Rituals of Contagion in Closed Religious Communities: A Case Study of Amish and Mennonite Communities in the USA During the Beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, government and medical guidelines emphasized social distancing to limit exposure. These guidelines significantly impacted closed religious communities, particularly those opposed to modern technologies, such as Amish and Mennonite communities. How did these religious communities respond to COVID-19 policies in the USA? We draw data from Ohio and Pennsylvania scribe entries published in an Amish/Mennonite correspondence newspaper. While some of these communities altered church rituals to comply with government directives, others maintained communal worship without disruption. Mennonite communities were more likely to conform to guidelines.

Closed but Not Protected: Excess Deaths Among the Amish and Mennonites During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

"Excess deaths" is a means to estimate the lethality of COVID-19 (directly and indirectly). Assessing "excess death" in closed religious communities provides information on how COVID-19 impacted these communities. We use obituary information published in an Amish/Mennonite newspaper to examine excess death among the Amish/Mennonites in 2020. Our results indicate the Amish/Mennonite excess death rates are similar to the national trends in the USA. The excess death rate for Amish/Mennonites spiked with a 125% increase in November 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on this closed religious community highlights the need to consider religion to stop the spread of COVID-19.

Public responses to scientific research: Does disciplinary attribution matter?

Research has shown that the form and content of science communications can influence individuals' responses. This study examines whether individuals' perceptions of scientific research are influenced by the discipline to which the research is attributed. Two vignette experiments find that neither the perceived scientific-ness nor trustworthiness of a study originating from sociology is affected by attributing the study to a different social science or to a natural or medical science. These null findings contrast with surveys showing sizable disciplinary differences in public attitudes. It is possible that disciplinary attribution is a less salient cognitive shortcut when presented in longer communications as compared to survey questions that only provide the name of a discipline. We conclude with suggestions for further research on the role of disciplinary attribution on public perceptions of science.