The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views.

Distrust in scientific expertise1-14 is dangerous. Opposition to vaccination with a future vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, the causal agent of COVID-19, for example, could amplify outbreaks2-4, as happened for measles in 20195,6. Homemade remedies7,8 and falsehoods are being shared widely on the Internet, as well as dismissals of expert advice9-11. There is a lack of understanding about how this distrust evolves at the system level13,14. Here we provide a map of the contention surrounding vaccines that has emerged from the global pool of around three billion Facebook users. Its core reveals a multi-sided landscape of unprecedented intricacy that involves nearly 100 million individuals partitioned into highly dynamic, interconnected clusters across cities, countries, continents and languages. Although smaller in overall size, anti-vaccination clusters manage to become highly entangled with undecided clusters in the main online network, whereas pro-vaccination clusters are more peripheral. Our theoretical framework reproduces the recent explosive growth in anti-vaccination views, and predicts that these views will dominate in a decade. Insights provided by this framework can inform new policies and approaches to interrupt this shift to negative views. Our results challenge the conventional thinking about undecided individuals in issues of contention surrounding health, shed light on other issues of contention such as climate change11, and highlight the key role of network cluster dynamics in multi-species ecologies15.

Synthesis and Assembly of Virtual Collaborations.

The interplay between academics and society within the environment of the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted on scientists across the world, prompting reevaluation of how virtual toolboxes can be used to support responsible collaborative research practices. We provide awareness of virtual resources and activities that enable scientific discovery using safe and efficient practices.

America's electorate is increasingly polarized along partisan lines about voting by mail during the COVID-19 crisis.

Are voters as polarized as political leaders when it comes to their preferences about how to cast their ballots in November 2020 and their policy positions on how elections should be run in light of the COVID-19 outbreak? Prior research has shown little party divide on voting by mail, with nearly equal percentages of voters in both parties choosing to vote this way where it is an option. Has a divide opened up this year in how voters aligned with the Democratic and Republican parties prefer to cast a ballot? We address these questions with two nationally diverse, online surveys fielded from April 8 to 10 and June 11 to 13, of 5,612 and 5,818 eligible voters, respectively, with an embedded experiment providing treated respondents with scientific projections about the COVID-19 outbreak. We find a nearly 10 percentage point difference between Democrats and Republicans in their preference for voting by mail in April, which had doubled in size to nearly 20 percentage points in June. This partisan gap is wider still for those exposed to scientific projections about the pandemic. We also find that support for national legislation requiring states to offer no-excuse absentee ballots has emerged as an increasingly polarized issue.

No clear association emerges between intergenerational relationships and COVID-19 fatality rates from macro-level analyses.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 originated in Wuhan, China at the end of 2019 and rapidly spread in more than 100 countries. Researchers in different fields have been working on finding explanations for the unequal impact of the virus and deaths from the associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) across geographical areas. Demographers and other social scientists have hinted at the importance of demographic factors, such as age structure and intergenerational relationships. Our aim is to reflect on the possible link between intergenerational relationships and spread and lethality of COVID-19 in a critical way. We show that with available aggregate data it is not possible to draw robust evidence to support these links. In fact, despite a higher prevalence of intergenerational coresidence and contacts that is broadly positively associated with COVID-19 case fatality rates at the country level, the opposite is generally true at the subnational level. While this inconsistent evidence demonstrates neither the existence nor the absence of a causal link between intergenerational relationships and the severity of COVID-19, we warn against simplistic interpretations of the available data, which suffer from many shortcomings. We conclude by arguing that intergenerational relationships are not only about physical contacts between family members. Theoretically, different forms of intergenerational relationships may have causal effects of opposite sign on the diffusion of COVID-19. Policies should also take into account that intergenerational ties are a source of instrumental and emotional support, which may favor compliance to the lockdown and "phase-2" restrictions and may buffer their negative consequences on mental health.

The rise of COVID-19 cases is associated with support for world leaders.

COVID-19 has emerged as one of the deadliest and most disruptive events in recent human history. Drawing from political science and psychological theories, we examine the effects of daily confirmed cases in a country on citizens' support for the political leader through the first 120 d of 2020. Using three unique datasets which comprise daily approval ratings of head of government (n = 1,411,200) across 11 world leaders (Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and weekly approval ratings of governors across the 50 states in the United States (n = 912,048), we find a strong and significant positive association between new daily confirmed and total confirmed COVID-19 cases in the country and support for the heads of government. These analyses show that political leaders received a boost in approval in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, these findings suggest that the previously documented "rally 'round the flag" effect applies beyond just intergroup conflict.

Working memory capacity predicts individual differences in social-distancing compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

Noncompliance with social distancing during the early stage of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a great challenge to the public health system. These noncompliance behaviors partly reflect people's concerns for the inherent costs of social distancing while discounting its public health benefits. We propose that this oversight may be associated with the limitation in one's mental capacity to simultaneously retain multiple pieces of information in working memory (WM) for rational decision making that leads to social-distancing compliance. We tested this hypothesis in 850 United States residents during the first 2 wk following the presidential declaration of national emergency because of the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that participants' social-distancing compliance at this initial stage could be predicted by individual differences in WM capacity, partly due to increased awareness of benefits over costs of social distancing among higher WM capacity individuals. Critically, the unique contribution of WM capacity to the individual differences in social-distancing compliance could not be explained by other psychological and socioeconomic factors (e.g., moods, personality, education, and income levels). Furthermore, the critical role of WM capacity in social-distancing compliance can be generalized to the compliance with another set of rules for social interactions, namely the fairness norm, in Western cultures. Collectively, our data reveal contributions of a core cognitive process underlying social-distancing compliance during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting a potential cognitive venue for developing strategies to mitigate a public health crisis.

Gender differences in COVID-19 attitudes and behavior: Panel evidence from eight countries.

The initial public health response to the breakout of COVID-19 required fundamental changes in individual behavior, such as isolation at home or wearing masks. The effectiveness of these policies hinges on generalized public obedience. Yet, people's level of compliance may depend on their beliefs regarding the pandemic. We use original data from two waves of a survey conducted in March and April 2020 in eight Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (n = 21,649) to study gender differences in COVID-19-related beliefs and behaviors. We show that women are more likely to perceive COVID-19 as a very serious health problem, to agree with restraining public policy measures, and to comply with them. Gender differences in attitudes and behavior are sizable in all countries. They are accounted for neither by sociodemographic and employment characteristics nor by psychological and behavioral factors. They are only partially mitigated for individuals who cohabit or have direct exposure to the virus. We show that our results are not due to differential social desirability bias. This evidence has important implications for public health policies and communication on COVID-19, which may need to be gender based, and it unveils a domain of gender differences: behavioral changes in response to a new risk.

Economic hardship and mental health complaints during COVID-19.

The COVID-19 economic crash is idiosyncratic because of its virtual standstill of economic activity. We therefore ask how individual labor market experiences are related to the development of mental health complaints in the spring of 2020. As clinical data collection was compromised during the lockdowns, standardized surveys of the European labor force provide an opportunity to observe mental health complaints as the crisis unfolded. Data are representative of active members of the labor force of six European nations that contained varying levels of COVID-19 burdens in terms of mortality and lockdown measures. We document a steep occupational prestige level gradient on the probability of facing economic hardship during the lockdowns-looming job loss, income loss, and workload decline-which evidently exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities. Analyses indicate a striking positive relationship between instantaneous economic hardships during the COVID-19 lockdown and expressing feelings of depression and health anxiety. Importantly, the magnitude of the association between such hardships and indicators of mental health deterioration is highly dependent on workers' occupational standing, revealing a second layer of exacerbating inequality.

Social distancing responses to COVID-19 emergency declarations strongly differentiated by income.

In the absence of a vaccine, social distancing measures are one of the primary tools to reduce the transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We show that social distancing following US state-level emergency declarations substantially varies by income. Using mobility measures derived from mobile device location pings, we find that wealthier areas decreased mobility significantly more than poorer areas, and this general pattern holds across income quantiles, data sources, and mobility measures. Using an event study design focusing on behavior subsequent to state emergency orders, we document a reversal in the ordering of social distancing by income: Wealthy areas went from most mobile before the pandemic to least mobile, while, for multiple measures, the poorest areas went from least mobile to most. Previous research has shown that lower income communities have higher levels of preexisting health conditions and lower access to healthcare. Combining this with our core finding-that lower income communities exhibit less social distancing-suggests a double burden of the COVID-19 pandemic with stark distributional implications.

When SARS-CoV-2 comes knocking on your lab door: Individual scientists' experiences during the pandemic.

A snapshot of how scientists are personally affected by the global Covid-19 pandemic.

A projection for psychiatry in the post-COVID-19 era: potential trends, challenges, and directions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the face of psychiatry over a very short time period. Given the detrimental impact of the pandemic on mental health and the economy, more difficult days are ahead for psychiatry. The rising public health burden of mental illnesses will inevitably exceed the capacity of psychiatric services in the United States and worldwide. The pandemic has also profoundly affected psychiatric research due to safety concerns and containment efforts. Intermediate and long-term ramifications may even be more serious. In addition to the effects of the economic downturn on available research funding, existing research tools and protocols may not meet the emerging needs in the post-COVID-19 era. This paper discusses potential trends and challenges that psychiatric practice and research may encounter in this period from the viewpoint of workers in the field. We outline some measures that clinicians and researchers can implement to adapt to the emerging changes in psychiatry and to mitigate the forthcoming effects of the crisis.

What We Have Learned from Two Decades of Epidemics and Pandemics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Burden of Frontline Healthcare Workers.

In light of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and potential future infectious disease outbreaks, a comprehensive understanding of the negative effects of epidemics and pandemics on healthcare workers' mental health could inform appropriate support interventions. Thus, we aimed to synthesize and quantify the psychological and psychosomatic symptoms among frontline medical staff. We searched four databases up to March 19, 2020 and additional literature, with daily search alerts set up until October 26, 2020. Studies reporting psychological and/or psychosomatic symptoms of healthcare workers caring for patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome, H1N1, Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome, or COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently conducted the search, study selection, quality appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis and involved a third reviewer in case of disagreement. We used random effects modeling to estimate the overall prevalence rates of psychological/psychosomatic symptoms and the I2 statistic. We included 86 studies, reporting data from 75,991 participants. Frontline staff showed a wide range of symptoms, including concern about transmitting the virus to the family (60.39%, 95% CI 42.53-76.96), perceived stress (56.77%, 95% CI 34.21-77.95), concerns about own health (45.97%, 95% CI 31.08-61.23), sleeping difficulties (39.88%, 95% CI 27.70-52.72), burnout (31.81%, 95% CI 13.32-53.89), symptoms of depression (25.72%, 95% CI 18.34-33.86), symptoms of anxiety (25.36%, 95% CI 17.90-33.64), symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (24.51%, 95% CI 18.16-31.46), mental health issues (23.11%, 95% CI 15.98-31.10), and symptoms of somatization (14.68%, 95% CI 10.67-19.18). We found consistent evidence for the pervasive and profound impact of large-scale outbreaks on the mental health of frontline healthcare workers. As the CO-VID-19 crisis continues to unfold, guaranteeing easy access to support structures for the entire healthcare workforce is vitally important.

Symptoms of Anxiety, Depression, and Peritraumatic Dissociation in Critical Care Clinicians Managing Patients with COVID-19. A Cross-Sectional Study.

Rationale: Frontline healthcare providers (HCPs) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic are at high risk of mental morbidity.Objectives: To assess the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and peritraumatic dissociation in HCPs.Methods: This was a cross-sectional study in 21 ICUs in France between April 20, 2020, and May 21, 2020. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Peritraumatic Dissociative Experience Questionnaire were used. Factors independently associated with reported symptoms of mental health disorders were identified.Measurements and Main Results: The response rate was 67%, with 1,058 respondents (median age 33 yr; 71% women; 68% nursing staff). The prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and peritraumatic dissociation was 50.4%, 30.4%, and 32%, respectively, with the highest rates in nurses. By multivariable analysis, male sex was independently associated with lower prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and peritraumatic dissociation (odds ratio of 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.79], 0.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.82], and 0.49 [95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.72], respectively). HCPs working in non-university-affiliated hospitals and nursing assistants were at high risk of symptoms of anxiety and peritraumatic dissociation. Importantly, we identified the following six modifiable determinants of symptoms of mental health disorders: fear of being infected, inability to rest, inability to care for family, struggling with difficult emotions, regret about the restrictions in visitation policies, and witnessing hasty end-of-life decisions.Conclusions: HCPs experience high levels of psychological burden during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals, ICU directors, and ICU staff must devise strategies to overcome the modifiable determinants of adverse mental illness symptoms.

Awareness, Attitudes, and Actions Related to COVID-19 Among Adults With Chronic Conditions at the Onset of the U.S. Outbreak: A Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: The evolving outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is requiring social distancing and other measures to protect public health. However, messaging has been inconsistent and unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine COVID-19 awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and related behaviors among U.S. adults who are more vulnerable to complications of infection because of age and comorbid conditions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey linked to 3 active clinical trials and 1 cohort study. SETTING: 5 academic internal medicine practices and 2 federally qualified health centers. PATIENTS: 630 adults aged 23 to 88 years living with 1 or more chronic conditions. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to COVID-19. RESULTS: A fourth (24.6%) of participants were "very worried" about getting the coronavirus. Nearly a third could not correctly identify symptoms (28.3%) or ways to prevent infection (30.2%). One in 4 adults (24.6%) believed that they were "not at all likely" to get the virus, and 21.9% reported that COVID-19 had little or no effect on their daily routine. One in 10 respondents was very confident that the federal government could prevent a nationwide outbreak. In multivariable analyses, participants who were black, were living below the poverty level, and had low health literacy were more likely to be less worried about COVID-19, to not believe that they would become infected, and to feel less prepared for an outbreak. Those with low health literacy had greater confidence in the federal government response. LIMITATION: Cross-sectional study of adults with underlying health conditions in 1 city during the initial week of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak. CONCLUSION: Many adults with comorbid conditions lacked critical knowledge about COVID-19 and, despite concern, were not changing routines or plans. Noted disparities suggest that greater public health efforts may be needed to mobilize the most vulnerable communities. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

The Effects of Social Media Use on Preventive Behaviors during Infectious Disease Outbreaks: The Mediating Role of Self-relevant Emotions and Public Risk Perception.

While there has been increasing attention to the role of social media during infectious disease outbreaks, relatively little is known about the underlying mechanisms by which social media use affects risk perception and preventive behaviors during such outbreaks. Using data collected during the 2015 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak in South Korea, this study explores the relationships among social media use, risk perception, and preventive behaviors by examining the mediating role of two self-relevant emotions: fear and anger. The findings demonstrate that social media use is positively related to both of these emotions, which are also positively related to the public's risk perception. The findings also indicate that social media use can significantly increase preventive behaviors via the two self-relevant emotions and the public's risk perception.

Traditional herbal medicines to overcome stress, anxiety and improve mental health in outbreaks of human coronaviruses.

Mental health condition is including depression and anxiety, and they may impact wellbeing, personal relationships and productivity of both genders. Herbal medicines have been used to treatment of anxiety and depression symptoms for centuries. SARS, MERS and COVID-19 are related to coronavirus types. SARS (sever acute respiratory syndrome, China, 2002), MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome, Saudi Arabia, 2012), and SARS-CoV-2 (2019-2020) are the main coronavirus outbreaks. Both anxiety and depression are more serious to be considered and improved for all general public during fight with these diseases. In this mini-review article, we have mentioned the key role some of the most important plants and herbs for treatment of stress and anxiety and improve mental health against SARS and SARS-CoV-2 on the basis of traditional Asian medicine, especially traditional Chinese and Persian medicine.

The VACCINES Act: Deciphering Vaccine Hesitancy in the Time of COVID-19.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic first hit Wuhan, China, in December 2019, scientists have been racing to develop and test novel vaccines to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The speed of scientific discovery related to COVID-19 is unprecedented. With several vaccine candidates already being tested in clinical trials, we pose the question: what will the vaccine hesitant do in the face of this pandemic?