“我们感谢你们的牺牲”:英国应对Covid-19的临床脆弱性、屏蔽性和生物社会性

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL
Clare Herrick
{"title":"“我们感谢你们的牺牲”:英国应对Covid-19的临床脆弱性、屏蔽性和生物社会性","authors":"Clare Herrick","doi":"10.1057/s41292-021-00266-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The UK response to Covid-19 has been unusually complex in its ever-shifting classifications of clinical vulnerability. By May 2020, 2.2 million people had been identified as 'clinically extremely vulnerable' (CEV) and were asked to 'shield' at home for over four months. To adhere to this strict guidance, they were enfolded within the patchy infrastructure of the 'shielding programme'. However, membership of the 'shielded list' has changed-often without warning or explanation-through time and across space. Drawing on policy and evidentiary documents, government speeches, reports, press conferences and media analysis of Covid-19 coverage between March 2020 and April 1, 2021, this paper traces the shifting delineations of clinical vulnerability in the UK response across three lockdowns. It argues that the complexities and confusions generated by the transience of the CEV category have fed into forms of biosociality that have been as much about making practical sense of government guidance as a form of mutual support amid crisis. This uncertainty has not eased as restrictions have been relaxed and vaccines rolled out. Instead, tracing individual immune response has become a burgeoning industry as 'the shielded' navigate the uneasy demands of taking 'personal responsibility' rather than being protected by 'the rules'.</p>","PeriodicalId":46976,"journal":{"name":"Biosocieties","volume":"18 1","pages":"218-240"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8783156/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'We thank you for your sacrifice': Clinical vulnerability, shielding and biosociality in the UK's Covid-19 response.\",\"authors\":\"Clare Herrick\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41292-021-00266-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The UK response to Covid-19 has been unusually complex in its ever-shifting classifications of clinical vulnerability. By May 2020, 2.2 million people had been identified as 'clinically extremely vulnerable' (CEV) and were asked to 'shield' at home for over four months. To adhere to this strict guidance, they were enfolded within the patchy infrastructure of the 'shielding programme'. However, membership of the 'shielded list' has changed-often without warning or explanation-through time and across space. Drawing on policy and evidentiary documents, government speeches, reports, press conferences and media analysis of Covid-19 coverage between March 2020 and April 1, 2021, this paper traces the shifting delineations of clinical vulnerability in the UK response across three lockdowns. It argues that the complexities and confusions generated by the transience of the CEV category have fed into forms of biosociality that have been as much about making practical sense of government guidance as a form of mutual support amid crisis. This uncertainty has not eased as restrictions have been relaxed and vaccines rolled out. Instead, tracing individual immune response has become a burgeoning industry as 'the shielded' navigate the uneasy demands of taking 'personal responsibility' rather than being protected by 'the rules'.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46976,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biosocieties\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"218-240\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8783156/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biosocieties\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00266-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosocieties","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00266-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

英国对Covid-19的反应异常复杂,其临床脆弱性的分类不断变化。到2020年5月,已有220万人被确定为“临床极度脆弱”(CEV),并被要求在家中“隔离”4个多月。为了遵守这一严格的指导,它们被包裹在“屏蔽计划”的零星基础设施中。然而,随着时间和空间的推移,“屏蔽名单”的成员资格已经发生了变化——通常没有任何警告或解释。根据2020年3月至2021年4月1日期间对Covid-19报道的政策和证据文件、政府演讲、报告、新闻发布会和媒体分析,本文追溯了英国在三次封锁期间应对措施中临床脆弱性的变化描述。它认为,由于CEV类别的短暂性而产生的复杂性和混乱,已经形成了生物社会性的形式,这种形式既是一种危机中相互支持的形式,也是一种实际意义上的政府指导。随着限制的放松和疫苗的推出,这种不确定性并未缓解。相反,追踪个体免疫反应已经成为一个新兴的行业,因为“被屏蔽者”在承担“个人责任”而不是被“规则”保护的不安要求中游弋。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
'We thank you for your sacrifice': Clinical vulnerability, shielding and biosociality in the UK's Covid-19 response.

The UK response to Covid-19 has been unusually complex in its ever-shifting classifications of clinical vulnerability. By May 2020, 2.2 million people had been identified as 'clinically extremely vulnerable' (CEV) and were asked to 'shield' at home for over four months. To adhere to this strict guidance, they were enfolded within the patchy infrastructure of the 'shielding programme'. However, membership of the 'shielded list' has changed-often without warning or explanation-through time and across space. Drawing on policy and evidentiary documents, government speeches, reports, press conferences and media analysis of Covid-19 coverage between March 2020 and April 1, 2021, this paper traces the shifting delineations of clinical vulnerability in the UK response across three lockdowns. It argues that the complexities and confusions generated by the transience of the CEV category have fed into forms of biosociality that have been as much about making practical sense of government guidance as a form of mutual support amid crisis. This uncertainty has not eased as restrictions have been relaxed and vaccines rolled out. Instead, tracing individual immune response has become a burgeoning industry as 'the shielded' navigate the uneasy demands of taking 'personal responsibility' rather than being protected by 'the rules'.

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
Biosocieties
Biosocieties SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: BioSocieties is committed to the scholarly exploration of the crucial social, ethical and policy implications of developments in the life sciences and biomedicine. These developments are increasing our ability to control our own biology; enabling us to create novel life forms; changing our ideas of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’; transforming our understanding of personal identity, family relations, ancestry and ‘race’; altering our social and personal expectations and responsibilities; reshaping global economic opportunities and inequalities; creating new global security challenges; and generating new social, ethical, legal and regulatory dilemmas. To address these dilemmas requires us to break out from narrow disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and humanities, and between these disciplines and the natural sciences, and to develop new ways of thinking about the relations between biology and sociality and between the life sciences and society. BioSocieties provides a crucial forum where the most rigorous social research and critical analysis of these issues can intersect with the work of leading scientists, social researchers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders. BioSocieties defines the key intellectual issues at the science-society interface, and offers pathways to the resolution of the critical local, national and global socio-political challenges that arise from scientific and biomedical advances. As the first journal of its kind, BioSocieties publishes scholarship across the social science disciplines, and represents a lively and balanced array of perspectives on controversial issues. In its inaugural year BioSocieties demonstrated the constructive potential of interdisciplinary dialogue and debate across the social and natural sciences. We are becoming the journal of choice not only for social scientists, but also for life scientists interested in the larger social, ethical and policy implications of their work. The journal is international in scope, spanning research and developments in all corners of the globe. BioSocieties is published quarterly, with occasional themed issues that highlight some of the critical questions and problematics of modern biotechnologies. Articles, response pieces, review essays, and self-standing editorial pieces by social and life scientists form a regular part of the journal.
×
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