Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
Boletin de Malariologia y Salud Ambiental ; 61(Edicion Especial II 2021):139-147, 2021.
Article in Spanish | GIM | ID: covidwho-2040741


Having been previously infected does not guarantee that one is safe in this pandemic, therefore, it is important to estimate the change in perceptions. The aim was to determine the fatalistic perception of patients recovered from COVID-19 in Peru and to identify the sociodemographic differences that influence the fatalistic perception of recovered and uninfected patients. Observational, retrospective cohort. The exposure variable was whether the patient had already been infected by COVID-19, the dependent variable was the fatalistic perception in the event of becoming ill with COVID-19 (in the case of those who had already been ill, the question was asked in the event of reinfection);this was measured with a validated test and being fatalistic was defined as those who were in the upper third of the scores;analytical statistics were obtained. Of the 8957 respondents, 37% reported that they had already been infected by COVID-19. In bivariate analysis, there was no difference in fatalism according to having been previously infected (p=0.426). In multivariate analysis, there was a lower risk of fatalism among men (aRR: 0.85;95%CI: 0.80-0.90;p-value<0.001), but an increased risk among those who believed they could be reinfected (aRR: 1.39;95%CI: 1.23-1.56;p-value<0.001), adjusted for three variables. Un conclusion, there is no association between fatalistic perception of the pandemic and having been infected with COVID-19 in Peru. However, being a woman and believing in a possible reinfection were risk factors for presenting fatalistic ideas.

Politics and Gender ; 2020.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-933615


The COVID-19 health pandemic has fundamentally changed all aspects of American life, including for many, how we vote. We explore the question of who supports unrestricted absentee ballots during a pandemic? We argue that women are more likely to support absentee ballots because it allows for greater flexibility and to minimize the potential for exposure. We test this theory using the National Panel Study of COVID-19 (n=1,892) which asked respondents about their preferences for absentee ballots, worry about the coronavirus, and their household composition. Using multinomial logistic regressions, we find women are more likely to support allowing absentee ballots relative to more restrictive voting options and are more likely to say they support absentee ballots for all if they know someone who has contracted COVID-19. The policy implications for these findings are discussed along with other socio-demographic indicators in our analysis. © 2020 Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.