Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37707767›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2023

Regulating Movement in Pandemic Times.

R Jefferies, T Barratt, C Huang, A Bashford

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

R JefferiesUniversity of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. r.jefferies@unsw.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0534-9637
T BarrattUniversity of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
C HuangUniversity of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
A BashfordUniversity of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

Australian Research Council GA137275
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As COVID-19 and its variants spread across Australia at differing paces and intensity, the country's response to the risk of infection and contagion revealed an intensification of bordering practices as a form of risk mitigation with disparate impacts on different segments of the Australian community. Australia's international border was closed for both inbound and outbound travel, with few exceptions, while states and territories, Indigenous communities, and local government areas were subject to a patchwork of varying restrictions. By focusing on borders at various levels, our research traces how the logics of medico-legal bordering have filtered down from the international to the intra-national, and indeed, into hyper-local spaces. This is not just apparent in the COVID-19 moment but in previous pandemics of 1918 to 1919 influenza and smallpox, in which practices of quarantine and lockdowns were both unevenly distributed and implemented on multiple scales of social organization. An interdisciplinary approach between history and law reveals that human movement during pandemic times in Australia has been regulated in a manner that sees mobility as a risk to public health capable of mitigation through the strict enforcement of borders as a technology of both confinement and exclusion.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsAustraliaHumansPublic HealthQuarantineBorder controlCOVID-19HistoryInfluenzaLawPandemicSmallpox

Identifiers

PMID37707767
PMCPMC10942932
OpenAlexW4386726340

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.