Project description:Many charities are appealing for donations to address problems caused by the COVID-19 crisis. Two survey studies (total N = 500) tested predictors of donation intentions of British participants to help those suffering from the crisis in Britain (ingroup donations) and overseas (outgroup donations). Perceptions of international, global common fate in our success in managing and overcoming the crisis was positively associated with prosocial intentions towards both national ingroup and outgroup targets. In contrast, a desire to 'close ranks' within the national ingroup in the face of the pandemic threat was associated with more prosocial intentions towards national ingroup targets only, but it was associated with fewer prosocial intentions towards outgroup targets. This suggests that a focus on global solidarity (in the form of global common fate and identification with all humans) has positive effects on helping both within and across group boundaries, whereas a focus on national solidarity (in the form of 'closing ranks' in the face of the pandemic threat) has positive effects on helping within the national group but negative effects on prosocial tendencies towards outgroup members. The effect of perceived global common fate on both ingroup and outgroup helping was mediated by identification with all of humanity. Findings are discussed in terms of practical implications for managing the COVID-19 crisis. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's Community and Social Impact Statement.
Project description:BackgroundWorld Health Organization expert groups recommended mortality trials of four repurposed antiviral drugs - remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).MethodsWe randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry.ResultsAt 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration.ConclusionsThese remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.).
Project description:In the event of the Covid-19 spread, the entire world has been brought to a stop due to the imposed lockdown, to counter the effects of the spreading virus. This paper proposes to study the change in how people are experiencing a pandemic very differently and what such changes imply with respect to social connections and human interactions. The networked digital citizens come together in the time of crisis, sharing a sense of nostalgia as well as perseverance on Facebook. The paper will refer to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in order to explain the human need for the sense of belonging. A pandemic has not been experienced in earlier time as a global phenomenon with far reaching consequences as in the present context. People across the world are experiencing a similar form of loneliness, boredom, and anxiety irrespective of which profession one belongs to. The absence of physical movement has suddenly caused a great shift of interaction on to the Facebook platform. The corner stone for virtual social interaction had already been laid down with the rise of a ‘convergence culture’. Social communities depicting shared interests like music, dance, photography, food, and other aspects of life have been redesigned and restructured as a result of the lockdown. More and more people are sharing videos of activities they are engaging in during this time of immobility. A greater focus of family experiences are being shared by celebrities, creating a semblance of solidarity in fighting against the psychological effects of a long term lockdown. The provision of the care button on Facebook also intensifies this sense of a shared trauma and the human desire to overcome all hurdles together. The paper will focus on a number of Facebook trends, beginning from Dalgona coffee and its perception to music covers of popular songs such as ‘Dance Monkey’ and Bella Ciao. The historical meaning associated with the term ‘crisis’ is being redefined in a social context which greatly based on a networked population. This has an entirely different social and psychological implication. Analysing the Facebook updates will go a long way in understanding the term ‘crisis’ with respect to the time of Corona.
Project description:The global COVID-19 pandemic poses challenges to the economy, politics and public health systems of developed and developing countries alike. However, the latter are less well placed to cope with adverse effects. In particular, important advances towards sustainable development might be reversed. Tackling the pandemic and its effects therefore requires global cooperation as well as solidarity in the form of development assistance. Yet, support for development assistance among donor publics might be dampened by individual health-related and economic worries as well as decreasing trust in government during the pandemic. Against this backdrop, we investigate the possible effect of pandemic-induced worries on public support for development assistance as well as the moderating role of moral considerations and trust in government. Drawing on literature on aid attitudes, and using survey data for Germany provided by the COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) project from April 2020 (N = 1,006), our analyses show that neither health-related nor economic worries are associated with less support for providing development assistance during the first wave of the pandemic. However, we observe a marginal interaction between health-related worries and trust in government in predicting support for development assistance. For those with high levels of trust in government the effect of worry regarding the loss of friends or relatives on support for development assistance is positive, whereas it is close to zero for those with low levels of trust. We conclude that at the peak of the first wave of the pandemic there was little need for concern by policy-makers endorsing development assistance as neither form of worry correlated negatively with public support for development assistance and trust was high. However, when worries recur and trust in government simultaneously decreases, public support for global solidarity may wane.
Project description:Human coronaviruses (HCoV) were discovered in the 1960s and were originally thought to cause only mild upper respiratory tract diseases in immunocompetent hosts. This view changed since the beginning of this century, with the 2002 SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) epidemic and the 2012 MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) outbreak, two zoonotic infections that resulted in mortality rates of approximately 10% and 35%, respectively. Despite the importance of these pathogens, no approved antiviral drugs for the treatment of human coronavirus infections became available. However, remdesivir, a nucleotide analogue prodrug originally developed for the treatment of Ebola virus, was found to inhibit the replication of a wide range of human and animal coronaviruses in vitro and in preclinical studies. It is therefore not surprising that when the highly pathogenic SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus emerged in late 2019 in China, causing global health concern due to the virus strong human-to-human transmission ability, remdesivir was one of the first clinical candidates that received attention. After in vitro studies had shown its antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, and a first patient was successfully treated with the drug in the USA, a number of trials on remdesivir were initiated. Several had encouraging results, particularly the ACTT-1 double blind, randomized, and placebo controlled trial that has shown shortening of the time to recovery in hospitalized patients treated with remdesivir. The results of other trials were instead negative. Here, we provide an overview of remdesivir discovery, molecular mechanism of action, and initial and current clinical studies on its efficacy.
Project description:We report the first long-term follow-up of a randomized trial (NCT04978259) addressing the effects of remdesivir on recovery (primary outcome) and other patient-important outcomes one year after hospitalization resulting from COVID-19. Of the 208 patients recruited from 11 Finnish hospitals, 198 survived, of whom 181 (92%) completed follow-up. At one year, self-reported recovery occurred in 85% in remdesivir and 86% in standard of care (SoC) (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.47-1.90). We infer no convincing difference between remdesivir and SoC in quality of life or symptom outcomes (p > 0.05). Of the 21 potential long-COVID symptoms, patients reported moderate/major bother from fatigue (26%), joint pain (22%), and problems with memory (19%) and attention/concentration (18%). In conclusion, after a one-year follow-up of hospitalized patients, one in six reported they had not recovered well from COVID-19. Our results provide no convincing evidence of remdesivir benefit, but wide confidence intervals included possible benefit and harm.
Project description:The food sector was seriously affected by COVID-19 in southern-southeast Mexico, a Mayan region with high levels of poverty, malnutrition, and extreme weather events. The present study aimed to identify, from the dimensions of food security, citizen-led initiatives that emerged as strategies to guarantee food access in five states in the south-southeast of Mexico. A total of 7446 news articles were collected from five online newspapers and 53 food initiatives were identified. The six dimensions of food security analysis were used as a guide for our critical review of gathered media reports. The access dimension of food security was the most addressed using collection drives and food delivery to vulnerable populations. Review results underscore the critical role of community strengthening to increase and sustain food resilience.
Project description:BackgroundVaccines against COVID-19 play a prominent role in the policies enacted to combat the pandemic. However, vaccination rates are lowest among adolescents and young adults. Therefore, research on younger individuals is needed to provide a deeper understanding of social disparities and the motives behind vaccination intentions.MethodsThis study draws on a sample (N = 4079) of German high school students and graduates. Based on cross-sectional data from March to July 2021 and linear regression models, which are conditioned on personality, risk preferences, and trust, the study analyses social disparities (i.e., gender, parental education and migration background) in vaccination intentions.ResultsWe do not find heterogeneity by gender. Individuals with low-educated parents and a migration background indicate below-average levels of vaccination intention. Differences in solidarity beliefs entirely explain the heterogeneity between individuals with low-educated parents and those with high-educated parents. While differences in beliefs explain a substantial part of the heterogeneity in vaccination intentions, cultural and monetary resources also constitute an important source of difference in vaccination intentions between individuals with and without a migration background. These results are important because our data indicate higher infection risks among individuals with a migration and low education background. Additionally, individuals from lower social origins and with migration backgrounds report higher levels of perceived burdens associated with COVID-19-related policies. The migration results differ between first- and second-generation migrants and by region of origin.ConclusionPolarization in solidarity explains social gradients in vaccination intention. A solidarity narrative may not motivate a significant share of young individuals to be vaccinated.