COVID-19 has created a ramifying public health, economic, and political crisis throughout many countries in the world. While globally the pandemic is at different stages and far from under control in some countries, now is the time for public health researchers and political scientists to start understanding how and why governments responded the way they have, explore how effective these responses appear to be, and what lessons we can draw about effective public health policymaking in preparation of the next wave of COVID-19 or the next infectious disease pandemic. We argue that there will be no way to understand the different responses to COVID-19 and their effects without understanding policy and politics. We propose four key focuses to understand the reasons for COVID-19 responses: social policies to crisis management as well as recovery, regime type (democracy or autocracy), formal political institutions (federalism, presidentialism), and state capacity (control over health care systems and public administration). A research agenda to address the COVID-19 pandemic that takes politics as a serious focus can enable the development of more realistic, sustainable interventions in policies and shape our broader understanding of the politics of public health.

The current literature provides evidence that energy intake is associated with gestational weight gain, but the roles of individual macronutrients are inconsistent. However, there is a need for higher-quality research because the majority of these studies were of low quality.

We show that the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage is highly disseminated in Portugal, with the odds of B.1.1.7 proportion increasing at an estimated 89% (95% confidence interval: 83–95%) per week until week 3 2021. RT-PCR spike gene target late detection (SGTL) can constitute a useful surrogate to track B.1.1.7 spread, besides the spike gene target failure (SGTF) proxy. SGTL/SGTF samples were associated with statistically significant higher viral loads, but not with substantial shift in age distribution compared to non-SGTF/SGTL cases.

Emergency department (ED) triage systems aim to direct the best clinical assistance to those who are in the greatest urgency and guarantee that resources are efficiently applied. The study's purpose was to determine whether the Manchester Triage System (MTS) second version is a useful instrument for determining the risk of hospital admission, intrahospital death and resource utilisation in ED and to compare it with the MTS first version. This was a prospective study of patients that attended the ED at a large hospital. It comprised a total of 25 218 cases that were triaged between 11 July and 13 October 2011. The MTS codes were grouped into two clusters: red and orange into a ‘high acuity/priority’ (HP) cluster, and yellow, green and blue into a ‘low acuity/priority’ cluster. The risk of hospital admission in the HP cluster was 4.86 times that of the LP cluster for both admission route and ages. The percentage of patient hospital admission between medical and surgical specialties, in high and low priority clusters, was similar. We found the risk of death in the HP cluster to be 5.58 times that of the risk of the low acuity/priority cluster. The MTS had an inconsistent association relative to the utilisation of x-ray, while it seemed to portray a consistent association between ECG and laboratory utilisation and MTS cluster. There were no differences between medical and surgical specialities risk of admission. This suggests that improvements were made in the second version of MTS, particularly in the discriminators of patients triaged to surgical specialties, because this was not true for the first version of MTS.

Through deterministic data linkage of health registries, mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-related hospitalisations and deaths was measured in 1,880,351 older adults. VE against hospitalisations was 94% (95% confidence interval (CI): 88–97) and 82% (95% CI: 72–89) for those 65–79 and ≥ 80 years old, with no evidence of waning 98 days after dose two. VE against mortality was 96% (95% CI: 92–98) and 81% (95% CI: 74–87) in these two age groups.

We developed a case–case study to compare mRNA vaccine effectiveness against Delta versus Alpha coronavirus variants. We used data on 2,097 case-patients with PCR-positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections reported in Portugal during May–July 2021. We estimated the odds of vaccine breakthrough infection in Delta-infected versus Alpha-infected patients by using conditional logistic regression adjusted for age group and sex and matched by the week of diagnosis. We compared reverse-transcription PCR cycle threshold values by vaccination status and variant as an indirect measure of viral load. We found significantly higher odds of vaccine breakthrough infection in Delta-infected patients than in Alpha-infected patients (odds ratio 1.96 [95% CI 1.22–3.14]), suggesting lower effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines in preventing infection with the Delta variant. We estimated lower mean cycle threshold values for the Delta cases (mean difference −2.10 [95% CI −2.74 to −1.47]), suggesting higher infectiousness than the Alpha variant.

COVID-19 is the most significant global crisis of any of our lifetimes. The numbers have been stupefying, whether of infection and mortality, the scale of public health measures, or the economic consequences of shutdown. Coronavirus Politics identifies key threads in the global comparative discussion that continue to shed light on COVID-19 and shape debates about what it means for scholarship in health and comparative politics. Editors Scott L. Greer, Elizabeth J. King, Elize Massard da Fonseca, and André Peralta-Santos bring together over 30 authors versed in politics and the health issues in order to understand the health policy decisions, the public health interventions, the social policy decisions, their interactions, and the reasons. The book’s coverage is global, with a wide range of key and exemplary countries, and contains a mixture of comparative, thematic, and templated country studies. All go beyond reporting and monitoring to develop explanations that draw on the authors' expertise while engaging in structured conversations across the book.

Summary Background The odds ratio (OR) comparing pathogen presence in diarrhoeal cases versus asymptomatic controls is a measure for diarrhoeal disease cause that has been integrated into burden of disease estimates across diverse populations. This study aimed to estimate the OR describing the association between pathogen detection in stool and diarrhoea for 15 common enteropathogens by age group and child mortality setting. Methods We did a systematic review to identify case-control and cohort studies published from Jan 1, 1990, to July 9, 2019, which examined at least one enteropathogen of interest and the outcome diarrhoea. The analytical dataset included data extracted from published articles and supplemented with data from the Global Enteric Multicenter Study and the Malnutrition and Enteric Disease study. Random effects meta-analysis models were fit for each enteropathogen, stratified by age group and child mortality level, and adjusted for pathogen detection method and study design to produce summary ORs describing the association between pathogen detection in stool and diarrhoea. Findings 1964 records were screened and 130 studies (over 88 079 cases or diarrhoea samples and 135 755 controls or non-diarrhoea samples) were available for analysis. Heterogeneity ( I 2 ) in unadjusted models was substantial, ranging from 27·6% to 86·6% across pathogens. In stratified and adjusted models, summary ORs varied by age group and setting, ranging from 0·4 (95% CI 0·2–0·6) for Giardia lamblia to 54·1 (95% CI 7·4–393·5) for Vibrio cholerae . Interpretation Incorporating effect estimates from diverse data sources into diarrhoeal disease cause and burden of disease models is needed to produce more representative estimates. Funding WHO, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and National Institutes of Health.