Judicial Decisions Constraining Public Health Powers During COVID-19: Implications For Public Health Policy Making.

Public health legal powers are increasingly under pressure from the courts in the United States. During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals and organizations successfully challenged many community mitigation orders (for example, mask mandates, vaccination mandates, and restrictions on gatherings), demonstrating the legal vulnerability of disease control measures. Analyzing 112 judicial decisions in which the plaintiff prevailed from March 2020 through March 2023, we examined the ways in which courts constrained public health powers during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that in these 112 decisions, courts shifted how they analyze religious liberty claims and reviewed challenges to the exercise of statutory powers by health officials in novel ways. We discuss implications for public health policy going forward, and we recommend ways in which legislatures and health officials can design policies to maximize their prospects of surviving legal challenges.

What can we learn from historical pandemics? A systematic review of the literature.

What are the insights from historical pandemics for policymaking today? We carry out a systematic review of the literature on the impact of pandemics that occurred since the Industrial Revolution and prior to Covid-19. Our literature searches were conducted between June 2020 and September 2023, with the final review encompassing 169 research papers selected for their relevance to understanding either the demographic or economic impact of pandemics. We include literature from across disciplines to maximise our knowledge base, finding many relevant articles in journals which would not normally be on the radar of social scientists. Our review identifies two gaps in the literature: (1) the need to study pandemics and their effects more collectively rather than looking at them in isolation; and (2) the need for more study of pandemics besides 1918 Spanish Influenza, especially milder pandemic episodes. These gaps are a consequence of academics working in silos, failing to draw on the skills and knowledge offered by other disciplines. Synthesising existing knowledge on pandemics in one place provides a basis upon which to identify the lessons in preparing for future catastrophic disease events.

Policy and planning for large epidemics and pandemics - challenges and lessons learned from COVID-19.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The COVID-19 pandemic is a global catastrophe that has led to untold suffering and death. Many previously identified policy challenges in planning for large epidemics and pandemics have been brought to the fore, and new ones have emerged. Here, we review key policy challenges and lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in order to be better prepared for the future. RECENT FINDINGS: The most important challenges facing policymakers include financing outbreak preparedness and response in a complex political environment with limited resources, coordinating response efforts among a growing and diverse range of national and international actors, accurately assessing national outbreak preparedness, addressing the shortfall in the global health workforce, building surge capacity of both human and material resources, balancing investments in public health and curative services, building capacity for outbreak-related research and development, and reinforcing measures for infection prevention and control. SUMMARY: In recent years, numerous epidemics and pandemics have caused not only considerable loss of life, but billions of dollars of economic loss. The COVID-19 pandemic served as a wake-up call and led to the implementation of relevant policies and countermeasures. Nevertheless, many questions remain and much work to be done. Wise policies and approaches for outbreak control exist but will require the political will to implement them.

COVID-19 and inequalities: the need for inclusive policy response.

In this essay, the authors analyze the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of inequalities and socio-economic vulnerabilities. We argue that the current pandemic has been looked at mainly through the lens of biology, leaving sociological blind spots in the response to this pandemic that have had adverse effects. We conclude with the suggestion that apart from recommendations from health sciences, policy makers must also take into account local societal structures in order to design effective policies to control the contagion.

A cross-sectional study of the association of age, gender, education and economic status with individual perceptions of governmental response to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the impact of key population variables (age, gender, income and education) on perceptions of governmental effectiveness in communicating about COVID-19, helping meet needs for food and shelter, providing physical and mental healthcare services, and allocating dedicated resources to vulnerable populations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study carried out in June 2020. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 13 426 individuals from 19 countries. RESULTS: More than 60% of all respondents felt their government had communicated adequately during the pandemic. National variances ranged from 83.4% in China down to 37.2% in Brazil, but overall, males and those with a higher income were more likely to rate government communications highly. Almost half (48.8%) of the respondents felt their government had ensured adequate access to physical health services (ranging from 89.3% for Singapore to 27.2% for Poland), with higher ratings reported by younger and higher-income respondents. Ratings of mental health support were lower overall (32.9%, ranging from 74.8% in China to around 15% in Brazil and Sweden), but highest among younger respondents. Providing support for basic necessities of food and housing was rated highest overall in China (79%) and lowest in Ecuador (14.6%), with higher ratings reported by younger, higher-income and better-educated respondents across all countries. The same three demographic groups tended to rate their country's support to vulnerable groups more highly than other respondents, with national scores ranging from around 75% (Singapore and China) to 19.5% (Sweden). Subgroup findings are mostly independent of intercountry variations with 15% of variation being due to intercountry differences. CONCLUSIONS: The tendency of younger, better-paid and better-educated respondents to rate their country's response to the pandemic more highly, suggests that government responses must be nuanced and pay greater attention to the needs of less-advantaged citizens as they continue to address this pandemic.

Policy disparities in response to the first wave of COVID-19 between China and Germany.

OBJECTIVE: Our research summarized policy disparities in response to the first wave of COVID-19 between China and Germany. We look forward to providing policy experience for other countries still in severe epidemics. METHODS: We analyzed data provided by National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China and Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center for the period 10 January 2020 to 25 May 252,020. We used generalized linear model to evaluate the associations between the main control policies and the number of confirmed cases and the policy disparities in response to the first wave of COVID-19 between China and Germany. RESULTS: The generalized linear models show that the following factors influence the cumulative number of confirmed cases in China: the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism; locking down the worst-hit areas; the highest level response to public health emergencies; the expansion of medical insurance coverage to suspected patients; makeshift hospitals; residential closed management; counterpart assistance. The following factors influence the cumulative number of confirmed cases in Germany: the Novel Coronavirus Crisis Command; large gathering cancelled; real-time COVID-19 risk assessment; the medical emergency plan; schools closure; restrictions on the import of overseas epidemics; the no-contact protocol. CONCLUSIONS: There are two differences between China and Germany in non-pharmaceutical interventions: China adopted the blocking strategy, and Germany adopted the first mitigation and then blocking strategy; China's goal is to eliminate the virus, and Germany's goal is to protect high-risk groups to reduce losses. At the same time, the policies implemented by the two countries have similarities: strict blockade is a key measure to control the source of infection, and improving medical response capabilities is an important way to reduce mortality.