Does cultural background influence the dissemination and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic?

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread throughout the globe affecting countries worldwide. However, several differences have been observed in the number of daily new cases, the COVID-19 reproduction rate, and the severity of the disease in different countries. Previous studies have mostly highlighted government restriction policies to mitigate the pandemic effects as reasons for such differences. This study focuses on 101 countries and proposes that each country’s cultural background is also accountable for such differences. We considered the six Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long term orientation, and indulgence) and statistically analyzed their correlation with several COVID-19 impact metrics in comparison to several restriction policies. Our results support our claim that national culture influences both acceptance and subsequent adoption of restriction policies and the implementation by each government of those policies. We highlight that the attitudes towards and trust in political institutions, policies and governance is influenced by the cultural background, which is reflected in the pandemic numbers. As a main takeaway from this study, we conclude that data-driven models which aim at predicting the pandemic impact evolution at a global scale should also include variables that reflect the cultural background of each nation.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Inverse correlates of COVID-19 mortality across European countries during the first versus subsequent waves

The objectives of the study were to calculate the standardised mortality rates (SMRs) for COVID-19 in European Union/European Economic Area countries plus the UK and Switzerland and to evaluate the correlation between SMRs and selected indicators in the first versus the subsequent waves until 23 June 2021. We used indirect standardisation (using Italy as the reference) to compute SMRs and considered 16 indicators of health and social well-being, health system capacity and COVID-19 response. The highest SMRs were in Belgium, the UK and Spain in the first wave (1.20-1.84) and in Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia in the subsequent waves (2.50-2.69). Human Development Index (HDI), life expectancy, urbanisation and healthcare expenditure had positive correlations with SMR in the first wave (rho=0.30-0.46), but negative correlations (rho=-0.67 to -0.47) in the subsequent waves. Retail/recreation mobility and transit mobility were negatively correlated with SMR in the first wave, while transit mobility was inversely correlated with SMR in the subsequent waves. The first wave hit most hard countries with high HDI, high life expectancy, high urbanisation, high health expenditures and high tourism. This pattern may reflect higher early community seeding and circulation of the virus. Conversely, in the subsequent waves, this pattern was completely inversed: countries with more resources and better health status did better than eastern European countries. While major SMR differences existed across countries in the first wave, these differences largely dissipated by 23 June 2021, with few exceptions

Modality and epidemiological models

Пандемија корона вируса (ковид-19) може да послужи као пример ризичне ситуације у којој се делује у недостатку потпуних информација. Научна заједница се према овој ситуацији поделила у два табора. Први је заснован на великом поверењу у математичке моделе, док је други у већој мери заснован на поверењу у емпиријску евиденцију. Присталице ова два приступа изводиле су супротне закључке у погледу тога на који начин је најбоље реаговати на новонастали проблем. У раду се, на неколико репрезентативних примера, указује на то да обе стране нису у довољној мери узеле у обзир значај практичких могућности (или немогућности), и да су у томе више предњачиле присталице математичких модела.The COVID-19 pandemic might be regarded as an example of a risky situation that demands proper action and decision-making in the absence of full information. It is noticeable, however, that scientists have divided into two camps concerning the best way of dealing with the very situation. Some of them have relied on mathematical models and typically proposed restrictive measures, while the others opted for the evidence-based approach and typically recommended more relaxed measures. I argue in this paper that practical possibilities (or impossibilities) have been considerably neglected in those debates and current decisionmaking, especially by the proponents of mathematical epidemiology

Was kann die Soziologie im Schockzustand einer Krise leisten? Eine Entgegnung auf Heinz Bude

In diesem Beitrag wird am Beispiel der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie die Frage diskutiert, was die Soziologie als sozialwissenschaftliche Disziplin im Schockmoment einer Krise eigentlich leisten kann. In Abgrenzung zu Heinz Bude (SOZIOLOGIE, Heft 3, 2022) wird argumentiert, dass die Aufgabe der Soziologie nicht darin bestehen sollte, Zustimmung in der Bevölkerung zu staatlichen Maßnahmen zu organisieren, sondern eine sozialwissenschaftliche Beobachterrolle einzunehmen, um die blinden Flecke staatlicher Akteure und Expertenstäbe gerade auch unter Krisenbedingungen sichtbar zu machen. Statt in den Modus einer Krisenrhetorik der einfachen Worte zu verfallen, wird dafür plädiert, sich auf die methodologischen und methodischen Kernkompetenzen des Faches zu besinnen und interdisziplinären Austausch nicht mit undisziplinierter Extradisziplinarität zu verwechseln.This article uses the example of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to discuss the question of what sociology can actually do in the moment of shock of a crisis. In contrast to Heinz Bude (SOZIOLOGIE, no. 3, 2022), it is argued that the task of sociology should not be to organise public approval for state measures, but to take on a sociological observer role in order to make the blind spots of state actors and expert groups visible, especially under crisis conditions. Instead of falling into the mode of a crisis rhetoric of simple words, it is advocated that one should remember the methodological and methodical core competences of the discipline and not confuse interdisciplinary exchange with undisciplined extradisciplinarity

Scarcity Killed the Radio Laws: The Rise and Untimely Demise of the Fairness Doctrine

This thesis poses the argument that the Fairness Doctrine, which grew out of the “public interest” requirement in early radio regulation, was a valuable tool used by the FCC to try and ensure broadcasters fairly presented both sides of topics of public interest. If legislation similar to the Fairness Doctrine were resurrected today and expanded to different media formats, it could be beneficial to help ensure people are presented with diverse views when digesting news coverage. The Fairness Doctrine ultimately failed in the late 1980s not because of the Doctrine’s inability to appropriately control divisive content, but because the justification for the Fairness Doctrine was tied to the idea of spectrum scarcity – the concept that limited frequencies necessitated government oversight. As technology developed, such as cable and satellite television, the Doctrine seemed outdated by the late 1980s, and it became increasingly difficult for proponents to defend the Doctrine as necessary regulation while large media corporations agitated for its demise.Bachelor of Art

On the syndemic nature of crises: A Freeman perspective

In this paper we draw a parallel between the insights developed within the framework of the current COVID-19 health crisis and the views and insights developed with respect to the long term environmental crisis, the implications for science, technology and innovation (STI) policy, Christopher Freeman analyzed already in the early 90's. With at the time of writing, the COVID-19 pandemic entering in many countries a third wave with a very differentiated implementation path of vaccination across rich and poor countries, drawing such a parallel remains of course a relatively speculative exercise. Nevertheless, based on the available evidence of the first wave of the pandemic, we feel confident that some lessons from the current health crisis and its parallels with the long-term environmental crisis can be drawn. The COVID-19 pandemic has also been described as a " syndemic ": a term popular in medical anthropology which marries the concept of 'synergy' with 'epidemic' and provides conceptually an interesting background for these posthumous Freeman reflections on crises. The COVID-19 crisis affects citizens in very different and disproportionate ways. It results not only in rising structural inequalities among social groups and classes, but also among generations. In the paper, we focus on the growing inequality within two particular groups: youngsters and the impact of COVID-19 on learning and the organization of education; and as mirror picture, the elderly many of whom witnessed despite strict confinement in long-term care facilities, high mortality following the COVID-19 outbreak. From a Freeman perspective, these inequality consequences of the current COVID-19 health crisis call for new social STI policies: for a new "corona version" of inclusion versus exclusion