ArticleWellcome open research2020
Historicising "containment and delay": COVID-19, the NHS and high-risk patients.
Article in Wellcome open research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- How and why to use 'vulnerability': an interdisciplinary analysis of disease risk, indeterminacy and normality.Medical humanities · 2024Review
- A review and agenda for integrated disease models including social and behavioural factors.Nature human behaviour · 2021Review
- Waiting for other people: a psychoanalytic interpretation of the time for action.Wellcome open research · 2020Article
- The politics of staying behind the frontline of coronavirus.Wellcome open research · 2020Article
- 'Containment, delay, mitigation': waiting and care in the time of a pandemic.Wellcome open research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the first case of the novel coronavirus only being reported to the WHO at the end of December 2019, humanities and social science scholars have been quick to subject local, national and international responses to COVID-19 to critique. Through television and radio, blogs, social media and other outlets, historians in particular have situated the ongoing outbreak in relation to previous epidemics and historicised cultural and political responses. This paper furthers these historical considerations of the current pandemic by examining the way the National Health Service (NHS) and discourses of risk have figured in public and policy responses. It suggests that appeals to protect the NHS are based on longer-term anxieties about the service's capacity to care and endure in the face of growing demand, as well as building on the attachment that has developed as a result of this persistence in the face of existential threats. Similarly, the position of elderly, vulnerable and "at risk" patients relates to complex histories in which their place in social and medical hierarchies have been ambiguous. It thus argues that the ways in which time appears as both a threat and a possibility of management in the current crisis form part of a longer trajectory of political and cultural thinking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.