10.31234/osf.io/67rhf

In the absence of an effective vaccine or treatment, the current best defence against COVID-19 is social distancing—staying at home as much as possible, keeping distance from others, and avoiding large gatherings. Although social distancing maximizes physical health, we know little about its psychological consequences. In this research (N = 374), we investigated the effect of social distancing duration on negative moods and memory. The relation between social distancing duration and both negative mood and memory errors followed the same U-shaped function: negative moods and memory errors initially decreased steadily as social distancing duration increased, at which point (~ 30 days) they began to steadily increase. Subsequent analyses indicated that memory errors were mediated by lonely mood in particular. Thus, short-term social distancing might benefit psychological well-being and memory performance, but extended social distancing has the expected negative impact on mood and memory.

How Does Social Distancing During COVID-19 Affect Negative Moods and Memory?

10.31234/osf.io/cswde

New Zealand’s COVID-19 lockdown in March/April 2020 imposed severe economic and social restrictions, which occurred in a setting of pervasive health and economic uncertainties. Here, we leverage national longitudinal data from 2018 and during severe lockdown to systematically quantify the evolution of psychological-distress trajectories within the same people (2018/2020, N = 940). To distinguish severe-lockdown-related distress from natural disaster, we additionally investigate mental health following the Christchurch earthquakes (2011, N = 6,806). During lockdown, there was a three-fold increase in feelings of worthlessness. A sense of neighbourhood community became decoupled from this distress, which high levels of social belonging and health-satisfaction did not prevent. A silver lining was a relief from feelings of effort, fostered by social belonging. By contrast, the Christchurch earthquakes increased all distress indicators and distress buffers performed consistently. We infer that losses of employment and social routines during New Zealand’s lockdown, in a setting of government income and health protections, precipitated bittersweet mental health dynamics. Clarifying which pandemic mental health burdens can be mitigated, and how, holds applied interest for pandemic health responses in other countries, and for future pandemics.

National Longitudinal Investigation of COVID-19 Lockdown Distress Clarifies Mechanisms of Mental Health Burden and Relief

10.31234/osf.io/cgeuv

The study aimed to investigate the role of personality, thinking styles, and conspiracy mentality in health-related behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e., recommended health behaviors according to COVID-19 guidelines and engagement in pseudoscientific practices related to COVID-19. Basic personality space was defined by the HEXACO model complemented by Disintegration, which represents psychotic-like experiences and behaviors reconceptualized as a personality trait. Mediation analyses conducted on a convenient sample from the general population recruited via social media or by snowballing (N=417) showed that engagement in pseudoscientific behaviors was predicted by high Disintegration. However, this relationship was entirely mediated by thinking styles, i.e., high experiential and low rational. Adherence to health practices recommended by COVID-19 guidelines is predicted by low Disintegration and high Honesty traits, but not with thinking styles and conspiracy mentality.

What drives us to be (ir)responsible for our health during the COVID-19 pandemic? The role of personality, thinking styles and conspiracy mentality

10.31234/osf.io/n9mt5

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments around the world now recommend, or require, their citizens to cover the lower half of their face in public. Consequently, many people now wear surgical face masks in public. We investigated whether surgical face masks affected the performance of human observers, and a state-of-the-art face recognition system, on tasks of perceptual face matching. Participants judged whether two simultaneously presented face photographs showed the same person or two different people. We superimposed images of surgical masks over the faces, creating three different mask conditions: control (no masks), mixed (one face wearing a mask), and masked (both faces wearing masks). We find that surgical face masks have a large detrimental effect on human face matching performance, and that the degree of impairment is the same regardless of whether one or both faces in each pair are masked. Surprisingly, this impairment is similar in size for both familiar and unfamiliar faces. When matching masked faces, human observers are biased to reject unfamiliar faces as mismatches and to accept familiar faces as matches. Finally, the face recognition system showed very high classification accuracy for control and masked stimuli, even though it had not been trained to recognise masked faces. However, accuracy fell markedly when one face was masked and the other was not. Our findings demonstrate that surgical face masks impair the ability of humans, and naïve face recognition systems, to perform perceptual face matching tasks. Matching decisions for masked faces should be treated with caution.

Surgical face masks impair human face matching performance for familiar and unfamiliar faces

10.31234/osf.io/ft6am

Technology habits have been objects of research for over 100 years and provided heuristic cases for the study of habits over the last two decades. This chapter traces the history of research on information and communication technologies in daily life, with an eye toward measurement and conceptualization problems. Similar to the new technologies of earlier eras, the prominence of current habitual manifestations has raised challenging questions for both researchers and societies. These new-er media habits may exaggerate core habit-ual mechanisms by providing a wide spectrum of potential cues, possible contexts, and complex rewards—resulting in dynamic habits that appear to be “special”. We discuss how research on technology habits serves to uncover the assumptions, boundaries, and moderators of habit, while calling for a revised approach to address recurring problems in the literature. Altogether, the chapter clarifies how technology habit research contributes to a broader understanding of habitual behaviour.

Technology habits: Progress, problems, and prospects

Science is not our missing ingredient in beating this virus. Empathy is. /end

As the death rate drops & people feel safer, lower risk people will be even more cavalier about getting back to their lives. 24/

I don’t know Joe Rogan but do people in our country really care what he thinks about them? While local officials & scientists get death threats for wearing masks? Get asked to falsify data & under test? What is wrong with us? 23/

Where did they teach in Sunday school we can be negligent of others when we feel safe? Where is pious Vice President Pence? Where are evangelical leaders? 22/

If I told you there was a force that preyed on the old, the sick & people of color, like my friend @byron_auguste you might refer to it as a Nazi disease. 21/

What is the matter with us? Why do we need to personally be at risk to care about risk to others? 20/

But simple things like wearing a mask, not attending large events like casinos & churches, not hanging out in bars protect everyone & cut down on transmission. The 9 of the 10 cities with the highest growth in transmission are in places with low reported mask use. 19/

The likelihood of catching & the severity of the virus goes up as prolonged exposure & the number of people you are exposed to does. Running into a grocery store without a mask is a different from working there.18/

If you have autism or a developmental disability, you are more likely to get COVID AND if you get it, much more likely to die from it. Same with high blood pressure, obesity & other illnesses. And age— fatality climbs from 1-20% between 50 & 80. 17/

We all likely know by now that Black Americans are 2x likely to die of COVID-19 as white people. But if you’re between 35-44, Black Americans are *9x* more likely to die of COVID-19 as white people. 15/

It is becoming clearer & clearer that we have a situation much more like the second scenario. Young people feel immune & many are symptom free White people have lower mortality Well off people can isolate But they can all easily spread COVID-19 to people at higher risk. 14/

Let’s not pull punches here. In other countries they faced this question & society has rallied. All over Asia, Europe & Oceana, people have worn masks, locked down, sacrificed income & stayed away from bars. It wasn’t easy & they might have to again but it worked. 13/

Or would they say “ let me live my mask free life to the fullest, the high risk people can take care of themselves & isolate.” Can people working essential jobs perfectly isolate? Should they have to if a month with a mask for everyone is an alternative? 12/

To keep it simple, would lower risk people wear a $1 mask to dramatically cut down on transmission knowing they were going to come into contact with higher risk people or their family members even better even if they weren’t worried for themselves? 11/

Here is the question— if the transmission rate was very high, do we live in a society where young, white healthy people would be just as cautious as Black & Brown people, older people & sicker people? 10/81871.5K

What if young, white, healthy people had a 25% chance of catching DIVOC & a 1% chance of dying (.25% overall). And people of color, sicker & older people had a 40% chance of catching it & a 20% chance (8% overall) of dying? 9/

Let’s say there was a highly infectious disease called DIVOC- 91. If all people had an equal 10% chance of catching DIVOC & a 20% chance of dying (or 2% overall) if they got it, everyone would be careful. It’s natural. We want to live. But what DIVOC were different? 8/

Scientific progress was made possible by all of our actions in March & April. We stayed home, we distanced. To everyone who did, you saved lives. Now there is an important question about that behavior. Was it done to protect ourselves or also to protect the people around us? 7/

In a society where we look out for one another thie scientific & social adaptation be good. But societies where many people largely look out for themselves will have a different outcome. 6/

When the virus was in Wuhan, being on a ventilator was a death sentence. 80% of people on ventilators died. Today that number is lower & getting lower still. With new therapies, that 80% could decline to 20-40%. 5/

Let’s start with the scientists. Science is attacking 4 major problems right now: -the virus -3 main complications (clotting, oxygen deprivation, immune system over-reaction) 4/

As time goes on and the virus spreads, 2 things happen: -our own behavior adapts to what we know -scientists adapt to what we learn 3/

The pattern in the US, in all likelihood, will face a pattern of: -cases going up -death rates going down -much more unequal outcomes 2/

COVID Update June 22: In a lot of ways, COVID-19 is forcing us to answer the question— what kind of society are we? Particulatly as the healthy, white & well off find ways to protect themselves will we look out for each other? 1/

A government client is seeking to review and build on the recent relevant behavioural research. Please visit this document to learn more about each of these areas and contribute your knowledge:

Are you, or is anyone you know, researching how COVID-19 has affected behaviour and behavioural drivers in Victoria and Australia, in particular behaviours that related to topics such as ‘active transport’, ‘service provision’, ‘working from home’ and ‘car usage’?

How can qualitative researchers collect data during social-distancing measures? Adam Jowett outlines several techniques researchers can use to collect data without face-to-face contact with participants. Bringing together a number of previous studies, he also suggests such techniques have their own methodological advantages and disadvantages and that while these techniques may appear particularly apt during the coronavirus crisis, researchers should take time to reflect on ethical issues before re-designing their studies.

Carrying out qualitative research under lockdown – Practical and ethical considerations

Different social media platforms allow different levels of access to the data they hold for academic research. In this cross-post Daniela Duca explores some of the ways in which LinkedIn has been used by social scientists and provides a list resources for researchers looking to work with LinkedIn data. 

Using LinkedIn for Social Research

Per capita: COVID-19 tests vs. Confirmed deaths

Governments are increasingly implementing smart and digital approaches to promoting citizen participation. However, whether online participation platforms are tools that improve inclusivity in citizen participation remains underexplored. To address this gap, this article focuses on the role of recruitment messages and their effect on participation in an online participation platform by gender and age. A field experiment with a neighborhood census sample (N = 6,066) shows that online participation dips for younger and older citizens and is equal among women and men. For the age groups between 60 and 75, differences in the control and intervention recruitment messages significantly impacted participation. These findings can help public managers tailor recruitment strategies to facilitate inclusive participation and represent a first step toward learning what types of messages are effective for whom.

10.1111/puar.13215

Inclusivity in Online Platforms: Recruitment Strategies for Improving Participation of Diverse Sociodemographic Groups

In times of public crises, including the current Covid-19 pandemic, rapid dissemination of relevant scientific knowledge is of paramount importance. The duration of scholarly journals’ publication process is one of the main factors hindering quick delivery of new information. While proper editorial assessment and peer review obviously require some time, turnaround times for medical journals can be up to several months, which is undesirable in the era of a crisis. Following initiatives of medical journals and scholarly publishers to accelerate their publication process, this study assesses whether medical journals have indeed managed to speed up their publication process for Covid-19 related articles. It studies the duration of 14 medical journals’ publication process both during and prior to the current pandemic. Assessing a total of 669 articles, the study concludes that medical journals have indeed drastically accelerated the publication process for Covid-19 related articles since the outbreak of the pandemic. Compared to articles published in the same journals before the pandemic, turnaround times have decreased on average by 49%. The largest decrease in number of days between submission and publication of articles was due to a decrease in the number of days required for peer review. For articles not related to Covid-19, no acceleration of the publication process is found. While the acceleration of journals’ publication process is laudable from the perspective of quick information dissemination, it also raises concerns relating to the quality of the peer review process and the quality of the resulting publications.

10.1101/2020.04.18.045963

Pandemic Publishing: Medical journals drastically speed up their publication process for Covid-19

Vienna (APA) - According to the Agency for Health and Food Security (AGES), schools and kindergartens in Austria have so far played no significant role in the spread of the corona virus. Of 541 clusters, only six were assigned to the school / kindergarten setting (three each).

Coronavirus - So far six clusters in schools and kindergartens

The COVID-19 lockdown has rapidly and radically changed academic life, disrupting the normal patterns of teaching and research that define the university. In this post, Adam Oliver reflects on how the lockdown led to him develop the behavioural economics on a post-it series and the particular challenges presented in reducing complex academic ideas to the contours of a single post-it.

Behavioural Economics on a Post-It

Project Lockdown provides a mapping of the different NPIs (Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions) enforced across the globe in response to the COVID-19 crisis, to visualize the success of different pandemic response measures, monitor effects on Human and Digital Rights, and clarify evaluation metrics.

Lockdown

Reality check: Germany (pop 83million) running 200-300 cases per day and sudden outbreak is 1000 cases from a factory. UK (pop 66million) running 1200-1500 cases per day. Like an equivalent big outbreak everyday in the UK.

The UK government has not and is not following its own ethical principles outlined in its covid-19 guideline for adult social care. This needs to be given urgent priority by the government, policy makers, frontline staff, and the wider public, writes Melissa McCullough

10.1136/bmj.m2406

Ethical decision making in a pandemic: where are the voices of vulnerable people?

PITY the tens of thousands of stranded crew for whom the ships now anchored off UK shores and around the world have become little more than prison hulks. Cruise ship passengers, whose plight dominated the news early in the pandemic, are mostly back on dry land. The same cannot be said for the estimated 150,000 seafarers, now with few rights, caught in international waters on ships generally registered in low-regulation jurisdictions.

All-at-sea sickness

BAME & low-paid groups at particular risk as disproportionate number unable to work at home & exposed to greater risk under new rules expected to be announced Tues. Independent SAGE says govt must release underlying evidence so public & businesses can make own risk assessments

Independent SAGE agrees with government’s own SAGE group that current levels of transmission are too high. Reducing rules from 2m to 1m will effectively end all social distancing in UK. It is too soon to do so.

NEW: Independent SAGE has evaluated the scientific evidence on social distancing & concludes it is not safe to reduce it from 2m to 1m indoors as government proposes

Background: As of April 2, 2020, the global reported number of COVID-19 cases has crossed over 1 million with more than 55,000 deaths. The household transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, the causative pathogen, remains elusive. Methods: Based on a comprehensive contact-tracing dataset from Guangzhou, we estimated both the population-level effective reproductive number and individual-level secondary attack rate (SAR) in the household setting. We assessed age effects on transmissibility and the infectivity of COVID-19 cases during their incubation period. Results: A total of 195 unrelated clusters with 212 primary cases, 137 nonprimary (secondary or tertiary) cases and 1938 uninfected close contacts were traced. We estimated the household SAR to be 13.8% (95% CI: 11.1-17.0%) if household contacts are defined as all close relatives and 19.3% (95% CI: 15.5-23.9%) if household contacts only include those at the same residential address as the cases, assuming a mean incubation period of 4 days and a maximum infectious period of 13 days. The odds of infection among children (<20 years old) was only 0.26 (95% CI: 0.13-0.54) times of that among the elderly (≥60 years old). There was no gender difference in the risk of infection. COVID-19 cases were at least as infectious during their incubation period as during their illness. On average, a COVID-19 case infected 0.48 (95% CI: 0.39-0.58) close contacts. Had isolation not been implemented, this number increases to 0.62 (95% CI: 0.51-0.75). The effective reproductive number in Guangzhou dropped from above 1 to below 0.5 in about 1 week. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 is more transmissible in households than SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, and the elderly ≥60 years old are the most vulnerable to household transmission. Case finding and isolation alone may be inadequate to contain the pandemic and need to be used in conjunction with heightened restriction of human movement as implemented in Guangzhou.

10.1101/2020.04.11.20056010

Household Secondary Attack Rate of COVID-19 and Associated Determinants

The prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is lower in children compared to adults. Children contribute to 1-5% of all COVID-19 cases (1) . A recent study from China reported that 171(12.3%) of 1391 children with suspected disease had confirmed COVID-19 infection (2) . As of May 15, 2020, there are 33,241 children with COVID-19 in the United States (3) . The most common symptoms in children with confirmed and suspected COVID-19 include fever and cough followed by diarrhea, and abdominal pain.

10.1111/apa.15412

Spectrum of COVID-19 in Children

Epidemiologist Tom Jefferson on the continued uncertainty around coronavirus.

Covid-19 is far more widespread than we think

Expert adviser issues plea for major support, saying ‘we will have to pick up the broken pieces’

School closures 'will trigger UK child mental health crisis'

Science and innovation benefit from diversity. However, as the global community fights COVID-19, the productivity and scientific output of female academics are disproportionately affected, leading to loss of women's scientific expertise from the public realm.

10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31412-4

Challenges for the female academic during the COVID-19 pandemic

We are the Platform for Young Meta-Scientists (PYMS). Our goal is to facilitate collaboration and the exchange of ideas between early-career meta-scientists. Even though most of our activities take place in the Netherlands, we welcome researchers from all around the world!

Platform for Young Meta-Scientists (PYMS)

10.31234/osf.io/rsbmz

We conducted a randomized controlled trial-type survey experiment during the COVID-19 pandemic to examine the effects of the manipulation of information on individuals' cooperation when it comes to social distancing. We sent the subjects in the treatment groups messages that contained information about the length of time they spent outside compared to social norms. In another arm of a 2x2 factorial design, we examined the effects of information when delivered by a powerful messenger, compared to cases in which it is delivered by a political leader. We found that our interventions made our subjects more cooperative to social distancing when their past outing time was longer than social norms. We also found that there were no backfire effects in regard to subjects whose past outing time was shorter than social norms. Finally, we found that there was no need to resort to the use of a powerful messenger to obtain these socially favorable results.

Social Comparisons and Cooperation During COVID-19

10.1038/d41586-020-01834-3

Bogus remedies, myths and fake news about COVID-19 can cost lives. Here’s how some scientists are fighting back.

Coronavirus misinformation, and how scientists can help to fight it

The goal of this book is to develop a nuanced perspective on how we should think about translating research from our labs into the field. In particular, what prescriptive advice can we give to an applied practitioner who reads a specific research finding from a paper and is wondering about whether they should incorporate that finding into their business or policy problem across the globe? This book aims to provide readers with the following insights, corresponding to the proposed sections of the book:

Lab to Field: How to Successfully Translate and Scale Behavioural Insights

PM Lee Hsien Loong's remarks in English, Malay and Chinese on Singapore's future post-COVID-19, "Overcoming the Crisis of a Generation", delivered on 7 June 2020. A Tamil translation is available.

National Broadcast by PM Lee Hsien Loong on 7 June 2020

Yes, the distinction between the point I was trying to make and yours is subtle (and I don't think I distinguished them very well). I think under any conditions a 1m rule is likely to cause people to act at `normal' distances, possibly with the exception of with `close people'. However the wider signalling effect that you are talking about could possibly be mitigated by a replacement signal. For example, suppose people had to wear a mask when interacting in person with someone outside their household. The presence of the mask could then act as the signal for the wider `not normal' behavioural expectations. Possibly the mask could be equally as effective for that wider self-signalling but I am not convinced it would stop the distance normalisation i.e. the distancing rules are particularly and uniquely effective for enforcing `not normal' personal distancing.

good point about the study, and you are, of course, right about the different distances (starnger/acquaintance etc)- my concern really was about the new perception of "normal" as you describe (better than I did) in your fourth point!

A few comments.First, it's worth noting that the methodology of that social distancing paper was to ask people to assess based on a picture of two people what would be the right distance for a stranger, an acquaintance, and a close person. I think it would be reasonable to be cautious of the accuracy of people's perception of this distance from a picture compared to what they actually maintain.Second, the finding for UK (though the authors refer to it as England in one chart and UK in another) was that stranger distance was approx 1m, acquaintance distance approx 80cm, and close person approx 65cm. It seems reasonable to say that many contacts will be with acquaintances (e.g. work colleagues, regulars at the coffee shop / common room etc.), and with `close people' outside of people's own household (relatives, close friends). As others have stated it seems unlikely that people would keep to 1m compared to 80cm, or perhaps even 65cm. The Lancet paper suggests a doubling of infection risk for every metre under 3m. This translates to a ~15% increased risk of infection going from 1m->80cm and ~30% increased infection risk going from 1m->65cm. But these infection risks are per contact. An increased risk of these proportions in the risk of infection from a single contact results in a higher increased risk of infection of an individual (due to the multiple contacts they are likely to have), and would be expected to produce a still higher increase in total number of infections as the probability of contacts involving infectious people consequently increases. My point basically being that the population increase in infections is far from a linear relation with personal distance.Third, I wonder how much these norms might vary across the country.Fourth, and this is something that the Behavioural Scientists can probably comment on (it's kind of implicit in what other posters have said), I would guess the perception of something like personal distance is something on which we rely to some extent on a binary 'normal' / 'not-normal' rather than a gradable concept of distance (in metres for example). Putting the rule to 1m, puts it into the 'normal' category and we end up behaving as per that category (i.e. the 1m/80cm/65cm distances), whereas the instruction to keep 2m reminds people that they should be maintaining their distances in the 'not normal' category.

Germany has implemented drastic restrictions on public and social life, as the country tackles the coronavirus pandemic. But it appears some states think they have better plans in place.

What are Germany's new coronavirus social distancing rules?

Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency

BackgroundSocial media platforms have long been recognised as major disseminators of health misinformation. Many previous studies have found a negative association between health-protective behaviours and belief in the specific form of misinformation popularly known as ‘conspiracy theory’. Concerns have arisen regarding the spread of COVID-19 conspiracy theories on social media.MethodsThree questionnaire surveys of social media use, conspiracy beliefs and health-protective behaviours with regard to COVID-19 among UK residents were carried out online, one using a self-selecting sample (N = 949) and two using stratified random samples from a recruited panel (N = 2250, N = 2254).ResultsAll three studies found a negative relationship between COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and COVID-19 health-protective behaviours, and a positive relationship between COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and use of social media as a source of information about COVID-19. Studies 2 and 3 also found a negative relationship between COVID-19 health-protective behaviours and use of social media as a source of information, and Study 3 found a positive relationship between health-protective behaviours and use of broadcast media as a source of information.ConclusionsWhen used as an information source, unregulated social media may present a health risk that is partly but not wholly reducible to their role as disseminators of health-related conspiracy beliefs.

10.1017/S003329172000224X

Thousands of the president's supporters are about to pack into an arena in Tulsa, where Covid-19 cases are skyrocketing.

Trump Rally Hands Scientists a Test Case for Superspreader Event

This webinar series by The Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) aims to support you as we navigate the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. We are aiming to unite healthcare workers on the frontlines with senior decision makers leading the response in this critical fight against COVID-19.Chaired by leading experts, these webinars aim to support you as we discuss different topics and challenges that healthcare workers, leaders and the public are facing, and how we are responding.In this episode of the COVID-19 Series Professor Sir Simon Wessely talks to Dr Howard Bauchner, Editor-in-Chief of JAMA, and Dr Fiona Godlee, Editor-in-chief of The BMJ, about the role medical journals play in a pandemic such as COVID-19They will be discussing how these popular journals report in a time of rapid and developing scientific evidence, balancing both clinical and public concerns alongside emerging policies and guidance.The webinar will include plenty of opportunities for questions. All views expressed in this webinar are of the speakers themselves and not of The RSM. Please note this webinar will be recorded and stored by The RSM and may be used in the future on various internet channels.

COVID-19 Series: Medical journals - Episode 24

Prof Steven Riley is an epidemiologist who uses computer modelling to predict the spread of infectious disease. He worked with the group of scientists whose models predicted that 250K people could die of COVID-19 in the UK if the lockdown was delayed, providing the Government with scientific evidence to endorse a lockdown. He will be joined by members of his team, Dr Kylie Ainslie, Dr Lucy Okell and Daniel Lydon to talk about their research on COVID-19.

Modelling the Spread of the Virus