• COVID-19
• Research dataclose
• Other research productsclose
• Open Access close
• AU close
• DE close
• English close

This dump provides access to the metadata records of publications, research data, software and projects that may be relevant to the Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) fight. The dump contains records of the OpenAIRE COVID-19 Gateway, identified via full-text mining and inference techniques applied to the OpenAIRE Research Graph. The Graph is one of the largest Open Access collections of metadata records and links between publications, datasets, software, projects, funders, and organizations, aggregating 12,000+ scientific data sources world-wide, among which the Covid-19 data sources Zenodo COVID-19 Community, WHO (World Health Organization), BIP! FInder for COVID-19, Protein Data Bank, Dimensions, scienceOpen, and RSNA. The dump consists of a tar archive containing gzip files with one json per line. Each json is compliant to the schema available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7492313.

Dress code is standard in the Australian public sector, with smart business casual the norm. However, over the last two years, as many workers relocated to the home office, bedroom or kitchen table during the COVID-19 pandemic , work attire has taken on new meaning. A key but under-researched advantage of remote working has been the relaxing in many professions dress codes, with ‘COVID casual’ becoming the norm for many workers. This report highlights the role of dress codes, appearance, and aesthetics in the Australian public sector and the refashioning of professional attire in the age of remote work.

Considerable concerns relating to the duration of protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) exist, with evidence of antibody titers declining rapidly after infection and reports of reinfection. Here, we monitor the antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) for up to 6 months after infection. While antibody titers are maintained, _13% of the cohort's neutralizing responses return to background. However, encouragingly, in a selected subset of 13 participants, 12 have detectable RBD-specific memory B cells and these generally are increasing out to 6 months. Furthermore, we are able to generate monoclonal antibodies with SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing capacity from these memory B cells. Overall, our study suggests that the loss of neutralizing antibodies in plasma may be countered by the maintenance of neutralizing capacity in the memory B cell repertoire.

The debate between the US and China about the responsibility for the COVID-19 pandemic raises important questions about the obligations of national governments in the global health care domain. Whereas the US attempts to put the blame on China do not have any serious legal or moral justifications, there is certainly a rationale for the establishment of certain minimal standards in the provision of health care for particular countries. Externalities in the global health care protection are too obvious – costs of underinvestment into the national health care system are borne not only by the country in question, but by the whole world. It is argued that countries should have certain obligations in providing health care services and protecting the population from diseases, especially infectious diseases, similar to the obligations in the framework of the responsibility to protect (R2P) concept that requires countries to protect their citizens from human rights violations. From the point of view of ensuring high life expectancy at a given level of per capita income and spending on health care, China is doing better than many other countries, including the United States that has high per capita income, spends 17% of GDP on health care, but does not provide universal access to health care and lags behind countries with a similar level of economic development in terms of life expectancy (79 years).

Public health agencies tasked with improving the health of communities are poorly supported by many ‘business-as-usual’ funding practices. It is commonplace to call for more funding for health promotion, but additional funding could do more harm than good if, at the same time, we do not critically examine the micro-processes that lead to health enablement – micro-processes that are instigated or amplified by funding. We are currently engaged in a university-and-policy research partnership to identify how funding mechanisms may better serve the practice of community-based health promotion. We propose three primary considerations to inform the way funds are used to enable community-based health promotion. The first is a broader understanding and legitimising of the ‘soft infrastructure’ or resources required to enhance a community’s capacity for change. The second is recognition of social relationships as key to increasing the availability and management of resources within communities. The third consideration understands communities to be complex systems and argues that funding models are needed to support the dynamic evolution of these systems. By neglecting these considerations, current funding practices may inadvertently privilege communities with pre-existing capacity for change, potentially perpetuating inequalities in health. To begin to address these issues, aspects of funding processes (e.g., stability, guidance, evaluation, and feedback requirements) could be designed to better support the flourishing of community practice. Above all, funders must recognise that they are actors in the health system and they, like other actors, should be reflexive and accountable for their actions.