texto tiene como objetivo propor-cionar las razones bioéticas y biojurídicas que conforman esta guía de triaje en nuestro país. En resumen, proporciona una breve exploración de las razones éticas que justifican cierta manera específica de asignar recursos escasos en medicina crítica, así como del sustento procedimental apegado a los estándares en materia de derechos humanos.

Principled decisions and virtuous care: an ethical assessment of the SIAARTI Guidelines for allocating intensive care resources.

This article sets forth ethical principles for responding to extraordinary circumstances in which the demand for medical care threatens to overwhelm available resources, as in the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of these principles, the author then assesses the ethics of the SIAARTI guidelines for rationing ICU beds and ventilators under such circumstances.

[Legal Issues of Resource Allocation in the COVID-19 Pandemic - Between Utilitarianism and Life Value Indifference]. / Rechtsfragen der Ressourcenzuteilung in der COVID-19-Pandemie ­ Zwischen Utilitarismus und Lebenswertindifferenz.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unprecedented challenges for the German health care system. What is already the case in some other countries, may occur in Germany in the near future also: Faced with limited ICU resources, doctors will be forced to decide which patients to treat and which to let die. This paper examines the legal implications of such decisions. It takes up arguments from the general discussion on prioritization in medicine. A constitutional hurdle for the application of utilitarian criteria (in particular patients' age or social role) comes from the principle that every human life is of equal value and must not be traded off against others ("life value indifference"). However, the limits that the Grundgesetz (German Basic Law) sets for state actions do not apply directly to doctors. According to the Musterberufsordnung (professional code of conduct), doctors act based on their conscience and the requirements of medical ethics and humanity. The implications of this normative standard for the prioritizing in an exceptional situation as the COVID 19 pandemic have not been sufficiently clarified. This uncertainty leads to emotional and moral burdens for doctors. The authors conclude that the German law grants a limited freedom of choice that allows physicians to apply utilitarian criteria in addition to purely medical decision algorithms.