#PandemicResponse

[ivygorgon]

An open letter to the U.S. Congress

Pass the Price Gouging Prevention Act (S. 3803 / H.R. 7390

1,047 so far! Help us get to 2,000 signers!

Of all the responses to the economic upheavals of the pandemic, price gouging has got to be one of the most egregious. This is when prices go up, or continue to stay high, not due to market pressures or other economic factors, but only because the seller, renter, or provider wants to increase their already excessive profits.

Some CEOs have even bragged to their shareholders about how much their profit-making pricing strategies exceed their inflationary increases in production costs.

To fight back against what they call “greedflation,” Senator Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Jan Schakowsky have reintroduced their Price Gouging Prevention Act (S. 3803 / H.R. 7390) and are now seeking co-sponsors for the bills.

As your constituent, I would like to urge you to co-sponsor and pass this bill. It has several important features: It will prohibit price gouging on a nationwide basis; it will take aim at companies that have taken advantage of the pandemic to jack up prices unnecessarily and keep them up; it will focus on companies whose executives brag to shareholders about increasing prices faster than inflationary costs; it will require public disclosure of companies’ costs and pricing strategies, and it will increase the FTC’s funding to enforce these conditions.

Thank you for considering co-sponsoring the Price Gouging Prevention Act.

▶ Created on March 20 by Jess Craven · 847 signers in the past 7 days

📱 Text SIGN PBVLCW to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

[nursing123]

CALL FOR ABSTRACT Track 23: Epidemiology Present your research at the 15th American Healthcare Summit, Which Will Be Held May 14-16, 2025, in San Francisco. This CE/CME/CPD-accredited event focuses on healthcare, nursing, patient safety, and hospital management. Submit your abstract by December 31, 2024. Submit here: https://healthcare.utilitarianconferences.com/submit-abstract

[civicsavvy]

Navigating Public Health Responses Amidst Dual Crises: COVID-19 and Systemic Racism

The COVID-19 pandemic and the surge of protests against systemic racism in 2020 presented public health experts with a challenging dilemma. Amid these global crises, infectious disease specialists, epidemiologists, and public health advocates were caught between the need to curb the spread of the virus and the moral imperative to address entrenched racial injustices that contributed to the pandemic’s disproportionate impact on communities of color. This essay examines the divergent public health responses to anti-lockdown protests and anti-racism demonstrations, exploring the reasons behind this shift and the complexities involved in navigating public health policies amidst dual crises.

In the early months of the pandemic, public health officials and medical experts strongly advised against gatherings, citing the high risk of COVID-19 transmission in large groups. Anti-lockdown protests, such as those seen across the United States in April and May 2020, were largely condemned by health authorities who viewed these gatherings as potential "super-spreading events." Dr. Abraar Karan, an infectious disease expert, tweeted on May 12, 2020, that these protests were "literally all possible set-ups for super-spreading events," emphasizing the irony of protesting during a pandemic only to create more outbreaks.

However, in late May 2020, the tragic death of George Floyd sparked a global wave of protests against systemic racism. In response to these protests, 1,288 public health professionals and community stakeholders signed an open letter urging an "anti-racist public health response" to demonstrations against racial injustice. The letter argued that protests against systemic racism—unlike anti-lockdown protests—must be supported, given that the former addressed the "disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities" and the broader issue of police violence. This call for a differentiated response was widely supported by both the media and a significant segment of the medical community, reflecting a nuanced approach that recognized the intersection of public health and social justice.

One reason for this shift in stance was the recognition of racism as a public health crisis. Researchers have long documented the correlation between racial inequality and health disparities, with Black Americans facing higher rates of underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and asthma—conditions that were associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The pandemic brought these disparities into sharp relief, as Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities experienced disproportionately high rates of infection, hospitalization, and death. Thus, public health professionals argued that addressing systemic racism was not only a moral imperative but also an essential component of an effective response to the pandemic.

Dr. Tom Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), echoed this view in a tweet, stating, "People can protest peacefully AND work together to stop Covid. Violence harms public health." This statement marked a departure from his previous stance against public gatherings, reflecting a growing awareness among health experts of the intertwined nature of the pandemic and social inequities. Similarly, Stanford infectious disease doctor Abraar Karan, who had previously condemned anti-lockdown protests as potential super-spreader events, later emphasized that COVID-19 and systemic racism were "deeply interlinked" and could not be addressed in isolation.

The stance taken by public health experts during the anti-racism protests underscored the need for a more holistic approach to epidemic control—one that considered not only the immediate risks of virus transmission but also the long-term health implications of systemic inequities. Dr. Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, argued that "the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus." Nuzzo’s statement highlighted the belief among many health experts that failing to address the root causes of health disparities would only perpetuate cycles of vulnerability and poor health outcomes in marginalized communities.

Critics of this stance, however, argued that public health should remain neutral and focused solely on curbing the spread of COVID-19. They contended that endorsing protests, regardless of the cause, undermined the credibility of public health guidelines and created confusion about the risks associated with large gatherings. These critics argued that public health messaging should be consistent to ensure compliance and trust among the general population, fearing that a selective approach might lead to decreased adherence to other pandemic-related guidelines.

Nevertheless, supporters of the open letter argued that the dual crises of COVID-19 and systemic racism required an adaptive and context-sensitive response. They pointed to real-life examples, such as the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on Black communities, as evidence of the need for an anti-racist public health approach. In New York City, for instance, Black and Latino residents faced COVID-19 mortality rates significantly higher than their white counterparts, a disparity attributed to factors such as overcrowded housing, lower access to healthcare, and employment in high-risk essential jobs. These disparities highlighted the systemic nature of health inequities and underscored the urgency of addressing racism as a public health issue.

In conclusion, the response of public health experts to the 2020 anti-racism protests represented a shift toward a more intersectional understanding of health crises. By acknowledging the role of systemic racism in exacerbating the pandemic’s impact on marginalized communities, these experts called for a public health approach that addressed both the immediate and structural determinants of health. While this stance was met with controversy, it underscored the complexities involved in navigating public health policy amidst crises that transcend the boundaries of medicine and extend into the realms of social justice and human rights. The 2020 pandemic and protests revealed that effective public health responses must consider the broader social context and address the root causes of health disparities to achieve lasting and equitable outcomes.

The Erosion of Public Trust Amidst Conflicting Public Health Policies

The COVID-19 pandemic posed an unprecedented challenge to public health systems worldwide, yet it also underscored the delicate balance between public policy, political alignment, and community trust. The national discourse surrounding public health measures, particularly around the right to protest, shifted dramatically during the pandemic, with policies that varied according to the perceived motivations behind each gathering. As policies diverged, many Americans observed inconsistencies that, to some, appeared politically motivated. This inconsistency not only highlighted tensions within health and governmental institutions but also fostered skepticism that weakened trust in public health guidance at a critical time.

Across the country, cities and counties enacted new policies that illustrated the disparate treatment of protests. For example, Hillsborough County, Florida, passed a resolution declaring "racism a public health crisis," while Contra Costa County, California, permitted "social outdoor gatherings of up to 12 people" but allowed "protests of up to 100 people," effectively giving preference to protest gatherings. Meanwhile, Oregon County went as far as to exempt “people of color who have heightened concerns about racial profiling” from the mask mandate, aiming to address concerns of racial profiling while creating different rules for different groups.

One of the most contentious examples came from New York City, where Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered the NYPD to break up large gatherings of Hasidic Jews attending funerals, while later instructing the city's contact tracers to avoid questioning COVID-19 patients about their attendance at Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests. This clear divergence in enforcement raised questions among the public about whether political priorities were influencing decisions meant to protect health, especially given the close proximity of both events to each other in time. For many, this inconsistency reflected a willingness to prioritize certain social movements over others, even within the scope of pandemic safety protocols.

As public trust is critical in any public health effort, the selective enforcement and application of health policies had serious consequences. Throughout history, public health efforts have relied on widespread buy-in and trust. In this case, however, as officials seemed to contradict themselves on what types of gatherings were permissible, it fueled a growing mistrust. Many Americans began to see these actions as an alignment with political affiliations rather than scientific principles, creating confusion and disillusionment. A significant portion of the public found itself questioning why certain gatherings were sanctioned while others were strictly discouraged, leading to the perception that public health messaging was swayed by political winds.

This perceived double standard created an environment where both governmental and scientific credibility eroded. The erosion of public trust in government was particularly damaging at a time when authorities needed people to adhere to guidance on social distancing, mask mandates, and eventually, vaccination protocols. Rather than a uniform and scientifically grounded public health strategy, the shift in policy messaging created a “pick-and-choose” approach that left individuals wondering whether guidance could truly be trusted. Social media amplified these perceptions, circulating images of authorities and public figures who at one moment were critical of large gatherings and at another time appeared to condone them.

Additionally, inconsistencies in policy approach extended beyond protests and were visible in broader pandemic-related health strategies. As SJF (Social Justice Framing) reasoning gained prominence, this framework became both expert advice and official policy. The approach was intended to address systemic injustices exacerbated by the pandemic; however, many argued that the selective focus on certain gatherings weakened the foundational principles of public health, which aim to treat all groups equally in health and safety policies. When public health policies seemingly changed based on the social or political stance of a gathering, it undermined the concept of equal treatment, casting doubt on the intentions behind these policies.

The impact of this mistrust extended beyond compliance with health guidelines. It affected other aspects of the pandemic response, including vaccine uptake, mask-wearing, and even adherence to lockdown protocols. The lack of a unified response fueled frustration among those who felt their actions were scrutinized more heavily depending on the nature of their assembly. As the public became increasingly skeptical, public health initiatives faced resistance from a population disillusioned by what they perceived as shifting priorities based on politics rather than science.

In conclusion, the handling of public gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of public trust when policies appear inconsistent or politically motivated. Public health guidelines that seemed to adjust to accommodate social and political factors, rather than applying uniformly, left a lasting impact on the credibility of both government and health institutions. This crisis illustrated the need for consistent, transparent policies grounded in public health science rather than selective enforcement that could be seen as partisan. When public health guidance is perceived as impartial and uniform, it stands a better chance of garnering public trust and adherence, especially in times of crisis. This experience offers a powerful lesson for future public health emergencies: clarity, consistency, and equality in policy are essential to maintaining public trust and ensuring effective, cooperative responses across communities.

Editor Final Thought

The comparison of Trump and Harris's approaches during the campaign reveals key differences in their strategies. Trump’s focus on tangible issues such as border security, crime, and economic concerns presented a clear, substantive vision that resonated with many voters seeking pragmatic solutions. His focus on issues over rhetoric contrasted with Harris's campaign, which, despite addressing hot-button topics like abortion, largely relied on emotional appeals, negative campaigning, and platitudes.

Trump’s ability to stay ahead on critical issues, like abortion, showed strategic depth, especially in navigating the complex political landscape with his "America First" approach. Conversely, Harris's reliance on demonizing Trump rather than focusing on clear policy alternatives did not resonate as effectively with voters.

Ultimately, the election highlighted that voters are increasingly focused on policies that directly impact their lives rather than divisive rhetoric or personality-driven campaigns. Trump's capacity to expand his coalition and offer specific, actionable plans led to his success, even if not everyone agreed with his views. The public, disillusioned with typical political rhetoric, sought practical answers that could improve their everyday lives—something Trump was able to offer, while Harris struggled to offer alternatives that were distinct from his.

[tmarshconnors]

Reflections on COVID Lockdowns etc

Back in 2020, during the peak of the COVID-19 lockdowns, the world seemed to slip into a surreal state of mass compliance. Governments enacted measures that were unprecedented in scope, all in the name of public health. Many of us, however, saw it differently. We weren’t oblivious to the risks of the virus, but we questioned the extreme measures being taken—the constant fear-mongering, the lockdowns, the mandates. When we banged our drums, metaphorically and literally, to sound the alarm, few wanted to listen. Today, as the world grapples with new challenges, it feels eerily familiar.

In 2020, if you dared to question the narrative, the response was swift and unforgiving. We were labeled “conspiracy theorists”, and “dangerous extremists”. The sheer number of people who accepted the government’s line without question was staggering. When we attended protests to voice our concerns, we were stormed by police, arrested, and in some cases, locked up simply for exercising our right to free speech. Many healthcare workers, who had once been hailed as heroes, were cast aside for speaking out against policies they believed were harming, not helping.

What’s happening now feels like a continuation of that same story. The tactics may have shifted, but the playbook remains largely unchanged. Back then, it was about controlling the pandemic response; now, it's about controlling the narrative around everything from climate policy to digital currencies. The powers that be push harder when they see that people will comply without question. It feels like we're living in the book of “1984” by George Orwell.

For those of us who chose not to comply with mandates—whether it was refusing to wear a mask or opting out of the vaccine the social cost was high. We weren’t just punished by authorities; we were ostracised by our communities. Friends and family members disowned us. I had. Many heated arguments with one of my aunts about how I was placing my Grandmother in harms way by refusing to comply to having the vaccine.

   Social media platforms silenced us for daring to share alternative viewpoints. Yes I am looking at you FACEBOOK! Many of us were spat on, threatened, and assaulted for simply choosing a different path.

Even politicians and celebrities piled on, openly declaring war on those who refused to comply. The vitriol was shocking, and the fact that so many people cheered it on was even more disturbing. The narrative was clear: dissenters were not just wrong, they were dangerous, and they needed to be dealt with harshly.

Looking back, it's easy to see why we're still in this mess today. The events of 2020 set a dangerous precedent. When people accept the erosion of their freedoms in the name of safety, it opens the door for even more extreme measures in the future. Governments, corporations, and global organisations like the World Economic Forum (WEF) have taken note. The more compliance they see, the bolder they become.

We shared information about the WEF's agenda and its vision for the future—one that includes greater control over our lives through digital IDs, surveillance, and centralised power. But instead of sparking meaningful debate, those warnings were met with bans, censorship, and more ridicule. The system wasn’t interested in dialogue; it was interested in silencing dissent.

Despite everything, there are signs of hope. More people are waking up to the reality that they’ve been led down a dangerous path. The cracks in the official narrative are becoming harder to ignore, and the chorus of voices calling for accountability is growing louder. But it’s still not enough.

We’re at a critical juncture, and the lessons of 2020 need to be remembered. The same tactics of fear, division, and control are being deployed today, just in different contexts. If we don’t stand up now, the consequences could be far-reaching.

The fight isn’t over, but it’s encouraging to see more people questioning, resisting, and refusing to be silenced. The world may not have listened back in 2020, but the drums are still beating, and this time, I hope the sound is impossible to ignore.

[nursingucgconferences]

Call For Paper Submit your paper with many more benefits at our upcoming 14th World Healthcare, Hospital Management, Nursing, and Patient Safety Conference from July 25-27, 2024 in Holiday In Dubai, UAE & Virtual! This is your chance to share your insights, expertise, and vision with a diverse audience eager to learn and engage. Submit here: https://nursing.universeconferences.com/submit-abstract/ Abstract Submission Deadline: April 30th, 2024

[oscar85world]

Unraveling the Mysteries of COVID-19 Through Data Science

In the past few years, our world has been upended by the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting millions of lives and reshaping the future of public health, economies, and how we connect as a global community. Amidst these challenges, data science has emerged as a beacon of hope, offering innovative solutions and deep insights into the virus that has changed our way of life. The Power of Genomic…

[swadeshlive]

देश में एक बार फिर कोरोना पसार रहा अपने पाँव, बीतें 24 घंटे में मिले 752 नए मामले |Swadesh Live| Madhya Pradesh News In Hindi| Breaking News In Hindi

Visit Our Website : https://swadesh.in/

Twitter:https://twitter.com/home?lang=en

Join Our Whatsapp channle : https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaGRuH8GZNCj3IUwuE29

[jjbizconsult]

COVID-19 Treatment Hits the Market with a Premium Price Tag

COVID-19 Treatment Hits the Market with a Premium Price Tag. The COVID-19 remedies that countless Americans have received without charge from the federal government will become available in the private sector next week, complete with a substantial price tag. Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has established the cost of a five-day supply of Paxlovid at $1,390, although Americans can still acquire the…

[ikno-io]

Explore the complex pros and cons of Donald Trump's presidency, analyzing economic achievements, policy impacts, and his legacy on American society. read the full article: https://bit.ly/4ejYwtq #DonaldTrump #Presidency #Economics #ForeignPolicy #Immigration #JudicialAppointments #Healthcare #PandemicResponse #EnvironmentalPolicies read more: pros and cons of donald trump being president

[nursingucgconference]

Are you passionate in learning about nursing, healthcare administration, and patient safety? Have something important to present? If you're interested, submit your abstract and reserve your spot at the 12th International Nursing, Healthcare, and Patient Safety Conference, which is CME/CPD recognized, which will be held in Holiday Inn Dubai, AlBarsha, UAE & Virtual, & Online from July 25-27, 2023. The abstract submission deadline is ending on 15th June.

WhatsApp: https://wa.me/442033222718 Submit your paper here: https://nursing-healthcare.universeconferences.com/submit-abstract/

#MentalHealth #Bigdataonhealthanddatamining #MidwiferyAndWomenHealthNursing #PediatricNursing #ChangeManagement #ClinicalNursing #PatientSafetyinPharmacy #HomeCareSafety #PandemicResponse

[thethinkingman]

North Carolina voters must contact your state senators and stop this bill! It's already cleared the GOP controlled house. #nc #northcarolina #tarheel #ncgop #ncsenate #pandemic #pandemicresponse #coronavírus #covid19 @nc_governor @nc_gop @ncsenatedems @nc_republicans https://www.instagram.com/p/B_q3bmlJxlT/?igshid=azzvkin546xt

[superman-2050]

#StorePolicies #PandemicResponse #Ebola #Spreadnecks #Covid19 #Karen19 #FuckingWearAMask #StopAntiMaskViolence #AntiVaxxViolence #GetVaccinated #StopViolenceAgainstNurses #StopViolenceAgainstDoctors #AntiMaskViolence #HospitalKevin #AntiKarens #KevinVideos #StopAntiVaxxViolence #KarenFreakouts #StopViolenceAgainstWorkers #StopViolenceAgainstStudents #StopViolenceAgainstHealthWorkers #MaskMandates #StudentHarassment #HospitalPolicies https://www.instagram.com/p/CVxS1bKlSITvwxCJqdnvmeyGhuTrf31diBhZcI0/?utm_medium=tumblr

[tmarshconnors]

Why the COVID-19 Inquiry May Be a Waste of Time.

Introduction:

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a global crisis of unprecedented proportions, impacting countless lives and economies worldwide. In the wake of such a catastrophe, it is only natural that people seek answers and accountability. This has led to the establishment of various inquiries and investigations aimed at understanding what went wrong and preventing similar crises in the future. While the desire for transparency and accountability is essential, it's worth considering whether the ongoing COVID-19 inquiry might be a potential waste of time.

Hindsight Bias:

Hindsight bias is a cognitive phenomenon where people believe, after the fact, that the outcomes of a particular event were entirely predictable. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to criticize the decisions and actions of individuals and governments during the pandemic. However, at the time, decision-makers faced unprecedented challenges, incomplete information, and rapidly evolving circumstances. The COVID-19 inquiry may unfairly judge these decisions with the advantage of hindsight.

Distracting from Current Issues:

The ongoing COVID-19 inquiry can divert valuable resources, time, and attention away from addressing the immediate challenges and needs of the pandemic. The world is still grappling with the virus, with new variants emerging, vaccination campaigns underway, and healthcare systems stretched. Focusing on past actions instead of the present could hinder ongoing efforts to mitigate the virus's impact.

The Blame Game:

Inquiries often become platforms for finger-pointing and blame-shifting. While accountability is essential, the COVID-19 inquiry runs the risk of turning into a political battleground where different parties or nations attempt to deflect blame onto one another. This can hinder international cooperation, which is vital for effectively combating a global health crisis.

Complex and Multifaceted Causes:

The COVID-19 pandemic is the result of a complex interplay of factors, including scientific, political, economic, and cultural elements. It is challenging to distill these complex causes into a single, linear narrative. An inquiry may oversimplify these factors or struggle to uncover the full truth, leading to incomplete or biased conclusions.

Resource Allocation:

Conducting an inquiry is a resource-intensive process, requiring significant time, manpower, and financial resources. These resources could be better used for immediate pandemic response efforts, healthcare infrastructure improvements, or further scientific research into the virus and its variants.

Potential for Political Manipulation:

Inquiries are not immune to political influence. They can be used as tools by governments and political parties to further their agendas, whether by targeting opposition figures or diverting public attention from other issues. This can undermine the integrity of the investigation and its outcomes.

Conclusion:

While accountability and transparency are crucial aspects of governance, it's important to consider whether the ongoing COVID-19 inquiry might be a potentially fruitless endeavor. Rather than dwelling on the past, efforts may be better directed towards addressing the current challenges, fortifying healthcare systems, and promoting international cooperation in the ongoing fight against COVID-19. Ultimately, whether the inquiry proves to be a valuable exercise or a waste of time will depend on its execution and the practical outcomes it generates.