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

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

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

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

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