COVID-19: Another Look at Solidarity

Solidarity and reciprocity during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal qualitative interview study from Germany

BACKGROUND

While solidarity practices were important in mitigating the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, their limits became evident as the pandemic progressed. Taking a longitudinal approach, this study analyses German residents' changing perceptions of solidarity practices during the COVID-19 pandemic and examines potential reasons for these changes.

METHODS

Adults living in Germany were interviewed in April 2020 (n = 46), October 2020 (n = 43) and October 2021 (n = 40) as part of the SolPan Research Commons, a large-scale, international, qualitative, longitudinal study uniquely situated in a major global public health crisis. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

While solidarity practices were prominently discussed and positively evaluated in April 2020, this initial enthusiasm waned in October 2020 and October 2021. Yet, participants still perceived solidarity as important for managing the pandemic and called for institutionalized forms of solidarity in October 2020 and October 2021. Reasons for these changing perceptions of solidarity included (i) increasing personal and societal costs to act in solidarity, (ii) COVID-19 policies hindering solidarity practices, and (iii) a perceived lack of reciprocity as participants felt that solidarity practices from the state were not matching their individual efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining solidarity contributes to maximizing public health during a pandemic. Institutionalized forms of solidarity to support those most in need contribute to perceived reciprocity among individuals, which might increase their motivation to act in solidarity. Thus, rather than calling for individual solidarity during times of crisis, authorities should consider implementing sustaining solidarity-based social support systems that go beyond immediate crisis management.

Let the Chips Fall! Public Nudging Arrangements, Coercion, and the Role of Independent Shopkeepers

Nudging, according to its inventors and defenders, is supposed to provide a non-coercive way of changing human behavior for the better-a freedom-respecting form of "libertarian paternalism." Its original point was to complement coercive modes of influence without any need of justification in liberal frameworks. This article shows, using the example of food-product placement in grocery stores, how this image is deceptive. Although nudging practices may not restrict the freedom of consumers, nudging arrangements by public health authorities do restrict the freedom of shopkeepers in standard liberal senses. Libertarianism cannot justify this coercion, and the creed is best left out of the equation as the ideological ruse that it, in this discussion, is. Other liberal theories can justify the coercion, but on grounds that can also be applied to other methods of public health promotion by subsidies and regulation. This result reaffirms that nudging should be seen to complement, not to replace, those other methods.

Newspaper coverage on solidarity and personal responsibility in the COVID-19 pandemic: A content analysis from Germany and German-speaking Switzerland

Solidarity and personal responsibility have been repeatedly called upon during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study quantifies and contextualizes the use of these terms in newspaper coverage in Germany and German-speaking Switzerland based on n = 640 articles from six functionally equivalent newspapers. The term solidarity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic was mentioned in 541/640 articles (84.5%) and was primarily used during phases with high death rates and comparatively stringent policies in place, supporting the idea that solidarity was used to explain restrictive measures to the population and motivate people to comply with these measures. German newspapers published more articles on solidarity than Swiss-German newspapers, consistent with more stringent COVID-19 policies in Germany. Personal responsibility was mentioned in 133/640 articles (20.8%), meaning that the term was less frequently discussed than solidarity. Articles covering personal responsibility included more negative evaluations during phases of high infection rates as compared to phases of low infection rates. Findings indicate that the two terms were, at least to some extent, used in newspaper reporting to contextualize and justify COVID-19 policy during phases of high infection rates. Moreover, the term solidarity was used in a high variety of different contexts and the inherent limits of solidarity were rarely mentioned. Policymakers and journalists need to take this into account for future crises to not jeopardize the positive effects of solidarity.

Comparing the effects of reduced social contact on psychosocial wellbeing before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal survey from two Norwegian counties

PURPOSE

To determine changes to people's social contact during COVID-19, and whether reduced social contact was associated with changes to psychosocial wellbeing.

METHODS

Questionnaire data were collected from a sample of adult respondents (18 years or more) in two Norwegian counties participating pre-COVID-19 (September 2019-February 2020; n = 20,196) and at two time points during COVID-19 (June [Mid] and November/December [Late] 2020; n = 11,953 and n = 10,968, respectively). The main outcome measures were participants' self-reported changes to social contact, loneliness, psychological distress, and life satisfaction.

RESULTS

The proportion of respondents reporting less social contact due to COVID-19 decreased from 62% in Mid-2020 to 55% in Late-2020. Overall, reported psychological wellbeing remained unchanged or improved from pre-COVID-19 to Mid-2020. From Mid-2020 to Late-2020, however, a reduction in psychological wellbeing was observed. Poorer psychological wellbeing was found for those with less social contact during the pandemic compared with people reporting unchanged social contact. This effect increased over time and was observed for all age groups at Late-2020. At Mid-2020, the importance of change in social contact for change in psychological wellbeing was greatest among young adults (< 30 years), while no significant differences were found for the oldest age group.

CONCLUSION

The association between COVID-19-era changes to social contact and loneliness, psychological distress, and life satisfaction is complex and appears to be age-dependent. Future studies should consider the quality of social contact and cultural contexts in which social restrictions are imposed.

How is “solidarity” understood in discussions about contact tracing apps? An overview

Background

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is much discussion about contact tracing apps, their use to contain the spread of the virus as well as the ethical, legal, and social aspects of their development, implementation, acceptance, and use. In these discussions, authors frequently mention “solidarity” when making key points in arguments. At the same time, authors rarely specify how they understand “solidarity”. This lack of specification about how they understand “solidarity” can lead to misunderstandings in discussions.

Objective

To prevent such misunderstandings, it is important to specify how one understands “solidarity” when mentioning it in the discussions on contact tracing apps. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to elaborate how “solidarity” is understood in the context of contact tracing apps, i.e., how different authors understand “solidarity” when using it in discussions about these apps.

Methods

In order to find out how different authors understand “solidarity” when discussing contact tracing apps, I conduct a literature review. I collect papers from several databases, inductively work out central differences and similarities between the different uses of “solidarity”, and use them to code and analyze relevant passages.

Results

In the final sample, five different understandings of “solidarity” in the context of contact tracing apps can be identified. These understandings differ in how different authors (1) imagine the basic concept of solidarity, i.e., what “solidarity” refers to, (2) how they temporally relate solidarity to contact tracing apps, and (3) how they perceive the causal interactions between solidarity and contact tracing apps, i.e., the different ways in which solidarity and contact tracing apps influence each other.

Conclusions

The five understandings of “solidarity” in the context of contact tracing apps presented here can serve as guidance for how “solidarity” can be understood in discussions—thus contributing to a better mutual understanding and preventing communicative misunderstandings.

Scarcity, Justice, and Health Crisis Leadership

The COVID-19 pandemic has created or revealed scarcities in many domains: medical, civic, economic, and ideological. Responses to these are analyzed in the framework of a map of justice and an imperative of openness. The main argument is that whatever the view of justice chosen by public health authorities, they should be able and willing to disclose it to the citizens. Objections are considered and qualifications added, but the general conclusion is that in liberal democracies, truth-telling by those in power, although politically hazardous, would be ethically advisable.

COVID-19 and Beyond: The Need for Copathy and Impartial Advisers

When humanity has either suppressed coronavirus disease 2019 or learned to come to terms with its continued existence, governments and corporations probably return to their prepandemic stances. Solutions to the world’s problems are sought from technology and business innovations, not from considerations of equality and well-being for all. This is in stark contrast with the pandemic-time situation. Many governments, at least initially, listened to the recommendations of expert advisers, most notably public health authorities, who proceeded from considerations of equality and common good. I suggest that we should continue on this path when the immediate threat of the disease is over. Other crises are already ongoing—poverty, conflicts, climate change, financial bubbles, and so on—and it would be good to use expert knowledge rather than interests and ideologies in dealing with them. To assist in this, I outline the characteristics of a new kind of counsellor, impartial adviser, who is normatively motivated by a sense of copathy and who takes into account all views, nice and not-so-nice alike. I illustrate the nature and ideological orientation of copathic impartial advisers by placing them on a map of justice and examining their relationships with the main political moralities of our time.