Delivery riders have become a defining workforce of contemporary urban economies, yet existing occupational health frameworks remain poorly adapted to the realities of platform-mediated work. This editorial proposes a shift from static, factor-based models of risk toward a dynamic and cumulative perspective, and provides a comparative classification of regulatory approaches worldwide, highlighting how jurisdictions are addressing, or failing to address, the occupational risks of platform work. Riders operate at the intersection of three interacting domains: algorithmic management, environmental exposure, and climate-related stressors. Rather than acting as independent risk factors, these processes mutually reinforce one another, shaping exposure and behaviour in real time. Platform-driven time pressures influence riding practices within hazardous urban environments, while extreme weather and air pollution further affect psychophysiological performance. Within this framework, algorithmic management should be understood not merely as a mode of work organization but as a structural determinant of occupational health. By regulating task allocation, temporal constraints, and incentive structures, digital systems actively generate and redistribute risk. Occupational hazards are therefore not simply encountered by riders but dynamically produced through the interaction between technological control, environmental conditions, and urban infrastructures.

The COVID-19 pandemic placed unprecedented pressure on healthcare systems and exposed healthcare workers (HCWs) to biological hazards, organizational pressures, and psychological strain. Evidence generated during the emergency shows that HCW protection cannot rely on isolated measures, but requires an integrated framework combining epidemiological surveillance, contact tracing, infection prevention and control, vaccination, occupational health, and workforce support. Contact tracing helped identify occupational exposures and clarify how duration, proximity, and inadequate use of personal protective equipment jointly shaped infection risk. Subsequent studies of reinfection showed that susceptibility reflected the interaction of viral circulation, individual immunity, and vaccination status. Vaccination reduced the clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 and supported service continuity, although uptake depended on trust, communication, and management of adverse event concerns. The pandemic also highlighted substantial economic consequences and a high burden of psychological distress and burnout among HCWs. Building on this evidence, future preparedness should translate these lessons into permanent, adaptable infrastructure rather than temporary emergency arrangements, integrating interoperable, AI-assisted surveillance capable of combining occupational, diagnostic, vaccination, and genomic data to detect emerging risks early, while ensuring robust data governance and human oversight. Equally central is the need to address long-term workforce vulnerabilities, including Long COVID, attrition, and burnout, through early identification, rehabilitation, flexible return-to-work models, and sustained psychosocial support. Achieving this requires structured multidisciplinary collaboration among occupational medicine, infection control, epidemiology, mental health, and digital health specialists, moving from fragmented infection-control protocols to an integrated, proactive, and learning-oriented preparedness strategy. Protecting HCWs is therefore not only an occupational safety priority but a foundational prerequisite for safe, equitable, and sustainable healthcare delivery during future infectious threats.