Search

This paper analyses the use of Twitter as a presidential communication channel during the first few months of the COVID-19 crisis. The aim is to determine how four recently elected presidents (those of Spain, Argentina, Mexico and Brazil) managed their political communication, and to explore the thesis that they resorted to populist messages during the first months of their terms in office. Using a qualitative methodology and the XL Node tool to capture data, a comparative analysis was performed on the messages posted on their personal Twitter accounts during the first 20 weeks of 2020, classified in six categories: polarization; conspiracy; exaltation and leadership; personalisation and privacy; emotions and feelings; and media publicity. The results indicate that the four presidents share populist traits, but to a different extent. López Obrador and Bolsonaro display a more populist profile, with emotional appeals to the people and to their saving action as regards the implementation of health policies. Conversely, Alberto Fernández and Pedro Sánchez are more akin to the pop politician profile, posting photographs and media messages with a view to receiving press coverage. Both post tweets, based on values and historical events, aimed at their grassroots supporters. The main conclusion is that the pandemic has enhanced the presidential and personalist profiles of the four leaders, although their actions during the COVID-19 crisis were not necessarily in keeping with the populist paradigm. Thus, Sánchez and Bolsonaro implemented a health management communication strategy, while López Obrador and Fernández paid scant attention to health policy.

Background: Ioannidis et al. (2020) reported a standardized estimate of scientific productivity obtained from a worldwide database of 6,880,389 scientists who published at least 5 papers picked up by the Scopus database, and elaborated a ranking of ca. 120,000 scientists by both whole trajectory (career-long) impact and their current impact at year 2019. The goal of our paper is to contextualize Latin American ecologists' contribution at the world level based on the four most scientifically productive countries in the region. Methods and findings: Ioannidis et al. (2020) proposed a composite index that is the sum of six scientometric indicators: (1) The number of allocites, (2) the h index, (3) a per capita corrected version of h, (4) the allocites received as single author, (5) those received as single + first author, and (6) those as single + first + last author. We selected data for ecologists from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico and comparatively analyzed their productivity according to the proposed index. We also compared these data with those obtained from a global sample of the top ecologists worldwide. Conclusions: Based on Ioannidis et al.'s proposition to evaluate scientific productivity we extract three lessons: (1) It does not pay to publish many papers; what counts is the number of allocites (i.e., self-citations do not add up). (2) Either be single, first, or last author; it does not pay to be in the middle of an authorship line. (3) Even worse it is to be among many co-authors because the proposed index allocates credits on a per capita basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fitting Susceptible-Infected-Recovered (SIR) models to incidence data is problematic when not all infected individuals are reported. Assuming an underlying SIR model with general but known distribution for the time to recovery, this paper derives the implied differential-integral equations for observed incidence data when a fixed fraction of newly infected individuals are not observed. The parameters of the resulting system of differential equations are identifiable. Using these differential equations, we develop a stochastic model for the conditional distribution of current disease incidence given the entire past history of reported cases. We estimate the model parameters using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte-Carlo sampling of the posterior distribution. We use our model to estimate the transmission rate and fraction of asymptomatic individuals for the current Coronavirus 2019 outbreak in eight American Countries: the United States of America, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Panama, from January 2020 to May 2021. Our analysis reveals that the fraction of reported cases varies across all countries. For example, the reported incidence fraction for the United States of America varies from 0.3 to 0.6, while for Brazil it varies from 0.2 to 0.4., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

We simulate the short- and long-term distributional consequences of COVID-19 in the four largest Latin American economies: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. We show that the short-term impact on income inequality and poverty can be very significant, but that additional spending on social assistance more than offsets the effect in Brazil. The offsetting effect is significant in Argentina and Colombia and nil in Mexico, where there has been no such expansion. We find that a universal basic income that would have produced the same reduction in the poverty gap as actual policies would have cost slightly more but would have benefited the poor (the nonpoor) slightly less (more). To project the longterm consequences, we estimate the impact of the pandemic on school achievement and its intergenerational persistence. We use information on school closures, educational mitigation policies, and account for educational losses related to health shocks and parental job loss. Our findings show that in all four countries the impact is strongly asymmetric and affects particularly the high-school completion rates of children from disadvantaged families. Our simulations suggest that mitigation policies seem to have a minor impact on containing these negative effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted global interdependencies, accompanied by widespread calls for worldwide cooperation against a virus that knows no borders, but responses were led largely separately by national governments. In this tension between aspiration and reality, people began to grapple with how their own lives were affected by the global nature of the pandemic. In this article, based on 493 qualitative interviews conducted between 2020 and 2021, we explore how people in Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Ecuador, Ireland, Italy and Mexico experienced, coped with and navigated the global nature of the pandemic. In dialogue with debates about the parameters of the 'global' in global health, we focus on what we call people's everyday (de)bordering practices to examine how they negotiated (dis)connections between 'us' and 'them' during the pandemic. Our interviewees' reactions moved from national containment to an increasing focus on people's unequal socio-spatial situatedness. Eventually, they began to (de)border their lives beyond national lines of division and to describe a new normal: a growing awareness of global connectedness and a desire for global citizenship. This newfound sense of global interrelatedness could signal support for and encourage transnational political action in times of crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]