The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted significant vulnerabilities in long-term care (LTC) homes, severely impacting residents and care partners. This study investigates how care partners of older adults living in Ontario LTC homes perceived residents’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how those perceptions shaped their own caregiving experiences. Using critical ethnography, we identified four key themes: (a) masks and miscommunication, (b) loneliness and loss, (c) from interaction to isolation, and (d) loss of the advocacy role. Supportive actions included transparent masks, increased allied health professionals, and enriching daily programs. These findings emphasize the need for policies that balance infection control with the emotional and social needs of LTC residents, addressing power imbalances, ageism, and systemic inequities.

In 2022, an anti-vaccine mandate protest in Canada received millions of dollars in support through online crowdfunding. This event catalyzed political crowdfunding in Canada by demonstrating its ability to disseminate ideological discourse and mobilize collective action. Given its newfound visibility and impact, this study examines the landscape of political crowdfunding in Canada. We examined 60 campaigns from the legal, current events and political categories on the crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo and classified campaigns into: COVID-19-related topics, alternative media and free speech, climate change skepticism, and other political campaigns. Thematic analysis of the interactive discourse between campaign hosts and donors revealed that many campaigns were motivated by defending individual rights and freedoms amidst perceived government overreach, which fuels a distrust towards authority, including the government and mainstream media. Our study suggests that political crowdfunding empowers individuals to symbolically reflect their political and ideological beliefs through financial donations.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a serious threat to global health. Current research shows that COVID-19 causes an increase in the incidence of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) due to excessive use of antibiotics during COVID-19 [1,2]. Extended-spectrum β lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-PE), especially Escherichia coli-producing ESBL (Eco-ESBL) and Klebsiella pneumoniae-producing ESBL (Kp-ESBL) are pathogens of current concern due to their potential for rapid spread in communities and healthcare [3]. Based on antibiogram data from Dr. M. Djamil General Hospital Padang in 2022, the incidence of MDRO in the inpatient, outpatient, and intensive care units was mostly caused by Kp-ESBL (12,7%), followed by Eco-ESBL (11,9%) [4]. This study aims to compare the incidence of MDRO caused by Eco-ESBL and Kp-ESBL before, during, and after COVID- 19. Methods: This research constitutes a retrospective descriptive study conducted at Dr. M. Djamil General Hospital Padang during three distinct periods: before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The population of this study was the results of all cultures from all specimen examinations that produced ESBL. Two thousand and seventeen samples were taken from the population that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria using the total sampling technique. Results: Comparison of the incidence showed that Eco-ESBL has an increased risk of incidents after the pandemic by 1.41 times compared to before the pandemic, while the risk of incidence during the pandemic does not show a significant relationship (p=0.63, p>0.05). In contrast to Kp-ESBL, there is a decrease in the risk of incidence after the pandemic by 0.62 times compared to before the pandemic (p<0.05), while the risk of incidence during the pandemic also does not show a significant relationship (p=0.63, p>0.05). Conclusion: There is a significant risk of incidence of MDRO caused by Eco-ESBL and Kp-ESBL after the pandemic compared to before the pandemic COVID-19.

‘Deliberative Rights Theory’ evaluates what deliberative democratic scholarship can contribute to the constitutional question of how to protect fundamental rights and freedoms. That scholarship primarily focuses on what occurs within the legislature, judiciary and citizen assemblies to test the relationship between deliberation and rights. This article argues that what occurs within federalism can also significantly influence rights deliberation and thus should be part of the conversation. The article explores federalism’s effect on rights deliberation through two case studies from the COVID-19 pandemic. The first considers Australia’s decision to close its international border and the way federalism influenced discussion and debate on the right of citizens to return to the country. The second considers Canada’s decision to end the ‘Freedom Convoy’ against vaccination mandates and the way federalism affected discussion and debate on the right to protest. The article concludes by considering some directions for future research on the topic.

When areas of the law are ambiguous or untested, such as in the compassionate release cases that proliferated during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, district judges must rely on their discretion to fill in legal gaps. Discretion can be beneficial, because it means that it allows district judges to consider factors that may lead to potentially harmful outcomes for litigants or their communities. But discretion is imperfect, particularly in the face of ethically or factually complex problems. Perhaps a place to start with addressing this difficulty is greater transparency about the benefits and limitations of discretion.

Analysis of feeder and early weaned pig markets, important segments in pork production, is nearly nonexistent. We derive and estimate a structural econometric model relating demand and supply for market hogs, feeder pigs, and early weaned pigs. Estimates from the econometric model predict how disruptions are transmitted through hog and pig markets. Results indicate that hog and pig markets are most sensitive to hog processing plant utilization relative to capacity and that this sensitivity has increased compared to prior estimates. A set of counterfactual scenarios quantify the effects of shocks to hog processing capacity, wholesale pork demand, and supply response.

The magnitude and duration of the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for countries to continuously reflect and improve on their ongoing response. The World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the guidance for conducting COVID-19 intra-action reviews (IARs) in July 2020. As of November 25, 2022, 136 IARs have been conducted by 78 countries in all 6 WHO regions. IARs are country-led and outcomes country-owned, with the flexible methodology enabling countries to focus on COVID-19-related priority issues in their national and subnational contexts. WHO’s approach to promoting the use of IARs recognizes the importance of 3 learning modalities: countries learning through self-reflection, countries learning from each other, and WHO and partners learning from countries to improve WHO guidance and tools. Moving forward, the value of reflective learning in public health emergencies can be further enhanced by institutionalizing an ongoing learning mindset and translating reflective learning-based recommendations into policy change and action.

Although unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) were an important government intervention during the COVID-19 crisis worldwide, research covering UCTs’ impact on compliance with public health recommendations, at an individual level, remains limited to low-income countries. This study assesses the association between UCTs’ reception and compliance with public health recommendations in the United States. Longitudinal data from the Understanding Coronavirus in America panel are applied to difference-in-differences models to estimate how Economic Impact Payments’ reception, associated with the CARES Act 2020, impacted a variety of pandemic health behaviours. UCTs’ reception was associated with increased uptake of explicitly costly health behaviours, such as facemasks, but not with increased compliance amongst behaviours more generally. Moreover, results document stronger effects amongst poorer households. These findings have theoretical implications for how government transfers impact individual behaviour during periods of crisis and for the direction of future research.

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant health threat to people in corrections facilities due to communal living, inability to social distance, and high rates of comorbidity among incarcerated populations. Combined with the First Step Act of 2018, which granted incarcerated individuals seeking compassionate release access to the courts, the pandemic increased the number of people in federal prisons petitioning for early release due to health risk. Analysis of federal compassionate release case law throughout the pandemic reveals inconsistent judicial reasoning related to COVID-19-based requests. Inconsistently interpreted compassionate release factors include vaccination status, COVID-19 reinfection, and the “degree” of extraordinary circumstances considered. Varied application among federal districts produced inequitable access to compassionate release. Therefore, this analysis provides insight into how an unclear policy can create disparate public health outcomes and considerations for compassionate release determinations in future times of uncertainty, such as a pandemic.