The Covid-19 pandemic is with no doubt the biggest health crisis of the 21 st century. The disease is caused by a virus of the Coronaviridae family and is closely related to the virus responsible for the severe acute respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Since December 2019, the virus has continued to spread way beyond the location of the first recorded cases (Wuhan, China). As of now, over 5 million cases have been diagnosed with the disease worldwide and over 300 thousand have died. COVID-19 patients suffer from respiratory symptoms that can rapidly turn into potentially fatal acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in a portion of patients. Although many drugs and vaccines are currently under clinical trials, there is no currently approved treatment or vaccine. It is therefore critical to correctly identify risk factors that lead to the exacerbation of symptoms in highly susceptible groups. Groups that are at high risk include those aged 55 or older especially those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular diseases. Certain ethnicities such as African-Americans have been found to be at a higher risk and males seem to be higher both in numbers as well as severity of cases. It is hypothesized that these groups are at risk as their molecular landscape is more permissive of viral infection and growth. Different occupations, especially those related to health-care as well as populations that do not cultivate a mask-wearing culture are at higher risk due to environmental exposure. In this article, we examine the evidence regarding different groups that are more sensitive to the disease and review hypotheses pertaining to COVID-19 infection and prognosis. Risk factors that can be related to the molecular landscape of COVID-19 infection as well as those related to environmental and occupational conditions are discussed.

During pandemics, the ethicists, public health professionals, and human rights advocates raise a red flag about different public health actions that should, at best, be addressed through integrated, global policies. How to rationalize the healthcare resources and prioritize the cases is not a recent challenge but the serious concern about that is how to achieve this while not increasing the vulnerability of the disadvantaged population. Healthcare professionals use different scoring systems as a part of their decision-making so the medical teams and triage committees can allocate resources for predictable health outcomes and prognosis as well as to appropriately triage the patients accordingly. However, the value of the existing scoring systems to manage COVID-19 cases is not well-established yet. Part of this problem includes managing non-COVID patients with chronic medical conditions like non-communicable diseases and addressing their medical needs during the pandemic complex context in a way to avoid worsening their conditions and, on the other hand, avoid hindering the establishment of comprehensive standards for dealing with COVID-19. In this article, we discuss this dilemma as well as how preexisting ethical standards were challenged by COVID-19. We also discuss how monitoring the consistent application of ethical standards during the medical trials of new medications, vaccines, or unproven medical interventions is also a critical issue.

Background: This paper presents the results of a systematic review to identify practical strategies to create the institutions, skills, values, and norms that will improve health systems resilience. Methods: A PRISMA 2020 compliant systematic review identified peer-reviewed and gray literature on practical strategies to make health systems more resilient. Investigators screened 970 papers to identify 65 English language papers published since 2015. Results: Practical strategies focus efforts on system changes to improve a health system’s resilience components of collective knowing, collective thinking, and collaborative doing. The most helpful studies identified potential lead organizations to serve as the stewards of resilience improvement, and these were commonly in national and local departments of public health. Papers on practical strategies suggested possible measurement tools to benchmark resilience components in efforts to focus performance improvement and ways to sustain their use. Essential Public Health Function (EPHF) measurement and improvement tools are well-aligned to the resilience agenda. The field of health systems resilience lacks empirical trials linking resilience improvement interventions to outcomes. Conclusions: The rigorous assessment of practical strategies to improve resilience based on cycles of measurement should be a high priority.