Covid-19 skepticism and public health norms during refugee assistance: does skepticism always lead to poor safety protocol adherence?

BACKGROUND: Skepticism about COVID-19's existence or severity has spread as fast as the disease itself, and in some populations has been shown to undermine protective public health behaviors that can mitigate infection. For populations that are especially vulnerable to COVID spread and severity, such as refugees, COVID skepticism is particularly problematic. METHODS: We examine data collected from observations of humanitarian services provided to refugees in Lebanon, Türkiye, and Jordan to determine if skepticism is related to adherence to specific health-protective protocols (masking, social distancing, and hand sanitizing), and whether the effects of COVID skepticism are mediated by particular populations of refugees or the country in which those refugees receive assistance. RESULTS: We found that community skepticism (the frequency of COVID skepticism expressed by others within a service location) is associated with lower adherence to certain protocols and not others. We also found that with certain protocols, the country in which refugees receive services mediates the relationship between community skepticism and protocol adherence, but for other protocols the relationship between skepticism and adherence is independent of either country in which refugees reside or the refugee population being served. CONCLUSIONS: The existence of skepticism about COVID-19 does not always lead to an unwillingness to take protective measures to avoid infection. The mechanisms underlying the relationship between skepticism and adherence to health-protective protocols vary based on the type of protocol in question. In order to increase protocol adherence, the specific variables predicting adherence to different protocols need to be assessed in order to increase adherence and improve public health during humanitarian services.

Feminized Intergenerational Mobility Without Assimilation? Post-1965 U.S. Immigrants and the Gender Revolution.

Women in the United States have made significant socioeconomic advances over the last generation. The second generation of post-1965 immigrants came of age during this "gender revolution." However, assimilation theories focus mainly on racial/ethnic trajectories. Do gendered trajectories between and within groups better capture mobility patterns? Using the 1980 decennial census and the 2003-2007 Current Population Survey (CPS), we observe the socioeconomic status of Latino and Asian immigrant parents and their second-generation children 25 years later. We compare the educational, occupational, and earnings attainment of second-generation daughters and sons with that of their immigrant mothers and fathers. We simultaneously compare those socioeconomic trajectories with a U.S.-born white, non-Latino reference group. We find that second-generation women experience greater status attainment than both their mothers and their male counterparts, but the earnings of second-generation women lag behind those of men. However, because white mainstream women experienced similar intergenerational mobility, many gaps between the second generation and the mainstream remain. These patterns remain even after we control for parenthood status. With feminized intergenerational mobility occurring similarly across race, the racial/ethnic gaps observed in 1980 narrow but persist into the next generation for many outcomes. Both gender and race shape mobility trajectories, so ignoring either leads to an incomplete picture of assimilation.