Category: COVID-19

Strength of a Project

Mental Health and Resilience

The Covid-19 pandemic has become a test for everyone, regardless of social status or place of work. Life has completely changed, and I had to quickly get used to new rules and norms to protect myself and my loved ones from the terrible virus. However, the most crucial role in this process is played by medical workers who risk their lives, their health, and the health of their relatives and friends to save the patients life. Medical workers mental health and resilience have become a symbol of indomitability and inspiration to move forward during the pandemic.

In the first piece of art I chose, a nurse fell asleep from exhaustion in her uniform and most likely at her workplace. It shows incredible dedication and willingness to bear the responsibility imposed on her by the conditions of the pandemic. Despite the difficulties they had to go through, medical workers act professionally and nobly, sacrificing their time and health.

The second drawing I chose is similar to the previous one regarding theme and idea. You can also see medical workers who have fallen asleep from exhaustion. They faithfully perform their work and realize their vocation to save peoples lives. An exciting feature of this art is the presence of exactly such a uniform in which they are dressed. Baggy white suits covering the whole body are intended for work in emergencies and complicated cases. Thus, one can assume that these medical workers performed their duty among already infected or seriously ill patients. It is essential to appreciate the work of medical workers because it is difficult to imagine the level of physical and psychological fatigue they must overcome. The medical workers resilience in the face of Covid-19 became a significant art theme of that period and will be covered in many more.

Doctors who work on the front lines become victims of emotional and physical overload. Risk factors include solid emotional tension, lack of sufficient conditions for recovery, and insufficient psychological support in the practice of the health care system, which adversely affects medical workers. One of the essential qualities of a medical worker is emotional stability. And if the medical worker cannot overcome the load, it will interfere with the regular activity of the specialist. The consequences can be catastrophic, as the slightest mistake in the work of a medical worker can be fatal. It should also not be forgotten that the medical worker himself can be seriously affected psychologically, emotionally, or physically. The Covid-19 pandemic did not break, but on the contrary, it united everyone around a common problem. Medical workers in this paradigm took on a lot of work and showed resilience under challenging conditions.

Part 1: Work Itself

My work of art is also related to the theme of resilience in the face of Covid-19. The lion symbolizes the strength and self-confidence I gained during this difficult period. A lot of lines mean a lot of small challenges that had to be dealt with every day without losing stability. He looks straight ahead, like all of us, ready for anything. As for the challenges, at first it was difficult for me to tune into the assignment but when I started drawing, I began to understand the focus of my work. A little later, I realized that the lion is the most accurate personification of inner strength, as far as I am concerned. Speaking about the color scheme, I wondered whether to make it monochromatic or naturalistic

During this task, I, to my surprise, relaxed and rested as much as possible. Creative tasks are my favorite from the whole study. Also, I looked for the right image in my mind, discovering interesting associations in my thoughts. Thanks to this task, I realized how strong we all are and can withstand more than we think. At the same time, we are vulnerable, like paints on a canvas. Because no matter how intense the image is, one drop of the wrong shade can ruin everything.

Self-Reflection

During the course, I enjoyed studying the topics of art in therapy and art as therapy the most because it resonates most closely with what I am interested in doing in the future. Moreover, learning about the cycle of food and alcohol addiction was quite informative, and I enjoyed it as well. Finally, the topic of sexually transmitted diseases seemed unethical to me at first. Still, I immediately understood the importance of learning about this topic, and in the end, it was interesting. Talking about sexually transmitted diseases, the biggest surprise was the pieces of art devoted to it. Before, I would not have thought there were so many thematically related booklets, pictures, and even a holiday. However, the topic of various addictions was the most informative and my knowledge about it grew the most. It was fascinating to read about the stories of people who have dealt with addictions and how they fought or failed to fight them. While studying art in therapy, I learned a lot about how a person can subconsciously bring themselves to a state of healing through analyzing art. Art as therapy resonates more with my vision of art therapy in general. I learned how important the minor line or point made in the process could be. The most exciting thing was that I read a lot about it and practiced it.

Works Cited

Feng, Xiaodan. Curating and Exhibiting for the Pandemic: Participatory Virtual Art Practices During the COVID-19 Outbreak in China. Social Media+ Society, vol. 6, no. 3, 2020.

Malboeuf-Hurtubise, Catherine, et al. Online Art Therapy in Elementary Schools During COVID-19: Results from a Randomized Cluster Pilot and Feasibility Study and Impact on Mental Health. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, vol. 15, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1-11.

Potash, Jordan S., et al. Art Therapy in Pandemics: Lessons for COVID-19. Art Therapy, vol. 37, no. 2, 2020, pp. 105-107.

Mak, Hei Wan, Meg Fluharty, and Daisy Fancourt. Predictors and Impact of Arts Engagement During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analyses of Data from 19,384 Adults in the COVID-19 Social Study. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, 2021.

Y. Li, Female medical workers sleeping in the hallway. 2020, Web.

X. Dang, A female medical worker taking a nap. 2020, Web.

Introduction

The research focused on telehealth and the impact of the Advancing Telehealth Beyond Covid-19 Act of 2022 (ATBCA). The policy is anchored on the need to continue supporting marginalized communities through the enhancement of telehealth (Congress, 2021).

Discussion

The author ensured that all the information used from external sources was cited. A review of the issues raised in the paper shows that the researcher applied the correct bill when analyzing the policy. The paper is structured in a clear and logical manner, with questions and answers presented in a concise format. One of the strengths of the paper is the inclusion of a wide range of sources, including primary sources such as government documents and studies published in reputable journals (e.g. HHS, 2018; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). For example, the author cites the Health Center Program Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA) frequently asked questions document, which provides detailed information on expanding telehealth coverage and reimbursement under the BBA. The use of this primary source adds credibility and depth to the paper and helps to provide a well-rounded perspective on the topic.

However, the paper could be improved with a more in-depth discussion of the limitations and challenges of telehealth. While the paper mentions privacy and security concerns (HRSA, 2022), further analysis of these issues and their potential impact on the adoption of telehealth in the future would be beneficial. The key consideration mentioned in the Telehealth policy changes is the importance of secure and reliable technology for maintaining the confidentiality of patient information during telehealth consultations. This demonstrates the necessity of addressing privacy concerns in the implementation of telehealth services. A more thorough discussion of the importance of privacy and security in telehealth and potential strategies for addressing these concerns could add valuable insights to the paper. Additionally, the paper could benefit from a more thorough discussion of the infrastructure and training needed to support the widespread use of telehealth and the potential for provider burnout.

Conclusion

Overall, the paper is a well-written and informative exploration of telehealth and its impact on healthcare. With further development and analysis of the limitations and challenges of telehealth, it could be an even more substantial contribution to the field. The document is structured in a clear and easy-to-navigate manner, with sections dedicated to different aspects of the initiative.

References

Congress. (2021). ATBCA. Web.

HHS. (2018). Health center program bipartisan budget act of 2018 (BBA) frequently asked questions. Web.

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2020). Healthy people 2020. Web.

HRSA. (2022). Telehealth policy changes after the COVID-19 public health emergency. Web.

Introduction

The Covid-19 pandemic has had devastating effects on the American economy. The healthcare system of the country has not coped well with the crisis, which indicates that it is inherently inefficient. Some observers believe that countries with socialized care have coped better, with key examples including New Zealand and the UK. The US is a global power, which means that its systems should be among the best in the world.

However, capitalism has meant that even healthcare is under the private sector where the primary focus is profit maximization. This essay argues that the US healthcare system is not suited to properly address crises as Covid-19 has illustrated. The current status of the system is explored, focusing on the profit-driven nature of care. Additionally, the effects of Covid-19 are summarized before exploring how drug production has been taking place in the country.

Current Status of US Healthcare System

The US healthcare system is characterized by privatization where care is left in the hands of the private sector. From an economic perspective, the private sector should function more efficiently because it follows the market forces. However, the private sector is driven by profitability, which means that the priorities are different from ensuring affordability. The private sector tends to commodify healthcare because the dominant mode of production in the US is capitalist. Therefore, the balance of social power is between the working class and the capitalist classes. The dangers of commodifying healthcare have been explained by Christiansen (2017), which includes healthcare inequality.

Healthcare financing in the United States is done through the private sector. According to Christiansen (2017), the goal of this arrangement changes from the provision of healthcare and advancement of science and technology to profit maximization for the shareholders. A major question becomes the extent to which the priorities change are changed but the fact that inequalities persist in the healthcare system means that profit maximization is detrimental to the delivery of healthcare services.

As a result of the inefficiencies in the US healthcare sector, there have emerged debates on whether the country should socialize care. The argument posed by experts is that socializing healthcare is a paradigm shift from profit maximization to the prioritization of access and affordability of care. This argument is supported by case examples of those countries that have fully implemented this arrangement. In Turkey, a socialized healthcare system is designed to offer every citizen a comprehensive healthcare service regardless of the income or ability to pay (Cesur et al., 2017). Crucially, the socialized care in Turkey is made free for all citizens.

This implies that the government is not concerned with how profitable the sector can be or whether the economy will suffer from cases of people failing to pay. In other words, the focus is on the access and affordability of care regardless of the costs. Socialization works differently from a capitalist framework because resources are shared or distributed across the population. With the government controlling the means of production, there are few chances that the resources will be accumulated among a few people and deny the rest of the country deprived.

Some of the major problems faced by the current US healthcare include the inability to fully address crises. Additionally, the profit-driven nature of care in the country has resulted in a high threat of high medical bills, especially for the working class and the poor. This acts as a barrier to obtaining care, which means some people have to postpone care or miss it altogether. The medical condition tends to exacerbate as a consequence while the businesses in the healthcare industry are still making a profit. These are the dangers of profit-driven healthcare in a country that prides itself as one of the best economies in the world.

Capitalism is not dangerous for Americans but adopting the same approach towards the health and well-being of citizens can cause massive problems for the country. Therefore, it follows that the socialization approach to healthcare in the United States should offer assurances to the citizens that they are fully covered by the healthcare. Privatization has not made the sector more efficient as it would be expected but it has made it difficult for the working class and the poor to access the services.

Covid-19

The effects of Covid-19 on the American healthcare system can be illustrated in economic terms. According to Kaye et al. (2021), the American Hospitals Association estimated that the countrys hospitals lost over $202.6 billion in revenues, which averages $50.7 billion a month. This can be partly because the US recorded the largest new daily cases of infection. The effects have been felt in both patient care and surgical outcomes. In other words, it can be argued that the US healthcare system has been overwhelmed by the pandemic. It would be expected that the system would have various response mechanisms for pandemics, which can be followed to reduce the impacts of a crisis.

Across the planet, governments have been at the forefront of the fight against the pandemic. Such measures as lockdowns and movement restrictions may have helped reduce the spread. However, credit can also be given to the healthcare systems for those countries that have recorded more success.

The argument is that the healthcare sector has been critical in aiding the decisions made by the government. In other words, swift responses from the healthcare system meant that the governments could also act swiftly to enforce the recommendations from medical experts.

Whether or not this was the case in the US remains to be seen, considering that the previous administration always appeared reluctant to implement various restrictions. these sentiments have been expressed by Wallach and Myers 92020), who observed failures and inaction during the first months of 2020, specifically between January and March. Conflicts of interest between the federal government and the private sector may have played a key role, which should illustrate the extent to which private businesses would go to maximize their profits. However, the Trump administration had made severe violations as accused by Kinsella et al. (2021). Therefore, it means that the blame cannot go solely to the healthcare sector.

Some scholars have observed that the government failed to take action and ignored expert advice from the healthcare sector. According to Hatcher (2020), President Trump failed to follow expert advice and, in many cases, misled the public. Therefore, it can be argued that the pandemic has caused panic even across the political platform. The US operates on a bureaucracy, which means some protocols are followed during these incidences. Attacking privatization for its inefficiencies may seem extreme since a key question that has not been addressed is whether the current situation could have been better if the government followed the advice.

However, evidence from other scenarios still suggests that pandemics tend to cause massive panics and distress such that the entire system is pushed to the limit. Additionally, the healthcare system may have depended on the actions of the government, which means the government may have acted as a barrier to the desired responses.

Drug Producing During Covid-19

The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic can be used to illustrate why it is dangerous not to socialize healthcare and, instead, leave it in the hands of the profit-driven private sector. The dangers of this model in the production of pandemic drugs have been explained by Heled et al. (2020). The key observation is that the US has been relying on the market response to Covid-19, including the production and provision of healthcare products and services. Even with substantial support from the public funds, the healthcare system has largely failed to stabilize the situation and the country has had to implement drastic control measures.

Currently, the production and administration of vaccines remain a controversial subject where debates of affordability and the possibility of making them free remain heated. It can also be argued that the previous presidency suffered massive criticism for its inadequate responses to the problem. Making healthcare a basic right means that during pandemics, all citizens can access vaccines and drugs needed, either for free or at subsidized costs that ensure all people can afford them. This arrangement works only in socialized healthcare regimes with the control of governments.

Covid-19 has served as a reminder that markets do not always respond efficiently to crises. According to Ahlbach et al. (2021), countries with socialized healthcare responded rapidly and effectively, with great examples including New Zealand. In such arrangements, the needs of the patients are fully met, which significantly contributes to the improvement of the entire healthcare system. The gaps manifested in the system have only come to the fore as a result of the pandemic.

Currently, the country needs an effective supply chain for the production and administration of Covid-19 vaccines and other drugs. An assessment of the gaps in the production and distribution expressed includes the fragility of essential medicines and the vulnerability of the pharmaceutical supply chain (Socal, Sharfstein, & Greene, 2021). Additionally, the current production levels have failed to meet the demand, which hints at inadequate preparedness. The manufacture and distribution of vaccines may depend on the information available for the pharmaceutical industry. The problem is usually with the distribution where inequalities mean certain populations will lack the medication. Vulnerable groups, including the racial minorities, have remained sidelined by the healthcare system even during the pandemic.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current healthcare system in the United States is not well suited to address healthcare needs during the pandemic. The root of the problem is the fact that care has been left in the hands of the private sector, whose priorities are profit-maximization. The Covid-19 pandemic has seen hospitals make massive losses in terms of revenue, which indicates that the system is inherently inefficient. The key observation is the fact that the manufacture and distribution of vaccines and drugs have been marred by these inefficiencies, which serves as additional evidence of the inability of healthcare to function properly in times of crisis.

References

Ahlbach, C., King, T., & Dzeng, E. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and ethical challenges posed by neoliberal healthcare. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 36, 205-206. 

Cesur, R., Güne_, M., Tekincde, E., & Ulkerf, A. (2017). The value of socialized medicine: The impact of universal primary healthcare provision on mortality rates in Turkey. Journal of Public Economics, 150, 75-93. Web.

Christiansen, I. (2017). Commodification of healthcare and its consequences. World Review of Political Economy, 8(1), 82-103. Web.

Hatcher, W. (2020). A failure of political communication not a failure of bureaucracy: The danger of presidential misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6-7), 614-620. 

Heled, Y., Rutschman, S., & Vertinsky, L. (2020). The problem with relying on profit-driven models to produce pandemic drugs. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1), 1-23. 

Kaye, A., Okeagu, C., Pham, A., Silva, R., Hurley, J., Arron, B.,& Cornett, E. (2021). Economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare facilities and systems: International perspectives. best Practices & Research in Clinical Anaesthesiology, 1-14. 

Kinsella, M., Fowler, G., Boland, J., & Weiner, D. (2021). Trump administration abuses thwart US pandemic response. Web.

Socal, M., Sharfstein, J., & Greene, J. (2021). The pandemic and the supply chain: Gaps in pharmaceutical production and distribution. AJPH, 635-639. Web.

Wallach, P., & Myers, J. (2020). U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a press briefing on the Coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic with members of the Coronavirus Task Force at the White House in Washington, 2020. Web.

Problem area

The COVID-19 pandemic put an enormous amount of pressure and stress on the healthcare workers. This resulted in the increase in mental distress and illnesses among medical professionals from burnout to prolonged severe issues. Almost half of them experience burnout with more than quarter reporting depressive and anxious moods and symptoms (Spoorthy et al., 2020). This not only negatively impacts the health of the workers but has a potential to disrupt the whole healthcare system.

Policy

The high level of stress the pandemic puts on front-line workers, including healthcare professionals, is being recognized in the field. In July 2022, a new national suicide hotline is set to launch (Geoffroy et al., 2020). Furthermore, lawmakers are working on passing the Lorna Breen Healthcare Provider Protection Act, named after a physician who died by suicide (Sindhu & Adashi, 2022).

Brief Explanation

I wish to study this topic because of its immediate importance not only to medical community but the well-being of the whole world. Struggling with mental health issues as many people during the COVID-19 pandemic, I also can personally relate to this issue. However, beyond my personal motivation, I recognize how this problem has a tremendous effect above the individual level. This is highly relevant topic right now because the global health depends on the measures and policies implemented at this stage. It is crucial to curb and address this crisis, preventing from possible escalation because, as the pandemic showed, any disruption in the healthcare system can cause disproportionate loss of lives (Spoorthy et al., 2020). Moreover, compared to COVID-19, declining mental health in medical staff is not one massive challenge but rather a systematic problem that has potential to degrade the system. Thus, I am determined to evaluate the effectiveness of the current policies, aiming at getting closer to the compehensive solution.

References

Geoffroy, P. A., Le Goanvic, V., Sabbagh, O., Richoux, C., Weinstein, A., Dufayet, G., & Lejoyeux, M. (2020). Psychological support system for hospital workers during the Covid-19 outbreak: rapid design and implementation of the Covid-Psy hotline. Frontiers in psychiatry, 11, 511. Web.

Sindhu, K. K., & Adashi, E. Y. (2022). The Dr Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act: A Modest Step in the Right Direction. JAMA Health Forum, 3(9). Web.

Spoorthy, M. S., Pratapa, S. K., & Mahant, S. (2020). Mental health problems faced by healthcare workers due to the COVID-19 pandemicA review. Asian journal of psychiatry, 51. Web.

The pandemic has revealed many weak points of the healthcare system. One of the pressing issues is the access to care resources the underserved communities. The three articles included in this paper analyze the effect of the hindered access on the health of the underserved populations. The authors offer policy implications, such as the need to increase the funding of healthcare that this population receives. This paper will present details of three articles that focus on disclosing barriers to care that emerged during the pandemic for underserved communities.

The three articles focus on different communities, thus allowing the readers to see the scope of this problem. Bradford et al. (2021) discuss the health barriers of the rural communities since they need help in treating serious COVID-19 cases, curbing further spread of the virus, and addressing mental health and social needs (para. 1). According to the findings, the rural inhabitants have more severe COVID-19 cases and deaths related to this condition when compared to urban populations. From the viewpoint of society, this highlights the disparities that rural communities have to face and requires a policy action to improve access to care. Moreover, Bradford et al. (2021) reveal that the COVID-19 case shows the detrimental effect of improper healthcare services on peoples mental health and their basic social needs. Thus, the first article exposes the discrepancies among rural healthcare providers, and the authors argue that these led to the greater spread and larger number of comorbidities within this population.

AARP Pennsylvania (2021) specifically focused on disclosing the barriers to care that local underserved communities face. For example, this article reveals that race, economic status, and geographic location play a role in the persons ability to address their healthcare needs. Although these issues were present before, the pandemic revealed their severity as many people require urgent assistance. AARP Pennsylvania (2021) also highlight that rural populations are at a greater risk of not receiving help, together with poor neighborhoods in the cities. Moreover, the state faces a developing public health issue since more people over the age of 50 live in poverty than before, and this population often has chronic and comorbid illnesses that require constant care. Therefore, the second article reveals problems that Pennsylvanias underserved communities face due to COVID-19.

The pandemic revealed the systemic negligence and lack of adequate health care policies. Robeznieks (2020) discusses the implications of COVID-19 for society and argues that there is a need to change policies to ensure that in the future, the system is well-prepared to address such challenges. The author examined data and found, similarly to the authors of the previous articles, that race and economic status determine the outcomes for patients with COVID-19. The final article reveals that to resolve the problems of underserved communities, systematic action is needed from all stakeholders.

This topic is related to this course because of the concept of population health. The main problem highlighted in this paper is that underserved communities in this country are still unable to receive the services that may save their lives. The pandemic allows bringing attention to this problem because many people are concerned with vaccinations and herd immunity, which allows policymakers to speak on behalf of the underprivileged. Therefore, reform is needed to ensure that underserved communities can access quality care.

References

AARP Pennsylvania. (2021). New research shows disparities limiting access to healthcare services, including Covid-19 vaccines, in Pennsylvanias underserved communities. AARP. Web.

Bradford, J., Coe, E., Enomoto, E., & White, M. (2021). COVID-19 and rural communities: Protecting rural lives and health. McKinsey. Web.

Robeznieks, A. (2020). COVID-19 exposed systemic weak points. How to get it right next time. AMA. Web.

Originating as a cluster of unexplained cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, the new coronavirus disease, officially designated COVID-19, was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in 2020. The SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 has spread rapidly in China and other countries of the world. One of the main strategies for combating the virus involved measures to prevent the transmission of the virus from person to person by isolating people from each other. Many studies have shown that during outbreaks of infectious diseases, there is a wide spread of various adverse psychological reactions and the development of mental disorders.

People may experience a sense of helplessness, fear of getting sick or dying, and elements of stigmatization. The factors that negatively affect the mental health and psychological well-being of the NYC population in the COVID-19 pandemic include uncertainty about the future. Moreover, the population has witnessed a mass spread of misinformation about the virus and its emergence. Finally, the citizens of New York City suffered considerable damage due to social isolation, economic implications, and their combined impact on human well-being in general.

Personal Biography

This picture was captured back in April of 2018; the head matriarch of my family made her transition. My grandmothers passing was very shocking and devastating for my family; surrounding the loss of my grandmother, I was left with so many questions that would go unanswered. I could not wrap my head around her untimely death because my grandmother was the epitome of strength, a woman of many hats who poured so much life into me.

Field Research

As part of my field research, I have visited various locations of New York city and photographed the murals that I feel relate to the problem I research.

I see this image as a beautiful representation of hope during hard times. As the pandemic hit, people were forced into isolation which caused extreme discomfort and anxiety for many individuals. Moreover, the vaccines were not developed yet, and the hospitals struggled to keep with the overflow of the patients. One could say that these were dark times; fear and uncertainty were at their highest. I think this mural reminds people of NYC of the importance of staying strong and helping others during such crises, as only together we can overcome a challenge.

This is a mural that, in my opinion, represents well the problem of mental health in general. Intrusive, never-ending thoughts are a common symptom of many disorders, and they can actually become a trigger for self-harm or even suicide. The pandemic took the issue on another level, being the source of constant stress and overthinking for people  especially those who have already been struggling with their mental health. I think this mural emphasizes how intrusive thoughts might actually pose a serious danger to people in the community, and that it is important to seek and provide help.

Annotated Bibliography

Dromm, Daniel. City Council Member Daniel Dromm Newsletter. LaGuardia and Wagner Archives, Web.

For this paper, I researched LaGuardia and Wagner Archives database, as well as academical search engine Google Academy. In the LaGuardia and Wagner Archives, I have found two documents that I could use to support my arguments. The letter from the NYC Council member Daniel Dromm (2020) provided the population with numbers and locations of COVID-19 testing sites in Queens, as well as with a brief overview of basic safety measures. Moreover, in his letter, Dromm (2020) also offered the community information on how to receive free meals or get emergency food delivery during the lockdowns in multiple languages. Thus, this is a great example of reliable informing from authorities that can help the community orient better during a difficult period.

McNickle, Chris. New Yorkers Should Back NYCHAs New Blueprint for Change. LaGuardia and Wagner Archives, Web.

Another document from the LaGuardia database is a Gotham Gazette article written by Chris McNickle (2020). In his publication, McNickle (2020) discussed the NYC Housing Authoritys proposed plan to improve the living conditions of the low-income populations, and why New Yorkers should support it. The article provides great debate on the importance of supporting vulnerable groups of people, with regards to current political climate in the country. Thus, it should be noted that this source is quite reliable and unbiased.

Talevi, Dalila et al. Mental health outcomes of the CoViD-19 pandemic. Rivista di psichiatria vol. 55,3 (2020): 137-144. 

Finally, the third source is a study conducted by Talevi et al. (2020) that overviews mental health-related consequences of the pandemic and the strategies to overcome them. The authors (2020) highlight expert evaluations of the worlds present psychological situation after the end of the lockdown, emphasizing the significance of giving professional assistance to the community. This research offers a comprehensive analysis of the post-pandemic mental health situation around the world and proposes evidence-based solutions to overcome them.

Extended Outline

The first strategy would aim to provide accurate information about the situation and measures to reduce the risk of infection and reduce psychological stress caused by uncertainty. By offering reliable and comprehensive data to the community, NYC authorities can secure better social support and reduce the stigma associated with the disease. Moreover, if the population is well-informed about the disease, its causes, symptoms, risk factors, and consequences, it would be able to filter the misinformation and fake news. This strategy can help people maintain the most normal standard of living while observing security measures.

The second strategy would target more the financial aspect of the crisis that accompanies the pandemic. Several groups among the general population of NYC are at a greater risk of deterioration of their mental health due to reduced income, which decreased further due to lockdowns and business shutdowns. These groups include people of color, transgender people, people the age above 60, the homeless, and those who live in poverty. To ensure that these vulnerable populations do not experience more lasting harm to their mental health associated with financial anxiety, the government could provide pensions and other means of support to them.

Finally, another possible route is to provide people with more available psychosocial services, especially online. By cooperating with non-profit counseling organizations, private clinics, and state facilities, local authorities would be able to support accessible or more affordable psychological support for the people of NYC. Such methods would allow society to adaptively cope with the outbreak of COVID-19 and reduce the risks of lasting mental health harm. Thus, the initial hypothesis receives significant support since these methods of solving the problem allow us to expand it. They reveal various socio-psychological aspects that need attention to improve the populations mental state.

A Plan of Action to Implement the Solution

The experience with the pandemics shows that psychological crisis interventions should be implemented through several key points. First of all, a comprehensive analysis should be conducted to understand the state of mental health in various populations affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. Healthcare workers and policymakers should use data from the previous step to identify people at high risk of suicide and aggression and aim intervention at them first. After that, appropriate psychological services for those in need can begin.

In this case, it can be assumed that the population is divided into groups: the first refers to those most vulnerable in terms of mental health. These people might belong to hospitalized patients with confirmed infection or severe physical conditions, medical professionals, and discriminated populations. The second group should address isolated patients with atypical infection or suspected infection symptoms, as they suffer from additional anxiety and fear. The third one would refer to people who have close contact with those assigned to the first and second groups: family members, colleagues, friends, and individuals directly involved in helping during the pandemic. Finally, the fourth group would consist of people who have been affected by measures to prevent and combat the epidemic, such as the self-isolation regime and the population. Consequently, with this approach, professionals would be able to set priorities and organize their work more efficiently.

The importance of the work of psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychotherapists during the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be stressed enough. During the pandemic period, they can provide the population with specific services. For example, they can inform the public about the general psychological consequences of the pandemic and motivate the population to adopt strategies for disease prevention and mental health promotion. Healthcare professionals can work together with NYC legislators and policymakers to better integrate psychiatric services into the medical care system available to the majority of the population. Finally, they can provide tailored problem-solving strategies to deal with the current crisis and offer psychiatric care to medical workers, especially those in the red zone. There is a need to develop at least short-term mental health crisis interventions that are culturally sensitive. Moreover, these interventions should be tested, evaluated for effectiveness, and then introduced into comprehensive practice for a long-term effect.

Works Cited

Dromm, Daniel. City Council Member Daniel Dromm Newsletter. LaGuardia and Wagner Archives, Web.

McNickle, Chris. New Yorkers Should Back NYCHAs New Blueprint for Change. LaGuardia and Wagner Archives, Web.

Talevi, Dalila et al. Mental health outcomes of the CoViD-19 pandemic. Rivista di psichiatria vol. 55,3 (2020): 137-144.

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in late 2019, scientists worldwide have been working on developing a vaccine. While usually, it can take a few years to go through all the stages of the process, the critical situation in many countries forced governments to speed up the approval procedures. As a result, the vaccine from Phizer and BioNTech has already been approved in the UK and Canada, and the US is expected to follow shortly (Aiello, 2020). The main competitor, the Moderna vaccine, is likely to get approval in the coming weeks as well (Aiello, 2020). This paper aims to provide a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of these vaccines.

Both Phizer and Moderna have developed mRNA vaccines targeting spike protein, which allows the virus to infect the cells. The clinical trials have shown the efficacy of the vaccines to be over 90%, meaning that the mass production of those will likely have a decisive impact on the fight against the virus (Cohen, 2020). Jackson et al. (2020) report that the Moderna vaccine has no serious adverse effects. According to Moderna, the vaccine appears to work equally well in all populations studied, including the elderly and ethnic minorities, and people with conditions such as diabetes and heart disease (Cohen, 2020, p. 894). Overall, most scholars are satisfied with the high efficacy and safety of mRNA vaccines.

However, one of the main concerns associated with mRNA vaccines is the fact that they do not prevent the spread of the disease. Instead, they trigger the creation of antibodies in the immune system, preventing the development of the virus in the body (Cohen, 2020). Hence, even though vaccinated people would be unlikely to develop severe illness, they could still spread the disease. The fact that both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have to be stored frozen also represents a serious issue (Cohen, 2020). Transportation of the large quantities might prove difficult, especially for the Phizer vaccine, which has to be stored in ultracold freezers (Cohen, 2020). It remains to be seen whether pharmacological companies can resolve these problems in the nearest future. However, despite certain shortcomings, mRNA vaccines are currently our best bet in the fight against the virus.

References

Aiello, R. (2020). Historic moment: Health Canada approves Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. CTV News.

Cohen, J. (2020). Vaccine wagers on coronavirus surface protein pay off. Science, 370(6519), 894-895. Web.

Jackson, L. A., Anderson, E. J., Rouphael, N. G., Roberts, P. C., Makhene, M., Coler, R. N., McCullough, M. P., Chappell, J. D., Denison, M. R., Stevens, L. J., Pruijssers, A. J., McDermott, A., Flach, B., Doria-Rose, N. A., Corbett, K. S., Morabito, K. M., ODell, S., Schmidt, S. D., Swanson, P. A., 2nd, Padilla, M., & mRNA-1273 Study Group (2020). An mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2  Preliminary report. The New England journal of medicine, 383(20), 19201931.

Introduction

The Covid-19 pandemic is one of the biggest global challenges in the last 50 years. The virus has affected world economies, health, societal cohesion, and daily life. The mutation of the disease creates uncertainties for people, especially when knowledge about the illness is still shallow. The impacts on society, health, and the economy increase the chances of a rise in psychological morbidity. Impositions of curfews and other conditions are seen as a factor that may enable the development of mental health issues. The effects are most likely to manifest in the mid and post-pandemic phases. This paper will review three articles on mental health and Covid-19 and identify the strengths and weaknesses of the findings.

Review of Literature

Gavin et al. (2020) illustrate the effects of the Covid-19 on the frontline workers and how resources can address the challenges. Frontline workers include police officers, health care staff, and logistics workers. The main finding of the research by Gavin et al. (2020) is that through collaborative efforts, the impacts of the pandemic on mental health can be remedied. Uncertainties created by the disease have increased the chances of emotional distress among many individuals (Talevi et al., 2020). The protocols initiated to enable movements may create challenges for some people which may enhance lead to the development of stress or worsening of existing mental issues.

Due to the economic constraints brought about by the virus, there is a likelihood that psychological comorbidities will increase. Cullen et al. (2020) note that the psychological response to the outbreak of infectious diseases determines how the virus spreads and the occurrence of emotional distress and social disorder. Cullen et al. (2020) raise similar issues to Gavin et al. (2020) on frontline employees and their vulnerability to mental health effects. Increased awareness of symptoms, work breaks, self-care, and asking for help are the prevention strategies that frontline workers can use (Culen et al., 2020). This indicates that frontline staffs are at risk and employers should institute measures to alleviate the challenges.

Adequate resources are required to manage the impacts of the virus on the mental health of individuals. However, there are not enough funds that have been set aside to attenuate mental health issues. According to Culen et al. (2020), most health organizations have prioritized testing, reduced transmission, and critical patient care, and overlooked psychological and psychiatric needs. There is a need for the development of a policy that provides ways on how to assist people and their families (Gavin et al., 2020). This is because the ongoing pandemic has a huge psychological effect on individuals and the impacts are likely to rise as a result of economic contractions.

Talevi et al. (2020) indicate the mental issues globally were mild-moderate, with a small percentage being severe. Health workers and patients affected by the virus are viewed as the most vulnerable to emotional distress. Female gender and young age are factors that are associated with an increased link of mental health issues. Talevi et al. (2020) support the idea that there should be a policy change on the integration of public mental health interventions into public health preparedness and emergency response plans. By focusing on the risk factors that create psychological distress, it becomes easier to reduce future psychiatric morbidity.

Summary of the Chapter

The consequences of the virus have spread to all aspects of society, which has a bearing on the mental health of all people involved. Loss of jobs and closure of business are factors that can result in the development of depression and anxiety. The creation of coping strategies for individuals is not enough because people have to be able to use the approaches provided. The development of coping mechanisms by policymakers should take into account the short-term and long-term objectives. The covid-19 lockdowns created isolation which impacted individual mental health. Technology can be used to reduce isolation in future pandemics.

Strengths of the Articles

The research by Talevi et al. (2020) provides the search strategy and selection criteria used to identify sources. This is essential because it enables the reader to understand the extent of the study. Provision of the search methodology adds more weight to the findings made by journal articles. It can enable other scholars to replicate the retrieval process to determine the authenticity of the information provided. Another strength is that the authors indicate whether they have any conflict of interest and offer future research directions. This is important because it can help expand the body of knowledge when other researchers follow the directions. In all the articles, references and citations are provided, which allows readers to counter-check the details.

The study by Gavin et al. (2020) follows the procedures of research writing by offering the ethical standards statement, conflict of interest, and information on financial support. By making the data available, the authors enhance the authenticity of the paper. Cullen et al. (2020) paper also provides facts on the conflict of interest of the authors. The writers adopt three hypotheses that are central to the body of the study. The provision of strategies to minimize the effects of emotional distress due to the pandemic enhance the findings of the paper.

Weaknesses of the Articles

One of the weaknesses of Cullen et al. (2020) study is that it synthesizes existing literature to come up with findings. This means that the information provided by the paper is limited to known ideas. The research does not indicate where the information used was retrieved and the criteria adopted. This may limit a reader from understanding the extent of the study. Gavin et al. (2020) use past studies to make conclusions on the issue of mental health and Covid-19. This means that the study does not apply new data or information and instead reviews existing data on the topic. The effects of this are that the article brings into focus the issue of mental health but does not enhance the body of knowledge. The conclusions made in both the article by Gavin et al. (2020) and Cullen et al. (2020) are inadequate and should have been enhanced.

Conclusion

In summary, the issue of mental health has become a common topic with the onset of the pandemic. The challenges that the disease has brought have created issues such as stress and depression. Frontline workers such as health care staff are the most vulnerable to emotional distress because of increased workloads. Measures to curb the psychological impacts of the virus have not been created in most countries. In countries that have the strategies resources for mental health preparedness, plans are not adequate. There is a lack of seriousness from policymakers when it comes to addressing emotional distress issues. The effects of the disease are likely to last, and this may lead to a rise in mental health problems.

Reference List

Cullen, W., Gulati, G. and Kelly, B.D. (2020) Mental health in the COVID-19 pandemic, QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 113(5), pp.311-312. Web.

Gavin, B., Lyne, J. and McNicholas, F. (2020) Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic, Irish journal of psychological medicine, 37(3), pp.156-158. Web.

Talevi, D., Socci, V., Carai, M., Carnaghi, G., Faleri, S., Trebbi, E., di Bernardo, A., Capelli, F. and Pacitti, F. (2020) Mental health outcomes of the CoViD-19 pandemic, Rivista di psichiatria, 55(3), pp.137-144.

Introduction

When the world is under pressure from the COVID-19 infection, previously implicit public health problems became apparent to people. Without pointing out the rather spontaneous difficulties with the lack of personal protective equipment such as disposable gloves and masks, emphasis should be placed on an information system and the creation of an environment in which every citizen could have access to treatment. Officials who have power need to improve the structure of health care. It is reasonable to note that this is not an easy task, as there are socio-economic barriers to alteration. This paper will focus on the discussion of these barriers and changes.

Two Social-Economic Barriers

There are two socio-economic obstacles to changing the structure of public health. First, older adults do not always use social networks and other communication platforms due to the technical complexity of the Internets perception. According to Hargittai et al. (2019), Americans over the age of 75 have little or no use of the Internet, although they are a leading risk group. Adult members of society tend to trust television but are convinced that there can be no quality, reliable, and useful information on websites. This is a significant public health threat, as the majority of urban patients at risk are known to be over 75 years old (Age, sex, 2020). Moreover, the lack of valid information makes younger citizens not believe official numbers but prefer to ignore recommendations from public health agencies (Cummins, 2020). Second, health care is critical in the context of the pandemic, but less well-off and unemployed people cannot afford health services because they are expensive (Gros et al., 2020). This is confirmed by statistics, which demonstrate a strong correlation between the lack of visits to a doctor and social class, as shown in Fig. 1 (Summary health statistics, 2018). In other words, the absence of sufficient financial resources creates an environment in which patients prefer not to consult a doctor unless it is an emergency.

Supports for Change

The problems described should be supervised by responsible agencies and taken into account when changing public health policies. In particular, it is recommended that more investments are made in education campaigns to have an informational impact not only on those segments of the population that have access to the Internet but also on those who do not. To achieve this objective, it would be desirable to provide training and advisory services on television, the Internet, and poster platforms located in the city streets (Lai et al., 2020). At the time of quarantine, restaurants, nightclubs, and cinemas do not require promotions; instead, free advertising banners should be reserved for recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services on the importance of observing hygiene and social distancing rules. Such a step would help to implement an effective system of hazard awareness not only for the elderly members of society but also for those younger.

Another significant step will be to support a change in the health system so that as many citizens as possible have access to reliable health facilities that provide quality services. There are several ways in which this can be done. First, authorities could provide free access to health care for patients and people suspected of contracting coronavirus (Tepepa, 2020). This would help to solve financial barriers for citizens to obtain quality services. Second, if the geographical remoteness of clinics is relevant, it is possible to organize traveling events for antibody testing for citizens from disadvantaged areas. Thus, the authorities could solve financial barriers and the geographical accessibility of services under quarantine conditions. Finally, medical facilities, which represent cheap but not quality services, should be modified to improve the reliability of results. For example, officials could provide such organizations with rapid tests and educational work on the procedure for interaction with coronavirus patients.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it would be desirable to reiterate the importance of the barriers discussed in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, as their direct overcoming would allow for the development of the public health system and provide the population with quality, timely, and necessary assistance. Key recommendations include reviewing the funding system, focusing on public awareness, and helping small organizations to provide health care to citizens. In addition, every resident should be able to seek and receive medical services, and federal funds should be allocated to provide free consultations and treatment of coronavirus infection.

References

Age, sex, existing conditions of COVID-19 cases, and deaths. (2020). Wordometer.

Cummins, E. (2020). Ill do what I want: Why the people ignoring social distancing orders just wont listen. Vox.

Gros, C., Valenti, R., Schneider, L., Valenti, K., & Gros, D. (2020). Containment efficiency and control strategies for the Corona pandemic costs [PDF document]. Web.

Hargittai, E., Piper, A. M., & Morris, M. R. (2019). From internet access to internet skills: Digital inequality among older adults. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(4), 881-890.

Lai, Y., Yeung, W., & Celi, L. A. (2020). Urban intelligence for pandemic response. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 6(2), 1-7. Web.

Summary health statistics: National health interview survey [PDF document]. (2020). Web.

Tepepa, M. (2020). Public charge in the time of coronavirus [PDF document].

Introduction

The exponential spread of Coronavirus, complacency and delayed response by the Americans contributed to the devastating effects of the pandemic witnessed today. Since the Chinese authorities publicly acknowledged the first case of Coronavirus in early December 2019, different countries adopted varying measures to mitigate the spread of the scantily understood virus. At the onset, it was established that the imposition of movement restriction in and out of defined regions significantly reduced transmissibility and resulted in a notable decline in infection incidences (Quilty et al. 1). Consequently, the transmission trajectory and the rapid upsurge of cases were significantly dependent on how swiftly containment measures and other response mechanisms were implemented. For instance, China imposed stringent lockdown in Wuhan alongside travel prohibitions in nearby cities of Ezhou and Huanggang, and eventually, the entire Hubei Province to contain the outbreak. Although intelligence and experts offered prior warnings before the first case was reported in the United States, the inconsistent and slow responses resulted in the explosion of infections to overwhelming proportions.

Complacent, Slow, and Inconsistent Responses

Covid-19 is a highly infectious disease currently ravaging the globe. The illness is caused by a newly discovered novel coronavirus strain, which triggers acute respiratory complications and spreads quickly when an individual comes into contact with an infected person. Since the initial reports of the first incidences in Chinas Hubei Province in December 2019 (Li et al., 1199), accompanied by the diseases high transmissibility, countries prepared and initiated measures to prevent the spread. Governments immediately closed their airspace as it became evident that air travel had immensely contributed to broadening the virus global footprint and the subsequent proliferation of infections. Additionally, countries sealed their border entry points and quarantined people who had previously traveled in regions or countries with recorded infections. On the converse, the American administration was slow in instituting drastic containment approaches as it insisted on comprehensively assessing the situation before executing strict guidelines. While this strategy impeded possible panic across the country, it grossly underestimated the pandemic and aggravated the constant misinformation, which ultimately had disastrous effects.

The inconsistent and erratic interventions significantly downplayed Coronaviruss threat in the United States and led to the commission of monumental blunders. For instance, an estimated 430,000 people traveled to America from China since the pandemic started, while another 40,000 arrived after the 2^nd February ban on flights from China (Eder et al.). Although the restriction of direct Chinese flights was a prudent public health initiative, its effectiveness was subverted by in-bound passengers flying from destinations that had not closed their airspace. According to Kaur et al., proper planning and carefully implemented travel restrictions were influential in halting the viruss spread (1). This perspective is corroborated by the findings of a survey conducted by Costantino et al., which demonstrated that full travel bans resulted in a 86% reduction in new infections (1). Countries that introduced early and stringent movement limitations had registered adequate control in transmission. A comparative analysis of South Korea and the United States reveals glaring disparities in fatalities and cumulative caseload, attributed to the formers swift initial responses. Therefore, the indecisive and discordant actions of America jeopardized the window of opportunity which was available to successfully contain the spread.

Piecemeal Responses

Americas response was characterized by a fragmented and unsystematic approach. Countries that adopted and applied a comprehensive approach effectively managed to contain the upsurge of Coronavirus at the onset. This implies that all the available scientifically proven tools to mitigate the spread had to be implemented inclusively without exception. For instance, strategies such as social distancing, wearing masks, and quarantining every contact would only work if implemented at full scale. Consequently, the proposed initiatives would fail if only a section of the population adhered to it, while the other disregarded. Kaur et al. argue that countries that employed a piecemeal approach reported an explosion of incidences, which quickly overrun the public health systems (1). Thus, Americas uncoordinated and fragmented approach severely sabotaged the effectiveness of the measures outlined to tackle the pandemic.

Additionally, although the public beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors generally supported the stringent proposals, the subsequent politicization and stigmatization of these initiatives led to the emergence of groups opposed to their implementation. For instance, face masks evolved into a huge political controversy and culture war, with a section of the population asserting that they impaired individual freedom. As a result, some states, depending on their political allegiance, mandated wearing face masks, while others were hesitant to obligate their wearing. Progressively, the mask-less appeals and protests metamorphosed into passionate anti-mask sentiments. The net effect of this division is that the American people were divided right down the middle on the importance of wearing masks and their effectiveness in controlling the spread of Coronavirus. For instance, a meeting organized by local leaders in Palm Beach, Florida, witnessed the most robust opposition of masks, with some speakers asserting that they eroded their constitutional rights (Aratani). This resistance was partly attributed to the confusing public messages disseminated by leaders and the absent concurrence by public health officials about the effectiveness of such measures.

In other episodes, some governors barred cities within their jurisdictions from introducing mask mandates, even as coronavirus infections spiked. Although scientists and researchers accentuated the indispensability of these measures as the only known preventive strategies, the fragmented, often conflicting approaches eroded their effectiveness and undermined their importance in the public eye. Consequently, these missteps of public figures impaired peoples mask-wearing habits as they increasingly became an element of stigma and downgraded their coronavirus risk perception. Arguably, this piecemeal model has contributed to the disproportionately high caseload and fatalities in the United States compared to other countries, some of which are even densely populated than America.

Conclusion

Coronavirus is a public health emergency demanding an elaborate and comprehensive response. Since the emergence of the pandemic, countries worldwide have implemented a wide array of mitigation mechanisms to halt the transmission rate, hospitalization, and fatalities. In the United States, Americans adopted interventions that had been proven effective in stopping or slowing down the spread. However, the effectiveness of these reactions was marred by the slow implementation, complacency, and inconsistencies. Moreover, the piecemeal approach amplified the adverse effects of fragmented approaches and eventually took a political twist. The outcome of these components is that Americas interventions were not adequately successful and contributed to the explosion of infection incidences, case fatalities, and a severely overwhelmed healthcare system. Although the United States recorded their first coronavirus cases simultaneously with other countries, the disparity in their response modalities resulted in glaring differences, both in the cumulative caseload and overall disease mortality. Therefore, Americas response to Covid-19 has been below expectations and was flawed by various administrative, systemic, and political setbacks.

Works Cited

Aratani, Lauren. How Did Face Masks Become a Political Issue in America? The Guardian, 2020, Web.

Costantino, Valentina, et al. The Effectiveness of Full and Partial Travel Bans against COVID-19 Spread in Australia for Travelers from China during and after the Epidemic Peak in China. Journal of Travel Medicine, vol. 27, no. 5, 2020, 17. Web.

Eder, Steve, et al. 430,000 People Have Traveled from China to U.S. since Coronavirus Surfaced. The New York Times, 2020, Web.

Kaur, Satinder, et al. Understanding COVID-19 Transmission, Health Impacts and Mitigation: Timely Social Distancing Is the Key. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2020, 117. Web.

Li, Qun, et al. Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel CoronavirusInfected Pneumonia. New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 382, no. 13, 2020, pp. 11991207. Web.

Quilty, Billy J., et al. The Effect of Travel Restrictions on the Geographical Spread of COVID-19 between Large Cities in China: A Modeling Study. BMC Medicine, vol. 18, no. 1, 2020, 259. Web.