The Covid-19 pandemic has caused major changes to family life followed by a call for knowledge about how these changes have affected parental functioning, particularly in vulnerable families (Prime, Wade & Brooks, 2020). This study uses a natural experiment design to investigate the effect of the Covid-19 lockdown on parental mental health, parenting stress and three dimensions of destructive interparental conflict in a heterogeneous sample characterized by pre-existing relationship problems. Results from mixed model regression analyses showed that despite significantly higher levels of parenting stress in the lockdown group (n = 744 families) compared with the control group (n = 427 families), lockdown did not adversely affect parental mental health or levels of destructive conflicts behaviors. In fact, levels of verbal aggression and child involvement in conflict decreased during lockdown among parents living apart. Pre-existing destructive conflict levels, financial problems and age of youngest child did not moderate any of the associations. Thus, findings indicated that pre-existing family vulnerability did not predispose for reduced parental functioning during lockdown, beyond increased parenting stress. Resilient processes and an increased sense of purpose may be potential mechanisms. Caution should be taken when generalizing the findings due to the welfare context of the sample and as long-term lockdown effects were not investigated. Importantly, children in vulnerable families may have been negatively impacted by increased family time, despite relatively stable parental functioning during lockdown.

Behavioural science has been effectively used by policy makers in various domains, from health to savings. However, interventions that behavioural scientists typically employ to change behaviour have been at the centre of an ethical debate, given that they include elements of paternalism that have implications for people’s freedom of choice. In the present article, we argue that this ethical debate could be resolved in the future through implementation and advancement of new technologies. We propose that several technologies which are currently available and are rapidly evolving (i.e., virtual and augmented reality, social robotics, gamification, self-quantification, and behavioural informatics) have a potential to be integrated with various behavioural interventions in a non-paternalistic way. More specifically, people would decide themselves which behaviours they want to change and select the technologies they want to use for this purpose, and the role of policy makers would be to develop transparent behavioural interventions for these technologies. In that sense, behavioural science would move from libertarian paternalism to liberalism, given that people would freely choose how they want to change, and policy makers would create technological interventions that make this change possible.

In response to the rapid spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), governments and health-authorities have both recommended and mandated various measures aiming to contain the spread of the virus and, in turn, save lives. Despite generally high levels of compliance with and public support for these measures, several countries have witnessed a recent upsurge in the number of people who no longer sufficiently adhere to the restrictions and keep themselves informed about the pandemic. This developing trend has either been named or attributed to Pandemic Fatigue. Notably, though, a scientific conceptualization, including an identification of Pandemic fatigue and theoretical dissociation from its correlates and outcomes, is completely lacking. Using representative survey data from Denmark and Germany (overall N = 5,841), we introduce a psychometrically sound measure of Pandemic Fatigue, show who experiences it, identify related emotions and perceptions, and reveal its effects on health protective behaviors. We find that Pandemic Fatigue consists of two distinct, yet highly correlated dimensions – Information and Behavioral Fatigue – and that younger, healthier, and less educated people are more likely to experience it. Further, we find that Pandemic Fatigue is related to certain emotions and perceptions that could be targeted through different interventions in an attempt to reinvigorate fatigued individuals. Moreover, we find that Pandemic Fatigue is a strong predictor of nonadherence to health protective measures, even beyond other relevant emotions and perceptions. Taken together, the results call for a multifaceted approach towards keeping public compliance high when facing a pandemic.

Dramatic international gestures are unlikely to have much impact. It’s hands, masks and space we should be focusing on

Aim and Method: This perspective searches presents evidence of mature gratitude as a way of coping with the threats and boundaries of COVID-19. This narrative, non-systematic review will be based on studies from the COVID-19 period in association with more general literature on the characteristics of mature gratitude related to good mental health. Results: The results from the literature suggest that a confrontation with our existential vulnerability during a pandemic is not only a crisis but also an opportunity to view our lives in a different way. Mature gratitude, as proposed in this perspective, can help us in coping with the threats and boundaries that are part of our lives due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This time of crisis gives us the opportunity to self-reflect on our current life and plans for the future and to reframe them through a positive lens which can encourage individuals to actively strengthen their psychological resilience and coping skills. Conclusion: Cultivating an attitude of mature gratitude through actions of kindness, expressing being thankful for life and God, and enjoying all the small things in life helps in coping with the current threats of COVID-19 and building lifelong resilience for the future Knowledge about these associations can help psychologists, counselors, and coaches to support people who experience psychological issues due to the current pandemic and all crises to come.

There is a global consensus about the potential of the COVID-19 pandemic to affect people's mental health. In this context, and prior to the formulation of mitigation strategies, tools are required that allow an objective and effective assessment of mental health risk. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric characteristics of COVID-19 Stress Scale, formulated by Taylor et al. (2020), based on the concept of COVID-19 Stress Syndrome. A national sample of 1214 participating adults was taken in Colombia, who answered a translated version of the scale. Evidence of a hexa-dimensional structure was obtained whose goodness of fit indicators were Chi2 = 1215,759, Sig. =. 000, CMIN / DF = 2.202, RMSEA = .044, NFI = .943, TLI = .964, CFI =. 968 and FMIN = 1,967. Regarding reliability, an α = .924 and Spearman-Brown = .824 were obtained for the entire scale; the reliability indicators of the 6 subscales were also high. The similarities and differences in the findings with respect to the original psychometric study of the scale are discussed, as well as the utility and importance of the instrument as a tool in future efforts to mitigate the psychosocial effects of the pandemic

Disinformation is on the rampage with manipulated stories spreading like wildfire on social media. While disinformation has always been with us, the power at which it spreads on social media platforms is new. Since the 2016 US election, the term’s appearance in news headlines has grown tenfold.

A significant number of Americans believe misinformation about the origins of the coronavirus and the recent presidential election, as well as conspiracy theories like QAnon, according to a new NPR/Ipsos poll.

The COVID-19 pandemic and countermeasures implemented by governments around the world have led to dramatically increased symptoms of depression and anxiety. Pregnant women may be particularly vulnerable to the negative psychological effects of COVD-19 public health measures, because they represent a demographic that is most affected by disasters and because pregnancy itself entails significant life changes that require major psychosocial and emotional adjustments. The Pregnancy During the COVID-19 Pandemic (PdP) study was designed to investigate the associations between exposure to objective hardship caused by the pandemic, perceived stress and psychological distress in pregnant individuals, and developmental outcomes in their offspring. Methods The PdP study comprises a prospective longitudinal cohort of pregnant individuals (at enrollment) with repeated follow-ups during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Participants were eligible if they were: pregnant, ≥17 years, ≤35 weeks gestation at study enrollment, living in Canada, and able to read and write in English or French. Participant recruitment via social media (Facebook, Instagram) began on April 5, 2020 and is ongoing. At enrollment, participants completed an initial survey that assessed demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, previous pregnancies and births, pre-pregnancy health, health conditions during pregnancy, medications, psychological distress, social support, and hardships experienced because of COVID-19 (e.g., lost employment, loved one dying). For the first three months following the initial survey, participants received a monthly email link to complete a follow-up survey that asked about experiences since the previous survey. After three months, follow-up surveys were sent bi-monthly to reduce participant burden. For each of these surveys, participants were first asked if they were still pregnant and then routed either to the next prenatal survey or to the delivery survey. In the postpartum, surveys were sent at 3-, 6-, and 12-months of infant age to assess maternal psychological distress and infant development. Discussion This longitudinal investigation seeks to elucidate the associations between hardships, maternal psychological distress, child development during COVID-19, and risk and resilience factors that amplify or ameliorate these associations. Findings are intended to generate knowledge about the psychological consequences of pandemics on pregnant individuals and point toward prevention and intervention targets.

A reliable measure to evaluate the predictive accuracy of a theoretical construct should be independent of the empirical setting in which the construct is tested. Effect size measures such as Cohen’s d, widely used for this very purpose today, instead plague this evaluation with ambiguity. Evaluating a theoretically postulated effect size in view of an empirically observed standard deviation—as Cohen’s d requires—is particularly inadequate when the empirical adequacy of a theoretical construct must be evaluated across empirical settings. As an improved measure, the similarity index compares the theoretically predicted effect size directly to the empirically observed effect size. Their similarity thus informs the construct’s empirical adequacy. Based on computer simulations, we propose a specific similarity interval as useful for theory-construction. We illustrate the similarity index using select findings from social and personality psychology, and describe its application in different empirical research designs.

A reliable measure to evaluate the predictive accuracy of a theoretical construct should be independent of the empirical setting in which the construct is tested. Effect size measures such as Cohen’s d, widely used for this very purpose today, instead plague this evaluation with ambiguity. Evaluating a theoretically postulated effect size in view of an empirically observed standard deviation—as Cohen’s d requires—is particularly inadequate when the empirical adequacy of a theoretical construct must be evaluated across empirical settings. As an improved measure, the similarity index compares the theoretically predicted effect size directly to the empirically observed effect size. Their similarity thus informs the construct’s empirical adequacy. Based on computer simulations, we propose a specific similarity interval as useful for theory-construction. We illustrate the similarity index using select findings from social and personality psychology, and describe its application in different empirical research designs.

My team at the Genomics UK consortium sequenced the new Sars-CoV-2 variant, but we’ll need more evidence to understand how it might change the pandemic

A coronavirus variant that probably emerged in May and surged to become the dominant strain in California not only spreads more readily than its predecessors but also evades antibodies generated by COVID-19 vaccines or prior infection and is associated with severe illness and death, researchers said.

We develop a two strain, age-structured, compartmental model to assess the spreading potential of the B.1.1.7 variant across several European metropolitan areas and countries. The model accounts for B.1.1.7 introductions from the UK and different locations, as well as local mitigation policies in the time period 2020/09-2021/02. In the case of an increase of transmissibility of 50%, the B.1.1.7 variant has the potential to become dominant in all investigated areas by the end of March 2021

Human behaviors determine outbreak trajectories of infectious diseases. This fundamental relationship underlies why broad behavioral interventions (BIs) are effective tools in outbreak management. BIs target an overall reduction in contacts and behaviors that enable pathogen transmission as a nonspecific solution for preventing new infections. Despite that, there is a lot that remains unknown about the interactions between human behavior and infectious diseases. These gaps limit targeted outbreak management and prevention. In PNAS, Vigfusson et al. (1) narrow this gap by exploring multiple ways to assess behavioral changes in infectious hosts using existing data sources. By linking mobile-phone call detail records (CDRs) with health records of clinically confirmed influenza, they measure deviations in routine behaviors during illness compared to pre- and postillness behaviors.

Besonders in Zeiten einer Pandemie wie der von COVID-19 nimmt das allgemeine Stressniveau der Betroffenen stark zu. Verschiedene Faktoren tragen besonders in einer so außergewöhnlichen Situation vermehrt zu Stress bei. So können mit der Pandemie verbundene Einschränkungen wie eine Kontaktreduzierung, das Tragen von Mund-Nasen-Masken oder auch die Schließung öffentlicher Einrichtungen auch psychisch eine starke Beeinträchtigung bedeuten.

There has been a huge amount of misinformation during the pandemic. Much of it was unavoidable, especially at the start as we dealt with a new virus, but some myths are persisting a year into the pandemic. The myths range from the ridiculous to the merely implausible, but together they are misleading the public about the danger of Covid-19 and other variants. These false claims could also have serious consequences, such as fuelling premature calls to end social distancing measures before the vaccination rollout has reached a safe level.  To combat some of this misinformation, a group of scientists, journalists, economists and other researchers have created Anti-Virus, a website that tries to address the biggest myths surrounding the pandemic, and highlight claims or points of view that have been expressed by figures in academia or the media that are no longer credible. 

This project tracks behavioural science evidence and advice about COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

This short, online course builds on a similar course offered to Indian & African health journalists, will introduce epidemiologic concepts to health/science journalists. The course will use topical examples from COVID-19, to cover issues such as types of epidemiologic studies, how to measure disease frequency and risk, importance of bias and confounding, and review various common study designs, including observational studies and randomized trials. The main emphasis would be on how to critically read literature and how to report accurately.

Hospital workers who got vaccinated were significantly less likely to develop COVID than those who did not

Biologists​  love abbreviations, but we often use them clumsily. What may sound like catchy acronyms to one group of researchers are tiresome jargon to colleagues in related fields. Fruit fly geneticists have taken whimsy to absurdity: MAD stands for ‘Mothers Against Decapentaplegic’. The ‘decapentaplegic’ bit comes from a mutant fly that doesn’t correctly form fifteen (deca-penta) important structures that go on to become legs, wings, antennae etc. The ‘Mothers Against’ bit is a joke that may have been funny in 1995. Immunologists tend towards the impenetrably boring. We’ve named messenger molecules between white blood cells ‘interleukins’, and given each of them a natural number. Logical enough, but we’ve now got up to IL38, and it’s almost impossible to recall what each of them does. Not to be outdone, molecular epidemiologists have come up with such names as B.1.1.7. That’s the Sars-CoV-2 variant now dominating the pandemic in the UK (and Ireland, Denmark, Israel and soon Germany and much of the rest of the world). The variant that’s dominating in South Africa is B.1.351, or 20H/501Y.V2 if you prefer. At least in Brazil what would have been B.1.1.28.P1 has been allowed to drop its cumbersome honorific and become plain old P1.

Low birth weight (LBW) infants have lower infant mortality in groups in which LBW is most frequent. For example, in 1991, US infants born to smokers had higher risks of both LBW and infant mortality than infants born to nonsmokers. However, among LBW infants, infant mortality was lower for infants born to smokers (relative rate = 0.79). There are competing theories regarding this so-called “paradox.” One is that maternal smoking is beneficial for LBW infants. The authors use causal diagrams to show that, even in the absence of any beneficial effect of smoking, an inverse association due to stratification on birth weight can be found. This variable is affected by the exposure of interest and shares common causes with the outcome. That is, LBW infants born to smokers may have a lower risk of mortality than other LBW infants whose LBW is due to causes associated with high mortality (e.g., birth defects). Under realistic causal diagrams, adjustment for birth weight is unwarranted when the analytical goal is to estimate overall effects of prenatal variables on infant mortality. Even for estimating direct effects of prenatal variables, adjustment for birth weight may be invalid when there is an unmeasured common cause of LBW and mortality. An appropriate justification for conditioning on birth weight requires specifying 1) the causal question motivating this analytical approach and 2) the assumptions regarding the proposed underlying biologic mechanisms.

The Jeffreys–Lindley paradox displays how the use of a 𝑝pp value (or number of standard deviations 𝑧zz) in a frequentist hypothesis test can lead to an inference that is radically different from that of a Bayesian hypothesis test in the form advocated by Harold Jeffreys in the 1930s and common today. The setting is the test of a well-specified null hypothesis (such as the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, possibly with “nuisance parameters”) versus a composite alternative (such as the Standard Model plus a new force of nature of unknown strength). The 𝑝pp value, as well as the ratio of the likelihood under the null hypothesis to the maximized likelihood under the alternative, can strongly disfavor the null hypothesis, while the Bayesian posterior probability for the null hypothesis can be arbitrarily large. The academic statistics literature contains many impassioned comments on this paradox, yet there is no consensus either on its relevance to scientific communication or on its correct resolution. The paradox is quite relevant to frontier research in high energy physics. This paper is an attempt to explain the situation to both physicists and statisticians, in the hope that further progress can be made.

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the erroneous belief that if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent. The fallacy is commonly associated with gambling, where it may be believed, for example, that the next dice roll is more than usually likely to be six because there have recently been fewer than the usual number of sixes.

The “prosecutor's fallacy” (the assumption that Pr [probability] (A|B) = Pr (B|A)) arises often in epidemiology but is often unrecognized as such, in part because investigators do not have strong intuitions about what the fallacy means. Here, we help inform such intuitions and remind investigators of this fallacy by using visualizations. In figures, we demonstrate the prosecutor's fallacy, as well as show conditions under which Pr (A|B) can be assumed to be equal to Pr (B|A). Visualizations can help build intuition around statistical concepts such as the prosecutor's fallacy and should be more widely considered as teaching tools.

Numerous observational studies have attempted to identify risk factors for infection with SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 disease outcomes. Studies have used datasets sampled from patients admitted to hospital, people tested for active infection, or people who volunteered to participate. Here, we highlight the challenge of interpreting observational evidence from such non-representative samples. Collider bias can induce associations between two or more variables which affect the likelihood of an individual being sampled, distorting associations between these variables in the sample. Analysing UK Biobank data, compared to the wider cohort the participants tested for COVID-19 were highly selected for a range of genetic, behavioural, cardiovascular, demographic, and anthropometric traits. We discuss the mechanisms inducing these problems, and approaches that could help mitigate them. While collider bias should be explored in existing studies, the optimal way to mitigate the problem is to use appropriate sampling strategies at the study design stage.

Background In a famous article, Simpson described a hypothetical data example that led to apparently paradoxical results.Methods We make the causal structure of Simpson's example explicit.Results We show how the paradox disappears when the statistical analysis is appropriately guided by subject-matter knowledge. We also review previous explanations of Simpson's paradox that attributed it to two distinct phenomena: confounding and non-collapsibility.Conclusion Analytical errors may occur when the problem is stripped of its causal context and analyzed merely in statistical terms.

Previous posts[a],[b],[c] of mine have considered Lord’s Paradox. To recap, this was considered in the form described by Wainer and Brown[1], in turn based on Lord’s original formulation: A large university is interested in investigating the effects on the students of the diet provided in the university dining halls : : : . Various types of data are gathered. In particular, the weight of each student at the time of his arrival in September and his weight the following June are recorded. [2](p. 304)

In 19th century Europe, suicide rates were higher in countries that were more heavily Protestant,the inference being that suicide was promoted by the social conditions of Protestantism (Durkheim1897; also see Neeleman and Lewis 1999). According to Carroll (1975), death rates from breastcancer are higher in countries where fat is a larger component of the diet, the idea being that fatintake causes breast cancer. These are ‘ecological inferences,’ that is, inferences about individualbehavior drawn from data about aggregates.

The non-equivalence of statistical significance and clinical importance has long been recognised, but this error of interpretation remains common. Although a significant result in a large study may sometimes not be clinically important, a far greater problem arises from misinterpretation of non-significant findings. By convention a P value greater than 5% (P>0.05) is called “not significant.” Randomised controlled clinical trials that do not show a significant difference between the treatments being compared are often called “negative.” This term wrongly implies that the study has shown that there is no difference, whereas usually all that has been shown is an absence of evidence of a difference. These are quite different statements.

Authorities in Australia have responded swiftly to contain potential outbreaks of the UK variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes covid-19.

Report from by the INI Higher Education Working Group on COVID-19 and universities. It was considered at SAGE 76 on 14 January 2021. The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly. See further information on the new SARS-CoV-2 variant. This paper should be read alongside ‘SPI-B: Return to campus for Spring term: risk of increased transmission from student migration’ from SAGE 76 on 14 January 2021. More details and an updated version of this analysis is available as a preprint on the Isaac Newton Institute website (PDF). These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals. Redactions have been made to remove figures containing statistically disclosive or identifiable data.

Paper by TFC updating their paper of 17 December 2020 on children, schools and transmission. It was considered at SAGE 80 on 11 February 2021. This paper should be read alongside the Juniper consortium paper on the impact of partial school openings, also presented at SAGE 80. These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.

Im Streit um Restaurant- und Ladenöffnungen geht eines unter: Die Schweiz hat keine Strategie, um mit dem Virus umzugehen.

Experts are often asked to represent their uncertainty as a subjective probability. Structured protocols offer a transparent and systematic way to elicit and combine probability judgements from multiple experts. As part of this process, experts are asked to individually estimate a probability (e.g., of a future event) which needs to be combined/aggregated into a final group prediction. The experts' judgements can be aggregated behaviourally (by striving for consensus), or mathematically (by using a mathematical rule to combine individual estimates). Mathematical rules (e.g., weighted linear combinations of judgments) provide an objective approach to aggregation. However, the choice of a rule is not straightforward, and the aggregated group probability judgement's quality depends on it. The quality of an aggregation can be defined in terms of accuracy, calibration and informativeness. These measures can be used to compare different aggregation approaches and help decide on which aggregation produces the "best" final prediction. In the ideal case, individual experts' performance (as probability assessors) is scored, these scores are translated into performance-based weights, and a performance-based weighted aggregation is used. When this is not possible though, several other aggregation methods, informed by measurable proxies for good performance, can be formulated and compared. We use several data sets to investigate the relative performance of multiple aggregation methods informed by previous experience and the available literature. Even though the accuracy, calibration, and informativeness of the majority of methods are very similar, two of the aggregation methods distinguish themselves as the best and worst.

Air New Zealand will trial a digital vaccine passport in April on flights between Auckland and Sydney with Qantas investigating similar technology.As vaccination begins in Australia, attention has turned to the potential resumption of international travel and how Australia could track whether potential visitors have been vaccinated.Several tech companies have been working with the World Health Organization to develop a secure digital vaccination record system that could be used to prove to airlines and governments that passengers have had a Covid vaccine.

What is already known about this topic? Two COVID-19 vaccines have received Emergency Use Authorization for administration in the United States. In preauthorization clinical trials, local and systemic reactions were reported; no serious safety problems were detected. What is added by this report? Monitoring, conducted as part of the U.S. vaccination program, indicates reassuring safety profiles for COVID-19 vaccines. Local and systemic reactions were common; rare reports of anaphylaxis were received. No unusual or unexpected reporting patterns were detected. What are the implications for public health practice? Health care providers and vaccine recipients can be reassured about the safety of Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. Counseling vaccine recipients to expect transient local and systemic reactions might ease concerns and encourage completion of the 2-dose vaccination series.

New pledges by leaders of the G7 group of richest countries to intensify cooperation on covid-19 and commit $7.5bn (£5.3bn; €6.2bn) to sharing supplies of vaccine around the world are insufficient, a leading charity has said.Oxfam said that steps to increase the supply of vaccines to poorer countries, though welcome, would not be enough to deal with the covid-19 threat and to redress “immoral” inequalities of access.Meanwhile, the UK is being urged to act more quickly on its commitment to make “surplus” vaccines available to developing countries and to explain when it would have spare doses.

Paul Hoyningen-Huene argues that what makes scientific knowledge special is its systematic character, and that this can be used to solve the demarcation problem. He labels this STDC: “Systematicity Theory’s Demarcation Criterion.” This paper argues that STDC fails, because there are areas of intellectual activity that are highly systematic, but that the great majority of scientists and historians and philosophers of science do not accept as scientific. These include homepathy, creationism, and climate change denial. I designate these activities “facsimile sciences” because they mimic the appearance of science but are not, by the standards of philosophers and scientists, scientific. This suggests that we need additional criteria to demarcate science from non-science and/ or nonsense.

Prior research has indicated that disease threat and disgust are associated with harsher moral condemnation. We investigated the role of a specific, highly salient health concern, namely the spread of the coronavirus, and associated COVID-19 disease, on moral condemnation. We hypothesized that individuals who report greater subjective worry about COVID-19 would be more sensitive to moral transgressions. Across 3 studies (N = 913), conducted March-May 2020 as the pandemic started to unfold in the United States, we found that individuals who were worried about contracting the infectious disease made harsher moral judgments than those who were relatively less worried. This effect was not restricted to transgressions involving purity, but extended to transgressions involving harm, fairness, authority, and loyalty, and remained when controlling for political orientation. Furthermore, for Studies 1 and 2 the effect also was robust when taking into account the contamination subscale of the Disgust Scale—Revised. These findings add to the growing literature that concrete threats to health can play a role in abstract moral considerations, supporting the notion that judgments of wrongdoing are not based on rational thought alone.

SummaryBackgroundWuhan was the first epicentre of COVID-19 in the world, accounting for 80% of cases in China during the first wave. We aimed to assess household transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and risk factors associated with infectivity and susceptibility to infection in Wuhan.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included the households of all laboratory-confirmed or clinically confirmed COVID-19 cases and laboratory-confirmed asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections identified by the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention between Dec 2, 2019, and April 18, 2020. We defined households as groups of family members and close relatives who did not necessarily live at the same address and considered households that shared common contacts as epidemiologically linked. We used a statistical transmission model to estimate household secondary attack rates and to quantify risk factors associated with infectivity and susceptibility to infection, accounting for individual-level exposure history. We assessed how intervention policies affected the household reproductive number, defined as the mean number of household contacts a case can infect.Findings27 101 households with 29 578 primary cases and 57 581 household contacts were identified. The secondary attack rate estimated with the transmission model was 15·6% (95% CI 15·2–16·0), assuming a mean incubation period of 5 days and a maximum infectious period of 22 days. Individuals aged 60 years or older were at a higher risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 than all other age groups. Infants aged 0–1 years were significantly more likely to be infected than children aged 2–5 years (odds ratio [OR] 2·20, 95% CI 1·40–3·44) and children aged 6–12 years (1·53, 1·01–2·34). Given the same exposure time, children and adolescents younger than 20 years of age were more likely to infect others than were adults aged 60 years or older (1·58, 1·28–1·95). Asymptomatic individuals were much less likely to infect others than were symptomatic cases (0·21, 0·14–0·31). Symptomatic cases were more likely to infect others before symptom onset than after (1·42, 1·30–1·55). After mass isolation of cases, quarantine of household contacts, and restriction of movement policies were implemented, household reproductive numbers declined by 52% among primary cases (from 0·25 [95% CI 0·24–0·26] to 0·12 [0·10–0·13]) and by 63% among secondary cases (from 0·17 [0·16–0·18] to 0·063 [0·057–0·070]).InterpretationWithin households, children and adolescents were less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection but were more infectious than older individuals. Presymptomatic cases were more infectious and individuals with asymptomatic infection less infectious than symptomatic cases. These findings have implications for devising interventions for blocking household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, such as timely vaccination of eligible children once resources become available.FundingNational Natural Science Foundation of China, Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, US National Institutes of Health, and US National Science Foundation.

Covid-19 is a respiratory disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus – 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which was first identified in Wuhan China in December 2019. Because of Covid-19 worldwide spreading in 2020, urgent hygiene and lockdown measures have been implemented with fundamental consequences on the lives of people in all sectors of society. Besides visible socio-economic and documented health effects, the impact of Covid-19 on people’s mental health including stress-related effects on disease spreading remains yet to be addressed. Here, we argue about the relevance of incorporating stress factors into models of covid-19 spreading and the level of detail in which such models should take stress into consideration.

Preexisting conditions affect disease susceptibility. Here, I show that socio-cultural values are population-level risk factors for disease. Using data from the World Values Survey, I show that, between 2 weeks and 6 months after the first COVID-19-related death in a country, COVID-19-related mortality is increased in countries endorsing values related to political participation, but decreased in countries with more trust in institutions and materialistic orientations. After controlling for income, age, urbanicity, smoking, overweight, private health expenditure and lockdown delay, these socio-cultural values were consistent across country-sets, reduced prediction errors by up to 52% and explained up to 68% of inter-country variability. They were relatively specific to COVID-19-related mortality. I could not identify values predicting general health outcomes, and values predicting increased COVID-19-related mortality predicted decreased mortality due to other causes like environmental-related mortality, explaining up to 90% of inter-country variability. Socio-cultural values might be specific predictors of health outcomes.

The potential side effects of COVID-19 vaccines Efficacy vs. side effects Severe allergic reactions (“anaphylaxis”) What about long-term side effects? Latest updates (January 2021 onward)

Background. Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with poorer adult mental health, and benevolent childhood experiences (BCEs) are associated with better adult mental health. Objective. To test whether ACEs and BCEs predict adult mental health beyond current stress and social support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants and Setting. We analyzed data from undergraduate and graduate students (N = 502) at an urban private university in the western United States. Methods. An online survey was conducted to assess ACEs and BCEs, current stress and social support, depressive and anxiety symptoms, perceived stress, and loneliness in May 2020. Results. Higher levels of ACEs were associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms, β = 0.45, p = .002. Higher levels of BCEs were associated with lower depressive symptoms, β = -0.39, p = .03, lower perceived stress, β = -0.26, p = .002, and less loneliness, β = -0.12, p = .04. These associations held while controlling for current stress, social support, and socioeconomic status. Conclusions. Childhood experiences are associated with mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. BCEs should be considered an important promotive factor, independent of ACEs, for psychological well-being during a global public health crisis. BCEs should be included along with ACEs in future research and screening with distressed and vulnerable populations.

If platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are the engines of social media use, what is the gasoline? The answer can be found in the psychological dynamics behind consumer habit formation and performance. In fact, the financial success of different social media sites is closely tied to the daily‐use habits they create among users. We explain how the rewards of social media sites motivate user habit formation, how social media design provides cues that automatically activate habits and nudge continued use, and how strong habits hinder quitting social media. Demonstrating that use habits are tied to cues, we report a novel test of a 2008 change in Facebook design, showing that it impeded posting only of frequent, habitual users, suggesting that the change disrupted habit automaticity. Finally, we offer predictions about the future of social media sites, highlighting the features most likely to promote user habits.

Errors are an inevitable consequence of human fallibility and researchers are no exception. Most researchers can recall major frustrations or serious time delays due to human errors while collecting, analyzing, or reporting data. The present study is an exploration of mistakes made during the data management process in psychological research. We surveyed 464 researchers regarding the type, frequency, seriousness, and outcome of mistakes that have occurred in their research team during the last 5 years. The majority of respondents suggested that mistakes occurred with very low or low frequency. Most respondents reported that the most frequent mistakes led to insignificant or minor consequences, such as time loss or frustration. The most serious mistakes caused insignificant or minor consequences for about a third of respondents, moderate consequences for almost half of respondents, and major or extreme consequences for about one-fifth of respondents. The most frequently reported types of mistakes were ‘ambiguous naming/defining of data’, ‘incorrect data processing/analysis’, and ‘version control error’. Most mistakes were reportedly due to poor project planning or management and/or personal issues (physical or cognitive constraints). These initial exploratory findings lay the groundwork for a systematic investigation of human fallibility in research data management and the development of solutions that may reduce errors and mitigate their impact.

Millions of people are mourning the death of a loved to COVID-19. According to previous studies, the circumstances of coronavirus disease-related deaths may lead to dysfunctional grief. The purpose of this study was to introduce the Polish adaptation of the Pandemic Grief Scale (PGS) as well as to assess the relationship between dysfunctional grief due to a COVID-19 death, resilience and perceived social support. The adaptation was carried out on a general population sample of 286 individuals aged 18–54 years, with the evaluation being performed on a group comprising 214 people aged 18–78 years, who lost a loved one during the pandemic. The Polish version of PGS revealed a single-factor structure with strong internal consistency (α = 0.89). The PGS scores were associated with measures of complicated grief (Inventory of Complicated Grief), depression (Kutcher Adolescent Depression Scale) and lower resilience (Resilience Scale 14), which confirmed the scale’s convergent validity. No relation between PGS scores and health behaviors (Inventory of Health Behaviors) was observed, which confirmed the scale’s discriminant validity. The results of the bootstrapping technique revealed that resilience mediates the relationship between perceived social support (Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support) and dysfunctional grief (total mediation). The results of this study suggest the need for practitioners to focus on resilience-enhancing interventions and perceived social support in order to improve mental health in people who lost their loved ones during the new coronavirus pandemic.

Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has already begun to exacerbate inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed. In this paper, we call on psychological scientists—focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context in which such a conversation can begin—to reimagine our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive. First, we discuss who our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today. Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions. Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society.

Differences in political ideology are increasingly appearing as an impediment to successful bipartisan communication from local leadership. For example, recent empirical findings have shown that conservatives are less likely to adhere to COVID-19 health directives. This behavior is in direct contradiction to past research which indicates that conservatives are more rule abiding, prefer to avoid loss, and are more prevention-motivated than liberals. We reconcile this disconnect between recent empirical findings and past research by using insights gathered from press releases, millions of tweets, and mobility data capturing local movement in retail, grocery, workplace, parks, and transit domains during COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders. We find that conservatives adhere to health directives when they express more fear of the virus. In order to better understand this phenomenon, we analyze both official and citizen communications and find that press releases from local and federal government, along with the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases, lead to an increase in expressions of fear on Twitter.

Misinformation on COVID-19 is so pervasive that even some patients dying from the disease still say it’s a hoax. In March 2020, nearly 30% of U.S. adults believed the Chinese government created the coronavirus as a bioweapon (Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 263, 2020) and in June, a quarter believed the outbreak was intentionally planned by people in power (Pew Research Center, 2020).

The sudden restrictions — announced after the official death toll nearly doubled — could upend the travel plans of millions of Chinese citizens, who travel in huge numbers during the Lunar New Year holiday.

Greetings from Beijing, China! By now you have most likely heard of the coronavirus outbreak that has originated in Wuhan and has spread all over the country and internationally. I am currently studying abroad in Beijing and traveled to Harbin for the first few days of the Chinese New Year holiday, but have now gathered back in Beijing at the request of CET and the Middlebury Schools Abroad.  While I am by no means a public health expert, I have been keeping up to date with both Western and Chinese media and the U.S. Embassy and have written notes each day for the past week with updates. These reports include my own observations, as well as reports from over 500 contacts on the ground. You can follow the whole set below.

The technology could revolutionize efforts to immunize against HIV, malaria, influenza and more.

There are 4 variants of concern,designated:•VOC202012/01(B.1.1.7), first detected in KentEnglandis predominant in all regionsand is circulating inmultiple countries•VOC 202102/02(B.1.1.7 cluster with E484K mutation), first detected in South West Englandhas been detected in 23cases•VOC202012/02(B.1.351), first detected in South Africa, 126case havebeen detected in England with evidence of in country transmission.Local testing is underway and links between cases are being investigated•VOC202101/02(P.1),firstdetected inBrazilhas not been detected in the UK

Background: In the unpredictable times of the ongoing global coronavirus disease (COVID-19), parents worldwide are affected by stressors and strains that follow in the wake of the government-initiated distancing protocols. Objective: In a two‐wave longitudinal survey, we examined levels of parental perceived stress and symptoms of anxiety and depression among a sample of parents at two time points; in the midst of the strictest government-initiated physical distancing protocols following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (T1, N = 2868) and three months after the protocols discontinued (T2, n = 1489). Further, we investigated the levels of parental stress, anxiety, and depression relative to perceived relationship quality and anger aimed at child(ren) at the two time points, including subgroups based on age, sex, cultural background, civil status, education level, number of children in household, employment status, and pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. Methods and findings: Parents were asked to fill out a set of validated questionnaires on the two measurement occasions. As expected, the findings indicate that the high levels of parental stress significantly decreased from T1 to T2, indicating that the cumulative stressors that parent’s experiences during distancing protocols declined as a function of the phaseout of the protocols. The decrease of perceived parental stress at the two time points, was accompanied by a significant decrease in symptoms of both depression and anxiety among the participating parents. Symptoms meeting the clinical cut-off for depression (23.0%) and generalized anxiety disorder (23.3%) were reported among participating parents at T1, compared to 16.8% and 13.8% respectively at T2. Reduction in depression and angry at child(ren) from T1 to T2 were further associated with a reduction in perceived parental stress. In addition, relationship quality and angry at child(ren) at T1 predicted change in parental stress. Conclusions: The findings underline some of the negative psychological impact of physical distancing protocols on parent’s health and well-being. Parents who are facing physical distancing and remaining at home with their children may be particularly vulnerable to parental stress, anxiety and depression. Uncovering the nature of how these constructs are associated to parents and families facing social crisis, such as the ongoing pandemic, can contribute to design relevant interventions to reduce parental stress and strengthen parental coping and resilience.

n the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been mandated to keep enlarged distances from others. We interviewed 136 German subjects over five weeks from the end of March to the end of April 2020 during the first wave of infections about their preferred interpersonal distance (IPD) before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the pandemic, subjects adapted to distance requirements and preferred a larger IPD. This enlarged IPD was judged to persist after the crisis partially. People anticipated keeping more IPD to others even if there was no longer any risk of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also sampled two follow-up measurements, one in August, after the first wave had been flattened, and one in October 2020, at the beginning of the second wave. We discuss our findings in light of proxemic theory and an indicator for socio-cultural adaptation beyond the course of the pandemic.

We compare patterns of sexual violence against adults (n = 317) and children (n = 224) in Kenya during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to inform sexual violence prevention and protection efforts. The data we analyse were coded from interviews conducted by human rights defenders who were assisting survivors in obtaining vital services. We found that children were more likely than adults to be attacked during the daytime, by a single perpetrator rather than multiple perpetrators, and in a private as opposed to a public location. Children were violated most often by neighbors and family members, whereas adults were equally likely to be attacked by strangers and persons known to them. On average, the children in the sample were four years younger compared to the average age reported in national samples pre-pandemic (age 12 versus 16). Survivors were more likely to be female than male. Policy recommendations are offered based on our findings.

Nafeez Ahmed reveals how COVID pseudoscience and anti-lockdown groups have morphed into a sophisticated, well-funded global network

The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global crisis of our lifetimes and leadership has been critical to societies’ capacity to deal with it. Here effective leadership has brought people together, provided a clear perspective on what is happening and what response is needed, and mobilised the population to act in the most effective ways to bring the pandemic under control. Informed by a model of identity leadership (Haslam, Reicher & Platow, 2020), this review argues that leaders’ ability to do these things is grounded in their ability to represent and advance the shared interests of group members and to create and embed a sense of shared social identity among them (a sense of “us-ness”). For leaders, then, this sense of us-ness is the key resource that they need to marshal in order to harness the support and energy of citizens. The review discusses examples of the successes and failures of different leaders during the pandemic and organises these around five policy priorities related to the 5Rs of identity leadership: Readying, Reflecting, Representing, Realising and Reinforcing. These priorities and associated lessons are relevant not only to the management of COVID-19 but to crisis management and leadership more generally.

Civil defense. Influence monitoring. Enhanced unconventional warfare capabilities. New political warfare coordination. Fight for our values at home and abroad.

Physical distancing is crucial for slowing the spread of COVID-19, but the associated reduction of social interaction can be detrimental to psychological wellbeing. Here, we sought to understand whether different ways in which people connect to others might mitigate this negative impact. We examined how amount and type of social interactions and social media use would predict wellbeing during a period of physical distancing in the United Kingdom. In a 30-day diary study conducted in April-June 2020, 108 participants reported their daily social interactions and social media use, as well as their end-of-day wellbeing. Using multilevel regressions, we found that more face-to-face interactions positively predicted wellbeing, while technology-mediated communication had less consistent positive effects on wellbeing. More active and less passive social media use was associated with greater wellbeing. Our results suggest that while technology-mediated communication can improve wellbeing, face-to-face interactions are unique and important for wellbeing during physical distancing.

Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

he real Covid news gets better every day. Case numbers are falling. Hospital admissions are falling. Deaths are falling. The vaccination programme is a success beyond anyone's wildest imagination. New, effective treatments are emerging. Spring, fresh air and sunshine are almost upon us.ADVERTISEMENT{"requests":{"csi":"https://csi.gstatic.com/csi?"},"transport":{"xhrpost":false},"triggers":{"adRequestStart":{"on":"ad-request-start","request":"csi","sampleSpec":{"sampleOn":"a4a-csi-${pageViewId}","threshold":1},"selector":"amp-ad","selectionMethod":"closest","extraUrlParams":{"met.a4a":"afs_lvt.${viewerLastVisibleTime}~afs.${time}"}},"adResponseEnd":{"on":"ad-response-end","request":"csi","sampleSpec":{"sampleOn":"a4a-csi-${pageViewId}","threshold":1},"selector":"amp-ad","selectionMethod":"closest","extraUrlParams":{"met.a4a":"afe.${time}"}},"adRenderStart":{"on":"ad-render-start","request":"csi","sampleSpec":{"sampleOn":"a4a-csi-${pageViewId}","threshold":1},"selector":"amp-ad","selectionMethod":"closest","extraUrlParams":{"met.a4a":"ast.${scheduleTime}~ars_lvt.${viewerLastVisibleTime}~ars.${time}","qqid":"${qqid}"}},"adIframeLoaded":{"on":"ad-iframe-loaded","request":"csi","sampleSpec":{"sampleOn":"a4a-csi-${pageViewId}","threshold":1},"selector":"amp-ad","selectionMethod":"closest","extraUrlParams":{"met.a4a":"ail.${time}"}}},"extraUrlParams":{"s":"ampad","ctx":"2","c":"${correlator}","slotId":"${slotId}","puid":"${requestCount}~${timestamp}"}}{"transport":{"beacon":false,"xhrpost":false},"requests":{"visibility1":"https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pcs/activeview?xai=AKAOjss-vQjNUP78eIujxsqd1zb1s_Ieqsh2jNEjiuoMIqu2hzEWAJnJ-SvgYo4pBkZycxz5afWcGV84tyTcXKf0L_YcKTxd-oAATZSJ0qLpY4E&sig=Cg0ArKJSzMMZ9tqhK04eEAE&id=ampim&o=${elementX},${elementY}&d=${elementWidth},${elementHeight}&ss=${screenWidth},${screenHeight}&bs=${viewportWidth},${viewportHeight}&mcvt=${maxContinuousVisibleTime}&mtos=0,0,${maxContinuousVisibleTime},${maxContinuousVisibleTime},${maxContinuousVisibleTime}&tos=0,0,${totalVisibleTime},0,0&tfs=${firstSeenTime}&tls=${lastSeenTime}&g=${minVisiblePercentage}&h=${maxVisiblePercentage}&tt=${totalTime}&r=v&avms=ampa&adk=2528340120","btr1":"https://securepubads.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/view?xai=AKAOjstFzLpzkAIYMJiF0gz473squSjpvO8-0d8UuPsuSPpNYbk7ctV6pTs02zT6ZvHciTRNc7g8Mrv3OWgAoRbrfWzOApakgWCFcd6LMk6X52Dw9-gNDEXXK0JJlVKIcwHrMpsZ6JzmC3PsygLcm4wUW9tJzT9QDTASwB7QYmpDSCM3lWt2zQloZNjpwNXh0OZ2b4ZLUfHg_rSzBTwldkrwDvgH6-OFm4C4YjFA4cTA6WZwkoJv4fM4deO2dTaot6kVOMrZESQjsuP3nFbdaQaluYr6HRxVW5MG3RvkvvSCFpfbooYMyUnghtkHZSKbAlgBSvgvTgB525uN_aZMo7eNA5AGbaBIVQc1EFQiJ6Q3roqDsA&sai=AMfl-YRtdo31o6GgCTlilFM4fP_cgfjIBNtP5IKcLuWE90tU_nu9dpQy3kZio1hsEYPt2eIZNwrxKs_49m6vpYY-qnQjBiC5bsHJwJvpoLUvXqLz&sig=Cg0ArKJSzJRksUuGCjAfEAE&urlfix=1&adurl="},"triggers":{"continuousVisible":{"request":["visibility1"],"on":"visible","visibilitySpec":{"selector":"amp-ad","selectionMethod":"closest","visiblePercentageMin":50,"continuousTimeMin":1000}},"beginToRender":{"request":["btr1"],"on":"ini-load","selector":"amp-ad","selectionMethod":"closest"}}}Why, then, is there so much talk of keeping restrictions in place for the rest of the year? Why do some say that we should keep the so-called 'Rule of Six' for months to come and warn we might be wearing face masks for ever – yes, for ever – in some situations at least?

As more lineages emerge, researchers are struggling with a patchwork of nomenclature.

This winter the novel coronavirus may kill more people than heart disease, cancer, stroke, Alzheimer’s or diabetes

Pandemic's toll on mental health: 'We're suffering some real stuff'

People's opinions evolve over time as they interact with their friends, family, colleagues, and others. In the study of opinion dynamics on networks, one often encodes interactions between people in the form of dyadic relationships, but many social interactions in real life are polyadic (i.e., they involve three or more people). In this paper, we extend an asynchronous bounded-confidence model (BCM) on graphs, in which nodes are connected pairwise by edges, to hypergraphs. We show that our hypergraph BCM converges to consensus under a wide range of initial conditions for the opinions of the nodes. We show that, under suitable conditions, echo chambers can form on hypergraphs with community structure. We also observe that the opinions of individuals can sometimes jump from one opinion cluster to another in a single time step, a phenomenon (which we call "opinion jumping") that is not possible in standard dyadic BCMs. We also show that there is a phase transition in the convergence time on the complete hypergraph when the variance σ2\sigma^2 of the initial opinion distribution equals the confidence bound cc. Therefore, to determine the convergence properties of our hypergraph BCM when the variance and the number of hyperedges are both large, it is necessary to use analytical methods instead of relying only on Monte Carlo simulations.

Many counties, particularly small counties, do not have enough paid health care workers to staff vaccination clinics for hours every day, so they rely on volunteers to squeeze in time on days off, and before and after work, to help inoculate people against the deadly virus. The people stepping up are often doctors, nurses and students who give up their free time after long hours in classrooms, medical practices, ICUs, and ERs where they have battled the virus for the past year.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused an increase in the use of pulse oximeters, and a recent report (Sjoding et al.External Link Disclaimer) suggests that the devices may be less accurate in people with dark skin pigmentation. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is informing patients and health care providers that although pulse oximetry is useful for estimating blood oxygen levels, pulse oximeters have limitations and a risk of inaccuracy under certain circumstances that should be considered. Patients with conditions such as COVID-19 who monitor their condition at home should pay attention to all signs and symptoms of their condition and communicate any concerns to their health care provider.

Here are some of the reasons why I chose to mask even though I have had my first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine (yay!):

In Great Britain, 95 per cent of people aged over 70 have had at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine, according to a survey of 6000 people by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). Most of the remainder have been offered a vaccine and are waiting to receive it. Less than 1 per cent of people aged over 70 years said they declined the offer of a vaccine. Overall, 91 per cent of all adults surveyed said they had either been vaccinated already or would get vaccinated when offered it. These numbers are better than expected. For instance, in one UK survey done in December before vaccination began, just 72 per cent said they were willing to get vaccinated. However, the ONS survey did not include adults living in care homes or other establishments, and because of small sample sizes, the ONS says the percentage of people saying they have declined vaccination should be treated with caution.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised significant concerns regarding the effect of social disruptions on parental mental health, family well-being, and children’s adjustment. Due to the pace of the pandemic, measures of pandemic-related disruption have not been subject to rigorous empirical validation. To address this gap, a multi-national sample (United Kingdom, 76%; United States, 19%; Canada, 4%, and Australia, 1%) of 372 female caregivers and 158 male caregivers of 5-18 year-old children was recruited online. Participants completed a survey including a 25-item scale indexing disruption in finances, basic needs, personal and family welfare, career/education, household responsibilities, and family relationships related to the pandemic. An exploratory factor analysis yielded an optimal three-factor solution: factors included Income Stress (5 items related to income, debt, and job loss; loadings ranged from .57 to .91), Family Stress (7 items related to family altercations and child management; loadings from .57 to .87), and Chaos Stress (4 items related to access to supplies, crowded shopping areas, news coverage; loadings from .53 to .70). Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated measurement invariance of each factor across female and male caregivers, indicating that factor structure, loadings, and thresholds were equivalent across groups. Composites reflective of each factor were computed, and paired samples t-tests showed that female caregivers consistently report higher levels of COVID-19 stress related to income, family, and chaos compared to male caregivers. Finally, concurrent validity was demonstrated by significant bivariate correlations between each scale and indicators of parental and child mental health and family relationships. This demonstrates validity of the COVID-19 Family Stressor Scale for use with female and male caregivers in family-based research. The current sample was predominantly White-European. Additional sampling and validation efforts are required in order to provide adequate description of racialized and minority communities at disproportionate risk of social consequences related to the pandemic.

As vaccines against COVID-19 are scarce, many countries have developed vaccination prioritization strategies focusing on ethical and epidemiological considerations. However, public acceptance of such strategies should be monitored to ensure successful implementation. In an experiment with N = 1,379 German participants, we investigated whether the public’s vaccination allocation preferences matched the prioritization strategy approved by the German government. Results revealed different allocations. While the government had top-prioritized vulnerable people (being of high age or accommodated in nursing homes for the elderly), participants deprioritized these groups and preferred exclusive allocation of the first available vaccines to medical staff and personnel caring for the elderly. Interestingly, allocation preferences did not change when participants were told how many individuals were included in each group. As differences between allocation policies and public preferences can affect trust in the government and threaten the social contract between generations, we discuss possible strategies to align vaccination prioritizations.

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic (between 26 March and 2 April 2020), we analysed (n=1144) the social representations of the coronavirus and the differentiated perceptions according to the origins attributed to the appearance of the virus (Human vs Non-Human and Intentional vs. Unintentional) in a French population. The results show that the social representation is organized around five potentially central descriptive, anxiety-provoking and globally negative elements. But death and contagion are the only stable and structuring elements. The other elements vary according to the reason attributed to the object of fear. Depending on how individuals attribute the origin of the virus, social representations of it vary not only in terms of their content but also in terms of their structure. These results indicate how important it is to consider the perceptions that individuals share about the human (vs. non-human) and intentional (vs. unintentional) origin of an object of fear in the analysis of their representation of that object.

Amidst a global pandemic, people’ survival needs become salient and the ability for people to regulate feeling and actions might be particularly relevant to protecting oneself from harm. Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1998) proposes that people pursue their goals by having a focus on prevention (i.e., motivated by security) or promotion (i.e., motivated by pleasure). Prior research indicates that people focused on prevention (vs. promotion) are more likely to engage in health-protective behaviors, including sexual health behaviors, because they perceive more threats. Extending this reasoning to the sexual activity of single people during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a pre-registered longitudinal study (N = 174) examining the role of regulatory focus on people’s sexual behaviors. As hypothesized, results showed that single people who reported having a more prevention focus at the onset of the pandemic perceived greater threats caused by the pandemic two weeks later, which, in turn, predicted less frequent sexual activity and engagement in sex with fewer sexual partners the following two weeks. These effects were consistent even when controlling for promotion (i.e., pleasure motivations), personality, gender, and sexual orientation. Findings are discussed considering their implications for the sexual functioning and sexual health of single people.

We investigated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on optimism and meaning in life in a sample of the Netherlands Twin Register. Participants completed questions before (N=9964) and during the pandemic (N= 17464). A subsample completed both (N=6461). We applied twin models to investigate changes in the genetic architecture due to the pandemic. Around 15-20% of the sample was negatively affected by the pandemic, but the majority was stable (64-68%) or increased (15%) in optimism and meaning in life. Especially women, higher educated people, and people with poorer health experienced negative effects. Twin modelling indicated stable genetic variance and increasing person-specific environmental variance. The lower than unity genetic correlations across time (.75 and .63) suggest gene-environment interactions. Some people decrease in well-being, while others get more optimistic and consider their lives as more meaningful during the pandemic. These differences are partly explained by individual differences in genetic sensitivity.

COVID-19 has infected millions of people and upended the lives of most humans on the planet. Researchers from across the psychological sciences have sought to document and investigate the impact of COVID-19 in myriad ways, causing an explosion of research that is broad in scope, varied in methods, and challenging to consolidate. Because policy and practice aimed at helping people live healthier and happier lives requires insight from robust patterns of evidence, this paper provides a rapid and thorough summary of high-quality studies published in 2020 addressing two overarching questions. First, what are the mental health consequences of living through the COVID-19 pandemic? Second, what are the neurological sequelae of contracting COVID-19? Our review of the evidence indicates that some facets of mental health suffered greatly during the early months of the pandemic (e.g., anxiety and depression increased), while other facets (life satisfaction) and correlates (social connection, loneliness) notably displayed resilience. In addition, early neurological data indicate several consequences of contracting COVID-19, both during infection and after recovery. In response to these insights, we present seven recommendations (1 urgent, 2 short-term, 4 ongoing) to support mental health and well-being during the pandemic and beyond.

We frequently claim that lying is wrong, despite modeling that it is often right. The present research sheds light on this tension by unearthing systematic cases in which people believe lying is ethical in everyday communication and by proposing and testing a theory to explain these cases. Using both inductive and experimental approaches, I find that deception is perceived to be ethical, and individuals want to be deceived, when deception is perceived to prevent unnecessary harm. I identify eight implicit rules – pertaining to the targets of deception and the topic and timing of a conversation – that clarify systematic circumstances in which deception is perceived to prevent unnecessary harm, and I document the causal effect of each implicit rule on the endorsement of deception. I also explore how perceptions of unnecessary harm influence communicators’ use of deception in everyday life, above and beyond other moral concerns. This research provides insight into when and why people value honesty and paves the way for future research on when and why people embrace deception.

Study Objectives: To prospectively examine changes in adolescent sleep before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in adolescents with and without ADHD. Methods: Participants were 122 adolescents (ages 15-17; 61% male; 48% with ADHD). Parents reported on adolescents’ sleep duration and difficulties initiating and maintaining sleep (DIMS); adolescents reported on sleep patterns, sleep duration, delayed sleep/wake behaviors, and daytime sleepiness before (September 2019-February 2020) and during (May-June 2020) COVID-19. Adolescents also reported on their health behaviors, COVID-19-related negative affect, and difficulties concentrating due to COVID-19. Results: Parents reported adolescents had more DIMS during COVID-19 than before COVID-19, with clinically-elevated rates increasing from 24% to 36%. Both bedtimes and waketimes shifted later during COVID-19, and adolescents reported more delayed sleep/wake behaviors. Adolescents also reported less daytime sleepiness and longer school night sleep duration during COVID-19. In considering differences between adolescents with and without ADHD, adolescents with ADHD did not experience an increase in school night sleep duration and were less likely to obtain recommended sleep duration during COVID-19. In the full sample, controlling for ADHD status, COVID-19-related sadness/loneliness was associated with increases in DIMS, and spending less time outside and more COVID-19-related worries/fears were associated with increases in delayed sleep/wake behaviors during COVID-19. Conclusions: COVID-19 had negative and positive impacts on adolescent sleep. Adolescents with ADHD did not experience the benefit of increased school night sleep duration during COVID-19 like adolescents without ADHD. Negative affect and health behaviors may be useful intervention targets for reducing negative impacts of COVID-19 for adolescent sleep.

Vaccination on its own is not a way out of this pandemic. We need to use other tools and involve ordinary people

We have detected a new variant circulating in December in Manaus, Amazonas state, north Brazil, where very high attack rates have been estimated previously. The new lineage, named P.1 (descendent of B.1.1.28), contains a unique constellation of lineage defining mutations, including several mutations of known biological importance such as E484K, K417T, and N501Y. Importantly, the P.1 lineage was identified in 42% (13 out of 31) RT-PCR positive samples collected between 15 to 23 December, but it was absent in 26 publicly available genome surveillance samples collected in Manaus between March to November 2020. These findings indicate local transmission and possibly recent increase in the frequency of a new lineage from the Amazon region. The higher diversity and the earlier sampling dates of P.1. in Manaus corroborates the travel info of recently detected cases in Japan, suggesting the direction of travel was Manaus to Japan. The recent emergence of variants with multiple shared mutations in spike raises concern about convergent evolution to a new phenotype, potentially associated with an increase in transmissibility or propensity for re-infection of individuals.

Medics told they risk undermining public confidence by querying policy of three-month gap between doses

Just as hope for relief from the COVID-19 pandemic brightened in December, with emergency use approval for vaccines following phase 3 trials and the start of immunisation programmes, unprecedented numbers of cases, hospital admissions, and deaths have been recorded, including in countries such as Germany and Japan that were previously celebrated for their public health response. Predictions that the northern hemisphere winter would be a difficult time for control of COVID-19, as is typically the case with respiratory viral diseases, have proved to be correct. Emergence in South Africa and the UK of new variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that are substantially more transmissible, has added to concerns that health services will be overwhelmed.

The credibility of scientific findings and research relies on a 'common good': peer-review. The independent review and validation of work by experts is what distinguishes published scientific findings and marks them out as reliable, rigorous evidence.

The activity shows how the social media site remains a critical organizing tool of the anti-vaccine movement

About 40 per cent of Hong Kongers surveyed were willing to receive a Covid-19 vaccine, a university study in the city showed on Thursday.

Digital contact tracing apps have been introduced globally as an instrument to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, privacy by design impedes both the evaluation of these tools and the deployment of evidence-based interventions to stimulate uptake. We combine an online panel survey with mobile tracking data to measure the actual usage of Germany’s official contact tracing app and reveal higher uptake rates among respondents with an increased risk of severe illness, but lower rates among those with a heightened risk of exposure to COVID-19. Using a randomized intervention, we show that informative and motivational video messages have very limited effect on uptake. However, findings from a second intervention suggest that even small monetary incentives can strongly increase uptake and help make digital contact tracing a more effective tool.

Yesterday on the Today programme, BBC Radio 4's flagship news programme, they included a number of stories/accounts of people obeying the lockdown rules. The idea behind this was to counter the effect whereby breaking the rules is normalised by hearing about instances of it on the news.

This is the story of how I found what I believe to be scientific misconduct and what happened when I reported it.

In fall of 2019, exactly zero scientists were studying COVID‑19, because no one knew the disease existed. The coronavirus that causes it, SARS‑CoV‑2, had only recently jumped into humans and had been neither identified nor named. But by the end of March 2020, it had spread to more than 170 countries, sickened more than 750,000 people, and triggered the biggest pivot in the history of modern science. Thousands of researchers dropped whatever intellectual puzzles had previously consumed their curiosity and began working on the pandemic instead. In mere months, science became thoroughly COVID-ized.

The growing body of research on interdisciplinarity has encouraged a more in depth analysis of the relations that hold among academic disciplines. In particular, the incursion of one scientific discipline into another discipline’s traditional domain, also known as scientific imperialism, has been a matter of increasing debate.

London’s intensive care units are overwhelmed, and those elsewhere in the UK may soon be too. The number of Covid-19 patients arriving in ICUs far exceeds the first wave in April, and those needing life-saving treatment such as mechanical ventilation have exhausted resources. Ambulances are queueing at hospital gates, patients are being transferred hundreds of miles and oxygen supplies are running low. The most severe shortage is not in beds, but in staff. NHS England has lowered ICU nurse staffing ratios from one nurse per patient to one for every two, and hospitals in the Midlands are being told to dilute their ratios further.Clinicians are now being forced to make agonising choices about who does and who does not receive care, with consequences for the survival of patients. Research on the first wave last spring found that when ICUs reach full capacity, the chance of a patient dying is 19 per cent higher. Is this decided by a random roll of the dice, or is it based on an assessment of who is at greater risk of dying? How should clinicians decide who gets the limited resources in an overstretched ICU? These are ethical questions that should be addressed by societies through expert committees, not individual clinicians.

Hospital staff are receiving insufficient support as they make agonising choices about who does and does not receive care, writes Dr Katharina Hauck. In an opinion piece for the Financial Times, Dr Hauck warns that existing guidelines in an overstretched NHS are “only partly helpful”. They avoid “the tough question of how to prioritise care with severely curtailed resources, leaving heartbreaking life-or-death decision-making to clinicians.” 

The effects of the covid-19 pandemic on mental health, especially amongst children, are receiving increasing attention. What is less clear are the channels through which these effects are operating. This paper helps fill this gap by isolating the impact of school closures on children’s mental health. We exploit the way in which primary school children were invited to return to school in England in the summer term of 2020, with government advice being that all children in reception, Year 1 and Year 6 should be invited to return from 1 June, while only vulnerable children and children of key workers could attend in Years 2, 3, 4 and 5. We adopt a difference-in-differences approach with child fixed effects, comparing changes over time (before the pandemic to July 2020) between children who were and were not invited to return to school using parent reports from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Using reports from September 2020 – when all children had been invited to return school – we can also explore the extent to which these effects persist.

YouTube has been a significant source of misleading information during previous public health crises, including the Ebola and Zika outbreaks (Li et al., 2020). In March of 2020, a search of YouTube revealed that more than one quarter of the most-viewed videos contained misinformation, whereas videos from reputable sources remained underrepresented (Li et al., 2020). An in-depth scholarly analysis of how misinformation and other attributes of the online environment, and how it challenges citizens in a democracy can be found in Kozyreva et al. (2020). A detailed report on the overarching relationship between technology and democracy that was prepared for the European Commission can be found here. A quantitative analysis of the COVID-19 “infodemic” has shown that unreliable information predominated online before infections started rising in February and March 2020, but was then replaced by reliable information and content shifted towards more reliable sources (Gallotti et al., 2020).Unfortunately, misinformation about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccinations is sometimes also spread for political reasons. We explore this aspect in a separate page on the politics of COVID-19 vaccination.

The paper investigates the influence of ideology on trust in scientists. We assume that during a pandemic, ideology is linked to levels of trust in scientists, such that those espousing left- (vs. right-) wing beliefs place more trust in the scientific profession. We posit that the negative perception of scientists, a feature of right-wing narratives in the country of study, underlies this effect. Additionally, we argue that ideology has an indirect impact, via levels of trust in scientists, on beliefs and attitudes towards vaccines and vaccine policy. To test these hypotheses, we conducted three studies (total N = 1155): one pre-pandemic study and two studies during a pandemic. The results confirm the hypotheses; however, we observed varied effects at the outset of the pandemic versus later stages. The findings contribute to the ongoing discussion around the ideological underpinnings of trust in scientists and carry implications for public health measures.

The management of the COVID-19 pandemic critically hinges on the approval of safe and effective vaccines but, equally importantly, on high willingness among lay people to use vaccines when approved. To facilitate vaccination willingness via effective health communication, it is key to understand both levels of skepticism towards an approved COVID-19 vaccine and the demographic, psychological and political sources of this skepticism. To this end, we examine the levels and predictors of willingness to use an approved COVID-19 vaccine in large, representative surveys from eight Western democracies that differ both politically and in terms of the severity of the pandemic: Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, Italy, United Kingdom, and United States (total N = 9,889). The data reveal large variation in vaccination willingness, both across and within countries ranging from 79 % in Denmark to 38 % in Hungary. Thus, most national levels fall below current best estimates for the required threshold for reaching herd immunity. Across national and demographic groups, the analyses demonstrate that a lack of vaccination willingness is associated with low levels of trust in authorities, conspiracy-related beliefs and a lack of concern about COVID-19. These factors also account for cross-national levels in vaccine willingness.

Little is known about the interests of the doctors, scientists, and academics on whose advice the UK government relies to manage the pandemic. Attempts to discover more are frequently thwarted, finds Paul D Thacker

Peer-review is a necessary and essential quality control step for scientific publications but lacks proper incentives. Indeed, the process, which is very costly in terms of time and intellectual investment, not only is not remunerated by the journals but is also not openly recognized by the academic community as a relevant scientific output for a researcher. Therefore, scientific dissemination is affected in timeliness, quality, and fairness. Here, to solve this issue, we propose a blockchain-based incentive system that rewards scientists for peer-reviewing other scientists' work and that builds up trust and reputation. We designed a privacy-oriented protocol of smart contracts called Ants-Review that allows authors to issue a bounty for open anonymous peer-reviews on Ethereum. If requirements are met, peer-reviews will be accepted and paid by the approver proportionally to their assessed quality. To promote ethical behavior and inclusiveness the system implements a gamified mechanism that allows the whole community to evaluate the peer-reviews and vote for the best ones.

People across the world have responded to the pandemic by mobilising and organising to support their communities, setting up mutual aid groups to provide practical, financial, and social support. Mutual aid means short-term ‘crisis response’ for some, while for other groups, it is a chance to radically restructure society, and what it means to be a member of that society. We applied a social representations lens to examine the ways in which citizenship was understood and performed by members of UK Covid-19 mutual aid groups. Interviews were conducted with 29 members of these groups. A reflexive thematic analysis developed three conceptualisations of citizenship: (1) human rights-based citizenship, untied to concerns around ‘deservingness’ or legal status; (2) neoliberal citizenship, to which participants oriented pragmatically in order to claim their group’s legitimacy at the same time as they rejected its individualism; and (3) resistant citizenship, which captured the tension between working within/with existing political structures, or working outside/against them. Findings are discussed in relation to previous theoretical and empirical work and practical implications for policy makers and local government are set out.

What we know, and what we don’tThe UK’s £100bn “Operation Moonshot” to roll out mass testing for covid-19 to cities and universities around the country raises two key questions. How infectious are people who test positive but have no symptoms? And, what is their contribution to transmission of live virus?

Campaigners push back at influencers stoking fears over safety and lawfulness of vaccine

Boosting indoor humidity in winter can hinder transmission of the virus

About 10% of the City of Pittsburgh’s workforce is off work because they are quarantining for possible covid-19 exposure, the city announced Wednesday. That amounts to about 330 of the city’s 3,300-person workforce. A smaller but unspecified number of workers are off because they’ve tested positive for covid.

Imperial has projected the coronavirus outbreak for all countries around the world with the latest version of its scenario analysis tool.

Objective: To investigate the perception and adherence to mitigation measures during the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in Slovenia by examining their trends across several sociodemographic categories and personality dimensions. Methods: Descriptive and correlative analyses were used to examine which sociodemographic and personality factors were associated with participants’ attitudes and adherence to measures. Results: More than 90% of participants considered the following four measures as important and practiced them always/often: keeping a safe interpersonal distance, regular and thorough hand washing/disinfection, adherence to the rules of cough hygiene, and regular indoor ventilation. The strongest predictors of confidence in the preventive measures and their implementation were the participants’ concern of infection and concern of infecting their loved ones, followed by gender (with higher measure adherence in women) and age (with higher measure adherence in participants under 30 and over 60 years of age). Education, settlement size, field and type of employment, household type, own medical problems, and the age and health of the participants’ loved ones had a smaller influence on the perceived importance and implementation of guidelines. Adherence to measures was positively related to the participants’ score in conscientiousness and, in lesser extent, openness. Agreeableness, energy, and emotional stability correlated positively with adherence to basic guidelines. Conclusions: Study provides information useful for developing and adapting future public health policies and interventions in Slovenia.

Everyone has heard about doctors and nurses catching Covid-19 but some of the worst affected hospital staff have been cleaners and porters. Dr John Wright of Bradford Royal Infirmary tells the story of a cleaner who became ill, and is now stricken with guilt for taking the virus home

Governor of Amazonas says situation critical as alarming details emerge about breakdown of health system in state capital Manaus

An emphasis on self-determination contributed to dramatically lower case numbers than among non-Indigenous groups

New research found ‘autoantibodies’ similar to those in lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients. But patients may also benefit from treatments for those autoimmune diseases.

The theory underlying network science predates the internet. But in 2020, it became essential to understanding our interconnected world.

“How can we follow the science when scientists haven't the foggiest.” “‘Big mouth’ scientists losing trust of Ministers.” Headlines such as these are increasingly common in UK newspapers. Scientists are no longer seen as providing impartial, independent advice to government. They are seen as being responsible for crashing economies, driving up unemployment, and ruining livelihoods. Chris Whitty, England's Chief Medical Officer, and Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Adviser, have received the sharpest criticism. But attacks are now spreading to members of the scientific committees that advise government. They stand accused of leaking documents to journalists, promoting their own personal views, and collaborating with opposition political parties. The argument is that if a scientist is a member of a group advising ministers, they have chosen to be part of the government team and must abide by a rule of collective responsibility. The breakdown of trust between scientists and politicians is so great that senior figures in public health are being blocked from speaking to reporters, even on subjects unrelated to COVID-19.

Given the size and scope of the Russian propaganda campaign that targeted the U.S. electorate in 2016, it is critical to understand both the impact of that campaign and the mechanisms that can reduce the impact of future campaigns. This report, the third in a four-part series, describes a study conducted by RAND researchers to assess how people react to and engage with Russia's online propaganda and to determine whether the negative effects of that engagement can be mitigated by brief media literacy advisories or by labeling the source of the propaganda. Russia targets the extremes on both sides of the political divide, and a short media literacy video and labeling intervention were both shown to reduce willingness among particular categories of participants (defined by news consumption habits) to "like" the propaganda.

During a time of crisis Americans turn their attention to the news media for critical information about what to expect, who is affected, and how to behave. Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, public safety experts warned that the consequences of a misinformed population would be particularly dire due to the serious nature of the threat and necessity of severe individual collective action to keep the population safe. Thus, those elites who possess the power to set the agenda of the conversation bear a huge responsibility for the general welfare. Among the various agenda-setting mechanisms available to the president is daily press conferences which provide a unique opportunity to leverage public exposure, accelerated by the state of crisis. Yet, mainstream media's daily viewership is many times larger than the president's press conference and we explore their narratives surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic through automated text analysis of complete transcripts of national cable, network, and local news. Of particular importance, we characterize the differences in which topics were covered and how they were covered by various cable media sources. Our analysis reveals polarized narratives around blame, racial and economic disparities, and scientific conclusions about COVID-19. The media is influenced by the president's agenda, even for cable news channels that are consumed by audiences that typically do not support him, but we found strong evidence that the media's choices mediate, and ultimately dominate, the agenda-setting abilities of the president's daily press conferences.

Thinking critically is not a superpower. But the University of Alberta is offering a boost to critical thinking about science with a free online course — how to tell the difference between sound scientific studies and pseudoscience.

As the pandemic drags on, following COVID-19 prevention guidelines can feel like more and more of a challenge.

Academic union seeks legal battle over government’s decision to ignore expert advice to move all non-essential teaching online

Summary of findings from the publication, Li Y et al. The temporal association of introducing and lifting non-pharmaceutical interventions with the time-varying reproduction number (R) of SARS-CoV-2: a modelling study across 131 countries. Lancet Infectious Diseases 2020.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were implemented by many countries to reduce the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causal agent of COVID-19. A resurgence in COVID-19 cases has been reported in some countries that lifted some of these NPIs. We aimed to understand the association of introducing and lifting NPIs with the level of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as measured by the time-varying reproduction number (R), from a broad perspective across 131 countries.

Of all the changes brought by a pandemic and the responses to it this year, many seem as if they were waiting to happen, given a hard nudge.

Injections of antibodies might prevent mild COVID-19 from becoming severe, but the treatments are expensive and difficult to make.