Market Dependency as Boundary for Solidarity

Der Beitrag untersucht Grenzlinien der Solidarität. Er betrachtet, wie in Krisensituationen Unterstützungsbedarfe für jene soziale Gruppen verhandelt werden, die in etablierten Solidaritätsdiskursen in eine Deutungslücke fallen. Untersuchungsgegenstand bildet die öffentliche Verhandlung von Solidarität mit Soloselbstständigen zu Beginn der Coronapandemie. Gestützt auf Auswertungen von 21 qualitativen Interviews und ein Textkorpus mit 2428 Zeitungsartikeln zeichnen wir den Diskurs um Soforthilfe nach. Mittels einer Kombination aus strukturierender Inhaltsanalyse und Textmining zeigen wir auf, dass die Deutungsfigur der Marktabhängigkeit von Soloselbstständigen in dieser Krisenzeit dazu dient, die Hilfsbedürftigkeit der Gruppe zu identifizieren (soziale Grenzziehung), aber auch die Ausgestaltung der Hilfe kontrovers zu diskutieren (substanzielle Grenzziehung). Wir zeigen, wie sich Solidaritätsnormen im Diskursverlauf konfigurieren und dabei Marktabhängigkeit als relevante Grenze für Solidarität freigeben, diese aber nur zeitlich begrenzt wirksam bleibt.This article asks how boundaries of solidarity are constructed. From a sociological perspective, solo self-employed workers, who are both employees and entrepreneurs, fall into a collective interpretation gap in the discourse on solidarity. However, this changes at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. Drawing on the analyses of 21 qualitative interviews and a text corpus of 2428 newspaper articles, we trace the public discourse on “Soforthilfe.” Using a combination of structuring content analysis and text mining, we show that the market dependency of the solo self-employed serves to identify the group’s need for financial support (social boundary), but also to controversially discuss the design of this support (substantive boundary). We show how norms of solidarity are configured throughout the discourse, releasing market dependence as a relevant boundary for solidarity – at least temporarily

Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF)

BACKGROUND: Metoprolol can improve haemodynamics in chronic heart failure, but survival benefit has not been proven. We investigated whether metoprolol controlled release/extended release (CR/XL) once daily, in addition to standard therapy, would lower mortality in patients with decreased ejection fraction and symptoms of heart failure. METHODS: We enrolled 3991 patients with chronic heart failure in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-IV and with ejection fraction of 0.40 or less, stabilised with optimum standard therapy, in a double-blind randomised controlled study. Randomisation was preceded by a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in period. 1990 patients were randomly assigned metoprolol CR/XL 12.5 mg (NYHA III-IV) or 25.0 mg once daily (NYHA II) and 2001 were assigned placebo. The target dose was 200 mg once daily and doses were up-titrated over 8 weeks. Our primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, analysed by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The study was stopped early on the recommendation of the independent safety committee. Mean follow-up time was 1 year. All-cause mortality was lower in the metoprolol CR/XL group than in the placebo group (145 [7.2%, per patient-year of follow-up]) vs 217 deaths [11.0%], relative risk 0.66 [95% CI 0.53-0.81]; p=0.00009 or adjusted for interim analyses p=0.0062). There were fewer sudden deaths in the metoprolol CR/XL group than in the placebo group (79 vs 132, 0.59 [0.45-0.78]; p=0.0002) and deaths from worsening heart failure (30 vs 58, 0.51 [0.33-0.79]; p=0.0023). INTERPRETATION: Metoprolol CR/XL once daily in addition to optimum standard therapy improved survival. The drug was well tolerated