Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32695884›Full record

ArticleWellcome open research2020

Historicising "containment and delay": COVID-19, the NHS and high-risk patients.

Martin D Moore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Martin D MooreWellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QH, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1969-0083

Funding

Wellcome Trust 205400/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

Charles Rosenberggeneral practicehealth inequalitiesNational Health Servicepandemicsrisk

Identifiers

PMID32695884
PMCPMC7348669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.