“Some Things Just Won’t Go Back”

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 64-78
Author(s):  
Alanna Goldstein ◽  
Sarah Flicker

We conducted three online focus groups [n=25] with teen girls in Canada in May and June 2020 to explore their dating and relationship experiences during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the strict public health measures limiting physical contact, participants reported connecting primarily online with possible dating partners and others. While facilitating platforms, like Snapchat, were already part of these teen girls’ dating and relationships repertoire, many participants reflected on the limitations and drawbacks of being able to connect only virtually. Results suggest the need to better attend to the impacts that COVID-19 restrictions are having on teen girls’ dating relationships, as well as to the larger impacts that the deterioration of these relationships might be having on their mental and emotional health.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Ladapo ◽  
Jonathan T. Rothwell ◽  
Christina M. Ramirez

BACKGROUND Adverse mental and emotional health outcomes are increasingly recognized as a public health challenge associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As early as March 2020, a national survey reported that 36% of U.S. adults felt the pandemic would have a serious impact on their mental health. In April 2020, another survey found that 14% of U.S. adults reported serious psychological distress, compared to 4% during a similar time period in 2018. Rates of loneliness have also been high, with 36% of U.S. adults—including 61% of adults aged 18-25—reporting significant loneliness in an October 2020 survey. More recently, a March 2021 survey found that 48% of adults reported higher levels of stress in their lives compared to before the pandemic, and 61% reporting undesired weight changes. This health sequelae of the COVID-19 pandemic are multifactorial, and social isolation is likely an important contributor. Because of physical distancing mandates, quarantines, and fear of illness, a substantial proportion of Americans have limited their physical contact with others outside of their household. This trend has likely contributed to social isolation and loneliness. Household isolation is analogous to quarantining, and research has shown that quarantining is a risk factor for a variety of adverse mental and emotional health outcomes. These include increased stress, anxiety, depression, fear, and detachment from other people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently recommended that researchers examine drivers of adverse mental health during COVID-19 pandemic. One driver that has received little attention is the role that COVID-19 risk misperceptions may play in the behavioral decision to limit physical contact with others. While COVID-19 risk perceptions have been associated with protective health behaviors, they may lead to suboptimal behavioral choices, if individuals substantially overestimate or underestimate risk. Overestimation, in particular, is of concern in the context of mental and emotional health and well-being because it tends to amplify social isolation and reduce contact with others. Using survey data from the Franklin Templeton-Gallup Economics of Recovery Study, we assessed the association of COVID-19 risk misperceptions with household isolation. Our findings are relevant to policy measures to reduce COVID-19-related social isolation and may inform the management of future epidemics and pandemics. OBJECTIVE To examine the association of COVID-19 risk misperceptions with household isolation, a potential risk factor for social isolation and loneliness. METHODS We analyzed data from the Franklin Templeton-Gallup Economics of Recovery Study (July 2020-December 2020) of 24,649 U.S. adults. We also analyzed data from the Gallup Panel (March 2020-February 2021) which included 123,516 observations about loneliness. Primary outcome was household isolation, which we defined as a respondent reporting having no contact or very little contact with people outside their household, analogous to quarantining. RESULTS From July-December 2020, 53% to 57% of respondents reported living in household isolation. Most participants reported beliefs about COVID-19 health risks that were inaccurate, and overestimation of health risk was most common. For example, while deaths in persons younger than 55 years-old accounted for 7% of total U.S. deaths, respondents estimated that this population represented 43% of deaths. Overestimating COVID-19 health risks was associated with increased likelihood of household isolation, from 7.7 percentage points in July/August (P<0.001) to 11.8 percentage points in December (P<0.001). Characteristics associated with household isolation from the July/August 2020 survey and persisting in the December 2020 survey included younger age (18 to 39 years), having a serious medical condition, having a household member with a serious medical condition, and identifying as a Democrat. In the Gallup Panel, living in household isolation was associated with a higher prevalence of loneliness. CONCLUSIONS Pandemic-related harms to emotional and mental well-being may be attenuated by reducing risk overestimation and household isolation preferences that exceed public health guidelines.


Healthline ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 120-124
Author(s):  
Anuradha Shah ◽  
Kunal Shah

With no definitive treatment in place to date for the COVID-19 pandemic, reliance on public health measures is of utmost importance. Social distancing requires maintaining a physical distance of at least one meter between people and reducing the number of times people come into close contact with each other. Modeling evidence from past influenza pandemics and current experiences with COVID-19 indicates the role of SD in delaying the spread of the virus by reducing the probability that uninfected person will come into physical contact with an infected person.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hung Eun Hoo ◽  
Hong Chuan Loh ◽  
Alan Swee Hock Ch’ng ◽  
Fan Kee Hoo ◽  
Irene Looi

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, several unexpected positive outcomes have surfaced. The WHO public health measures have positively transformed people’s behaviour and lifestyles. The pandemic has prompted more focus on self-care and health awareness. Hand hygiene practice has been greatly emphasised. The acceptance rate for the use of personal protective equipment, such as face masks, has been remarkable. People with co-morbid conditions are paying more attention to their primary illnesses by improving diets and exercise methods. People are more willing to accept and act on public health messages. The pandemic lockdowns have not only successfully mitigated the transmission of coronavirus, but they have also indirectly reduced the hospital admission rates for endemic community respiratory infections and trauma-related emergencies like motor vehicle accidents. Fetomaternal health and wellness have significantly improved during the pandemic. The abrupt emergence of COVID-19 has also led to a massive societal shift on tobacco smoking cessation. Smokers are compelled to reflect on the harmful effects of cigarette smoking in relation to COVID-19. Issues of mental, relational and sexual health are put in the spotlight during the pandemic. People are investing more time in themselves, family and relationships. The world has seen an unprecedented global race in healthcare innovation and technology development in tackling the same global issue. Artificial intelligence, including robots and drones, have been rapidly developed and employed for healthcare as well as food and delivery services in order to minimise human physical contact. This article discusses several unforeseen positive impacts on healthcare that emerged from the COVID-19 public health measures that have been implemented. The positive impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic should be highlighted in order to provide hope to our community.


2021 ◽  
pp. 109019812110332
Author(s):  
Evelyn Vázquez ◽  
Julie Chobdee ◽  
Niloufar Nasrollahzadeh ◽  
Ann Cheney

This rapid qualitative exploratory study focused on perceptions of adopting risk-reduction measures, such as face masks, on campuses within institutions of higher education in the United States. It was intended to identify safety measures to reduce virus spread and develop community-informed public health messaging to promote COVID-19 risk-reduction strategies within campus communities. This study was approved by the institutional review board where the study took place. A total of 113 stakeholders, including students, staff, and faculty attended one of nine focus groups. We use the socioecological model to illustrate the use of COVID-19 public health measures in private and public spaces and how macro-level processes, specifically sociocultural values of personal freedom and social responsibility shape the meaning and interpretation of COVID-19 public health measures. A rapid qualitative data analysis was conducted. This analysis was characterized by three steps: (1) transcription of the interviews, (2) completion of a summary template per focus group analysis (data reduction strategy), and (3) matrix analyses involving a cross-case analysis of the nine focus groups conducted. Based on study findings, we offer community-centered recommendations for safe and healthy reopening of large public research institutions. This article contributes to the foundation of scientific literature that qualitatively describes evidence-based strategies for safe reopening of places of education and employment in the COVID-19 pandemic.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veronica Cristea ◽  
Timothee Dub ◽  
Oskari Luomala ◽  
Jonas Sivelä

AbstractThe COVID-19 monitoring behavioural insights study was conducted from April-May 2020 in Finland. Respondents reported feeling confident protecting themselves against COVID-19 infection. Worries shifted from overloading the health system (mean value 5.5 [95% CI: 5.4-5.6]) to mental health concerns (mean value 5.3 [95% CI 5.2-5.4]). Maintaining physical distancing from families and friends decreased by 7% and 6%. Respondents mostly agreed that if a vaccine would become available, they would get it. The decrease in acceptance of recommended measures needs further analysis, but current results provide evidence to support the response.Key pointsCurrently limited information available on the complex interaction between epidemiology, media attention, pandemic control measures, risk perception and compliance with public health measures.Despite the relatively high risk perception of a possible infection with COVID-19, we observed a steady decrease in adherence to public health measures.Throughout the study, information-seeking behaviour shifted.We observed a decrease in acceptance among the participants in regards to avoiding physical contact.


2021 ◽  
pp. 104973232110368
Author(s):  
Tessa Pocock ◽  
Melody Smith ◽  
Janine Wiles

Qualitative health research has been uniquely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Various public health directives will likely remain in place until this pandemic is fully controlled, creating long-lasting impacts on the design and conduct of qualitative health research. Virtual qualitative research provides an alternative to traditional interviews or focus groups and can help researchers adhere to public health directives. In this commentary, we respond to methodological needs created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we explore unique elements of, and recommendations for, the design and conduct of obtrusive virtual qualitative research (online interviews, online focus groups, and email interviews) and demonstrate crucial ethical, recruitment, analytical, and interpretive considerations. Researchers are currently faced with an ethical imperative to advance virtual qualitative research methods and ensure that rigorous qualitative health research continues during this pandemic and beyond. Our discussions provide a starting point for researchers to explore the potential of virtual qualitative research.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phuoc Truong Nguyen ◽  
Ravi Kant ◽  
Frederik Van den Broeck ◽  
Maija T. Suvanto ◽  
Hussein Alburkat ◽  
...  

Abstract Finland has had a low incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infections as compared to most European countries. Here we report the origins and turnover of SARS-CoV-2 lineages circulating in Finland in 2020. SARS-CoV-2 introduced to Finland in January 2020 and spread rapidly across southern Finland during spring. We observed rapid turnover among Finnish lineages during this period. Clade 20C became the most prevalent among sequenced cases and was replaced by other strains in fall 2020. Bayesian phylogeographic reconstructions suggested 42 independent introductions into Finland during spring 2020, mainly from Italy, Austria, and Spain, which might have been the source for a third of cases. The investigations of the original introductions of SARS-CoV-2 to Finland during the early stages of the pandemic and of the subsequent lineage dynamics could be utilized to assess the role of transboundary movements and effects of early intervention and public health measures.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document