Miasmas, mental models and preventive public health: some philosophical reflections on science in the COVID-19 pandemic

How do people understand the spread of COVID-19 infections? Mapping mental models of factors contributing to the pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To describe the mental models people hold about the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on how they understand the factors that drive the spread of COVID-19 and what kind of beliefs are associated with these models.

DESIGN

In a series of three studies (total N = 461), we asked participants to identify factors that are relevant for COVID-19 proliferation (Study 1a), rate the importance of factors (Study 1 b), and create a mental model of how these factors relate to virus spread by employing a validated tool for mental model elicitation (Study 2). Main outcome measures: inclusion and centrality of factors in mental models of COVID-19 infection spread.

RESULTS

Mitigation measures issued by government, adherence to measures, and virus characteristics were most strongly represented in participants' mental models. Participants who perceived measures as appropriate or who experienced more control and more worry over the spread of the virus created more complex models compared to participants who were less satisfied with measures or who felt lower control and less worry.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that people are able to create sensible mental models of virus transmission but may appreciate transparent communication to comprehend the bigger picture behind the governmental mitigation strategy.

Treating COVID-19: Targeting the Host Response, Not the Virus

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), inexpensive generic drugs like statins, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs, especially if used in combination, might be the only practical way to save the lives of patients with severe COVID-19. These drugs will already be available in all countries on the first pandemic day. Because they target the host response to infection instead of the virus, they could be used to save lives during any pandemic. Observational studies show that inpatient statin treatment reduces 28–30-day mortality but randomized controlled trials have failed to show this benefit. Combination treatment has been tested for antivirals and dexamethasone but, with the exception of one observational study in Belgium, not for inexpensive generic drugs. Future pandemic research must include testing combination generic drug treatments that could be used in LMICs.

'Loob' and 'labas': Spatial constructions of safety and risk amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines

This article argues that local constructions of risky and safe spaces, as articulated by the notions 'loob' (inside) and 'labas' (outside), informed popular and political responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines, leading to an overemphasis on staying at home and, conversely, a general avoidance or fear of outdoor spaces that was at times reinforced by public health authorities. Practices and policies related to the pandemic response rendered this binary opposition between 'loob' and 'labas' visible, from regulations concerning the use of personal protective equipment to restrictions of access to outdoor spaces. While this emergent form of bodily proxemics was contested and negotiated over time, its tenacity throughout the pandemic underscores the importance of understanding how people spatialize risk in times of health crises.

Public Health Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia: The Role of the Morrison Government

The Australian Commonwealth government has four health-related responsibilities during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: to provide national leadership; to manage external borders; to protect residents of residential aged care facilities; and to approve, procure and roll-out tests and vaccines. State governments are responsible for determining what public health measures are appropriate and implementing them-including managing the border quarantine arrangements and the testing, tracing, and isolation regime-and managing the hospital response. This paper analyses the national government's response to the pandemic and discusses why it has attracted a thesaurus of negative adjectives.

Guidelines, guidelines and more guidelines for haemorrhoid treatment: A review to sort the wheat from the chaff

AIM

Guidelines benefit patients and clinicians by distilling evidence into easy-to-read recommendations. The literature around the management of haemorrhoids is immense and guidelines are invaluable to improve treatment integrity and patient outcomes. We identified current haemorrhoid guidelines and assessed them for quality and consistency.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature from January 2011 to October 2021 was carried out. Guidelines identified were assessed for quality using the AGREE II instrument and for consistency in terms of tabulated treatment recommendations.

RESULTS

During this period nine guidelines were identified worldwide. The general quality was poor with only one guideline considered of high enough quality for use. In general, expert selection criteria for guideline development groups were vaguely defined. There were inconsistencies in the interpretation of the published evidence leading to variation in treatment recommendations.

DISCUSSION

Fewer, higher quality guidelines, with more consistent results, are needed. Particular attention should be given to defining the selection of experts involved.

Rapid response modeling of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

What can modelers learn from recent history to help prepare for the next pandemic?