Human rights, public health and COVID-19 in Canada

Mykhalovskiy, Eric; Kazatchkine, Cécile; Foreman-Mackey, Annie; McClelland, Alexander; Peck, Ryan; Hastings, Colin; Elliott, Richard

doi:10.17269/s41997-020-00408-0

Cited by 32 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, it also declares that in cases of serious public health threats such as pandemics, restrictions can be justified when they are rigidly necessary, based on legal grounds and scientific data, respectful of human dignity, and proportionate to reach the goals ( Amon and Wurth, 2020 ). In processes invoked in response to COVID-19, it has been seen that inappropriate policies have led to numerous human rights violations such as ageism, discrimination, and stigmatization ( Mykhalovskiy et al, 2020 ), and more recently in terms of inequalities seen in access to COVID-19 vaccines. Public messages and health politics related to COVID-19 should be constructed based primarily upon a human rights approach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accepting Restrictions and Compliance With Recommended Preventive Behaviors for COVID-19: A Discussion Based on the Key Approaches and Current Research on Fear Appeals

Demirtaş-Madran

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) is a novel coronavirus which was first detected in late December 2019 in the Wuhan Province of China. This novel coronavirus, caused by a zoonotic beta-coronavirus (SARS-CoV-), is described as highly infectious. The World Health Organization (WHO) named the novel coronavirus as COVID-19 on February 11, 2020, and declared it as a “pandemic.” Almost all countries have undertaken wide-scale precautions so as to prevent or limit the spread of the virus, with most having practiced some form of “lockdown” along with “social distancing,” as well as dispensed recommendations for proper hand washing, avoiding touching the face, wearing facemasks, and using disposable tissues when either coughing or sneezing. Whereas it is well known that slowing the spread of this new epidemic requires the cooperation of all citizens, some people still seem to willfully disregard the rules and guidelines, and thereby ignore the health risks posed to both themselves and to others they come into contact with. People have responded differently to lockdown rules and social distancing practices. Whilst the majority follow the rules and recommendations with great care, others are more lax or simply refuse to comply. These differences might be accounted for according to a number of factors including personal, social, cultural, mental, and economic variables. Being persuaded to comply with preventive rules, especially those concerned with health-related behaviors, also bring certain other factors into play. Fear is one of those factors, and is one of the most powerful. It is well known that fear-based appeals can be effective in inculcating health behaviors, with many theories having been developed in this area. However, both the content of the message (the level of the fear it contains) and certain personal variables can determine the persuasive power of the fear appeal. It can even have an adverse effect if not properly applied. Many theories have been developed to address the persuasive effectiveness of the fear appeal (e.g., fear-drive theory, protection-motivation theory), and this study aims to discuss these individual differences in precautionary and preventive measures for the COVID-19 pandemic within the framework of the basic assumptions of these theoretical approaches.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accepting Restrictions and Compliance With Recommended Preventive Behaviors for COVID-19: A Discussion Based on the Key Approaches and Current Research on Fear Appeals

Demirtaş-Madran

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An additional approach is to provide an accurate and current picture of the risk of contracting the disease. Second, public health policy that creates costs for noncompliers may serve to shift some of the externalities back on to the originator (as was the case with mask ordinances during the 1918 Flu [4] and fines imposed for noncompliance with measures aimed at limiting SARS-CoV-2 spread in some countries [56,57]). Third, public health interventions should engage at the level of the community.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individually optimal choices can be collectively disastrous in COVID-19 disease control

Stoddard¹,

Egeren

Johnson

et al. 2021

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The word ‘pandemic’ conjures dystopian images of bodies stacked in the streets and societies on the brink of collapse. Despite this frightening picture, denialism and noncompliance with public health measures are common in the historical record, for example during the 1918 Influenza pandemic or the 2015 Ebola epidemic. The unique characteristics of SARS-CoV-2—its high basic reproduction number (R0), time-limited natural immunity and considerable potential for asymptomatic spread—exacerbate the public health repercussions of noncompliance with interventions (such as vaccines and masks) to limit disease transmission. Our work explores the rationality and impact of noncompliance with measures aimed at limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Methods In this work, we used game theory to explore when noncompliance confers a perceived benefit to individuals. We then used epidemiological modeling to predict the impact of noncompliance on control of SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the presence of a noncompliant subpopulation prevents suppression of disease spread. Results Our modeling demonstrates that noncompliance is a Nash equilibrium under a broad set of conditions and that the existence of a noncompliant population can result in extensive endemic disease in the long-term after a return to pre-pandemic social and economic activity. Endemic disease poses a threat for both compliant and noncompliant individuals; all community members are protected if complete suppression is achieved, which is only possible with a high degree of compliance. For interventions that are highly effective at preventing disease spread, however, the consequences of noncompliance are borne disproportionately by noncompliant individuals. Conclusions In sum, our work demonstrates the limits of free-market approaches to compliance with disease control measures during a pandemic. The act of noncompliance with disease intervention measures creates a negative externality, rendering suppression of SARS-CoV-2 spread ineffective. Our work underscores the importance of developing effective strategies for prophylaxis through public health measures aimed at complete suppression and the need to focus on compliance at a population level.

show abstract

“…An additional approach is to provide an accurate and current picture of the risk of contracting the disease. Second, public health policy that creates costs for noncompliers may serve to shift some of the externalities back on to the originator (as was the case with mask ordinances during the 1918 Flu [4] and fines imposed for noncompliance with COVID-19 prevention measures in some countries [56,57]). Third, public health interventions should engage at the level of the community.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individually Optimal Choices can be Collectively Disastrous in COVID-19 Disease Control

Stoddard

Egeren

Johnson

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The word ‘pandemic’ conjures dystopian images of bodies stacked in the streets and societies on the brink of collapse. Despite this frightening picture, denialism and noncompliance with public health measures are common in the historical record, for example during the 1918 Influenza pandemic or the 2015 Ebola epidemic. The unique characteristics of SARS-CoV-2—its high basic reproduction number (R0), time-limited natural immunity and considerable potential for asymptomatic spread—exacerbate the public health repercussions of noncompliance with interventions (such as vaccines and masks) to limit disease transmission. Our work explores the rationality and impact of noncompliance with COVID-19 disease control measures. Methods: In this work, we used game theory to explore when noncompliance confers a perceived benefit to individuals. We then used epidemiological modeling to predict the impact of noncompliance on control of COVID-19, demonstrating that the presence of a noncompliant subpopulation prevents suppression of disease spread. Results: Our modeling demonstrating that noncompliance is a Nash equilibrium under a broad set of conditions, and that the existence of a noncompliant population can result in extensive endemic disease in the long-term after a return to pre-pandemic social and economic activity. Endemic disease poses a threat for both compliant and noncompliant individuals; all community members are protected if complete suppression is achieved, which is only possible with a high degree of compliance. For interventions that are highly effective at preventing disease spread, however, the consequences of noncompliance are borne disproportionately by noncompliant individuals. Conclusions: In sum, our work demonstrates the limits of free-market approaches to compliance with disease control measures during a pandemic. The act of noncompliance with disease intervention measures creates a negative externality, rendering COVID-19 disease control ineffective in the short term and making complete suppression impossible in the long term. Our work underscores the importance of developing effective strategies for prophylaxis through public health measures aimed at complete suppression and the need to focus on compliance at a population level.

show abstract

Human rights, public health and COVID-19 in Canada

Cited by 32 publications

References 5 publications

Accepting Restrictions and Compliance With Recommended Preventive Behaviors for COVID-19: A Discussion Based on the Key Approaches and Current Research on Fear Appeals

Accepting Restrictions and Compliance With Recommended Preventive Behaviors for COVID-19: A Discussion Based on the Key Approaches and Current Research on Fear Appeals

Individually optimal choices can be collectively disastrous in COVID-19 disease control

Individually Optimal Choices can be Collectively Disastrous in COVID-19 Disease Control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About