The pandemic has shown how a lack of solid statistics can be dangerous. But even with the firmest of evidence, we often end up ignoring the facts we don’t like. By Tim Harford

During the period 22 August to 7 September 2020, SARS-CoV-2 virus was circulating with relatively low prevalence but that prevalence was increasing at an accelerating rate through the period of testing.

Main points An estimated 39,700 people (95% credible interval: 29,300 to 52,700) within the community population in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) during the most recent week, from 30 August to 5 September 2020, equating to around 1 in 1,400 people (95% credible interval: 1 in 1,900 to 1 in 1,000). The most recent modelled estimate suggests the number of infections has increased in recent weeks. In recent weeks, there has been an increase in the number of people testing positive for COVID-19 aged 17 to 24 years and 25 to 34 years whereas the number of people testing positive for COVID-19 aged 50 years and over appears to be stable or declining. During the most recent week (30 August to 5 September 2020), we estimate there were around 0.58 (95% credible interval: 0.38 to 0.84) new COVID-19 infections for every 10,000 people per day in the community population in England, equating to around 3,200 new cases per day (95% credible interval: 2,000 to 4,600). Evidence suggests that the incidence rate for England has increased in recent weeks. During the most recent week (30 August to 5 September 2020), we estimate that 1,200 people in Wales had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 300 to 2,800), which is around 1 in 2,600 people (95 % credible interval: 1 in 10,900 to 1 in 1,100).

Six months after the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it a pandemic, the virus is surging in many countries and some that had apparent success in suppressing initial outbreaks are also seeing infections rise again. However, the number of confirmed cases during the spring peak is likely to be an underestimate of the true level of infection, as widespread testing was not available in many countries earlier in the year.

A recent poll showed that almost twice as many people in the United Kingdom would blame the public than the government for a second “wave” of covid-19 cases, shining a light on the perceptions of individual vs others’ responsibility for what may ultimately be individual behaviours. Now, recent government anti-obesity guidelines—driven apparently, by prime minister Boris Johnson’s alarm at the role his body weight may have played in the severity of his coronavirus—focus on “empowering” people to live healthily. This is welcome news but contains decades-old, subtle patterns observed in government policy and corporate practices: to divert responsibility away from those with the most power over the drivers of behaviour such as healthy eating or, now, having a family gathering.

Objective To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sources US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database, which includes 25 electronic databases and six additional Chinese databases to 10 August 2020.Study selection Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.Methods After duplicate data abstraction, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.Results 35 trials with 16 588 patients met inclusion criteria; 12 (24.3%) trials and 6853 (41.3%) patients are new from the previous iteration. Twenty-seven randomised controlled trials were included in the analysis performed on 29 July 2020. Compared with standard care, glucocorticoids probably reduce death (risk difference 31 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 55 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (28 fewer per 1000 patients, 45 fewer to 9 fewer, moderate certainty), and duration of hospitalisation (mean difference −1.0 day, −1.4 to −0.6 days moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality, mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay is uncertain, but it probably reduces duration of symptoms (−2.6 days −4.3 to −0.6 days, moderate certainty) and probably does not substantially increase adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (3 more per 1000, 7 fewer to 43 more, moderate certainty). Hydroxychloroquine may not reduce risk of death (13 more per 1000, 15 fewer to 43 more, low certainty) or mechanical ventilation (19 more per 1000, 4 fewer to 45 more, moderate certainty). The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low certainty.Conclusion Glucocorticoids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care, whereas hydroxychloroquine may not reduce either. The effectiveness of most interventions is uncertain because most of the randomised controlled trials so far have been small and have important limitations.

Terms that used to be the preserve of scientists are suddenly being bandied around by politicians on national television, brought up over a coffee with friends, or appearing in the family WhatsApp group. Flattening the curve to the R number and contact tracing have all entered the general lexicon since SARS-CoV-2 emerged.

We found a high rate of trial multiplicity, particularly with chloroquines, which are being tested in 143 studies. Although these overlapping trials may afford opportunities for replication and validation, the high degree of multiplicity also enhances the likelihood of finding a positive result through chance alone, potentially resulting in widespread use of an ineffective and possibly hazardous intervention.

Ramez Kouzy, MD, Joseph Abi Jaoude, MD, and Ethan Ludmir, MD join JAMA Network Open Digital Media Editor, Seth Trueger, MD, MPH, to discuss a systematic review that finds multiplicity of trials for #COVID19 offers replication & validation, but carries high risk of false positivity and competition for participants. Read the article here: https://ja.ma/2B21PJs.

An artificial intelligence can adjust video footage in real time to make people appear to lip sync to any sound.

People are constantly bombarded with information they could use to adjust their beliefs. Here, we are interested in exploring the impact of social norms on belief update. To investigate, we recruited a sample of 200 Princeton University students, who first rated the accuracy of a set of statements (pre-test). They were then provided with relevant evidence either in favor or against the initial statements, and they were asked to rate how convincing each piece of evidence was. The evidence was randomly assigned to appear as normative or non-normative, and also randomly assigned to appear as anecdotal or scientific. Finally, participants rated the accuracy of the initial set of statements again (post-test). The results show that participants changed their beliefs more in line with the evidence, when the evidence was scientific compared to when it was anecdotal. More importantly to our primary inquiry, the results show that participants changed their beliefs more in line with the evidence when the evidence was portrayed as normative compared to when the evidence was portrayed as non-normative, pointing to the impactful influence social norms have on beliefs. Both effects were mediated by participants’ subjective evaluation of the convincingness of the evidence, indicating the mechanism by which evidence is selectively incorporated into belief systems.

Whole Foods’ newest store doesn’t have any shoppers—and that’s the point.

The politically appointed HHS spokesperson and his team demanded and received the right to review CDC’s scientific reports to health professionals.

The numbers point to a second wave. Without strong action, hospitalisations will increase and deaths will follow

Rishi Sunak’s Eat Out to Help Out scheme may be to blame for a uptick in coronavirus cases in the UK, a report suggests.

Experience sampling methods (ESM; also known as ecological momentary assessment or EMA) involves sampling participants’ experiences in natural environments, in real-time (or close to it), and on many measurement occasions, often using smartphone technology. These methods allow us insight into participants’ momentary states and the contexts in which these states occur, thus letting researchers “capture life as it is lived” (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003). ESM introduces ecological validity, reduces recall bias, and allows researchers to capture dynamic within-person processes. In this workshop, Dr. Kalokerinos discusses when ESM is useful, when things can go wrong, and how to design and execute a good ESM study. Show less Show more

Providing access to research data collected as part of scientific publications and publicly funded research projects is now regarded as a central aspect of an open and transparent scientific practice and is increasingly being called for by funding institutions and scientific journals. To this end, researchers should strive to comply with the so-called FAIR principles (of scientific data management), that is, research data should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. Systematic data management supports these goals and, at the same time, makes it possible to achieve them efficiently. With these revised recommendations on data management and data sharing, which also draw on feedback from a 2018 survey of its members, the German Psychological Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie; DGPs) specifies important basic principles of data management in psychology. Initially, based on discipline-specific definitions of raw data, primary data, secondary data, and metadata, we provide recommendations on the degree of data processing necessary when publishing data. We then discuss data protection as well as aspects of copyright and data usage before defining the qualitative requirements for trustworthy research data repositories. This is followed by a detailed discussion of pragmatic aspects of data sharing, such as the differences between Type 1 and Type 2 data publications, restrictions on use (embargo period), the definition of "scientific use" by secondary users of shared data, and recommendations on how to resolve potential disputes. Particularly noteworthy is the new recommendation of distinct "access categories" for data, each with different requirements in terms of data protection or research ethics. These range from completely open data without usage restrictions ("access category 0") to data shared under a set of standardized conditions (e.g., reuse restricted to scientific purposes; "access category 1"), individualized usage agreements ("access category 2"), and secure data access under strictly controlled conditions (e.g., in a research data center; “access category 3"). The practical implementation of this important innovation, however, will require data repositories to provide the necessary technical functionalities. In summary, the revised recommendations aim to present pragmatic guidelines for researchers to handle psychological research data in an open and transparent manner, while addressing structural challenges to data sharing solutions that are beneficial for all involved parties.

Background: Maternal stress levels and mental health symptoms have significantly increased since the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic began. As a result, experts have become concerned about elevated substance use given well-known associations between negative emotions and increased substance use. Extant research has not examined substance use among mothers during the COVID-19 pandemic which is a critical next step given links between maternal substance use and adverse childhood outcomes. Methods: Data was collected April 14th to 28th, 2020 from 508 mothers (Mage = 34.8 years, SD = 5.1) with young children between the ages of 0 to 8 years old via the Parenting During the Pandemic study. To identify associations between self-reported changes in substance use, mothers completed self-reported questionnaires on their substance use, motivations for using substances, and their mental health. Results: Of participating mothers, 54.9% did not change their substance use, 39.2% increased their use, and 5.9% decreased their use. Findings indicate that mothers with an anxiety disorder or clinically relevant anxiety symptomatology were more likely to report increased substance use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using substances to cope with anxiety, but not depression or boredom, was significantly elevated among mothers who self-reported increased substance use during the pandemic relative to those reporting no change to or a decrease in usage. Using substances to cope with anxiety was a risk factor for increasing substance use. Discussion: A large proportion of mothers have reported increasing their substance use since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results highlight the crucial need to treat maternal anxiety and the importance of teaching mothers alternative coping strategies, other than using substances, to reduce the incidence of increased substance use among mothers and its negative sequelae.

From a human-made virus to vaccine conspiracy theories, we rounded up the most persistent false claims about the pandemic

Whatever the reasons for apparent declining mortality, the impact of drug treatments on the COVID-19 pandemic is still limited. The massive research effort needs to bear fruit with a broader range of effective therapies.

We surveyed a sample of people from the Australian public about their concerns and mental health (n = 1599) during COVID-19 lock-down. When estimating their mental health for the previous year 13% of participants reported more negative than positive emotion, whereas this increased to 41% when participants reflected on their prior month during COVID-19 lock-down. A substantial proportion (39-54%) of participants reported deterioration in mental health, physical health, financial situation, and work productivity. Less impact was apparent for social relationships as participants compensated for decreased face-to-face interaction via increased technology-mediated interaction. We found evidence to suggest a general increase in compassion for others, as participants reported that due to the pandemic they were feeling more concerned about the welfare of people close to them (87%), and people in general (84%). However, the extent of increased concern for others was also found to be negatively associated with mental health. Most participants reported a generally favourable attitude regarding the government pandemic response. This study reveals that even when the public are largely supportive of the government response to a pandemic there can still be large public health implications due to the overall level of disruption to people's lives.

 is an open-access overlay journal that accelerates peer review of COVID-19-related research preprints to advance new and important findings, and prevent the dissemination of false or misleading scientific news. The editors, led by Professor Stefano Bertozzi and based at UC Berkeley, approach COVID-19 and its wide-ranging effects from a multidisciplinary and global perspective, reviewing papers from the fields of medicine; public health; the physical, biological, and chemical sciences; engineering; social sciences and the humanities.

Objectives. We pretested interventions derived from different domains of behavior change theory to determine their effectiveness at increasing hand washing with soap in a natural setting.Methods. We installed wireless devices in highway service station restrooms to record entry and soap use. Two text-only messages for each of 7 psychological domains were compared for their effect on soap-use rates. We collected data on nearly 200 000 restroom uses.Results. The knowledge activation domain was most effective for women, with a relative increase in soap use of 9.4% compared with the control condition (P = .001). For men, disgust was the most effective, increasing soap use by 9.8% (P = .001). Disgust was not significantly better than the control condition for women, nor was knowledge activation for men. Messages based on social norms and social status were effective for both genders.Conclusions. Our data show that unobtrusive observation of behavior in a natural setting can help identify the most effective interventions for changing behaviors of public health importance. The gender differences we found suggest that public health interventions should target men and women differently.

A black market has developed in Russia for an antiviral HIV drug explored as a possible treatment for COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the new coronavirus, according to sellers, HIV activists and the head of the drug’s main Russian producer.

If bats and pangolins could review scientific papers, they’d definitely have given the following article an “accept without revisions.”  An international group of researchers has proposed that COVID-19 hitched a ride to this planet from space. Same for the fungal infection Candida auris. 

With regards to the proposed system, I found it hard to follow (had to keep scrolling up and down to refer to different sections to get the whole picture!), but here's what I understand:Authors publish articles and then submit it (in essence, submitting a pre-print to be reviewed for a journal), paying for the article to be reviewed (with a bidding system)Reviewers receive part of this review fee (but it seems the journals can decide to keep some?)Journals are formed by editorial boards, and the reputation of the journal depends on who is on the editorial board. It also depends on the impact of the articles published(?—I read this point coming in the end, but wasn't sure how the two interacted) Journals are shifting and change the moment there is a change to the editorial boardThe reviewers also come from the editorial boardsTo join the editorial boards one also needs to bid a joining feeI did find it all very complex, and wondered what the incentive was, as an author, to buy in to such a system. Primarily, not knowing what the criteria for the review I'd be paying for would be a red flag for me. So this, I think, needs to be better defined and transparent.

Only a fairer society can lay the foundations for economic recovery, and build resilience to future crises

Past research suggests that actors often seek to minimize harm at the cost of maximizing social welfare. However, this prior research has confounded a desire to minimize the negative impact caused by one’s actions (harm aversion) with a desire to avoid causing any harm whatsoever (harm avoidance). Across six studies (N = 2,152), we demonstrate that these two motives are distinct. When decision-makers can completely avoid committing a harmful act, they strongly prefer to do so. However, harming cannot always be avoided. Often, decision-makers must choose between committing less harm for less benefit and committing more harm for more benefit. In these cases, harm aversion diminishes substantially, and decision-makers become increasingly willing to commit greater harm to obtain greater benefits. Thus, value trade-offs that decision-makers refuse to accept when it is possible to completely avoid committing harm can suddenly become desirable when some harm must be committed.

The global pandemic of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has had an adverse impact on the mental health of millions. Historical data shows that large-scale disease outbreaks are associated with elevated rates of suicide in both the short and the long term. There are certain distinctive features of the COVID-19 outbreak, from a biological as well as a psychological and social perspective, that make it likely that it will be associated with a significant increase in suicidality which may persist even after a certain degree of control has been achieved over the spread of infection. In this article, relevant historical and current literature pertaining to the association between COVID-19 and suicide are summarized and analyzed, and recommendations for preventive measures are outlined.

Accumulating data on deaths from covid-19 show an association with age that closely matches the “normal” risk we all face. Explaining risk in this way could help people understand and manage their response, says David Spiegelhalter

We're building a 'crowdacting' platform that helps researchers signal their desire for positive cultural change and then act collectively to bring it about, thus protecting individuals from unecessary risk as we practice open science together.

The Center for Open Science occasionally hosts virtual hack-a-thons, 1 to 4 hour events, focused on addressing an inefficiency or dysfunctional practice in the research culture. These hack-a-thons are concrete, task-focused sessions to generate data, review policies, or conduct outreach to move the needle on improving the research culture. The typical session has a 10-20 minute introduction and training for the task, and then an open period in which participants contribute to the hack-a-thon objective. Sessions are managed via Zoom and open docs and spreadsheets for tracking and coordinating the teamwork.

Published in Science in 2015 (OA), the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines (PDF and HTML) include eight modular standards, each with three levels of increasing stringency. Journals select which of the eight transparency standards they wish to implement and select a level of implementation for each. These features provide flexibility for adoption depending on disciplinary variation, but simultaneously establish community standards.

GDP growth in the euro area and EU: In the second quarter of 2020, still marked by COVID-19 containment measures in most Member States, seasonally adjusted GDP decreased by 11.8% in the euro area and by 11.4% in the EU compared with the previous quarter, according to an estimate published by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union. These were by far the sharpest declines observed since the time series started in 1995. In the first quarter of 2020, GDP had decreased by 3.7% in the euro area and by 3.3% in the EU.

In this guide, you’ll learn how to: Measure the Classroom DimensionsPerform Preliminary Audio and Visual ChecksMeasure or Estimate Outdoor Air Ventilation Rate (using one of four methods)Compare Results to TargetsIf Needed, Consider Supplemental Air cleaning Strategies to Meet Targets

A question for us as most countries are now immersed in the complexities of living and working amidst the pandemic. Every decision comes with trade-offs, whether it is to ‘close pubs so schools can open’ or weigh up the risks to children from missing school vs. catching the virus.There are many conversations to be had about these complex dilemmas. We are interested in what behavioural science tells us about how people respond to problems with trade-offs, or compromises.

The pandemic has worsened the plight of postdoctoral researchers. Funders need to be offering more than moral support.

A large, Phase 3 study testing a Covid-19 vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford at dozens of sites across the U.S. has been put on hold due to a suspected serious adverse reaction in a participant in the United Kingdom.

Evaluating relative changes leads to additional insights which would remain hidden when only evaluating absolute changes. We analyze a dataset describing mobility of mobile phones in Austria before, during COVID-19 lock-down measures until recent. By applying compositional data analysis we show that formerly hidden information becomes available: we see that the elderly population groups increase relative mobility and that the younger groups especially on weekends also do not decrease their mobility as much as the others.

Several racial disparities have been observed in the impacts of COVID-19 in the United States. In this paper, we used a representative sample of adults in Michigan to examine differences in COVID-19 impacts on Blacks and Whites in four domains: direct, perceived, political, and behavioral. We found that in the initial wave of the outbreak in May 2020, Blacks were more likely to be diagnosed or know someone who was diagnosed, or more likely to lose their job compared to Whites. Additionally, Blacks differed significantly from Whites in their assessment of COVID-19’s threat to public health and the economy, the adequacy of government responses to COVID-19, and the appropriateness of behavioral changes to mitigate COVID-19’s spread. Although in many cases these views of COVID-19 were also associated with political ideology, this association was significantly stronger for Whites than Blacks. We conclude by discussing the implications of an ongoing and highly politicized public health crisis that has racially disparate impacts in multiple domains.

The White House’s new science adviser says: nothing. The science disagrees.

Can “urban-centric” local television news coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic affect the behavior of rural residents with lived experiences so different from their “local” news coverage? Leveraging quasi-random geographic variation in media markets for 771 matched rural counties, we show that rural residents are more likely to practice social distancing if they live in a media market that is more impacted by COVID-19. Individual-level survey responses from residents of these counties confirm county-level behavioral differences and help attribute the differences we identify to differences in local television news coverage—self-reported differences only exist among respondents who prefer watching local news, and there are no differences in media usage or consumption across media markets. Although important for showing the ability of local television news to affect behavior despite urban–rural differences, the media-related effects we identify are at most half the size of the differences related to partisan differences.

Mandatory and voluntary mask policies may have yet unknown social and behavioral consequences related to the effectiveness of the measure, stigmatization, and perceived fairness. Serial cross-sectional data (April 14 to May 26, 2020) from nearly 7,000 German participants demonstrate that implementing a mandatory policy increased actual compliance despite moderate acceptance; mask wearing correlated positively with other protective behaviors. A preregistered experiment (n = 925) further indicates that a voluntary policy would likely lead to insufficient compliance, would be perceived as less fair, and could intensify stigmatization. A mandatory policy appears to be an effective, fair, and socially responsible solution to curb transmissions of airborne viruses.

In an interview with Robert Peston for ITV News, Professor John Edmunds - a member of the government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) - warned that coronavirus cases are "increasing exponentially".Prof Edmunds, from the Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said that although we are all still socially distancing far more than we were before the virus arrived, we have not "hit the sweet spot" that allows more normal economic activity and simultaneous control of the spread of the virus. Prof Edmunds said that the autumn will be a challenge, because the rate of reproduction of the virus or R rate is above one - when schools and universities are re-opening. 

Susan Athey of Stanford University presents "Confidence Intervals for Policy Evaluation in Adaptive Experiments"

Using adaptive designs in field experiments can have greatbenefits:1. More ethical, by helping participants as much as possible.2. Better power for a given sample size, by targeting policy learning.3. More acceptable to stakeholders, by aligning design with their objectives.•Adaptive designs are practicallyfeasible:We have implemented them in challenging settings.E.g., labor market interventions for Syrian refugees in Jordan,and agricultural outreach for subsistence farmers in India.•Implementation requires learning some newtools.•I have developed some software to facilitate implementation.•Interactive apps for treatment assignment, and source code for various designs.

The number of COVID-19 deaths is often used as a key indicator of SARS-CoV-2 epidemic size. 42 However, heterogeneous burdens in nursing homes and variable reporting of deaths in elderly 43 individuals can hamper comparisons of deaths and the number of infections associated with them 44 across countries. Using age-specific death data from 45 countries, we find that relative differences 45 in the number of deaths by age amongst individuals aged <65 years old are highly consistent across 46 locations. Combining these data with data from 15 seroprevalence surveys we demonstrate how 47 age-specific infection fatality ratios (IFRs) can be used to reconstruct infected population 48 proportions. We find notable heterogeneity in overall IFR estimates as suggested by individual 49 serological studies and observe that for most European countries the reported number of deaths 50 amongst ≥65s are significantly greater than expected, consistent with high infection attack rates 51 experienced by nursing home populations in Europe. Age-specific COVID-19 death data in 52 younger individuals can provide a robust indicator of population immunity.

To reach longer-term goals and live aligned with their values, people typically must regulate their behavior. Effortful self-control is one way to achieve this and is usually framed as a forceful struggle between lower-level impulses and higher-level cognitive control processes. For example, people may restrain themselves from eating cake in order to lose weight. An alternative avenue of self-regulation draws on autonomous motivation: Individuals eat healthfully because it is values-congruent or intrinsically satisfying. Recent advances in the understanding of reward valuation on a neural level (e.g., ventromedial prefrontal cortex/orbitofrontal cortex) and emerging treatments on a clinical level (e.g., mindfulness training) suggest a possible mechanistic convergence between brain and behavior that is consistent with a shift from forced to unforced behavior change. Here we propose how an overlooked aspect of reinforcement learning can be leveraged using a simple yet critical feature of experience that is not reliant on willpower: Bringing awareness to one’s subjective experience and behavior can produce a change in valuation of learned but unhealthy behaviors, leading to self-regulatory shifts that result in sustainable behavior change without force.

According to numerous research studies, when adults hear a statement twice, they are more likely to think it is true compared with when they have heard it only once. Multiple theoretical explanations exist for this illusory-truth effect. However, none of the current theories fully explains how or why people begin to use repetition as a cue for truth. In this preregistered study, we investigated those developmental origins in twenty-four 5-year-olds, twenty-four 10-year-olds, and 32 adults. If the link between repetition and truth is learned implicitly, then even 5-year-olds should show the effect. Alternatively, realizing this connection may require metacognition and intentional reflection, skills acquired later in development. Repetition increased truth judgments for all three age groups, and prior knowledge did not protect participants from the effects of repetition. These results suggest that the illusory-truth effect is a universal effect learned at a young age.

How could public health use social media more effectively — from adapting scientific messages to ‘flatten the Covid-19 curve’, to using trusted stories to change behaviour and #StayHomeSaveLives?

As it weighs its response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the city of Somerville is turning to science — and its sewers.By testing raw sewage for coronavirus particles at 10 sites throughout the city, Somerville's mayor said he hopes to "get ahead of the virus."

The extent and duration of immunity following SARS-CoV-2 infection are critical outstanding questions about the epidemiology of this novel virus, and studies are needed to evaluate the effects of serostatus on reinfection. Understanding the potential sources of bias and methods to alleviate biases in these studies is important for informing their design and analysis. Confounding by individual-level risk factors in observational studies like these is relatively well appreciated. Here, we show how geographic structure and the underlying, natural dynamics of epidemics can also induce noncausal associations. We take the approach of simulating serologic studies in the context of an uncontrolled or a controlled epidemic, under different assumptions about whether prior infection does or does not protect an individual against subsequent infection, and using various designs and analytic approaches to analyze the simulated data. We find that in studies assessing whether seropositivity confers protection against future infection, comparing seropositive individuals to seronegative individuals with similar time-dependent patterns of exposure to infection, by stratifying or matching on geographic location and time of enrollment, is essential to prevent bias.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a global health threat that has dominated media coverage. However, not much is known about how individuals use media to acquire knowledge about COVID-19 under conditions of perceived threat. To address this, this study investigated how perceived threat affects media use (i.e., media volume and media breadth), and how media use in turn affects perceived and actual knowledge about COVID-19. In a German online survey, N = 952 participants provided information on their perceived threat and their media use to inform themselves about COVID-19. They further indicated how well they are informed about COVID-19 (perceived knowledge) and completed a COVID-19 knowledge test (actual knowledge). The results indicated that individuals who felt more threatened by COVID-19 used media more often to inform themselves (i.e., media volume), but focused on less different media channels (i.e., media breadth). Higher media volume was associated with higher perceived knowledge, but not with higher actual knowledge about COVID-19. Further, exploratory analyses revealed that perceived threat was linked to perceived knowledge, but not to actual knowledge. The association of perceived threat and perceived knowledge was mediated by increased media volume. Finally, a smaller media breadth was linked to higher perceived and actual knowledge.

Prevention focus is a self-regulatory orientation that serves the need for security, and promotion focus is a self-regulatory orientation serves the need for growth. From mid-March to early April 2020, did people judge prevention focus to be more useful than promotion focus for responding to COVID-19? Our study tested this hypothesis with 401 American and Canadian participants, who we sampled in 100-person waves in the first four Thursdays of the pandemic. For this study, we developed a new measure of the judged usefulness of promotion and prevention focus. Results supported this hypothesis. Additionally, results showed that the judged usefulness of promotion and prevention focus related positively to support of the psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness, respectively, in responding to COVID-19. Day-to-day differences in autonomy, competence, and relatedness support and in promotion and prevention focus suggest that people were remarkably resilient in the early weeks of the pandemic. Our research could be useful for crafting persuasive advocacy and narrative communications that encourage social distancing to protect others about whom people care most.

The repetition-induced truth effect refers to a phenomenon where people rate repeated statements as more likely true than novel statements. In this paper we document qualitative individual differences in the effect. While the overwhelming majority of participants display the usual positive truth effect, a minority are the opposite – they reliably discount the validity of repeated statements, what we refer to as negative truth effect. We examine 8 truth-effect data sets where individual-level data are curated. These sets are composed of 1,105 individuals performing 38,904 judgments. Through Bayes factor model comparison, we show that reliable negative truth effects occur in 5 of the 8 data sets. The negative truth effect is informative because it seems unreasonable that the mechanisms mediating the positive truth effect are the same that lead to a discounting of repeated statements' validity. Moreover, the presence of qualitative differences motivates a different type of analysis of individual differences based on ordinal (i.e., Which sign does the effect have?) rather than metric measures. To our knowledge, this paper reports the first such reliable qualitative differences in a cognitive task.

Across four studies, we examined the effectiveness of misinformation debunks created by CrossCheck France during the 2017 French election. We measured both memory for the article and belief in the debunked rumor. In both US and French samples, reading the debunk decreased belief in the false information, even one week later. However, the debunks were much more effective in the US sample, who lacked relevant prior knowledge and political beliefs. Participants failed to remember many of the details from the article, but retrieval practice was beneficial in reducing forgetting over a one-week delay. We saw no difference in debunk efficacy based on the type of headline (question vs negation) or the number of newsroom logos present around the article (one, four, or seven). In addition, informative design features such as an icon identifying the type of misinformation debunked were ignored by readers. Overall, misinformation debunks can be effective at reducing belief in false information, but readers tend to forget the details and ignore peripheral information.

After neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture, scientists at the University of Costa Rica are proceeding with human testing

It has long been known that advocating for a cause can alter the advocate’s beliefs. Yet a guiding assumption of many advocates is that the biasing effect of advocacy is controllable. Lawyers, for instance, are taught that they can retain unbiased beliefs while advocating for their clients and that they must do so to secure just outcomes. Across ten experiments (six preregistered; N = 3,104) we show that the biasing effect of advocacy is not controllable but automatic. Merely incentivizing people to advocate altered a range of beliefs about character, guilt and punishment. This bias appeared even in beliefs that are highly stable, when people were financially incentivized to form true beliefs and among professional lawyers, who are trained to prevent advocacy from biasing their judgements.

Twitter announced on 18 June 2019 that it would remove the precise geotagging feature in tweets. In addition to protecting the location privacy of users, this change also affects human behaviour studies based on geotagged tweets. We discuss the potential impact of Twitter’s decision and how researchers can respond to this change.

In response to the pandemic of COVID-19 and in lack of pharmaceutical solutions, many countries have introduced social and physical distancing regulations to contain the transmission of the virus. These measures are effective insofar as they are able to quickly change people’s habits. This is achieved by changing the monetary incentives of rule violators but also by shifting people’s perception regarding the appropriateness of socialization. We studied the effect of introducing, and then lifting, distancing regulations on the perceived norm regarding social encounters. We conducted an online incentivized experiment in France where we elicited the same participants’ perceived norm and social distancing behavior every week for three months. We found that people shifted behavior and norm perception as soon as the government introduced or removed distancing measures. This effect was fast acting and long lasting. This is informative for future interventions, especially in light of a possible COVID-19 recurrence.

Objectives: To investigate factors associated with adherence to self-isolation and lockdown measures due to COVID-19 in the UK. Design: Online cross-sectional survey. Setting: Data were collected between 6th and 7th May 2020. Participants: 2240 participants living in the UK aged 18 years or over. Participants were recruited from YouGov's online research panel. Main outcome measures: Having gone out in the last 24 hours in those who reported symptoms of COVID-19 in their household. Having gone out shopping for items other than groceries, toiletries or medicines (non-essentials), and total number of outings, in the last week in those who reported no symptoms of COVID-19 in their household. Results: 217 people (9.7%) reported that they or someone in their household had symptoms of COVID-19 (cough or high temperature / fever) in the last seven days. Of these people, 75.1% had left the home in the last 24 hours (defined as non-adherent). Factors associated with non-adherence were being male, less worried about COVID-19, and perceiving a smaller risk of catching COVID-19. Adherence was associated with having received help from someone outside your household. Results should be taken with caution as there was no evidence for associations when controlling for multiple analyses. Of people reporting no symptoms in the household, 24.5% had gone out shopping for non-essentials in the last week (defined as non-adherent). Factors associated with non-adherence and with a higher total number of outings in the last week included decreased perceived effectiveness of Government "lockdown" measures, decreased perceived severity of COVID-19, and decreased estimates of how many other people were following lockdown rules. Having received help was associated with better adherence. Conclusions: Adherence to self-isolation is poor. As we move into a new phase of contact tracing and self-isolation, it is essential that adherence is improved. Communications should aim to increase knowledge about actions to take when symptomatic or if you have been in contact with a possible COVID-19 case. They should also emphasise the risk of catching and spreading COVID-19 when out and about and the effectiveness of preventative measures. Using volunteer networks effectively to support people in isolation may promote adherence.

Covid Projections Tracker is a tool that allows experts to easily track projection accuracy as well as changes in projections over time. Projectons may change as new data is incorporated or when model parameters or frameworks are updated.

The United States (US) has not been spared in the ongoing pandemic of novel coronavirus disease. COVID-19, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to cause death and disease in all 50 states, as well as significant economic damage wrought by the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) adopted in attempts to control transmission. We use a deterministic, Susceptible, Exposed, Infectious, Recovered (SEIR) compartmental framework to model possible trajectories of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the impact of NPI at the state level. Model performance was tested against reported deaths from 01 February to 04 July 2020. Using this SEIR model and projections of critical driving covariates (pneumonia seasonality, mobility, testing rates, and mask use per capita), we assessed some possible futures of the COVID-19 pandemic from 05 July through 31 December 2020. We explored future scenarios that included feasible assumptions about NPIs including social distancing mandates (SDMs) and levels of mask use. The range of infection, death, and hospital demand outcomes revealed by these scenarios show that action taken during the summer of 2020 will have profound public health impacts through to the year end. Encouragingly, we find that an emphasis on universal mask use may be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states. Masks may save as many as 102,795 (55,898-183,374) lives, when compared to a plausible reference scenario in December. In addition, widespread mask use may markedly reduce the need for more socially and economically deleterious SDMs.

A leading epidemiologist has warned the country is at a "critical moment" in the coronavirus pandemic, as students prepare to return to universities

Together with colleagues on The Disinformation Project, Kate Hannah has been studying the vectors and volume of false stories that wrap around the Covid crisis in New Zealand. Here she explains what they’ve learned, and what we might do to tackle it.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn’t drastically reduced the number of deaths attributable to COVID-19, but posts making that bogus claim have been circulating widely — with the help of President Donald Trump, who retweeted one such claim on Aug. 30.

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming is a 2010 non-fiction book by American historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. It identifies parallels between the global warming controversy and earlier controversies over tobacco smoking, acid rain, DDT, and the hole in the ozone layer. Oreskes and Conway write that in each case "keeping the controversy alive" by spreading doubt and confusion after a scientific consensus had been reached was the basic strategy of those opposing action.[1] In particular, they show that Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, and a few other contrarian scientists joined forces with conservative think tanks and private corporations to challenge the scientific consensus on many contemporary issues.[2]

The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has proven difficult to control not onlybecause of its high transmissibility, but because those who are infectedreadily spread the virus before symptoms appear, and because some in-fected individuals, though contagious, never exhibit symptoms. Proactivetesting of asymptomatic individuals is therefore a powerful, and proba-bly necessary, tool for preventing widespread infection in many settings.This paper explores the effectiveness of alternative testing regimes, inwhich the frequency, the accuracy, and the delay between testing and re-sults determine the time path of infection. For a simple model of diseasetransmission, we present analytic formulas that determine the effect oftesting on the expected number of days during which an infectious indi-vidual is exposed to the population at large. This allows us to estimatethe frequency of testing that would be required to prevent uncontrolledoutbreaks, and to explore the trade-offs between frequency, accuracy, anddelay in achieving this objective. We conclude by discussing applicationsto outbreak control on college and university campuses.

To mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission risks from international travellers, many countries currently use a combination of up to 14 days of self-quarantine on arrival and testing for active infection. We used a simulation model of air travellers arriving to the UK from the EU or the USA and the timing of their stages of infection to evaluate the ability of these strategies to reduce the risk of seeding community transmission. We find that a quarantine period of 8 days on arrival with a PCR test on day 7 (with a 1-day delay for test results) can reduce the number of infectious arrivals released into the community by a median 94% compared to a no quarantine, no test scenario. This reduction is similar to that achieved by a 14-day quarantine period (median 99% reduction). Shorter quarantine periods still can prevent a substantial amount of transmission; all strategies in which travellers spend at least 5 days (the mean incubation period) in quarantine and have at least one negative test before release are highly effective (e.g. a test on day 5 with release on day 6 results in a median 88% reduction in transmission potential). Without intervention, the current high prevalence in the US (40 per 10,000) results in a higher expected number of infectious arrivals per week (up to 23) compared to the EU (up to 12), despite an estimated 8 times lower volume of travel in July 2020. Requiring a 14-day quarantine period likely results in less than 1 infectious traveller each entering the UK per week from the EU and the USA (97.5th percentile). We also find that on arrival the transmission risk is highest from pre-symptomatic travellers; quarantine policies will shift this risk increasingly towards asymptomatic infections if eventually-symptomatic individuals self-isolate after the onset of symptoms. As passenger numbers recover, strategies to reduce the risk of re-introduction should be evaluated in the context of domestic SARS-CoV-2 incidence, preparedness to manage new outbreaks, and the economic and psychological impacts of quarantine.

Airport coronavirus testing options should be explored as a way of cutting the number of travellers who must spend two weeks in quarantine, says Labour.

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, many U.S. workers will eventually return to their offices.But when they do, their big-city workplace will not only have a smaller footprint and operational strategy, it might be in a different town altogether, according to a recent TechCrunch survey of top real estate and proptech investors.

The coronavirus outbreak has pushed millions of Americans, especially young adults, to move in with family members. The share of 18- to 29-year-olds living with their parents has become a majority since U.S. coronavirus cases began spreading early this year, surpassing the previous peak during the Great Depression era.

In the newly robust digital world, HLS is transforming what it means to get a legal education

Even before classes began, the Harvard Law School LL.M. Class of 2021 created a variety of virtual social events that have bonded them closely

Many aspects of handling the COVID-19 pandemic in Western countries bear resemblance to game-design patterns like point displays and leader boards, the visible assumption of roles, classic archetypes, collection and hoarding of resources, and spatial awareness. We argue that these patterns emerge as people lack cultural and individual norms and cognitive scripts to handle a pandemic, in contrast to other catastrophic events like wars and major economic crises. Understanding this spontaneous ludification of a serious and complex situation in terms of Johan Huizinga's homo ludens can raise awareness for possible failings in dealing with COVID-19. It also has the potential to strengthen people's motivation for cooperative effort.

Claim The return to universities could cause 50,000 deaths from Covid-19 without “strong controls”. Conclusion This comes from a research paper that has not been peer-reviewed. It is based on several assumptions, including that every student gets infected, and nothing is done to stop it.

Experts have questioned shortcomings and lack of clarity in vital registration, testing practices, and classification of COVID-19 deaths. Patralekha Chatterjee reports from New Delhi.

‘Every health worker has the right to be safe at work, and it is a scandal that so many are paying the ultimate price,’ Amnesty official says

This report describes the aggregation and anonymization process applied to the initial version of COVID-19 Search Trends symptoms dataset

The nature of the COVID-19 pandemic may require governments to use privacy-encroaching technologies to help contain its spread. One technology involves co-location tracking through mobile Wi-Fi, GPS, and Bluetooth to permit health agencies to monitor people's contact with each other, thereby triggering targeted social-distancing when a person turns out to be infected. The effectiveness of tracking relies on the willingness of the population to support such privacy encroaching measures. We report the results of two large surveys in the United Kingdom, conducted during the peak of the pandemic, that probe people's attitudes towards various tracking technologies. The results show that by and large there is widespread acceptance for co-location tracking. Acceptance increases when the measures are explicitly time-limited and come with opt-out clauses or other assurances of privacy. Another possible future technology to control the pandemic involves "immunity passports", which could be issued to people who carry antibodies for the COVID-19 virus, potentially implying that they are immune and therefore unable to spread the virus to other people. Immunity passports have been considered as a potential future step to manage the pandemic. We probe people's attitudes towards immunity passports and find considerable support overall, although around 20% of the public strongly oppose passports.

The COVID-19 pandemic is having an impact on physical and mental health. Most studies report the impact on mental health and mental distress during the pandemic. As a result of various stressors (such as lockdown, quarantines, and misinformation) there is heightened fear of a pandemic. The sufferer may experience a variety of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and even psychosis. In predisposed vulnerable individuals, fear of COVID-19 is perpetuating pain and dysfunction. This study discussed the ABC framework of fear and influencer to better understand the different levels of symptoms and interventions. There is an urgent need to integrate mental health into primary health-care centers. The attending physician should be aware of the stress disorders associated with the pandemic. This article introduces a handy and practical portrayal of the ABC framework that can be taught to individuals in distress during clinical visits to primary care centers providing awareness of the relationship between thinking, emotional and behavioral responses.

Proposals to help area hard-hit by Covid include offering empty shops to chefs and artists

The enormous scale of the available information and products on the Internet has necessitated the development of algorithms that intermediate between options and human users. These AI/machine learning algorithms attempt to provide the user with relevant information. In doing so, the algorithms may incur potential negative consequences stemming from the need to select items about which it is uncertain to increase predictive accuracy versus the need to select items about which it is certain to increase recommendation accuracy. This tension between predicting relevant recommendations to the users and learning about the user's interests can be considered an instantiation of the well-known exploration-exploitation tradeoff in the context of information filtering and recommender systems. Building from existing machine learning algorithms, we introduce a parameterized model that unifies and interpolates between recommending relevant information and active learning. We present three experiments investigating the unified model. Specifically, we illustrate the tradeoffs of optimizing prediction and recommendation within a tightly controlled concept-learning paradigm, show the conditions under which a broad parameter range can optimize for both, and identify the effects of human variability on algorithm performance. Thus, combining methods and models from cognitive science and computer science, we quantify implications of tradeoffs between recommendation accuracy and learning about preferences of human users, demonstrating the value of experimental approaches to understanding real world human-machine feedback loops.

South Korea was able to successfully control the spread of COVID-19 without nationwide lockdowns or drastic social distancing efforts, but pandemic-related psychological outcome of the general population remains unknown. We aimed to document the mental health outcome in relation to social factors during the pandemic. Between March and June 2020, 400 South Korean residents participated in an online study of depression, anxiety, stress, psychosis-risk and loneliness, as well as indices of social network, physical health and demographics. Clinical levels of depression, anxiety or stress were reported by 45% of the respondents, and psychosis-risk was present in 12.8%; a drastic increase above the base rate prior to the pandemic. Subjective feelings of loneliness, but not the size of the social network accounted for poor mental health. Women were especially at increased risk for mental health problems. Thus, despite effective mitigation of the pandemic, there was a striking deterioration of mental health. As the psychological burden of the continuing pandemic accrues, the probability of an impending mental health crisis is increasing, especially in countries with greater infection and death rates than South Korea. Comprehensive efforts to address the psychological aftermath of the pandemic are urgently needed.

The present study explored the antecedents of solidarity amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that solidarity during mass emergencies involves the development of a social identity encompassing those facing a common fate, we examined how national in-group satisfaction (a belief that the national in-group and one’s membership in it are of high value) versus national collective narcissism (a belief that the national in-group is exceptional and entitled to privileged treatment, but not sufficiently recognized by others) predicted solidarity with those affected by the pandemic in Poland. The results of cross-sectional and dynamic analyses from a panel study on a representative sample of Polish adults indicate that in-group satisfaction predicted greater COVID-19 solidarity, whereas collective narcissism predicted reduced COVID-19 solidarity.

But lowest-risk sexual activity during COVID-19 'involves yourself alone,' says Dr. Theresa Tam

This paper estimates the link between population density and COVID-19 spread and severity in the contiguous United States. To overcome confounding factors, we use two Instrumental Variable (IV) strategies that exploit geological features and historical populations to induce exogenous variation in population density without affecting COVID-19 cases and deaths directly. We find that density has affected the timing of the outbreak, with denser locations more likely to have an early outbreak. However, we find no evidence that population density is positively associated with time-adjusted COVID-19 cases and deaths. Using data from Google, Facebook, the US Census and The County Health Rankings and Roadmaps program, we also investigate several possible mechanisms for our findings. We show that population density can affect the timing of outbreaks through higher connectedness of denser locations. Furthermore, we find that population density is positively associated with proxies for social distancing measures, access to healthcare and income, highlighting the importance of these mediating factors in containing the outbreak.

Attending primary school puts children and staff at no greater risk of contracting coronavirus than staying at home, a study of 131 schools suggests.

More than 100 Enterprise Ireland client companies working on Covid-19 innovations

On 4 September, the Commission has adopted a proposal for a Council Recommendation to ensure that any measures taken by Member States that restrict free movement due to the coronavirus pandemic are coordinated and clearly communicated at the EU level.

The challenge was to think of behavioural implications of moving to a new, more shorter distance rule. Here is a short summary of points made, and questions generated that we do not have the research evidence for yet (perhaps a study on these would prove useful?)Issues raised:People may not accurately perceive distances (especially under different conditions)—if they underestimate, 2m has a buffer than 1m would notThe change from 2m to 1m could undermine compliance and rule-adherence (because the rule has changed)—especially if there are more changes made.1m is close to a (regular) socially-appropriate distance taking into consideration personal boundaries—as such, it could signal that everything is back to normal (but also, the distance varies depending on how close the contact is)The rule might be perceived as a 'normal' vs. 'not normal' conditionMedia discussion on this appears to be mostly based on the physical sciences—how far droplets can travel, and infection rates

As I am sure is the case with many of view, this pandemic has made me think whether there are lines of research I could be pursuing which are more topically relevant. More generally, would it not be to the benefit of Society if academics could more flexibly adapt their research priorities to address issues of current, immediate practical value?

Fact checks are naturally a media format that can, and is, also abused. Especially ones by newspapers on matters of politics should be taken with a grain of salt.

There has been considerable discussion in this reddit about the line between fact and value judgment, or science and the 'political', but there is another boundary that has long interested me that is of considerable relevance to the crisis (but, of course, also beyond): what should count as a "fact"?More specifically, what should count as a 'fact' in a context where there is public debate ?

It has an interesting discussion on factors to consider that I found relevant to current reactions to new Covid-related rules, including:The interplay between trust in authorities and power of authorities to enforce rules, positing that people will comply if they trust authorities (greater voluntary compliance with rules) or compulsion works if people perceive authorities to have power to detect and punish non-compliance (greater enforcement of rules).I think this does not seem to bode well in our current situation, given the reports about lack of trust and the difficulty of enforcing new rules in recent months, especially when the rules are complex.2. Knowledge about how the rules work should be related to compliance with the rules. This was related to degree of participation in the decision process (greater involvement predicting greater compliance).Both these dimensions also are not high in the current crisis.(On a personal note, I've certainly been baffled with some rule changes that made absolutely no logical sense. I've also corresponded with government departments whose responses were inherently contradictory.)3. Attitudes: how positive are attitudes towards the rules (and negative towards breaking of them), and how positive/negative are attitudes towards the authorities?I'll need to search for any studies on this one—haven't got any coming to mind just now.4. Norms: how well do national norms support rule-following? (This may be dependent as well on whether the rule itself is reflective of societal norms.)I think that in a situation where the norms are evolving quickly, something to consider is how much have new laws helped to shift norms one way or another?

I cannot speak to the role of regulations generally but there is quite a bit of evidence from the vaccination context that things like mandates or 'presumptive' approaches actually work--that is, they increase coverage

What do we know (either from theory, experiment, but probably more importantly from actual experience in real world contexts, including this pandemic) about when compulsion helps, or undercuts, protective behaviour (e.g., social distancing, mask wearing, remote working, etc)?A simple and intuitive story would be: compulsion always helps---the law, backed by actual sanctions, will get us all in line, both through the threat of sanctions, but perhaps more importantly through signalling the 'right' behaviour we are all supposed to adopt.

Do you know any schools/charities/youth organisations who'd like to partner with researchers on a project that will look into how the pandemic is affecting wellbeing and social development in adolescents in the next academic year?

behavioural scientists can also seek to identify issues, problems, and relevant evidence in advance. And, here, a behavioural science perspective can be useful even in the absence of 'definitive answers'.To this end, we will be starting a new regular activity on r/BehSciAsk that seeks input on upcoming, future issues. These will concern either 1) likely impending policy decisions - to be scrutinized in the recurring "Policy Problem Challenge" or 2) looming general issues further down the road - identified with the "Issue Radar"

Ideally, perhaps we'd like some idea of:i. behaviourally different populations and their connectivity to each otherii. a (small) number of different routes for infectioniii. behaviour changes that might modify those different routes (e.g., masks, more hand-washing, 1m vs 2m social distance, compliance rates for all these...) - which might be modified by policy.

He mentioned specifically modelling compliance, hinting at doing that in a heterodox way, presumably that identified that compliance is a function of an individual's opportunity, capability and willingness to do so and that there are network effects in that. Are there behavioural findings that are robust enough to be integrated into this sort of modelling already (that are not already included), or is it more about making the case to add complexity into the model by which these sort of things can be modelled and therefore contribute to the inferences as data becomes available?

Excellent question. I have been quite worried about that angle all along. I think we should worry about the tracing apps, unless they do preserve privacy. We also need sunset clauses on all those interfering laws and regulations.

On the issue of voting, will adherence to social distancing and worries about safety affect voter behaviour as well? How will that affect whether people can participate in democratic processes?

Various concerns have been raised:· is an emergency response to the pandemic an opportunity for governments to smuggle through draconian legislation with other purposes?· Should we be concerned about contact tracing, particularly using apps, potentially adding an additional layer of surveillance of the population by the state, or are sufficient safeguards in place? (how can we tell?)· How might the pandemic affect the ability to run political campaigns and to vote?

The project that polled people's attitudes towards privacy-encroaching technologies has grown to include 8 countries (Taiwan, Australia, the UK, the USA, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, and Japan), with more than 15,000 participants.In an nutshell the project can be described as follows:The nature of the COVID-19 pandemic may require governments to use big data technologies and apps on people's smartphones to help contain its spread. Countries that have managed to “flatten the curve”, (e.g., Singapore), have employed collocation tracking through mobile Wi-Fi, GPS, and Bluetooth as a strategy to mitigate the impact of COVID-19. Through collocation tracking, Government agencies may observe who you have been in contact with and when this contact occurred, thereby rapidly implementing appropriate measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19. The effectiveness of collocation tracking relies on the willingness of the population to support such measures. This project involved a longitudinal cross-cultural study to trace people’s attitudes towards different tracking-based policies during the crisis.

But there is also an important additional factor when dealing with a pandemic---that for most of us (if reasonably healthy), the main risk is to others. We don't normally, as a society, allow people free latitude to risk the lives of others (hence we have speed limits). [the behavioural science addition would be that we certainly don't see evidence of high enough levels of altruism so that this would not be a problem]

the majority of social distancing benefits could be achieved by giving people information rather than specific guidelines (he idealised a scenario where testing was extensive and fast enough to give pertinent relevant information). Many, especially in the US have made a similar case. It seems to me that there are several plausible challenges to this, including:that the amount of information that any individual would be required to assimilate in order to form a correct understanding of socially responsible behaviour could be too large,that adherence is greater when people feel that everyone else is working to the same standards,that some of the features of the situation (e.g. exponential growth curves) are not ones that most are well-positioned to reason on,that there is a formalised mechanism by which negative behavioural outliers can be sanctioned.

This is bringing into focus the issue of how to deal with the inevitable bugs and error programming will likely give rise to (and almost certainly give rise to once the code becomes sufficiently complex).There are multiple aspects to this:best practice for checking our code during developmentthe importance (and feasibility) of making code available for checkingbest practice for checking others codethe implications for science communication and policy decisions of programming errors

The policy implication, in the short term, is probably (i) look at lots of models; (ii) pay special attention to past experience, e.g., in our other countries, where available; (iii) don't forget simple qualitative reasoning as a 'sanity check.' If a model does 'odd things' it may have discovered some new and counterintuitive; but equally could be a bug---and hence counterintuitive model behaviour is (of course) a clue that we should look for bugs.

I am a big fan of an orderly house, but my experience as climate scientists tells me it is impossible to do science in a way that bad faith people will not attack it. If they cannot find a flaw (and there is always a flaw in real research, they are just mostly too stupid and ignorant to find it), they will make something up.Improving scientific practices should be done to improve science,, because it helps the scientific community doing good science, not to appease bad faith actors.

Standard tests in New York City can take days. Wealthier people are turning to concierge services and small laboratories to get results in as little as 24 hours.

K-12 schools plan limited attendance, more online learningWhite House has made campus re-openings a top priority

With nations determined to return to in-person learning, many will have trouble matching Germany’s formula: fast and free testing, robust contact tracing and low community spread.

Your questions answered on what type of mask to wear to cut the risk of getting Covid-19

What role will art and artists play in helping communities rebuild during these unprecedented crises? How do artists help frame and reframe the current moment, and how do they help us understand the past? In conversation with Jessica Wolf of Strategic Communications, Kristy Edmunds, Executive and Artistic Director of UCLA’s Center for the Art of Performance, shares her thoughts on how art and artists can help heal pain, build resilience and ultimately, tell our stories for the ages.

"Having one case in one school is one thing. But having that case multiplied by 25, I'd want to know that as a parent."

The researchers found that the most common source of exposure for those who acquired secondary infections was household environments (10.3%), followed by health care settings (OR = 0.09; 95% CI, 0.04–0.20) and public transportation (OR = 0.01; 95% CI, 0– 0.08). The secondary infection rate increased with the severity of the index cases, from 0.3% (95% CI, 0%–1%) for asymptomatic, to 3.3% (95% CI, 1.8%–4.8%) for mild, 5.6% (CI, 4.4%–6.8%) for moderate and 6.2% (95% CI, 3.2%–9.1%) for severe or critical cases. Index cases with expectoration were associated with a higher risk for secondary infection (13.6% vs. 3% for index cases without expectoration [OR = 4.81; 95% CI, 3.35–6.93]).

The decision of whether or not to vaccinate is a complex one. It involves the contribution both to a social good -- herd immunity -- and to one's own well being. It is informed by social influence, personal experience, education, and mass media. In our work, we investigate a situation in which individuals make their choice based on how social neighbourhood responded to previous epidemics. We do this by proposing a minimalistic model using components from game theory, network theory and the modelling of epidemic spreading, and opinion dynamics. Individuals can use the information about the neighbourhood in two ways -- either they follow the majority or the best-performing neighbour. Furthermore, we let individuals learn which of these two decision-making strategies to follow from their experience. Our results show that the flexibility of individuals to chose how to integrate information from the neighbourhood increases the vaccine uptake and decreases the epidemic severity if the following conditions are fulfilled. First, the initial fraction of individuals who imitate the neighbourhood majority should be limited, and second, the memory of previous outbreaks should be sufficiently long. These results have implications for the acceptance of novel vaccines and raising awareness about vaccination, while also pointing to promising future research directions.

Social media users post content on various topics. A defining feature of social media is that other users can provide feedback—called community feedback—to their content in the form of comments, replies, and retweets. We hypothesize that the amount of received feedback influences the choice of topics on which a social media user posts. However, it is challenging to test this hypothesis as user heterogeneity and external confounders complicate measuring the feedback effect. Here, we investigate this hypothesis with a predictive approach based on an interpretable model of an author’s decision to continue the topic of their previous post. We explore the confounding factors, including author’s topic preferences and unobserved external factors such as news and social events, by optimizing the predictive accuracy. This approach enables us to identify which users are susceptible to community feedback. Overall, we find that 33% and 14% of active users in Reddit and Twitter, respectively, are influenced by community feedback. The model suggests that this feedback alters the probability of topic continuation up to 14%, depending on the user and the amount of feedback.

Careful recording of symptoms and patient examination should allow understanding of which part of the sequelae is common to all severe infections, which symptoms might be explained by the anxiety caused by a new disease and by the isolation,9Vindegaard N Benros ME COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: systematic review of the current evidence.Brain Behav Immun. 2020; (published online May 30.)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.048Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar and which symptoms are secondary to a complicated form of COVID-19 (eg, pulmonary involvement during the acute disease). If indeed COVID-19 is causing long-term sequelae then are the mechanisms underlying the long-term consequences immunological? Or caused by new or relapsing inflammation, ongoing infection, or side-effects of immunomodulatory treatment? Such data can serve to point at candidate management strategies to be tested in trials.

children and young people do contract SARS-CoV-2 but have severe disease less frequently than adults. A possible explanation for the mild disease phenotypes of COVID-19 in the majority of children and young people is higher titres of antibodies directed against seasonal coronaviruses abrogating immune complex deposition and antibody-dependent enhancement. Higher ACE2 expression might facilitate infection while enabling maintenance of a less inflammatory state by maintaining a functioning ACE2–Angiotensin-(1-7)–MAS system. Finally, non-specific protective effects after live vaccination and a more diverse T-cell repertoire in children and young people might contribute to mild presentations. Children with systemic autoimmune or inflammatory conditions might be further protected by overcoming immune evasion mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2, and some treatments might protect from the development of cytokine storm syndrome later in the disease course.

Jeff C. Clements reckons with a recent set of reviewer comments that used ‘being critical’ as a justification to be mean.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is a devastating global health crisis. Without a vaccine or effective medication, the best hope for mitigating virus transmission is collective behavior change and support for public health interventions (e.g., physical distancing, physical hygiene, and endorsement of health policies). In a large-scale international collaboration (N = 46,450 across 67 countries), we investigated why people adopted public health behaviors and endorsed public policy interventions (e.g., closing bars and restaurants) during the early stages of the pandemic (April-May, 2020). Results revealed that respondents who identified more strongly with their nation consistently reported engagement in public health behaviors and greater support for public health policies. We also found a small effect of political orientation, indicating that left-wing respondents were more likely to report public health behaviors and support for public health measures than right-wing respondents. We discuss the implications of links between national identity, leadership, and public health for managing the COVID-19 and future pandemics.

The present study was aimed to investigate the causes of COVID-19 worry and its effect on initial behaviors that observed in early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Bangladesh. In the online survey, participants‟ were asked about normative concerns, COVID-19 worry, initial behaviors, and the neuroticism personality trait. Results demonstrated that (i) higher normative concerns and neurotic trait were predictors of higher COVID-19 worry; and (ii) higher normative concerns and COVID-19 worry significant predictors of buying preparatory materials, higher worry for postponing travel plan, and higher worry and neuroticism for purchasing daily commodities more than usual and difficulties in concentration.

Alcohol consumption within the COVID-19 time may be a stress reliever. Loneliness and social distancing results in the increased use of alcohol. Alcohol consumption for endless period during the isolation has created new cases of disorders associated with alcohol use. Especially the increased risk of infection and deteriorating symptoms. Citizens should be properly trained about alcohol-related problems during this emergency period. The Coronavirus Disease pandemic has undoubtedly had a serious impact on the supply of physical healthcare worldwide. The psychological state impact of this pandemic can’t be underestimated, particularly of patients affected by addiction. Heightened public stress and anxiety levels, increasing isolation and therefore the physical consequences of addiction play an outsized role within the proliferation and ongoing relapse of substance misuse and behavioural addiction.

The new public health crisis threatening the world with the emergence due to the spreading of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) or it can also say as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The virus instigated in bats and was transmitted to humans through yet unknown transitional animals in Wuhan, Hubei province, China in December 2019. There have been around 3.04 million reported cases by WHO of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019) and 895 thousand are recovered, 211 thousand reported deaths to date (28/04/2020) from all over the world. The disease is spread by inhalation/breathing or interaction with infected droplets. The quarantine period ranges from 2 to 14 days. The symptoms are typically breathlessness, cough, sore throat, fever, fatigue, malaise, among others. The disease is mild in most people; while in about some (generally the aged and those with comorbidities), it may progress to pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multi-organ dysfunction. Many people are asymptomatic. Treatment is very essentially supportive; the role of antiviral agents is up till now to be recognized. Prevention requires home quarantine of alleged cases and those with mild illnesses and severe infection control measures at hospitals that contain interaction, touch and droplet precautions.

BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was reported from China in January, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 is efficiently transmitted from person to person and, in 2 months, has caused more than 82 000 laboratory-confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 2800 deaths in 46 countries. The total number of cases and deaths has surpassed that of the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV). Although both COVID-19 and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) manifest as pneumonia, COVID-19 is associated with apparently more efficient transmission, fewer cases of diarrhoea, increased mental confusion, and a lower crude fatality rate. However, the underlying virus–host interactive characteristics conferring these observations on transmissibility and clinical manifestations of COVID-19 remain unknown.MethodsWe systematically investigated the cellular susceptibility, species tropism, replication kinetics, and cell damage of SARS-CoV-2 and compared findings with those for SARS-CoV. We compared SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV replication in different cell lines with one-way ANOVA. For the area under the curve comparison between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV replication in Calu3 (pulmonary) and Caco2 (intestinal) cells, we used Student's t test. We analysed cell damage induced by SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV with one-way ANOVA.FindingsSARS-CoV-2 infected and replicated to comparable levels in human Caco2 cells and Calu3 cells over a period of 120 h (p=0·52). By contrast, SARS-CoV infected and replicated more efficiently in Caco2 cells than in Calu3 cells under the same multiplicity of infection (p=0·0098). SARS-CoV-2, but not SARS-CoV, replicated modestly in U251 (neuronal) cells (p=0·036). For animal species cell tropism, both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 replicated in non-human primate, cat, rabbit, and pig cells. SARS-CoV, but not SARS-CoV-2, infected and replicated in Rhinolophus sinicus bat kidney cells. SARS-CoV-2 consistently induced significantly delayed and milder levels of cell damage than did SARS-CoV in non-human primate cells (VeroE6, p=0·016; FRhK4, p=0·0004).InterpretationAs far as we know, our study presents the first quantitative data for tropism, replication kinetics, and cell damage of SARS-CoV-2. These data provide novel insights into the lower incidence of diarrhoea, decreased disease severity, and reduced mortality in patients with COVID-19, with respect to the pathogenesis and high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 compared with SARS-CoV.