The state‐level COVID‐19 response in the United States necessitated collaboration between governor' offices, health departments and numerous other departments and outside experts. To gain insight into how health officials and experts contributed to advising on COVID‐19 policies, we conducted semi‐structured interviews with 25 individuals with a health specialisation who were involved in COVID‐19 policymaking, taking place between February and December 2022. We found two diverging understandings of the role of health officials and experts in COVID‐19 policymaking: the role of ‘staying in the lane’ of public health in terms of the information that they collected, their advocacy for policies and their area of expertise and the role of engaging in the balancing of multiple considerations, such as public health, feasibility and competing objectives (such as the economy) in the crafting of pandemic policy. We draw on the concept of boundary‐work to examine how these roles were constructed. We conclude by considering the appropriateness as well as the ethical implications of these two approaches to public health policymaking. 
                        more » 
                        « less   
                    
                            
                            Public Health Deference: Rethinking the Judicial Enforcement of Constitutional Rights during a Pandemic
                        
                    
    
            Jacobson v. Massachusetts has long stood for the proposition that courts should generally uphold the government’s public health policies even when they incidentally infringe constitutional rights protections. But the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted this traditional understanding, as many federal courts struck down or enjoined state and local pandemic-response policies, downplaying the applicability of Jacobson. Meanwhile, prominent legal scholars argued that judicial deference premised on Jacobson should be completely abandoned. This article argues that Jacobson must be reconsidered in light of COVID-19, but its posture of deference should not be abandoned. Instead, this article proposes a new theory of “Public Health Deference,” which is the deference that courts should afford to the government’s pandemic-response policies. This article argues that Public Health Deference should be premised on the quality of the processes by which the government creates and implements public health policies, even during an emergency. Courts should not blindly defer to the government’s pandemic response; instead, they should evaluate the government’s decision-making processes to ensure that they meet standards of transparency, accountability, public justification, and community engagement. 
        more » 
        « less   
        
    
                            - Award ID(s):
- 2122574
- PAR ID:
- 10439762
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Syracuse law review
- Volume:
- 73
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 0039-7938
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 55-83
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
- 
            
- 
            null (Ed.)Public health advisories recommend against the use of the N95 respirator by the general public in the current COVID-19 pandemic. These advisories are primarily motivated by the collective goal of reducing the reproduction number to below one. However, cultural factors may dissuade the public from adopting recommendations from models optimized for the collective good. This article presents a discussion of mathematical issues that ought to guide an advisory from an individualistic perspective. In particular, we argue that the public health advisory does not appear justified if one considers non-linearity in the dose-response relationship and heterogeneity in infection load in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The N95 respirator promises far greater effectiveness than homemade or surgical masks. However, due to a considerable variation in masks’ brands and efficiencies, the public should look into the specific details of each available mask option.more » « less
- 
            null (Ed.)In response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, public health interventions such as social distancing and stay-at-home orders have widely been implemented, which is anticipated to contribute to reducing the spread of COVID-19. On the contrary, there is a concern that the public health interventions may increase the level of loneliness. Loneliness and social isolation are public health risks, closely associated with serious medical conditions. As COVID-19 is new to us today, little is known about emotional well-being among people with visual impairment during the COVID-19 pandemic. To address the knowledge gap, this study conducted phone interviews with a convenience sample of 31 people with visual impairment. The interview incorporated the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale (version 3) and the trait meta-mood scale (TMMS) to measure loneliness and emotional intelligence skills, respectively. This study found that people with visual impairment were vulnerable to the feeling of loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic and showed individual differences in emotional intelligence skills by different degrees of loneliness. Researchers and health professionals should consider offering adequate coping strategies to those with visual impairment amid the COVID-19 pandemic.more » « less
- 
            Abstract The United States approached the COVID‐19 pandemic with inconsistent responses that varied by state. In Florida, legislators passed laws contrary to mitigating the pandemic. These laws included banning county and municipal efforts to control the spread of COVID‐19 through mask mandates, social distancing, and prohibiting vaccination mandates during infectious disease epidemics. Moreover, the Legislature simultaneously prioritized policies of social exclusion, passing bills that constrained the rights of transgender individuals, Black Lives Matter protestors, and educators. In this article, I use the perspectives of critical medical anthropology and “governing through contagion” to examine Florida's COVID‐19 response. I argue the COVID‐19 pandemic provided an opportunity for legislators to obfuscate their political power and advance a politics of social division while simultaneously passing policies that undermined human health. I refer to this process as governingwithcontagion: Using a pandemic as a politically expedient backdrop to conceal power and simultaneously harm human health.more » « less
- 
            Abstract The Covid‐19 pandemic greatly impacted global public policy implementation. There is a lack of research synthesizing the lessons learned during Covid‐19 from a policy perspective. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to examine the literature on public policy implementation during the Covid‐19 pandemic in order to gain comprehensive insights into current topics and future directions. Five clusters of topics were identified: lessons from science, crisis governance, behavior and mental health, beyond the crisis, and frontlines and trust. Extensive collaboration among public health departments emerged as a significant research theme. Thirty recommendations for future research were identified, including the examination of frontline worker behavior, the use of just tech in policy implementation, and the investigation of policies driving improvements in global public health. The findings indicate that current research on public policy implementation during the Covid‐19 pandemic extends beyond health and economic crisis‐related policies. However, further studies in a post‐pandemic context are needed to validate the identified topics and future directions.more » « less
 An official website of the United States government
An official website of the United States government 
				
			 
					 
					
 
                                    