Covid-19: Social murder, they wrote-elected, unaccountable, and unrepentant

Avoiding Crisis Conditions in the Healthcare Infrastructure: 2 Case Studies in Statewide Collaboration

In fall 2020, COVID-19 infections accelerated across the United States. For many states, a surge in COVID-19 cases meant planning for the allocation of scarce resources. Crisis standards of care planning focuses on maintaining high-quality clinical care amid extreme operating conditions. One of the primary goals of crisis standards of care planning is to use all preventive measures available to avoid reaching crisis conditions and the complex triage decisionmaking involved therein. Strategies to stay out of crisis must respond to the actual experience of people on the frontlines, or the "ground truth," to ensure efforts to increase critical care bed numbers and augment staff, equipment, supplies, and medications to provide an effective response to a public health emergency. Successful management of a surge event where healthcare needs exceed capacity requires coordinated strategies for scarce resource allocation. In this article, we examine the ground truth challenges encountered in response efforts during the fall surge of 2020 for 2 states-Nebraska and California-and the strategies each state used to enable healthcare facilities to stay out of crisis standards of care. Through these 2 cases, we identify key tools deployed to reduce surge and barriers to coordinated statewide support of the healthcare infrastructure. Finally, we offer considerations for operationalizing key tools to alleviate surge and recommendations for stronger statewide coordination in future public health emergencies.

Low COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Brazil

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the entire world, and the vaccine has emerged as a source of hope for return to normal life. Still, various countries have reported high vaccine hesitancy rates. It is important to know the vaccine hesitancy profile in Brazil to help design adequate communication strategies.

Methods

A voluntary, anonymous online survey was conducted from January 22 to 29, 2021, including resident Brazilian adults to assess factors related to vaccine hesitancy. Sociodemographic and epidemiological data were analyzed. A bivariate analysis was conducted with the independent variables, with vaccine hesitancy as the outcome variable, and a multivariate logistic model was used to calculated adjusted odds ratios.

Results

The sample included 173,178 respondents, and vaccine hesitancy was found in 10.5%. The principal factors associated with vaccine hesitancy were the following: assigning importance to the vaccinés efficacy (AOR = 16.39), fear of adverse reactions (AOR = 11.23), and assigning importance to the vaccinés country of origin (AOR = 3.72). Other risk factors were the following: male gender (AOR = 1.62), having children (AOR = 1.29), 9 years of schooling or less (AOR = 1.31), living in the Central-West region (AOR = 1.19), age ≥ 40 years (AOR = 1.17), and monthly income < U$788.68 (AOR = 1.13). The two vaccines available in Brazil, Covishield and CoronaVac, showed similar confidence, 80.13% and 76.36%, respectively, despite the higher rejection of the latter vaccinés Chinese origin.

Interpretation

This online survey confirms the low vaccine hesitancy rate among Brazilians and allowed the identification of a profile that can assist the elaboration of communication strategies to increase vaccine adherence.

Funding

National Institute of Women, Children and Adolescents Health Fernandes Figueira, FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

COVID-19 Remote Consultation Services and Population in Health Inequity-Concentrating Territories: A Scoping Review

Background: This review aimed to map initiatives for measuring the satisfaction of vulnerable populations with teleconsultation services offered by public and private health care providers in their territories, during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Systematic studies on the opinions of people most affected by health inequities are limited. Therefore, we included evaluations of teleconsultation-based services offered to socioeconomically disadvantaged and clinically vulnerable populations globally, with a focus on surveillance, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19.

Materials and Methods: This review includes analytical and descriptive observational studies primarily from MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases, published after the World Health Organization received the first warnings about COVID-19 from Chinese authorities in December, 2019, until December 2020. The search strategy combined aspects of COVID-19, telemedicine, patient satisfaction, and key concepts of vulnerable populations.

Results: We selected 33 studies for full-text reading and 10 for critical appraisal. Two categories emerged from the qualitative analysis: telehealth evaluation and services during COVID-19, and opinions of vulnerable populations. Television and social networks play a crucial role in providing information. Although teleconsultations are practical and cost effective for patients, the majority preferred receiving in-person treatment in primary care clinics.

Conclusions: Listening to the opinions of vulnerable groups and their caregivers is critical both before and during adoption of COVID-19 control measures. Health managers need to monitor the health of and delivery of services to socioeconomically and clinically vulnerable people closely, to improve services, and provide care from a human rights perspective.