Assessing the availability and quality of COVID-19 mortality data in Europe: a comparative analysis.

Researching mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic has been challenging due to methodological inconsistencies and the limited availability of vital statistics data. At the beginning of the pandemic, the World Health Organization recommended daily data publication to inform policy response, but these data were often poor. Final data on COVID-19 deaths in many countries are not yet available, especially for 2021. This report shows that many countries have significant inconsistencies between the preliminary number of deaths and what vital statistics and excess mortality indicate. The inconsistencies in the mortality data raise concerns about the reliability of analyses and public health recommendations.

Discrepancies between preliminary and final COVID-19 mortality data-the case of Serbia.

PURPOSE: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have scrambled to set up data collection and dissemination pipelines for various online datasets. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of the preliminary COVID-19 mortality data from Serbia, which has been included in major COVID-19 databases and utilized for research purposes worldwide. METHODS: Discrepancies between the preliminary mortality data and the final mortality data in Serbia were analyzed. The preliminary data were reported through an emergency-necessitated system, while the final data were generated by the regular vital statistics pipeline. We identified databases that include these data and conducted a literature review of articles that utilized them. RESULTS: The number of deaths due to COVID-19 in Serbia, as reported preliminarily, does not align with the final death toll, which is more than three times higher. Our literature review identified at least 86 studies that were impacted by these problematic data. CONCLUSIONS: We strongly advise researchers to disregard the preliminary COVID-19 mortality data from Serbia due to the significant discrepancies with the final data. We recommend validating any preliminary data using excess mortality if all-cause mortality data are available.

What drives public attitudes towards moral bioenhancement and why it matters: an exploratory study.

The paper represents an empirical study of public attitudes towards moral bioenhancement. Moral bioenhancement implies the improvement of moral dispositions, i.e. an increase in the moral value of the actions or character of a moral agent. The views of bioethicists and scientists on this topic are present in the ongoing debate, but not the view of the public in general. In order to bridge the gap between the philosophical debate and the view of the public, we have examined attitudes towards moral bioenhancement. The participants were people from Serbia older than 15, who voluntarily completed an online questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of a brief introduction to moral bioenhancement, seven general questions, 25 statements about participants' attitudes towards moral bioenhancement, and five examples of moral dilemmas. The questionnaire also included questions which were used to reveal their preference of either deontology, or utilitarianism. Participants were asked to what degree they agree or disagree with the statements. The results showed that the means used to achieve moral enhancement, the level of education, and preference for deontology or utilitarianism do have an impact on public attitudes. Using exploratory factor analysis, we isolated four factors that appear to drive the respondents' attitudes toward moral bioenhancement, we named: general-closeness, fear of change, security, and voluntariness. Each factor in relationship to other variables offers new insights that can inform policies and give us a deeper understanding of the public attitudes. We argue that looking into different facets of attitudes towards moral bioenhancement improves the debate, and expands it.