This was a problem in Brazil. The most important social policy created during 2020 (Emergency Relief) was adopted with fully online enrollment, so people needed a cellphone with an internet connection to apply and receive the benefit. As a result, vulnerable people (i.e., in extreme poverty or the elderly, less tech-savvy) had trouble accessing the much-needed financial help. The chapter about Brazil addresses this topic.

Now we have greater availability of rapid tests that can be purchased and used for self-testing (this is not allowed in some countries). Self-testing can avoid infections as individuals get to know their positive status and self-quarantine. Hence, self-testing should be encouraged. On the other hand, too much self-testing can hamper surveillance and even screening efforts because its results are not reported to health authorities. It is important to weigh public funding in self-testing (a helpful tool individually) with adequate investments in surveillance and screening. Self-reporting systems can be a solution, but they are highly dependent on citizens' compliance  which is not trivial. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/01/10/opinion/surveillance-screening-self-testing-can-help-us-manage-covid-long-term/ https://dchealth.dc.gov/release/dc-residents-can-now-self-report-positive-covid-19-test-result-through-dc-covid-alert-notice

After the acute phase of the Covid-19 crisis, when routine procedures and rules are restored, the previous exceptional provisions can leave long-lasting effects, especially regarding transparency and accountability. In Spain, the Interterritorial Council of the National Health System (CISNS) held dozens of extraordinary meetings during 2020 and 2021, when regional governments and the Ministry of Health discussed and adopted important health measures to respond to Covid-19. However, the minutes' meetings had not been published. When the government was first questioned about the minutes, the immediate response was that the meetings were summoned as extraordinary, which exempt the MoH from publishing its records. After criticism, in December 2021, the MoH put 116 minutes drafts for voting in the CISNS, which is now leading to more disagreement between central and regional government, as the regions governed by the opposition party are claiming they were not submitted and approved as required by law. Hence, people who are now in charge of approving these minutes were not members of the central and regional governments at that time. They also claim the minutes are incomplete as they don't report regional government's suggestions, only the agreed measures. The controversy over the minute's transparency challenges accountability. When these minutes are finally published, who are the citizens going to believe? Will they believe in what is written by the MoH or in those who claim the minutes are not complete? One can say some level of controversy would probably happen anyway, despite the previous emergency measures. Still, the time gap between the meetings and its publicity increased the chances of revisionism (from both sides), as science and experience evolved, and now we know which measures are actually successful, and which are not.