El Sistema and Sistema-inspired programmes have become increasingly popular community music education and social welfare initiatives that aim to benefit socially and economically disadvantaged youth. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly disrupted many of these programmes. The purpose of this research was to investigate how eight Canadian El Sistema and Sistema-inspired programmes adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. We interviewed eight teachers and eight administrators and found that their programming was impacted in relation to four themes: (a) an increased emphasis on social curricula, (b) pedagogical shifts, (c) inclusion of diverse musical voices and (d) adopting anti-racism perspectives. The COVID-19 pandemic response served as a significant catalyst for change for Canadian El Sistema and Sistema-inspired programmes, utilising the disruption to rethink and address participant needs.

Early in the pandemic, pre-print servers sped rapid evidence sharing. A collaborative of major medical journals supported their use to ensure equitable access to scientific advancements. In the intervening three years, we have made major advancements in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and learned about the benefits and limitations of pre-prints as a mechanism for sharing and disseminating scientific knowledge.

Pre-prints increase attention, citations, and ultimately impact policy, often before findings are verified. Evidence suggests that pre-prints have more spin relative to peer-reviewed publications. Clinical trial findings posted on pre-print servers do not change substantially following peer-review, but other study types (e.g., modeling and observational studies) often undergo substantial revision or are never published.

Nuanced policies about sharing results are needed to balance rapid implementation of true and important advancements with accuracy. Policies recommending immediate posting of COVID-19-related research should be re-evaluated, and standards for evaluation and sharing of unverified studies should be developed. These may include specifications about what information is included in pre-prints and requirements for certain data quality standards (e.g., automated review of images and tables); requirements for code release and sharing; and limiting early postings to methods, results, and limitations sections.

Academic publishing needs to innovate and improve, but assessments of evidence quality remains a critical part of the scientific discovery and dissemination process.

Mathematical modelling has been used to support the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in countries around the world including Australia and New Zealand. Both these countries have followed similar pandemic response strategies, using a combination of strict border measures and community interventions to minimize infection rates until high vaccine coverage was achieved. This required a different set of modelling tools to those used in countries that experienced much higher levels of prevalence throughout the pandemic.

In this article, we provide an overview of some of the mathematical modelling and data analytics work that has helped to inform the policy response to the pandemic in Australia and New Zealand. This is a reflection on our experiences working at the modelling–policy interface and the impact this has had on the pandemic response. We outline the various types of model outputs, from short-term forecasts to longer-term scenario models, that have been used in different contexts. We discuss issues relating to communication between mathematical modellers and stakeholders such as health officials and policymakers. We conclude with some future challenges and opportunities in this area.

This article highlights and evaluates the role of CEPI and its contribution to global equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines through its established partnerships for vaccine development. The article adds to the understanding of how and when such partnerships can work for public health, especially under emergency citations.

The current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has placed unprecedented strain on underfunded public health resources in the Southeastern United States. The Memphis, TN, metropolitan region has lacked infrastructure for health data exchange.

This manuscript describes a multidisciplinary initiative to create a community-focused COVID-19 data registry, the Memphis Pandemic Health Informatics System (MEMPHI-SYS). MEMPHI-SYS leverages test result data updated directly from community-based testing sites, as well as a full complement of public health data sets and knowledge-based informatics. It has been guided by relationships with community stakeholders and is managed alongside the largest publicly funded community-based COVID-19 testing response in the Mid-South. MEMPHI-SYS has supported interactive Web-based analytic resources and informs federally funded COVID-19 outreach directed toward neighborhoods most in need of pandemic support.

MEMPHI-SYS provides an instructive case study of how to collaboratively establish the technical scaffolding and human relationships necessary for data-driven, health equity-focused pandemic surveillance, and policy interventions.

This paper describes the results of a multi-country survey of governance approaches for the use of digital contact tracing (DCT) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that the countries in our survey represent two distinct models of DCT governance, both of which are flawed. The “data protection model” emphasizes privacy protections at the expense of public health benefit, while the “emergency response model” sacrifices transparency and accountability, prompting concerns about excessive governance surveillance. The ethical and effective use of DCT in the future requires a new governance approach that is better suited to this novel use of mobile phone data to promote public health.”

Public distrust in the US pandemic response has significantly hindered its effectiveness. In this community-based participatory research mixed-methods study, based on two datasets, we examined how distrust in COVID-19 vaccines relates to institutional distrust. We found that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine pause undermined trust in COVID-19 vaccines in general. Findings also suggest that vaccine distrust developed after participating in a study on COVID-19 testing. Increased distrust may be an unintended consequence of how healthcare and public health activities are presented and delivered, and research participation is structured. Both will continue without proactively addressing the root causes of distrust.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, navigating the implementation of public health measures in a politically charged environment for a large state entity was challenging. However, Louisiana State University (LSU) leadership developed and deployed an effective, multi-layered mitigation plan and successfully opened in-person learning while managing cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the fourth surge. We describe the plan to provide a framework for other institutions during this and future responses. The goals were 3-fold: maintain a quality learning environment, mitigate risk to the campus community, and ensure that LSU operations did not contribute to health-care stress. As of September 2022, LSU has achieved high compliance with interventions and relatively low virus activity on campus compared with peer institutions. This university model can serve as a template for similar implementation plans in the context of complex socio-political and economic considerations.

Globally, countries have used diverse methods to report data during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using international guidelines and principles of emergency management, we compare national data reporting systems in African countries in order to determine lessons for future pandemics. We analyse COVID-19 reporting practices across 54 African countries through 2020. Reporting systems were diverse and included summaries, press releases, situation reports and online dashboards. These systems were communicated via social media accounts and websites belonging to ministries of health and public health. Data variables from the reports included event detection (cases/deaths/recoveries), risk assessment (demographics/co-morbidities) and response (total tests/hospitalisations). Of countries with reporting systems, 36/53 (67.9%) had recurrent situation reports and/or online dashboards which provided more extensive data. All of these systems reported cases, deaths and recoveries. However, few systems contained risk assessment and response data, with only 5/36 (13.9%) reporting patient co-morbidities and 9/36 (25%) including total hospitalisations. Further evaluation of reporting practices in Cameroon, Egypt, Kenya, Senegal and South Africa as examples from different sub-regions revealed differences in reporting healthcare capacity and preparedness data. Improving the standardisation and accessibility of national data reporting systems could augment research and decision-making, as well as increase public awareness and transparency for national governments.

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a globally spread—but differently timed—implementation of school closures and other disruptive containment measures as governments worldwide intervened to curb transmission of disease. This study argues that the timing of such disruptive interventions reflects how governments balance the principles of precaution and proportionality in their pandemic decision-making. A theory is proposed of how their trade-off is impacted by two interacting institutional factors: electoral democratic institutions, which incentivise political leaders to increasingly favour precaution, and high state administrative capacity, which instead makes a proportional strategy involving later containment measures more administratively and politically feasible. Global patterns consistent with this theory are documented among 170 countries in early 2020, using Cox models of school closures and other non-pharmaceutical interventions. Corroborating the theorised mechanisms, additional results indicate that electoral competition prompts democratic leaders’ faster response, and that this mechanism is weaker where professional state agencies have more influence over policymaking.

Monoclonal antibody therapeutics to treat coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Many barriers exist when deploying a novel therapeutic during an ongoing pandemic, and it is critical to assess the needs of incorporating monoclonal antibody infusions into pandemic response activities. We examined the monoclonal antibody infusion site process during the COVID-19 pandemic and conducted a descriptive analysis using data from 3 sites at medical centers in the United States supported by the National Disaster Medical System. Monoclonal antibody implementation success factors included engagement with local medical providers, therapy batch preparation, placing the infusion center in proximity to emergency services, and creating procedures resilient to EUA changes. Infusion process challenges included confirming patient severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity, strained staff, scheduling, and pharmacy coordination. Infusion sites are effective when integrated into pre-existing pandemic response ecosystems and can be implemented with limited staff and physical resources.

The World Health Organization African region recorded its first laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) cases on 25 February 2020. Two months later, all the 47 countries of the region were affected. The first anniversary of the pandemic occurred in a changed context with the emergence of new variants of concern (VOC) and growing COVID-19 fatigue. This study describes the epidemiological trajectory of COVID-19 in the region, summarises public health and social measures (PHSM) implemented and discusses their impact on the pandemic trajectory. As of 24 February 2021, the African region accounted for 2.5% of cases and 2.9% of deaths reported globally. Of the 13 countries that submitted detailed line listing of cases, the proportion of cases with at least one co-morbid condition was estimated at 3.3% of all cases. Hypertension, diabetes and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were the most common comorbid conditions, accounting for 11.1%, 7.1% and 5.0% of cases with comorbidities, respectively. Overall, the case fatality ratio (CFR) in patients with comorbid conditions was higher than in patients without comorbid conditions: 5.5% vs. 1.0% (P < 0.0001). Countries started to implement lockdown measures in early March 2020. This contributed to slow the spread of the pandemic at the early stage while the gradual ease of lockdowns from 20 April 2020 resulted in an upsurge. The second wave of the pandemic, which started in November 2020, coincided with the emergence of the new variants of concern. Only 0.08% of the population from six countries received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. It is critical to not only learn from the past 12 months to improve the effectiveness of the current response but also to start preparing the health systems for subsequent waves of the current pandemic and future pandemics.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been shaped by preexisting political, social, and economic relations and governance structures, and will remold these structures going forward. This review essay considers three books on global health politics written by Simon Rushton, Clare Wenham, and Jeremy Youde. Here, I explore what these books collectively and individually can tell us about these preexisting dynamics, the events of the first eighteen months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and possible future directions in the politics of global health. I argue that they provide a firm basis for understanding the inequitable burdens of the pandemic, while juxtaposing these inequities against the narratives of shared vulnerability that sit at the heart of the global health security regime. They also help us make sense of the surveillance, detection, containment, and response mechanisms we have seen during the pandemic; the failures to address the systemic dynamics that drive disease outbreaks; and the national and international politics that have shaped the pandemic response. However, COVID-19 has also vividly and brutally demonstrated how global health hierarchies, racism, border politics, and neoliberal forms of knowledge production have led to a stratified burden of the pandemic. These areas are less apparent in the three books, but ought to be situated front and center in future critical scholarship on global health security.

The COVID-19 pandemic has upended every aspect of American life. State governments responded quickly to protect public health and stabilize overwhelmed hospital systems. The most restrictive policy, the stay-at-home order, was seen by public health officials as a cornerstone of successful state mitigation strategies. But like many aspects of contemporary politics, support for these efforts took on a distinctly partisan hue. In this paper, I argue that party politics significantly affected state policy responses to COVID-19, which in turn limited mitigation efforts. To this point, I first demonstrate that Democratic governors were faster and more likely to adopt stay-at-home orders than Republicans. Next, using a synthetic control approach, I show that these orders caused residents to practice greater social distancing. Finally, I find that greater social distancing worked to “flattened the curve” by limiting the growth of COVID-19 cases. Together these findings show how party politics affected state pandemic responses and have important long-term implications as states begin lifting restrictions.

This paper presents a normative analysis of restrictive measures in response to a pandemic emergency. It applies to the context presented by the Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global outbreak of 2019, as well as to future pandemics. First, a Millian-liberal argument justifies lockdown measures in order to protect liberty under pandemic conditions, consistent with commonly accepted principles of public health ethics. Second, a wider argument contextualizes specific issues that attend acting on the justified lockdown for western liberal democratic states, as modeled on discourse and accounted for by Jürgen Habermas. The authors argue that a range of norms are constructed in societies that, justifiably, need to be curtailed for the pandemic. The state has to take on the unusual role of sole guardian of norms under emergency pandemic conditions. Consistently with both the Millian-liberal justification and elements of Habermasian discourse ethics, they argue that that role can only be justified where it includes strategy for how to return political decisionmaking to the status quo ante. This is because emergency conditions are only justified as a means to protecting prepandemic norms. To this end, the authors propose that an emergency power committee is necessary to guarantee that state action during pandemic is aimed at re-establishing the conditions of legitimacy of government action that ecological factors (a virus) have temporarily curtailed.