Covid-19:信任度较高的社会是否表现得更好?

Discover Social Science and Health Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-20 DOI:10.1007/s44155-023-00035-3
Bernard H Casey
{"title":"Covid-19:信任度较高的社会是否表现得更好?","authors":"Bernard H Casey","doi":"10.1007/s44155-023-00035-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social trust<b>-</b>between governments and people and between individuals-and trust in science were proposed as prerequisites for tackling covid. Others suggested less democratic societies were more able to impose strict rules stopping the virus. These propositions were tested for a group of mainly advanced countries. The dependent variable is cumulated deaths from covid. Findings are broken down between (a) OECD member countries, (b) these and countries having cooperation agreements with it, and (c) all these plus China. They are also broken down by time-between (a) the period before the appearance of \"new variants\" in late 2020 and (b) the period from then until end September 2021. The best, most parsimonious, models explain nearly half of the changes in the level of deaths. Trust in government improves outcomes, as does interpersonal trust. Vaccine antipathy does not play a role. Also, there is little indication that authoritarian regimes performed better than higher trust societies. In the first period, increasing wealth inequality-indicating a more divided society-is related to higher death rates. Hospital bed availability is important then, but not thereafter. Furthermore, as the pandemic persisted, the importance of pre-existing levels of social trust declined. The paper warns that institutions and cultures cannot easily be transferred from one country to another. Nor would all transfers be desired. It also suggests that some other lessons of what contributed to better outcomes under covid might be relevant for the monkeypox virus-its successor public health emergency.</p>","PeriodicalId":29972,"journal":{"name":"Discover Social Science and Health","volume":"3 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10026204/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Covid-19: did higher trust societies fare better?\",\"authors\":\"Bernard H Casey\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s44155-023-00035-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Social trust<b>-</b>between governments and people and between individuals-and trust in science were proposed as prerequisites for tackling covid. Others suggested less democratic societies were more able to impose strict rules stopping the virus. These propositions were tested for a group of mainly advanced countries. The dependent variable is cumulated deaths from covid. Findings are broken down between (a) OECD member countries, (b) these and countries having cooperation agreements with it, and (c) all these plus China. They are also broken down by time-between (a) the period before the appearance of \\\"new variants\\\" in late 2020 and (b) the period from then until end September 2021. The best, most parsimonious, models explain nearly half of the changes in the level of deaths. Trust in government improves outcomes, as does interpersonal trust. Vaccine antipathy does not play a role. Also, there is little indication that authoritarian regimes performed better than higher trust societies. In the first period, increasing wealth inequality-indicating a more divided society-is related to higher death rates. Hospital bed availability is important then, but not thereafter. Furthermore, as the pandemic persisted, the importance of pre-existing levels of social trust declined. The paper warns that institutions and cultures cannot easily be transferred from one country to another. Nor would all transfers be desired. It also suggests that some other lessons of what contributed to better outcomes under covid might be relevant for the monkeypox virus-its successor public health emergency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29972,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Discover Social Science and Health\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10026204/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Discover Social Science and Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-023-00035-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discover Social Science and Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-023-00035-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有人提出,社会信任--政府和人民之间以及个人之间的信任--以及对科学的信任是应对科维病毒的先决条件。还有人认为,民主程度较低的社会更有能力实施严格的规则来阻止病毒。这些观点在一组主要的先进国家进行了检验。因变量是科维病毒造成的累计死亡人数。研究结果按(a) 经合组织成员国,(b) 这些国家和与经合组织有合作协议的国家,以及(c) 所有这些国家加上中国进行了细分。调查结果还按时间细分--(a) 2020 年底出现 "新变种 "之前的时间段;(b) 从那时起到 2021 年 9 月底的时间段。最好、最简洁的模型可以解释近一半的死亡人数变化。对政府的信任能改善结果,人际信任也是如此。对疫苗的反感并没有起到作用。此外,几乎没有迹象表明独裁政权比信任度较高的社会表现更好。在第一阶段,贫富不均加剧--表明社会更加分化--与较高的死亡率有关。医院床位的可用性在当时很重要,但在之后就不重要了。此外,随着大流行病的持续,原有社会信任度的重要性也在下降。论文警告说,制度和文化不能轻易地从一个国家转移到另一个国家。也不是所有的转移都是理想的。文章还指出,在科维德疫情中取得较好结果的其他一些经验教训可能与猴痘病毒--它的后继公共卫生紧急状况--相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Covid-19: did higher trust societies fare better?

Social trust-between governments and people and between individuals-and trust in science were proposed as prerequisites for tackling covid. Others suggested less democratic societies were more able to impose strict rules stopping the virus. These propositions were tested for a group of mainly advanced countries. The dependent variable is cumulated deaths from covid. Findings are broken down between (a) OECD member countries, (b) these and countries having cooperation agreements with it, and (c) all these plus China. They are also broken down by time-between (a) the period before the appearance of "new variants" in late 2020 and (b) the period from then until end September 2021. The best, most parsimonious, models explain nearly half of the changes in the level of deaths. Trust in government improves outcomes, as does interpersonal trust. Vaccine antipathy does not play a role. Also, there is little indication that authoritarian regimes performed better than higher trust societies. In the first period, increasing wealth inequality-indicating a more divided society-is related to higher death rates. Hospital bed availability is important then, but not thereafter. Furthermore, as the pandemic persisted, the importance of pre-existing levels of social trust declined. The paper warns that institutions and cultures cannot easily be transferred from one country to another. Nor would all transfers be desired. It also suggests that some other lessons of what contributed to better outcomes under covid might be relevant for the monkeypox virus-its successor public health emergency.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Discover Social Science and Health
Discover Social Science and Health intersection of health and social sciences-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: Discover Social Science and Health is an interdisciplinary, international journal that publishes papers at the intersection of the social and biomedical sciences. Papers should integrate, in both theory and measures, a social perspective (reflecting anthropology, criminology, economics, epidemiology, policy, sociology, etc) and a concern for health (mental and physical). Health, broadly construed, includes biological and other indicators of overall health, symptoms, diseases, diagnoses, treatments, treatment adherence, and related concerns. Drawing on diverse, sound methodologies, submissions may include reports of new empirical findings (including important null findings) and replications, reviews and perspectives that construe prior research and discuss future research agendas, methodological research (including the evaluation of measures, samples, and modeling strategies), and short or long commentaries on topics of wide interest. All submissions should include statements of significance with respect to health and future research. Discover Social Science and Health is an Open Access journal that supports the pre-registration of studies. Topics Papers suitable for Discover Social Science and Health will include both social and biomedical theory and data. Illustrative examples of themes include race/ethnicity, sex/gender, socioeconomic, geographic, and other social disparities in health; migration and health; spatial distribution of risk factors and access to healthcare; health and social relationships; interactional processes in healthcare, treatments, and outcomes; life course patterns of health and treatment regimens; cross-national patterns in health and health policies; characteristics of communities and neighborhoods and health; social networks and treatment adherence; stigma and disease progression; methodological studies including psychometric properties of measures frequently used in health research; and commentary and analysis of key concepts, theories, and methods in studies of social science and biomedicine. The journal welcomes submissions that draw on biomarkers of health, genetically-informed and neuroimaging data, psychophysiological measures, and other forms of data that describe physical and mental health, access to health care, treatment, and related constructs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信