The COVID-19 pandemic response made extraordinary demands on the public health workforce. In response to national studies and local observations about trauma in public health personnel, the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) broadened the scope of their Health Emergency Operations Center (HEOC) Safety Officer position to include not only physical, but mental, emotional, and workplace health and safety. The new Health and Safety Officer (HSO) began in August 2022 and served through the end of the COVID-19 activation. The HSO advocated for staff, counseled HEOC leadership, and validated leadership’s prioritization of the health and wellness of HEOC staff. The impact of the HSO was felt within the HEOC and beyond, and this position should be considered a cost-effective, meaningful intervention in all jurisdictions to protect public health personnel. The HSO position is now a permanent part of the ADHS HEOC.

A 15-year-old male presented with vasovagal syncope and troponin leak 4 days after his second COVID-19 vaccine. Based on initial diagnostic work-up, he was thought to have COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis. His cardiac dysfunction persisted and further work-up including genetic evaluation and serial MRI studies later confirmed a diagnosis of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. This is a unique case of an incorrect diagnosis based on timing and context of vaccine-related myocarditis. Reports of mild and self-limited myocarditis post-COVID-19 vaccination may cause vaccine hesitancy among the public, and so case reports such as this one show the importance of discerning underlying conditions amongst rare COVID-19 vaccination complications.

John Harris has made many seminal contributions to bioethics. Two of these are in the ethics of resource allocation. Firstly, he proposed the “fair innings argument” which was the first sufficientarian approach to distributive justice. Resources should be provided to ensure people have a fair innings—when Harris first wrote this, around 70 years of life, but perhaps now 80. Secondly, Harris famously advanced the egalitarian position in response to utilitarian approaches to allocation (such as maximizing Quality Adjusted Life Years [QALYs]) that what people want is the greatest chance of the longest, best quality life for themselves, and justice requires treating these claims equally. Harris thus proposed both sufficientarian and egalitarian approaches. This chapter compares these approaches with utilitarian and contractualist approaches and provides a methodology for deciding among these (Collective Reflective Equilibrium). This methodology is applied to the allocation of ventilators in the pandemic (as an example) and an ethical algorithm for their deployment created. This paper describes the concept of algorithmic bioethics as a way of addressing pluralism of values and context specificity of moral judgment and policy, and addressing complex ethics.

How did the new Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) obtain 9% of the vote in the 2020 Romanian general elections? This article explores the fast rise of populist radical right (PRR) parties by examining the support for the AUR at the locality level in Romania during the coronavirus crisis. The AUR's discourse combined populism, nationalism and anti-masking rhetoric. The findings show great variation across the 3,181 localities, from 0% to 50% support for the AUR, and highlight the significant influence of local cultural and political factors, while economic explanations were not confirmed. The vote for the AUR was high in localities with low ethnic diversity and low voter turnout. This research underscores that national-level explanations obscure important dynamics of PRR support that take place at the subnational level. The rise of the AUR is important beyond the Romanian and European contexts and emphasizes the significance of local responses to global crises.

We present the case of a 31-year-old female with Fontan circulation who developed signs of protein-losing enteropathy 10 days after second COVID-19 vaccination. After standard investigations for identification of potential triggers for protein-losing enteropathy, we concluded that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccination could have been the most probable underlying trigger. Prompt investigation of new symptoms post-vaccination in high-risk patients is necessary.

Who should decide what passes for disinformation in a liberal democracy? During the COVID-19 pandemic, a committee set up by the Dutch Ministry of Health was actively blocking disinformation. The committee comprised civil servants, communication experts, public health experts, and representatives of commercial online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. To a large extent, vaccine hesitancy was attributed to disinformation, defined as misinformation (or data misinterpreted) with harmful intent. In this study, the question is answered by reflecting on what is needed for us to honor public reason: reasonableness, the willingness to engage in public discourse properly, and trust in the institutions of liberal democracy.

The study analyses in situ CO2 mole fraction, 14CO2, and fossil based excess CO2 mole fraction (Cfoss) data at Hegyhátsál (HUN) rural monitoring station (Central Europe) supplemented by passive monitoring of 14C content of tree-rings. Through the observed period (2014–2020) we focused on revealing trends in atmospheric CO2 and 14C levels, particularly during the year of the first COVID lockdown, in comparison to the preceding five years. In addition, monthly integrated samples of atmospheric CO2 and tree-rings from the six years were subjected to 14C analysis. The passive tree-ring measurements focuses on two major urban areas (Budapest and Debrecen) in Hungary, along with the rural monitoring site. Results show a steady increase in CO2 levels at HUN between 2014 and 2020. The calculated fossil based excess CO2 concentrations for the initial year of COVID are in good agreement with the previous five-year averages both at 115 m and 10 m elevations. These results also show seasonal variations of CO2 mole fractions, peaking in winter and decreasing in summer. Tree-ring results from Debrecen show a good alignment with the results of the atmospheric monitoring station, and it does not show a significant fossil contribution in the urban background area during the vegetation periods. Tree-ring results from Budapest show a stronger fossil contribution compared to the Debrecen ones. Our atmospheric CO2 results do not show a large decrease in fossil CO2 atmospheric contribution during the first lockdown. We found that the use of this passive CO2 monitoring technique can provide a valuable tool for investigating such differences.

This study is a conceptual replication of Kelley & Schmeichel (PLOS ONE 10: e0144228, 2015), which found that thinking about death reduces delay discounting. Unlike the original study, the current study was conducted in an environment where there was a real and tangible mortality threat across the world, that is, COVID-19. Contrary to the findings of the original study, results of the current study revealed that thinking about death increases delay discounting, such that participants who were primed with death thoughts traded “₺200 now” for “₺342.35 three months later,” whereas those in the control condition traded “₺200 now” for “₺319.27 three months later”. The current study also explored the moderating roles of goal orientation and self-esteem in the effect of mortality salience on delay discounting; however, it failed to provide evidence for the moderating roles of these variables.

This article surveys the rapidly growing literature that examined the influence of Covid-19 on preferences. Based on 33 studies, the article examines how the pandemic impacted altruism, cooperation, trust, inequity aversion, risk-taking, and patience/time discounting. Even though the survey suggests the effect of the pandemic on preferences is heterogeneous, some noticeable patterns can be observed in the literature. First, in the case of incentivized preference elicitation, there is weak evidence that the pandemic positively influenced altruism and had no significant impact on time preferences or patience. Second, many studies that used balanced panel data and incentivized preference elicitation mechanisms do not find a significant effect of the pandemic on preferences. Last, studies that used unincentivized methods to elicit preferences show relatively higher variability in results when compared to the studies that used incentivized methods for preference elicitation. The organized synthesis and several noticeable patterns can help future research focusing on preference stability during Covid-19 and other unfavorable events.

Governments across the world have implemented restrictive policies to slow the spread of COVID-19. Recommended face mask use has been a controversially discussed policy, among others, due to potential adverse effects on physical distancing. Using a randomized field experiment (N = 300), we show that individuals kept a significantly larger distance from someone wearing a face mask than from an unmasked person during the early days of the pandemic. According to an additional survey experiment (N = 456) conducted at the time, masked individuals were not perceived as being more infectious than unmasked ones, but they were believed to prefer more distancing. This result suggests that wearing a mask served as a social signal that led others to increase the distance they kept. Our findings provide evidence against the claim that mask use creates a false sense of security that would negatively affect physical distancing. Furthermore, our results suggest that behavior has informational content that may be affected by policies.

Laboratory experiments have been often replaced by online experiments in the last decade. This trend has been reinforced when academic and research work based on physical interaction had to be suspended due to restrictions imposed to limit the spread of Covid-19. Therefore, data quality and results from web experiments have become an issue which is currently investigated. Are there significant differences between lab experiments and online findings? We contribute to this debate via an experiment aimed at comparing results from a novel online protocol with traditional laboratory settings, using the same pool of participants. We find that participants in our experiment behave in a similar way across settings and that there are at best weakly significant and quantitatively small differences in behavior observed using our online protocol and physical laboratory setting.