Suchergebnisse

Focuses on the contributions that social scientists can make to understanding emerging epidemics, their impact, the threats they pose, and their social and political contexts. This book examines emerging epidemics and offers a theoretical analysis of the use of epidemics and epidemiology as frameworks for understanding these phenomena.

An 'epidemic' is defined as an increase in cases of disease over and above what would normally be expected in a community or region during a specified period. War, displacement, poverty and natural disasters are frequently associated with epidemics, and it is not unusual for humanitarian agencies to be called upon to prevent or contain them, especially in resource-poor settings. Although there is a considerable body of literature critiquing the work of humanitarian agencies on epidemics, it would be misleading to generalize too readily from cases of failure. There are many instances in which they have prevented the occurrence of epidemics, but these achievements have rarely been recorded in any detail and they are hard to assess comparatively. This chapter does not, therefore, attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of humanitarian engagement with epidemics. Instead, the first part of the chapter presents three case studies from Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo – DRC), Haiti and Somalia. These case studies look behind the narratives of 'failure' and 'success' to explore salient issues which routinely arise for humanitarian agencies working in challenging circumstances. The second part of the chapter then turns to the largest humanitarian programme ever attempted to control an epidemic: the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa between 2013 and 2016. In so doing, it becomes evident that humanitarian programmes, which adapt and respond to the specific social, political and economic contexts in which they are working, tend to be more effective. It is also clear that the nature of humanitarian engagement with epidemics is increasingly being shaped by narratives linking infectious diseases with global security.

Summary considerations - The current media landscape has the potential to facilitate the rapid development and spread of mis- and disinformation. Social media can also be used to quickly and effectively counter mis- and disinformation. Such positive opportunities must be identified and maximised. - Mis- and disinformation can proliferate when there is a lack, or conversely, an overabundance of information. Their spread can lead to non-compliance with public health measures, perpetuate political conflict and discrimination, and cause negative psychological and social effects. - Social media are global in scope, yet the behaviour of social media users is locally specific. Rapid assessments are needed to fully understand people's favoured channels, most trusted sources, level of literacy and media literacy, and preferred languages and formats for receiving and sharing messages. Such details are essential in order to best communicate with multiple population groups in an emergency. - Public bodies should ensure that the information they share through social media is factual and originates from official sources (such as the WHO, CDC, Ministries of Health etc). They should push information and consistent messaging through multiple channels. A lack of up-to-date information can create a vacuum that is filled by speculation. Reporting inaccurate information should be the responsibility of all � from news agencies to individual users. - People are more inclined to believe and share information when the message is clear and simple, when they trust the source of the message and the channel through which it was conveyed, when the message aligns to their pre-held beliefs, and when the message resonates with them emotionally (e.g., drawing on humour, fear or disgust); text heavy messages do not hold people's attention in the same way as emotional content. People have a greater level of assurance and trust in consistent information which they see featured on multiple sources, whatever those sources may be. The same is also true of mis- and disinformation - If mis- and disinformation are not addressed as they arise, they can proliferate. Identifying and directly addressing false information and rapidly debunking �rumours' can be very effective and create space for reliable and relevant information to circulate. Rumours often reflect underlying anxieties or pre-held social or political positions and beliefs; it is important to address their underlying causes. Communications that are solution-focused, promote a sense of self-efficacy, hope and agency, whilst building on existing resources and strengths can help mitigate fear and foster compliance with public health recommendations. - In rapidly evolving situations such as health emergencies, it is acceptable for official sources to acknowledge that there are unknowns and to reassure the public that they will convey new information when it emerges. This transparent approach challenges people who circulate information that is not supported by evidence. - Trust is also generated by when two-way dialogue is enabled. Accessible channels must allow people to ask questions, the answers to which are reflected in the information being shared. In this way, people are provided with pertinent information and see their realities and concerns acknowledged in broader communication. - Trusted experts and �social influencers' should be used to help communicate information in an engaging way and are often more trusted than official sources. Official bodies should collaborate with social influencers to amplify key messaging. - Rather than censoring information which risks it moving to more private platforms such as WhatsApp, it may be more effective to flag information as inaccurate and flood the same channels with factual information. - Further research is needed to better understand the sources and motivations behind health misinformation and to analyse the effectiveness of measures aimed at stemming its flow and mitigating its harmful effects.

The recent Ebola epidemic provides a dramatic example of the devastation and fear generated by epidemics, particularly those caused by new emerging or reemerging diseases. A focus on the control and prevention of diseases in living populations dominates most epidemic disease research. However, research on epidemics in the past provides a temporal depth to our understanding of the context and consequences of diseases and is crucial for predicting how diseases might shape human biology and demography in the future. This article reviews recent research on historic epidemics of plague and tuberculosis, both of which have affected human populations for millennia. Research on these diseases demonstrates the range (and differential availability) of various lines of evidence (e.g., burial context, diagnostic skeletal lesions, molecular data) that inform about past disease in general. I highlight how research on past epidemics may be informative in ways that benefit living populations.

AbstractSocial epidemics or behaviorally based non-communicable diseases are becoming an increasingly important problem in developed countries including the United States. It is the aim of our paper to propose a previously understudied aspect of the spread of social epidemics, the role of information in both causing and mitigating social epidemics. In this paper, we ask, can information be harmful, contagious, and a causal factor in social epidemics? In the spread of biological epidemics, the causal agents are biological pathogens such as bacteria or viruses. We propose that in the spread of social epidemics, one of the causal agents is harmful information, which is increasing exponentially in the age of the internet. We ground our idea in the concept of the meme and define the concept of an infopathogen as harmful information that can spread or intensify a social epidemic. Second, we ask, what are the best tools to understand the role of information in the spread of social epidemics? The epidemiological triad that includes a host, agents (and vectors), and the environment is extended into a quad by including information agents. The quad includes the role of information technologies as vectors and the impact of the social environment. The "life cycles" of pathogens in biological epidemics and infopathogens in social epidemics are compared, along with mitigations suggested by the epidemiological quad. Challenges to the theory of infopathogens, including the complexities associated with the spread of memes and the role of behavior in the spread of epidemics are discussed. Implications of the theory including the classification of harmfulness, the freedom of speech, and the treatment of infected individuals are also considered. We believe the application of the epidemiological quad provides insights into social epidemics and potential mitigations. Finally, we stress that infopathogens are only part of social epidemic development; susceptible hosts, a favorable environment, and availability of physical agents are all also required.

"The Advances in Bioethics" series is devoted to publishing collections of original papers and multi-authored volumes that advance the field of bioethics either by exploring new areas, or by taking new approaches to traditional areas. Although the series is published in English, its scope is international, and manuscripts are welcome from authors throughout the world. Divided into three sections this volume covers: Human Rights, Public Safety, and Public Policy; Practitioner Responsibilities During Times of Epidemics; Global Dimensions of Epidemics - each chapter in the book goes in depth to discuss the issues surrounding the topic in question and combines a theoretical thought process with practical application.

Anthropology's response to the West African Ebola epidemic was one of the most rapid and expansive anthropological interventions to a global health emergency in the discipline's history. This article sets forth the size and scale of the anthropological response and describes the protagonists, interventions, and priorities for anthropological engagement. It takes an inclusive approach to anthropological praxis by engaging with the work of nonanthropologist "allies," including qualitative researchers, social workers, and allied experts. The article narrates how the concept of "anthropology" came to serve as a semantic marker of solidarity with local populations, respect for customary practices and local sociopolitical realities, and an avowed belief in the capacities of local populations to lead localized epidemic prevention and response efforts. Of particular consideration is the range of complementary and conflicting epistemological, professional, and critical engagements held by anthropologists. The article also discusses how to assess anthropological "impact" in epidemics.

As COVID-19 drags on and new vaccines promise widespread immunity, the world's attention has turned to predicting how the present pandemic will end. How do societies know when an epidemic is over and normal life can resume? What criteria and markers indicate such an end? Who has the insight, authority, and credibility to decipher these signs? Detailed research on past epidemics has demonstrated that they do not end suddenly; indeed, only rarely do the diseases in question actually end. This article examines the ways in which scholars have identified and described the end stages of previous epidemics, pointing out that significantly less attention has been paid to these periods than to origins and climaxes. Analysis of the ends of epidemics illustrates that epidemics are as much social, political, and economic events as they are biological; the "end," therefore, is as much a process of social and political negotiation as it is biomedical. Equally important, epidemics end at different times for different groups, both within one society and across regions. Multidisciplinary research into how epidemics end reveals how the end of an epidemic shifts according to perspective, whether temporal, geographic, or methodological. A multidisciplinary analysis of how epidemics end suggests that epidemics should therefore be framed not as linear narratives-from outbreak to intervention to termination-but within cycles of disease and with a multiplicity of endings.