Western societies were already frail when COVID-19 hit.
In a new paper, we show that the pandemic, and the fatigue from it, eroded trust in democracy further: psyarxiv.com/qjmct
With omicron, stronger restrictions are again put in place & the erosion will deepen.
🧵(1/7)
Over 2020, we tracked 6000 citizens from 🇺🇸+🇮🇹+🇩🇰+🇭🇺 & their views of key relationships in society: Horizontal relationships of solidarity between citizens + vertical relationships of trust between citizens & the state. We used measures with clear pre-pandemic benchmarks. (2/7)
We pool across multiple indicators and standardize with pre-pandemic scores to track changes from after the pandemic hit. Overall, we see little consistent change in solidarity. The pandemic has not been a crisis in the relationship between citizens. (3/7)
The pandemic, in contrast, provides a strong erosion of citizens' support of the system. In April, overall levels were -0.25 standard deviations below pre-pandemic levels. And the erosion continued throughout 2020. (4/7)
Why did the pandemic erode system support? Because of the loss of control associated with the pandemic and restrictions. Feelings of anomie strongly increased from pre-pandemic levels (purple lines) & distress fluctuated with the severity of the epidemic throughout 2020. (5/7)
Within-person change in these indicators of fatigue predicted within-person change in system support as well as in indicators of *extreme* political discontent such as Need for Chaos, beliefs in misinformation and populism. (6/7)
A pandemic is an all-out crisis. It weakens citizens' trust in the state and thus the possibility of handling the crisis, as seen in protests across the EU.
As omicron & restrictions increase, fatigue will too.
Trust will further erode as we enter the 3rd year of covid. (7/7)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
HOPE-projektet bidrog til den langsigtede strategi mod COVID-19, "Hverdag med øget beredskab": fm.dk/media/25241/3-…. (som figuren 👆 er fra)
Inputtet gav anledning til følgende anbefaling i hovedrapporten (fm.dk/media/25157/hv…).
Den har ikke været vigtigere end nu. (2/12)
Den seneste HOPE-rapport viser, at borgerne har en markant faldende optimisme (github.com/Hopeproject202…). Samtidig er der bekymring for hospitalernes kapacitet, der er på højde med 2. bølge. (3/12)
In the next days, graphs (like👇) will show explosions of omicron & lockdowns will re-appear across Europe.
To motivate fatigued publics, it is key to not just appeal to fear. Communication should help people cope & envision how to pull thru.
An evidence-based 🧵 on how. (1/5)
Studies on crisis communication argues that good communication needs to identify the problem *and* tell people how to deal with the problem (doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.1…). The "through-the-roof"-graphs only does the former. (2/5)
In Jan 2021 with alpha, we used epidemic modelling to draw a graph that both identified the problem *and* spoke to the hope of dealing with the problem: psyarxiv.com/gxcyn/. It shows the race between variants & vaccines and the need for distancing until vaccines arrive. (3/5)
The Danish government just announced new restrictions to hinder the spread of omicron
The background are these data on the rise of omicron cases in Denmark & the vaccination status of those infected, suggesting rapid spread & some evasion of 2 vaccine doses for infection
Note that the number of cases is small and we don't know how many vaccinated vs. unvaccinated were exposed. So, interpret with extreme caution.
(2/3)
Restrictions are:
- Closing night life
- Closing venues with 50+ standing guests
- Early closing of schools for Xmas
- Shorter period in which vaxx gives valid corona passport (to 7 months)
- Encourage working from home
Would we have dealt better with COVID-19 without social media?
The idea of an "infodemic" may suggest so.
As a social media researcher involved in the covid-response, my answer is a strong "no". To react, info needs to be faster than the virus. On social media, it is.
🧵(1/8)
In a history of epidemics, Rosenberg describes patterns extraordinarily similar to now (jstor.org/stable/20025233). With one difference: This time countries could react *before* "bodies accumulated". Part of the reason: Rapid information-sharing via media & social media. (2/8)
E.g.: Whistleblowers in Wuhan used social media to warn.(france24.com/en/asia-pacifi…). Also, the #FlattenTheCurve hashtag helped billions understand what needed to be done. 2 things spread across the globe in 2020: COVID-19 & the idea of distancing. The latter was quicker. (3/8)
🚨What motivates parents to vaccinate their child against COVID-19?
Evidence from 🇩🇰 shows that parents balance concerns of side-effects & motivations to normalize society & childrens lives: psyarxiv.com/8e49j/
Concern is higher among parents of younger children. 🧵(1/6)
We surveyed 791 parents of Danish children aged between 6 and 15, recruited via random population sampling. Overall, vaccination willingness were high (& likely overestimated due to sampling bias) but depended crucially on the age of the child. (2/6)
To understand the considerations underlying these decisions, we developed a stepwise theoretical model of the vaccination decision and measured a range of considerations. (3/6)
The world closes its borders to Africa after the detection of VOC Omicron.
Our research shows it will be easy to garner public support. In fact, the African origin may increase support, as support is partially tied to prejudice.
Communicators need to tread carefully.
🧵(1/7)
In 2020, we conducted a massive study (N>67,000) on support for increased border control across 8 Western countries (doi.org/10.1080/174572…). In most countries, it was high. (2/7)
This support was driven by a coalition of those always against immigration & those personally fearful of covid. Thus, the biggest predictors are being right-wing and being personally (not socially) concerned about covid. (3/7)