scholarly journals A rapid review of quarantine and/or other public health measures to control COVID‐19

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura S. Maples
Author(s):  
Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit ◽  
Verena Mayr ◽  
Andreea Iulia Dobrescu ◽  
Andrea Chapman ◽  
Emma Persad ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Anna Nagel ◽  
Agata Łaszewska ◽  
Gerald Haidinger ◽  
Judit Simon

Summary Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV‑2) reached Austria in February 2020. This study aims to describe the first 8 weeks of the Austrian epidemic and reflect on the potential mental health consequences as known at that time. Methods Data on Austrian Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) epidemiological indicators and number of tests were obtained from official registers. Relative risks (RRs) of infection and death from COVID-19 were calculated for sex and age groups (< 65 years and ≥ 65 years). Public health measures introduced to reduce the spread of COVID-19 were identified via online media research. A rapid review of initial evidence on mental health consequences of the pandemic was performed in PubMed and medRxiv. Results By 21 April 2020 the case count in Austria was 14,810 after a peak of new daily infections mid-March. The RR of death for age ≥ 65 years was 80.07 (95% confidence interval, CI 52.64–121.80; p < 0.0001) compared to those aged < 65 years. In men the RR of death was 1.44 (95% CI 1.20–1.73; p < 0.0001) compared to women. Wide-ranging public health measures included avoidance of case importation, limitation of social contacts, hygiene measures, testing, case tracking, and the call for COVID-19-related research. International rates of psychiatric symptoms during the initial lockdowns exceeded typical levels: anxiety (6%–51%), depression (17%–48%) and posttraumatic stress (5%–54%). Conclusion Data show great vulnerability of older people also in Austria. Severe mental health impacts can be expected with need for proper assessment of the long-term consequences of this pandemic.


Author(s):  
Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit ◽  
Verena Mayr ◽  
Andreea Iulia Dobrescu ◽  
Andrea Chapman ◽  
Emma Persad ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kieran A. Walsh ◽  
Barrie Tyner ◽  
Natasha Broderick ◽  
Patricia Harrington ◽  
Michelle O’Neill ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (12) ◽  
pp. 515-523
Author(s):  
Maryem El Jaouhari ◽  
Rojiemiahd Edjoc ◽  
Lisa Waddell ◽  
Patricia Houston ◽  
Nicole Atchessi ◽  
...  

Background: Globally, the education of students at primary and secondary schools has been severely disrupted by the implementation of school closures to reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The effectiveness of school closures in reducing transmission of COVID-19 and the impact of re-opening schools are unclear. Methods: Research criteria for this rapid review included empirical studies, published or pre-published worldwide before January 25, 2021, that assessed the effectiveness of school closures in reducing the spread of COVID-19 and the impact of school re-openings on COVID-19 transmission. Results: Twenty-four studies on the impact of school closures and re-openings on COVID-19 transmission were identified through the seven databases that were searched. Overall the evidence from these studies was mixed and varied due to several factors such as the time of implementation of public health measures, research design of included studies and variability among the levels of schooling examined. Conclusion: Preliminary findings suggest that school closures have limited impact on reducing COVID-19 transmission, with other non-pharmaceutical interventions considered much more effective. However, due to the limitations of the studies, further research is needed to support the use of this public health measure in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.


Author(s):  
Maxwell Smith ◽  
Ross Upshur

Infectious disease pandemics raise significant and novel ethical challenges to the organization and practice of public health. This chapter provides an overview of the salient ethical issues involved in preparing for and responding to pandemic disease, including those arising from deploying restrictive public health measures to contain and curb the spread of disease (e.g., isolation and quarantine), setting priorities for the allocation of scarce resources, health care workers’ duty to care in the face of heightened risk of infection, conducting research during pandemics, and the global governance of preventing and responding to pandemic disease. It also outlines ethical guidance from prominent ethical frameworks that have been developed to address these ethical issues and concludes by discussing some pressing challenges that must be addressed if ethical reflection is to make a meaningful difference in pandemic preparedness and response.


Author(s):  
Markus Frischhut

This chapter discusses the most important features of EU law on infectious diseases. Communicable diseases not only cross borders, they also often require measures that cross different areas of policy because of different vectors for disease transmission. The relevant EU law cannot be attributed to one sectoral policy only, and thus various EU agencies participate in protecting public health. The key agency is the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Other important agencies include the European Environment Agency; European Food Safety Authority; and the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency. However, while integration at the EU level has facilitated protection of the public's health, it also has created potential conflicts among the different objectives of the European Union. The internal market promotes the free movement of products, but public health measures can require restrictions of trade. Other conflicts can arise if protective public health measures conflict with individual human rights. The chapter then considers risk assessment and the different tools of risk management used in dealing with the challenges of infectious diseases. It also turns to the external and ethical perspective and the role the European Union takes in global health.


2021 ◽  
pp. 002218562110000
Author(s):  
Michele Ford ◽  
Kristy Ward

The labour market effects in Southeast Asia of the COVID-19 pandemic have attracted considerable analysis from both scholars and practitioners. However, much less attention has been paid to the pandemic’s impact on legal protections for workers’ and unions’ rights, or to what might account for divergent outcomes in this respect in economies that share many characteristics, including a strong export orientation in labour-intensive industries and weak industrial relations institutions. Having described the public health measures taken to control the spread of COVID-19 in Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam, this article analyses governments’ employment-related responses and their impact on workers and unions in the first year of the pandemic. Based on this analysis, we conclude that the disruption caused to these countries’ economies, and societies, served to reproduce existing patterns of state–labour relations rather than overturning them.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document