Search

How distancing requirements in the COVID-19 pandemic transformed intimate relationships is under-researched. Against the backdrop of research on the HIV pandemic, the paper departs from the assumption that decreased legitimacy of intimate arrangements and subjective worry about the likeliness of infection may reduce the frequency of multiple sexual contact and intimate well-being during the pandemic. Based on findings from a quantitative study which included measures of risk perception, frequency of contact with sexual partners and communities, concealment, as well as relationship quality in Austria and Germany, this paper examines sexual behaviour in association with relationship status and sexual identity. Analysing data from a convenience sample of 4,709 respondents, of whom 24 per cent identified as LGBQA+, 2 per cent as non-binary, and 6 per cent as consensually non-monogamous, bivariate analysis found significant differences in social distancing, frequency of contact with sexual communities and satisfaction with current sex life. Text analysis of the survey's open-ended responses indicates monogamisation due to declined legitimacy of less conventional intimate arrangements during the pandemic. Findings point to the importance of the sexual morality that defined pandemic experiences in times of HIV for understanding normative pressure on intimate life during COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the effects that mobility restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic have had on different types of co-presence, which the existing literature considers to be central for science and innovation. Drawing on a regional analysis of COVID-19 restrictions in Germany, it links specific mobility restrictions to concrete impacts on co-presence, differentiating between co-presence in organizations, dynamic temporary co-presence, and the local 'buzz'. It highlights that co-presence at workplaces and conferences was resilient to restrictions but that the detrimental effects on the 'local buzz' may have been substantial and long-lasting. In conclusion, it cautions against the severe effects of placing restrictions on the education system. Subsequently, the discussion links the reported disruptions of co-presence to the potential effects of the pandemic on preconditions for innovative processes and economic recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The social distancing and lockdown measures enacted to address the COVID-19 pandemic entailed an unprecedented shift to digitally-mediated communication. The move to remote learning at schools was one of such important changes. Drawing on privacy and STS literature, we investigate the role of different privacy cultures during the initial moment of turbulence, when schools had to quickly adapt to remote teaching. To this end, we conducted semi-structured interviews with teachers in Israel and Germany. Our interviews carved out three distinct phases: A moment of turbulence, a period of negotiation and a phase of temporary closure, leading to the dominance of Zoom and Google Classroom in Israel, and government-mandated open-source tools for German teachers. These different pathways are shaped by considerations of vertical privacy among German teachers, and the absence of such considerations on the part of Israeli teachers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During COVID-19, various public institutions tried to shape citizens' behaviour to slow the spread of the pandemic. How did their authority affect citizens' support of public measures taken to combat the spread of COVID-19? The article makes two contributions. First, it presents a novel conceptualisation of authority as a source heuristic. Second, it analyses the authority of four types of public institutions (health ministries, universities, public health agencies, the WHO) in two countries (Germany and the UK), drawing on novel data from a survey experiment conducted in May 2020. On average, institutional endorsements seem to have mattered little. However, there is an observable polarisation effect where citizens who ascribe much expertise to public institutions support COVID-19 measures more than the control group. Furthermore, those who ascribe little expertise support them less than the control group. Finally, neither perception of biases nor exposure to institutions in public debates seems consistently to affect their authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses six typical communication traps regarding COVID-19 which can also be observed with respect to other risk topics. First, we argue that risk communication can slide into what is known as 'risk kitsch'. This refers to the misconception that avoiding risk automatically results in safety. However, the avoidance of one risk always leads to other risks. Life without risk is not possible. We go on to scrutinize the unquestioning belief in numbers. It would seem that describing risks in terms of numbers promises to overcome chaos, provide order, and create a sense of agency over the threatening health risks. However, is this really so? Don't numbers also lie, lead astray, or misrepresent? The third issue we examine is the impact of pictures and individual cases on risk perception. What key picture – or rather what particular graphic – shapes the risk perception of COVID-19? What message does it convey? Does it bias and mislead us? The fourth issue involves the use of COVID-19 modeling studies which aim to provide answers to a number of essential questions: How bad can it get? What does it depend on? What can be done? Yet it is clear that not all assumptions underlying modeling computations are valid. Information content is not necessarily the same as reality content. The fifth section examines the question of how politics can navigate through the crisis. Is it navigating with a faulty compass? How defective is the compass? We then consider the question of morality, which is a crucial issue during a pandemic with its life- and-death stakes. Are moral evaluations always helpful? Or does a rigorously moral discourse hinder the necessary consideration of alternative options in dealing with the pandemic? Finally, we will draw some conclusions. What could better risk communication on COVID-19 look like? What can be improved, and how? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]