The present article examines how job demands and resources are related to indices of strain among healthcare professionals during virus pandemics. The article also presents the results of a study examining the relationships between COVID-19 demands (e.g., lack of personal protective equipment, concerns about infecting family members), resources (meaningful work, social support), and mental health strain within a sample of emergency medicine personnel over six consecutive weeks. COVID-related demands and hours worked were hypothesized to be positively related to mental health strain, whereas meaningful work and social support were hypothesized to be negatively related to mental health strain. Hours worked the prior week were hypothesized to exacerbate the positive relationships between COVID-19 demands and mental health strain, whereas the resources of meaningful work and social support were expected to buffer the relationships. Multilevel models controlling for mental health strain the prior week revealed that COVID-19 demands, along with hours worked, were each related to higher mental health strain during the week. Hours worked magnified the within-person relationship between personal COVID-19 demands and mental health strain. Contrary to hypotheses, social support and meaningful work were not related to mental health strain. Discussion focuses the implications of the findings for healthcare professionals.Workers and their families bear much of the economic burden of COVID-19. Even though they have declined somewhat, unemployment rates are considerably higher than before the start of the pandemic. Many workers also face uncertainty about their future employment prospects and increasing financial strain. At the same time, the workplace is a common source of transmission of COVID-19 and many jobs previously seen as relatively safe are now viewed as potentially hazardous. Thus, many workers face dual threats of economic stress and COVID-19 exposure. This paper develops a model of workers’ responses to these dual threats, including risk perception and resource depletion as mediating factors that influence the relationship of economic stress and occupational risk factors with COVID-19 compliance-related attitudes, safe behavior at work, and physical and mental health outcomes. The paper also describes contextual moderators of these relationships at the individual, unit, and regional level. Directions for future research are discussed.Pandemics, such as the COVID-19 crisis, are very complex emergencies that can neither be handled by individuals nor by any single municipality, organization or even country alone. Such situations require multidisciplinary crisis management teams (CMTs) at different administrative levels. However, most existing CMTs are trained for rather local and temporary emergencies but not for international and long-lasting crises. Moreover, CMT members in a pandemic face additional demands due to unknown characteristics of the disease and a highly volatile environment. To support and ensure the effectiveness of CMTs, we need to understand how CMT members can successfully cope with these multiple demands. Connecting teamwork research with the job demands and resources approach as starting framework, we conducted structured interviews and critical incident analyses with 144 members of various CMTs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Content analyses revealed both perceived demands as well as perceived resources in CMTs. Moreover, structuring work processes, open, precise and regular communication, and anticipatory, goal-oriented and fast problem solving were described as particularly effective behaviors in CMTs. We illustrate our findings in an integrated model and derive practical recommendations for the work and future training of CMTs.Over the past few decades, Indigenous communities have successfully campaigned for greater inclusion in decision-making processes that directly affect their lands and livelihoods. As a result, two important participatory rights for Indigenous peoples have now been widely recognized the right to consultation and the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). Although these participatory rights are meant to empower the speech of these communities-to give them a proper say in the decisions that most affect them-we argue that the way these rights have been implemented and interpreted sometimes has the opposite effect, of denying them a say or ‘silencing’ them. In support of this conclusion we draw on feminist speech act theory to identify practices of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary group silencing that arise in the context of consultation with Indigenous communities.Healthcare systems need to consider not only how to prevent error, but how to respond to errors when they occur. In the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, one strand of this latter response is the ‘No Blame Culture’, which draws attention from individuals and towards systems in the process of understanding an error. Defences of the No Blame Culture typically fail to distinguish between blaming someone and holding them responsible. This article argues for a ‘responsibility culture’, where healthcare professionals are held responsible in cases of foreseeable and avoidable errors. We demonstrate how healthcare professionals can justifiably be held responsible for their errors even though they work in challenging circumstances. ZINC05007751 We then review the idea of ‘responsibility without blame’, applying this to cases of error in healthcare. Sensitive to the undesirable effects of blaming healthcare professionals and to the moral significance of holding individuals accountable, we argue that a responsibility culture has significant advantages over a No Blame Culture due to its capacity to enhance patient safety and support medical professionals in learning from their mistakes, while also recognising and validating the legitimate sense of responsibility that many medical professionals feel following avoidable error, and motivating medical professionals to report errors.Initially the subject of widespread consensus, legislative and policy responses to COVID-19 are increasingly provoking predictable reactions. Right and left are united by concern that essential freedoms are being eroded by a state utilizing the opportunity of the pandemic to make a power grab. Focused on the Coronavirus Act 2020, this article takes a more cautious approach, suggesting that the law should be understood not as the product of a hierarchical state but as a demonstration of the ‘statelessness’ of the contemporary state. It examines the Act with particular focus on open justice, adult social care, and Business Improvement Districts. Reading this unique piece of legislation through the lens of the stateless state reveals the complexities, ambiguities, and contestations within contemporary policy making. Dismissing the Act as unnecessarily authoritarian is an insufficiently nuanced response; furthermore, this exploration of the law allows us to develop and complicate scholarship on the stateless state.