14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Aggressive measures, rising inequalities, and mass formation during the COVID-19 crisis: An overview and proposed way forward

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A series of aggressive restrictive measures were adopted around the world in 2020–2022 to attempt to prevent SARS-CoV-2 from spreading. However, it has become increasingly clear the most aggressive (lockdown) response strategies may involve negative side-effects such as a steep increase in poverty, hunger, and inequalities. Several economic, educational, and health repercussions have fallen disproportionately on children, students, young workers, and especially on groups with pre-existing inequalities such as low-income families, ethnic minorities, and women. This has led to a vicious cycle of rising inequalities and health issues. For example, educational and financial security decreased along with rising unemployment and loss of life purpose. Domestic violence surged due to dysfunctional families being forced to spend more time with each other. In the current narrative and scoping review, we describe macro-dynamics that are taking place because of aggressive public health policies and psychological tactics to influence public behavior, such as mass formation and crowd behavior. Coupled with the effect of inequalities, we describe how these factors can interact toward aggravating ripple effects. In light of evidence regarding the health, economic and social costs, that likely far outweigh potential benefits, the authors suggest that, first, where applicable, aggressive lockdown policies should be reversed and their re-adoption in the future should be avoided. If measures are needed, these should be non-disruptive. Second, it is important to assess dispassionately the damage done by aggressive measures and offer ways to alleviate the burden and long-term effects. Third, the structures in place that have led to counterproductive policies should be assessed and ways should be sought to optimize decision-making, such as counteracting groupthink and increasing the level of reflexivity. Finally, a package of scalable positive psychology interventions is suggested to counteract the damage done and improve humanity's prospects.

          Related collections

          Most cited references373

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence

          Summary The December, 2019 coronavirus disease outbreak has seen many countries ask people who have potentially come into contact with the infection to isolate themselves at home or in a dedicated quarantine facility. Decisions on how to apply quarantine should be based on the best available evidence. We did a Review of the psychological impact of quarantine using three electronic databases. Of 3166 papers found, 24 are included in this Review. Most reviewed studies reported negative psychological effects including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma. Some researchers have suggested long-lasting effects. In situations where quarantine is deemed necessary, officials should quarantine individuals for no longer than required, provide clear rationale for quarantine and information about protocols, and ensure sufficient supplies are provided. Appeals to altruism by reminding the public about the benefits of quarantine to wider society can be favourable.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health in the General Population: A Systematic Review

            Highlights • The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in unprecedented hazards to mental health globally. • Relatively high rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychological distress, and stress were reported in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic in eight countries. • Common risk factors associated with mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic include female gender, younger age group (≤40 years), presence of chronic/psychiatric illnesses, unemployment, student status, and frequent exposure to social media/news concerning COVID-19. • Mitigation of COVID-19 induced psychological distress requires government intervention and individual efforts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response

              The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                25 August 2022
                2022
                25 August 2022
                : 10
                : 950965
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Technology and Operations Management, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam , Rotterdam, Netherlands
                [2] 2Department of Medicine, Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States
                [3] 3Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States
                [4] 4Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States
                [5] 5Department of Statistics, Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States
                [6] 6Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States
                [7] 7Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children's Hospital, University of Alberta , Edmonton, AB, Canada
                [8] 8John Dossetor Health Ethics Center, University of Alberta , Edmonton, AB, Canada
                Author notes

                Edited by: Caress Alithia Dean, Oakland University, United States

                Reviewed by: Muhammad Salar Khan, George Mason University, United States; David Kitara Lagoro, Gulu University, Uganda

                *Correspondence: Michaéla C. Schippers mschippers@ 123456rsm.nl

                This article was submitted to Life-Course Epidemiology and Social Inequalities in Health, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2022.950965
                9491114
                36159300
                0dbdd5e5-efcf-4bc7-a4c6-aabef01f09e4
                Copyright © 2022 Schippers, Ioannidis and Joffe.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 23 May 2022
                : 25 July 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 403, Pages: 26, Words: 23003
                Categories
                Public Health
                Review

                covid-19,government response,mass formation,emergency management (em),rising inequalities

                Comments

                Comment on this article