Viral modernity? Epidemics, infodemics, and the ‘bioinformational' paradigm

Viral modernity is a concept based upon the nature of viruses, the ancient and critical role they play in evolution and culture, and the basic application to understanding the role of information and forms of bioinformation in the social world. The concept draws a close association between viral biology on the one hand, and information science on the other – it is an illustration and prime example of bioinformationalism that brings together two of the most powerful forces that now drive cultural evolution. The concept of viral modernity applies to viral technologies, codes and ecosystems in information, publishing, education and emerging knowledge (journal) systems. This paper traces the relationship between epidemics, quarantine, and public health management and outlines elements of viral-digital philosophy (VDP) based on the fusion of living and technological systems. We discuss Covid-19 as a ‘bioinformationalist' response that represents historically unprecedented level of sharing information from the sequencing of the genome to testing for a vaccination. Finally, we look at the US response to Covid-19 through the lens of infodemics and post-truth. The paper is followed by three open reviews, which further refine its conclusions as they relate to (educational) philosophy and the notion of the virus as Pharmakon.

Philosophy of education in a new key: Who remembers Greta Thunberg? Education and environment after the coronavirus

This paper explores relationships between environment and education after the Covid-19 pandemic through the lens of philosophy of education in a new key developed by Michael Peters and the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA). The paper is collectively written by 15 authors who responded to the question: Who remembers Greta Thunberg? Their answers are classified into four main themes and corresponding sections. The first section, ‘As we bake the earth, let's try and bake it from scratch', gathers wider philosophical considerations about the intersection between environment, education, and the pandemic. The second section, ‘Bump in the road or a catalyst for structural change?', looks more closely into issues pertaining to education. The third section, ‘If you choose to fail us, we will never forgive you', focuses to Greta Thunberg's messages and their responses. The last section, ‘Towards a new (educational) normal', explores future scenarios and develops recommendations for critical emancipatory action. The concluding part brings these insights together, showing that resulting synergy between the answers offers much more then the sum of articles' parts. With its ethos of collectivity, interconnectedness, and solidarity, philosophy of education in a new key is a crucial tool for development of post-pandemic (philosophy of) education.

Resilience of front-line facilities during COVID-19: evidence from cross-sectional rapid surveys in eight low- and middle-income countries.

Responsive primary health-care facilities are the foundation of resilient health systems, yet little is known about facility-level processes that contribute to the continuity of essential services during a crisis. This paper describes the aspects of primary health-care facility resilience to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in eight countries. Rapid-cycle phone surveys were conducted with health facility managers in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guatemala, Guinea, Liberia, Malawi and Nigeria between August 2020 and December 2021. Responses were mapped to a validated health facility resilience framework and coded as binary variables for whether a facility demonstrated capacity in eight areas: removing barriers to accessing services, infection control, workforce, surge capacity, financing, critical infrastructure, risk communications, and medical supplies and equipment. These self-reported capacities were summarized nationally and validated with the ministries of health. The analysis of service volume data determined the outcome: maintenance of essential health services. Of primary health-care facilities, 1,453 were surveyed. Facilities maintained between 84% and 97% of the expected outpatient services, except for Bangladesh, where 69% of the expected outpatient consultations were conducted between March 2020 and December 2021. For Burkina Faso, Chad, Guatemala, Guinea and Nigeria, critical infrastructure was the largest constraint in resilience capabilities (47%, 14%, 51%, 9% and 29% of facilities demonstrated capacity, respectively). Medical supplies and equipment were the largest constraints for Liberia and Malawi (15% and 48% of facilities demonstrating capacity, respectively). In Bangladesh, the largest constraint was workforce and staffing, where 44% of facilities experienced moderate to severe challenges with human resources during the pandemic. The largest constraints in facility resilience during COVID-19 were related to health systems building blocks. These challenges likely existed before the pandemic, suggesting the need for strategic investments and reforms in core capacities of comprehensive primary health-care systems to improve resilience to future shocks.

On the public pedagogy of conspiracy: An EPAT collective project

The article discusses aspects of the Covid-19 lockdown is that everyone has an opinion on the virus – how deadly and transmissible it is, what its origins are, how it evolved, how it should be treated, how effective the vaccination strategy is and so on, often against the prevailing scientific consensus.

Healthcare utilization and maternal and child mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in 18 low- and middle-income countries: An interrupted time-series analysis with mathematical modeling of administrative data.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had wide-reaching direct and indirect impacts on population health. In low- and middle-income countries, these impacts can halt progress toward reducing maternal and child mortality. This study estimates changes in health services utilization during the pandemic and the associated consequences for maternal, neonatal, and child mortality. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data on service utilization from January 2018 to June 2021 were extracted from health management information systems of 18 low- and lower-middle-income countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Uganda). An interrupted time-series design was used to estimate the percent change in the volumes of outpatient consultations and maternal and child health services delivered during the pandemic compared to projected volumes based on prepandemic trends. The Lives Saved Tool mathematical model was used to project the impact of the service utilization disruptions on child and maternal mortality. In addition, the estimated monthly disruptions were also correlated to the monthly number of COVID-19 deaths officially reported, time since the start of the pandemic, and relative severity of mobility restrictions. Across the 18 countries, we estimate an average decline in OPD volume of 13.1% and average declines of 2.6% to 4.6% for maternal and child services. We projected that decreases in essential health service utilization between March 2020 and June 2021 were associated with 113,962 excess deaths (110,686 children under 5, and 3,276 mothers), representing 3.6% and 1.5% increases in child and maternal mortality, respectively. This excess mortality is associated with the decline in utilization of the essential health services included in the analysis, but the utilization shortfalls vary substantially between countries, health services, and over time. The largest disruptions, associated with 27.5% of the excess deaths, occurred during the second quarter of 2020, regardless of whether countries reported the highest rate of COVID-19-related mortality during the same months. There is a significant relationship between the magnitude of service disruptions and the stringency of mobility restrictions. The study is limited by the extent to which administrative data, which varies in quality across countries, can accurately capture the changes in service coverage in the population. CONCLUSIONS: Declines in healthcare utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic amplified the pandemic's harmful impacts on health outcomes and threaten to reverse gains in reducing maternal and child mortality. As efforts and resource allocation toward prevention and treatment of COVID-19 continue, essential health services must be maintained, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Prioritizing Global Public Health Investments for COVID-19 Response in Real Time: Results from a Delphi Exercise.

In the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a lack of guidance on how to channel the unprecedented amount of health financing toward the pandemic response. We employed a multistep, interactive Delphi process to reach consensus on a "menu" of priority COVID-19 response interventions. In all, 27 health security experts-representing national governments, bilateral and multilateral organizations, academia, technical agencies, and nongovernmental organizations-participated in the exercise. The experts rated 11 technical investment areas and 37 interventions on a 5-point scale in terms of their importance to COVID-19 response. Initial findings were discussed at a virtual meeting where experts suggested modifications. A group of 19 experts then rated a revised list of 11 technical areas and 39 interventions. Consensus was defined as at least 80% of experts agreeing on the importance of a technical area or intervention; stability of scores across the rounds was identified using Wilcoxon matched-pairs and unpaired signed rank tests. Between the initial and final menu, 3 technical areas and 7 interventions were slightly modified, 3 interventions were added, and 1 intervention was removed. Consensus was reached on all 11 technical areas and 35 of the final 39 interventions, and between 34 and 37 interventions were stable across rounds depending on the test used. In this exercise, the health security experts agreed that COVID-19 response financing should prioritize interventions that enhance a country's capacity to test, trace, and treat high-risk populations. Simultaneously, supportive systems (eg, risk communication, community engagement, public health infrastructure, information systems, policy and coordination, workforce capacity, other social protections) should be developed to ensure that nonpharmaceutical and medical interventions can maximize the effectiveness of these systems.

Philosophy of education in a new key: A 'Covid Collective' of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain (PESGB)

This article is a collective writing experiment undertaken by philosophers of education affiliated with the PESGB (Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain). When asked to reflect on questions concerning the Philosophy of Education in a New Key in May 2020, it was unsurprising that the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on society and on education were foremost in our minds. We wanted to consider important philosophical and educational questions raised by the pandemic, while acknowledging that, first and foremost, it is a human tragedy. With nearly a million deaths reported worldwide to date, and with everyone effected in one way or another by Covid-19, there is a degree of discomfort, and a responsibility to be sensitive, in reflecting and writing about it academically. Members of this 'Covid Collective' come from various countries, with perspectives from Great Britain and Ireland well represented, and we see academic practice as a globally connected enterprise, especially since the digital revolution in academic publishing. The concerns raised in this article relate to but move beyond Covid-19, reflecting the impact of neoliberalism [and other political developments] on geopolitics with educational concerns as central to our focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Educational Philosophy & Theory is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Pandemic response in pluralistic health systems: a cross-sectional study of COVID-19 knowledge and practices among informal and formal primary care providers in Bihar, India.

OBJECTIVES: Responding to pandemics is challenging in pluralistic health systems. This study assesses COVID-19 knowledge and case management of informal providers (IPs), trained practitioners of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) and Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) medical doctors providing primary care services in rural Bihar, India. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of primary care providers conducted via telephone between 1 and 15 July 2020. SETTING: Primary care providers from 224 villages in 34 districts across Bihar, India. PARTICIPANTS: 452 IPs, 57 AYUSH practitioners and 38 doctors (including 23 government doctors) were interviewed from a census of 1138 primary care providers used by community members that could be reached by telephone. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Providers were interviewed using a structured questionnaire with choice-based answers to gather information on (1) change in patient care seeking, (2) source of COVID-19 information, (3) knowledge on COVID-19 spread, symptoms and methods for prevention and (4) clinical management of COVID-19. RESULTS: During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, 72% of providers reported a decrease in patient visits. Most IPs and other private primary care providers reported receiving no COVID-19 related engagement with government or civil society agencies. For them, the principal source of COVID-19 information was television and newspapers. IPs had reasonably good knowledge of typical COVID-19 symptoms and prevention, and at levels similar to doctors. However, there was low stated compliance among IPs (16%) and qualified primary care providers (15% of MBBS doctors and 12% of AYUSH practitioners) with all WHO recommended management practices for suspect COVID-19 cases. Nearly half of IPs and other providers intended to treat COVID-19 suspects without referral. CONCLUSIONS: Poor management practices of COVID-19 suspects by rural primary care providers weakens government pandemic control efforts. Government action of providing information to IPs, as well as engaging them in contact tracing or public health messaging can strengthen pandemic control efforts.

Pandemic Education

[...]it educates us by being a threat that we cannot ignore. [...]it educates us by being something that threatens all of us - as the origin of the term in the Greek pandemos, 'pertaining to all people;public, common,' suggests. The social history of viruses and its impact on the human species began during our early evolution, and viral epidemics have been recorded as early as Neolithic times, when human beings began to lead sedentary lives in relatively densely settled agricultural communities with domesticated plants and animals some 12,000 years ago. The concept has since been extended in two main ways: first, by reference to epidemics, infodemics and the bioinformational paradigm, arguing that 'viral modernity is a concept based upon the nature of viruses, the ancient and critical role they play in evolution and culture, and the basic application to understanding the role of information and forms of bioinformation in the social world' (Peters, Jandrić, & McLaren, 2020);second, through the development of 'A Theory of Post-Truth,' a concept of semiotic systems inspired by Bateson's (1972/2000) remark that 'There is an ecology of bad ideas, just as there is an ecology of weeds, and it is characteristic of the system that basic error propagates itself' (p. 492).

Clinical characteristics and predictors of survival in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 receiving tocilizumab.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can progress to cytokine storm that is associated with organ dysfunction and death. The purpose of the present study is to determine clinical characteristics associated with 28 day in-hospital survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that received tocilizumab. This was a retrospective observational cohort study conducted at a five hospital health system in Michigan, United States. Adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 that were admitted to the hospital and received tocilizumab for cytokine storm from March 1, 2020 through April 3, 2020 were included. Patients were grouped into survivors and non-survivors based on 28 day in-hospital mortality. Study day 0 was defined as the day tocilizumab was administered. Factors independently associated with in-hospital survival at 28 days after tocilizumab administration were assessed. Epidemiologic, demographic, laboratory, prognostic scores, treatment, and outcome data were collected and analyzed. Clinical response was collected and defined as a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status or discharged alive from the hospital. Of the 81 patients included, the median age was 64 (58-71) years and 56 (69.1%) were male. The 28 day in-hospital mortality was 43.2%. There were 46 (56.8%) patients in the survivors and 35 (43.2%) in the non-survivors group. On study day 0 no differences were noted in demographics, clinical characteristics, severity of illness scores, or treatments received between survivors and non-survivors. C-reactive protein was significantly higher in the non-survivors compared to survivors. Compared to non-survivors, recipients of tocilizumab within 12 days of symptom onset was independently associated with survival (adjusted OR: 0.296, 95% CI: 0.098-0.889). SOFA score ≥8 on day 0 was independently associated with mortality (adjusted OR: 2.842, 95% CI: 1.042-7.753). Clinical response occurred more commonly in survivors than non-survivors (80.4% vs. 5.7%; p < 0.001). Improvements in the six-point ordinal scale and SOFA score were observed in survivors after tocilizumab. Early receipt of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 was an independent predictor for in-hospital survival at 28 days.