Farrellhale8093

Economic insights are powerful for understanding the challenge of managing a highly infectious disease, such as COVID-19, through behavioral precautions including social distancing. One problem is a form of moral hazard, which arises when some individuals face less personal risk of harm or bear greater personal costs of taking precautions. Without legal intervention, some individuals will see socially risky behaviors as personally less costly than socially beneficial behaviors, a balance that makes those beneficial behaviors unsustainable. For insights, we review health insurance moral hazard, agricultural infectious disease policy, and deterrence theory, but find that classic enforcement strategies of punishing noncompliant people are stymied. One mechanism is for policymakers to indemnify individuals for losses associated with taking those socially desirable behaviors to reduce the spread. We develop a coherent approach for doing so, based on conditional cash payments and precommitments by citizens, which may also be reinforced by social norms.The number and size of existing research studies with massive databases and biosample repositories that could be leveraged for public health response against SARS-CoV-2 (or other infectious disease pathogens) are unparalleled in history. What risks are posed by coopting research infrastructure-not just data and samples but also participant recruitment and contact networks, communications, and coordination functions-for public health activities? The case of the Seattle Flu Study highlights the general challenges associated with utilizing research infrastructure for public health response, including the legal and ethical considerations for research data use, the return of the results of public health activities relying upon research resources to unwitting research participants, and the possible impacts of public health reporting mandates on future research participation. While research, including public health research, is essential during a pandemic, careful consideration should be given to distinguishing and balancing the ethical mandates of public health activities against the existing ethical responsibilities of biomedical researchers.Vaccines play a crucial role in improving global public health, with the ability to stem the spread of infectious diseases and the potential to eradicate them completely. Compared with pharmaceuticals that treat disease, however, preventative vaccines have received less attention from both biomedical researchers and innovation scholars. This neglect has substantial human and financial costs, as vividly illustrated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, we argue that the large number of ``missing vaccines is likely due to more than lack of scientific opportunities. Two key aspects of vaccines help account for their anemic development pipeline (1) they are preventatives rather than treatments; and (2) they are generally durable goods with long-term effects rather than products purchased repeatedly. We explain how both aspects make vaccines less profitable than repeat-purchase treatments, even given comparable IP protection. We conclude by arguing that innovation policy should address these market distortions by experimenting with larger government-set rewards for vaccine production and use. Most modestly, policymakers should increase direct funding-including no grants and public-private partnerships-and insurance-based market subsidies for vaccine development. We also make the case for a large cash prize for any new vaccine made available at low or zero cost.The COVID-19 pandemic brought into stark relief the intimate nexus between health and housing. This extraordinary infectious disease outbreak combined with the astounding lack of a clear, coordinated, prompt, and effective public health response in the U.S. created conditions and introduced practical challenges that left many disoriented-not only health care providers but also housing providers. Innumerable issues are worth examination, such as implications of moratoria on evictions and foreclosures, force majeure contract clauses, insurability of pandemic-related damages and disruptions, holdover tenancies and delayed occupancies, and possible abatement of rent or homeowner/condominium association dues in light of closed common facilities (such as fitness areas) or reduced benefits to be enjoyed with residential property; however, this article focuses on fair housing law and the ``direct threat exemption; finds it unlikely that COVID-19 is a disability, likely that the ``direct threat defense is available, and both determinations to be case-specific inquiries dependent upon rapidly-changing scientific understanding of this disease. By highlighting adequate housing as a human right for which the government has primary responsibility for ensuring its achievement, this article underscores the importance of finding a holistic solution to public health and housing problems before the next public health emergency arises.Personalised medicine can improve both public and individual health by providing targeted preventative and therapeutic healthcare. Mubritinib order However, patient health data must be shared between institutions and across jurisdictions for the benefits of personalised medicine to be realised. Whilst data protection, privacy, and research ethics laws protect patient confidentiality and safety they also may impede multisite research, particularly across jurisdictions. Accordingly, we compare the concept of data accessibility in data protection and research ethics laws across seven jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include Switzerland, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom (which have implemented the General Data Protection Regulation), the United States, Canada, and Australia. Our paper identifies the requirements for consent, the standards for anonymisation or pseudonymisation, and adequacy of protection between jurisdictions as barriers for sharing. We also identify differences between the European Union and other jurisdictions as a significant barrier for data accessibility in cross jurisdictional multisite research. Our paper concludes by considering solutions to overcome these legislative differences. These solutions include data transfer agreements and organisational collaborations designed to `front load' the process of ethics approval, so that subsequent research protocols are standardised. We also allude to technical solutions, such as distributed computing, secure multiparty computation and homomorphic encryption.