ABSTRACT
This comparative study draws on empirical analysis of restrictions on freedom of assembly implemented in national legislation and used in practice. The study aims to identify and account for how in consolidated democracies, authority states implement a hybrid strategy of restricting freedom of assembly since the economic crisis of 2008 triggered a wave of social mobilization across Europe. The final turning point is 2019, the moment before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparative studies draw on qualitative analysis of sources: national legislation and NGOs' reports. This research uncovers restrictions on public assemblies implemented in consolidated democracy and evaluates their scope and effectiveness in combating social groups recognized as enemies of democracy. Moreover, it determines how they changed over time, which is significant to explain the distinction between national legislation and protection provisions. This comparative study contributes to the research on the limitation of the above-mentioned civil rights and freedoms in consolidated democracies.
ABSTRACT
At the beginning of 2020, the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) became an outbreak in China. On January 23, China raised its national public health response to the highest level. As part of the emergency response, a series of public social distancing interventions were implemented to reduce the transmission rate of COVID-19. In this article, we explored the feasibility of using mobile terminal positioning data to study the impact of some nonpharmaceutical public health interventions implemented by China. First, this article introduced a hybrid method for measuring the number of people in public places based on anonymized mobile terminal positioning data. Additionally, the difference-in-difference (DID) model was used to estimate the effect of the interventions on reducing public gatherings in different provinces and during different stages. The data-driven experimental results showed that the interventions that China implemented reduced the number of people in public places by approximately 60% between January 24 and February 28. Among the 31 provinces in the Chinese mainland, some provinces, such as Tianjin and Chongqing, were more affected by the interventions, while other provinces, such as Gansu, were less affected. In terms of the stages, the phase with the greatest intervention effect was from February 3 to 14, during which the number of daily confirmed cases in China showed a turning point. In conclusion, the interventions significantly reduced public gatherings, and the effects of interventions varied with provinces and time.
Subject(s)
Cell Phone , Communicable Disease Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Health Behavior , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Public Policy , Social Isolation , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Data Collection , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , TravelABSTRACT
The majority of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Korea have been related to mass infection. The nation must urgently promote the distance awareness approach during emergency response and discourage the distance unawareness approach. Other nations may also apply the principle of distance to their pandemic management.