While policy attention is understandably diverted to COVID-19, the end of the UK's post-Brexit ‘transition period’ remains 31 December 2020. All forms of future EU−UK relationship are worse for health than EU membership, but analysis of the negotiating texts shows some forms are better than others. The likely outcomes involve major negative effects for NHS staffing, funding for health and social care, and capital financing for the NHS; and for UK global leadership and influence. We expect minor negative effects for cross border healthcare (except in Northern Ireland); research collaboration; and data sharing, such as the Early Warning and Response System for health threats. Despite political narratives, the legal texts show that the UK seeks de facto continuity in selected key areas for pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and equipment [including personal protective equipment (PPE)], especially clinical trials, pharmacovigilance, and batch-testing. The UK will be excluded from economies of scale of EU membership, e.g. joint procurement programmes as used recently for PPE. Above all, there is a major risk of reaching an agreement with significant adverse effects for health, without meaningful oversight by or input from the UK Parliament, or other health policy stakeholders.

We investigated potential transmissions of a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2–positive physician in a tertiary-care hospital who worked for 15 cumulative hours without wearing a face mask. No in-hospital transmissions occurred, despite 254 contacts among patients and healthcare workers. In conclusion, exposed hospital staff continued work, accompanied by close clinical and virologic monitoring.

This perspective offers a personal insight into COVID-19 in Bahrain along with the response to this unprecented pandemic. In a country where a robust health care system and economic prosperity have allowed it to cope with the medical sequelae, the mental health consequences may have been less anticipated but more problematic. An unforeseen positive emerging from the pandemic might be the nation’s recognition of the importance of mental health well-being and a new openness to discussing it.

With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have witnessed the greatest global challenge in a generation. The full extent of the mental health impact is, as yet, unknown, but is anticipated to be severe and enduring. In this Special Issue dedicated to mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic, we aim to lay the foundation for an improved understanding of how COVID-19 is affecting mental health services both in Ireland and globally. This Special Issue highlights how the mental health effects of COVID-19 stretch to almost every element of society. The issue includes perspectives from several countries across multiple disciplines and healthcare settings. The drive for rapid innovation and service development is clearly evident throughout and provides hope that by working collaboratively we can positively impact population mental health in the months and years ahead.

In times of crisis, people have historically had to band together to overcome. What happens when they cannot? This article examines the reality of people forced to isolate from one another during one of the most turbulent events of their lives: the COVID-19 pandemic. Connecting the dots of topics including fear, social stigmas, global public response and previous disease outbreaks, this article discusses the negative mental health effects that individuals and communities will likely suffer as the result of social distancing, isolation and physical infection.

In early 2020, the world as we knew it began to change dramatically and rapidly with the COVID-19 outbreak. Social distancing restrictions and lockdown measures have been the most effective course of action and an inarguably imperative approach at this time. However, in trying to keep the global population safe, social distancing measures unwittingly placed children already experiencing maltreatment and disadvantage in harm’s way. This paper will consider the evidence base which attests to the importance of considering the accumulation of adversity when seeking to understand risk and impact of child maltreatment and disadvantage. Given the unique and unprecedented circumstances which have accompanied the COVID-19 outbreak, and the dearth of research pertaining to the impact of pandemics on child welfare, the paper draws on an emerging body of literature about the effect of natural disasters, conflict and significant global events on child maltreatment. The paper synthesises the research to date in order to call attention to the cumulative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children already experiencing abuse and neglect. The paper concludes with an outline of the implications for practice in the helping professions.

For several decades, mental health services within the UK's National Health Service were provided by specialist mental health trusts. More recently many of these trusts have integrated community physical health services into their operations. We describe here how two integrated mental health trusts in England were able to make an enhanced response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A growing body of normative work explores whether and how deference to people’s choices might be reconciled with behavioral findings about human error. This work has strong implications for economic analysis of law, cost–benefit analysis, and regulatory policy. In light of behavioral findings, regulators should adopt a working presumption in favor of respect for people’s self-regarding choices, but only if those choices are adequately informed and sufficiently free from behavioral biases. The working presumption should itself be rebuttable on welfare grounds, with an understanding that the ends that people choose might make their lives go less well. For example, people might die prematurely or suffer from serious illness, and what they receive in return might not (on any plausible account of welfare) be nearly enough. The underlying reason might involve a lack of information or a behavioral bias, identifiable or not, in which case intervention can fit with the working presumption, but the real problem might involve philosophical questions about the proper understanding of welfare, and about what it means for people to have a good life.

As COVID-19 has plagued our world, the term “social distancing” has been widely used with the aim to encourage the general population to physically distance themselves from others in order to reduce the spread of the virus. However, this term can have unintended but detrimental effects, as it evokes negative feelings of being ignored, unwelcome, left alone with one's own fears, and even excluded from society. These feelings may be stronger in people with mental illnesses and in socio-economically disadvantaged groups, such as stigmatized minorities, migrants, and homeless persons [1], many of them also having high risk for suicidal behaviors [2]. Mental health disorders are pervasive worldwide; the global burden accounting for approximately 21.2–32.4% of years lived with disability—more than any other group of illnesses [3]. So, the vulnerable group of people with mental health disorders represents a considerable share of the total global population.

Research from financial stress, disasters, pandemics, and other extreme events, suggests that behavioral health will suffer, including anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Furthermore, these symptoms are likely to exacerbate alcohol or drug use, especially for those vulnerable to relapse. The nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and vast reach of the virus, leave many unknows for the repercussions on behavioral health, yet existing research suggests that behavioral health concerns should take a primary role in response to the pandemic. We propose a 4-step services system designed for implementation with a variety of different groups and reserves limited clinical services for the most extreme reactions. While we can expect symptoms to remit overtime, many will also have longer-term or more severe concerns. Behavioral health interventions will likely need to change overtime and different types of interventions should be considered for different target groups, such as for those who recover from COVID-19, health-care professionals, and essential personnel; and the general public either due to loss of loved ones or significant life disruption. The important thing is to have a systematic plan to support behavioral health and to engage citizens in prevention and doing their part in recovery by staying home and protecting others.