Comparative Optimism, Self-Superiority, Egocentric Impact Perception and Health Information Seeking: A COVID-19 Study.

We examined perceived self-other differences (self-uniqueness) in appraisals of one's risk of an infectious disease (COVID-19), one's adherence to behavioural precautionary measures against the disease, and the impact of these measures on one's life. We also examined the relationship of self-uniqueness with information seeking and trust in sources of information about the disease. We administered an online survey to a community sample (N = 8696) of Dutch-speaking individuals, mainly in Belgium and The Netherlands, during the first lockdown (late April-Mid June 2020). As a group, participants reported that they were less likely to get infected or infect others or to suffer severe outcomes than average (unrealistic optimism) and that they adhered better than average to behavioural precautionary measures (illusory superiority). Except for participants below 25, who reported that they were affected more than average by these measures (egocentric impact bias), participants also generally reported that they were less affected than average (allocentric impact bias). Individual differences in self-uniqueness were associated with differences in the number of information sources being used and trust on these sources. Higher comparative optimism for infection, self-superiority, and allocentric impact perception were associated with information being sought from fewer sources; higher self-superiority and egocentric impact perception were associated with lower trust. We discuss implications for health communication.

Challenge and opportunity: Making sense of the ‘first lockdown’ experience of families with young children and health and social care practitioners in Southend-on-Sea (the United Kingdom)

COVID-19 has had a significant and measurable impact on individuals and families in economically deprived areas both in the United Kingdom and internationally. This article examines issues of community resilience and service adaptability and focuses on the period during the first lockdown in the United Kingdom (May to July 2020). Data were collected from members of the local community in Southend, with specific reference to the ?A Better Start Southend? programme of support. The evidence presented in this article uncovers the impact of the ?first lockdown? on families with young children, and local children?s and community services.

NICE rapid guidelines: exploring political influence on guidelines.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has been presented as politically independent, asserting it is free from industry influence and conflicts of interest so that its decisions may be led by evidence and science. We consider the ways in which soft political factors operate in guideline development processes at NICE such that guidelines are not truly led by science. We suggest that while NICE procedures explicitly incorporate scientific principles and mechanisms, including independent committees and quality assurance, these fail to operate as scientific practices because, for example, decisions may only be challenged through the courts, which regard NICE as a scientific authority. We then examine what the NICE rapid guideline procedure for COVID-19 reveals about the practical reality of claims about the scientific integrity of NICE guidelines. Changes to guideline development processes during the COVID-19 emergency demonstrated how easy it is to undermine the scientific integrity of NICE's decision-making. The cancellation of the guideline programme and the publication of a rapid guideline process specifically to address the COVID-19 pandemic removed scientific checks and balances, including independent committees, stakeholder consultation and quality assurance, demonstrating that the relationship between NICE and the UK government is more complex than a scientific principle truism. We suggest that NICE is not (and indeed cannot be) truly independent of government in practice, nor can it be truly led by science, in part because of its relationship to the state, which it is simultaneously constituted by and constitutive of.

Comparative optimism about infection and recovery from COVID-19; Implications for adherence with lockdown advice.

BACKGROUND: Comparative optimism, the belief that negative events are more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself, is well established in health risk research. It is unknown, however, whether comparative optimism also permeates people's health expectations and potentially behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: Data were collected through an international survey (N = 6485) exploring people's thoughts and psychosocial behaviours relating to COVID-19. This paper reports UK data on comparative optimism. In particular, we examine the belief that negative events surrounding risk and recovery from COVID-19 are perceived as more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself. METHODS: Using online snowball sampling through social media, anonymous UK survey data were collected from N = 645 adults during weeks 5-8 of the UK COVID-19 lockdown. The sample was normally distributed in terms of age and reflected the UK ethnic and disability profile. FINDINGS: Respondents demonstrated comparative optimism where they believed that as compared to others of the same age and gender, they were unlikely to experience a range of controllable (eg accidentally infect/ be infected) and uncontrollable (eg need hospitalization/ intensive care treatment if infected) COVID-19-related risks in the short term (P < .001). They were comparatively pessimistic (ie thinking they were more at risk than others for developing COVID-19-related infection or symptoms) when thinking about the next year. DISCUSSION: This is one of the first ever studies to report compelling comparative biases in UK adults' thinking about COVID-19.

Getting the Problem Definition Right: The Radical Right, Populism, Nativism and Public Health Comment on "A Scoping Review of Populist Radical Right Parties' Influence on Welfare Policy and its Implications for Population Health in Europe".

Building on Rinaldi and Bekker's scoping review of articles on the impact of populist radical right (PRR) politics on welfare and population health, this short article formulates three pointers towards a framework that might help structure future research into PRR, populist politics more generally, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other health issues. First, we discuss the centrality of welfare chauvinism to the PRR's impact on health, taking this as a cue for a broader reflection on the importance on distinguishing between the nativist and populist dimensions of PRR politics. Secondly, we turn our attention to the potential moderating effect of the PRR's welfare chauvinism on the welfare cuts proposed by their right-wing coalition partners, comments we see as pointing to the need to focus on nativist, populist, neoliberal and other threats to welfare policy more generally, rather than on the PRR only. Thirdly, we reflect on the paradoxical nature of welfare chauvinism - its negative consequences for the health of the 'own people' it proclaims to defend - as a starting point for a brief discussion of the need to consider carefully the not-so-straightforward relation between the PRR's political rhetoric, its (impact on) policy and institutions, and the outcomes of such policy.