Analogies and lessons from COVID-19 for tackling the extinction and climate crises

Strengthening the social resilience of people living at the intersection of precariousness and migration during pandemics: action recommendations developed in Munich, Germany

Introduction

An EU-funded project in five countries examined vulnerability mechanisms during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research team in Germany concentrated on people living at the intersection of migration and precariousness. The study aimed first to provide an understanding of how migrants living in precarious conditions in Munich had been affected by the pandemic, both from their own and from experts' perspectives. The second aim was to develop action recommendations to reduce structural vulnerabilities and increase resilience with a view towards improved pandemic preparedness.

Methods

The study followed a two-phase process. The first was a qualitative study based on interviews with 25 migrants and 13 experts. In the second, researchers developed action recommendations based on the vulnerability/ resilience factors that had been generated in the first phase. Three consecutive meetings with stakeholders (expert panel, focus group discussion with two migrant organization, meeting with the Munich Migration Council) were then held to further strengthen the draft recommendations.

Results

Content analysis revealed twelve vulnerability and eight resilience factors in three domains (COVID-19 prevention; human rights, living and housing environment; social support). Migrants had limited access to COVID-19 prevention measures; living conditions made outbreaks inevitable; uncertainty about legal status, employment, and housing, as well as stigma and discrimination, exacerbated their precariousness; social support had decreased; and resilience mechanisms had failed. The initial draft of recommendations contained 24 proposed actions. The meetings added recommendations such as enhancing psychosocial support, preventing ghettoization, improving social housing, preventing the interruption of language education in times of crisis, severe penalties for media stigmatisation and proactive truth-telling. The final list included 30 actions.

Conclusion

In Munich, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated vulnerability mechanisms commonly associated with being a migrant. The recommendations developed here speak to those vulnerabilities but need to be refined further to be more actionable and comprehensive. Nonetheless, the recommendations and the processes that led to them highlight the importance of migrant-inclusive approaches and empowerment in increasing migrants' resilience to future crises.

Averting wildlife-borne infectious disease epidemics requires a focus on socio-ecological drivers and a redesign of the global food system

A debate has emerged over the potential socio-ecological drivers of wildlife-origin zoonotic disease outbreaks and emerging infectious disease (EID) events. This Review explores the extent to which the incidence of wildlife-origin infectious disease outbreaks, which are likely to include devastating pandemics like HIV/AIDS and COVID-19, may be linked to excessive and increasing rates of tropical deforestation for agricultural food production and wild meat hunting and trade, which are further related to contemporary ecological crises such as global warming and mass species extinction. Here we explore a set of precautionary responses to wildlife-origin zoonosis threat, including: (a) limiting human encroachment into tropical wildlands by promoting a global transition to diets low in livestock source foods; (b) containing tropical wild meat hunting and trade by curbing urban wild meat demand, while securing access for indigenous people and local communities in remote subsistence areas; and (c) improving biosecurity and other strategies to break zoonosis transmission pathways at the wildlife-human interface and along animal source food supply chains.

Climate crisis and ecological emergency: Why they concern (neuro)scientists, and what we can do

Our planet is experiencing severe and accelerating climate and ecological breakdown caused by human activity. As professional scientists, we are better placed than most to understand the data that evidence this fact. However, like most other people, we ignore this inconvenient truth and lead our daily lives, at home and at work, as if these facts weren’t true. In particular, we overlook that our own neuroscientific research practices, from our laboratory experiments to our often global travel, help drive climate change and ecosystem damage. We also hold privileged positions of authority in our societies but rarely speak out. Here, we argue that to help society create a survivable future, we neuroscientists can and must play our part. In April 2021, we delivered a symposium at the British Neuroscience Association meeting outlining what we think neuroscientists can and should do to help stop climate breakdown. Building on our talks (Box 1), we here outline what the climate and ecological emergencies mean for us as neuroscientists. We highlight the psychological mechanisms that block us from taking action, and then outline what practical steps we can take to overcome these blocks and work towards sustainability. In particular, we review environmental issues in neuroscience research, scientific computing, and conferences. We also highlight the key advocacy roles we can all play in our institutions and in society more broadly. The need for sustainable change has never been more urgent, and we call on all (neuro)scientists to act with the utmost urgency.

Deforestation hotspots, climate crisis, and the perfect scenario for the next epidemic: The Amazon time bomb

Currently most researchers consider humanity's extermination of biodiversity as the antecedent of ideal conditions for the emergence of new viruses and diseases. Animals lose their natural habitats due to extensive landscape changes, consequently crowding them together and increasing their interaction with humans. Additionally, it is also important to emphasise the increasing concern on climate change because climate can modify the distribution and intensity of other diseases such as vector-borne disease. Unfortunately, the global resources for biodiversity conservation were diluted by government support for activities harmful to the environment. A tragic example is from the Amazon rainforest, that experienced fast environmental depletion and high social inequalities. Extractive systems and extensive land use on a large scale have induced deforestation, great loss of biodiversity, carbon emission, and water contamination, leading to indigenous land dispossession, violence, and rural-urban migration. The deforested areas in the Amazon region increase considerably at an alarming speed each year. The COVID-19 pandemic is an evidence to show how viruses and pathogens move further and faster than before, which means we must also show a quick response. It requires financing and, mostly, changes in human behaviour. The message is simple: we need to rethink our current relationship with nature and with ourselves, which should lead to a social transformation towards the sustainable use of the available resources.

Investigating similarities and differences in individual reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate crisis

How can individuals' responses to the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic be used to inform constructive responses for climate action? We present an exploratory, mixed-methods investigation (N = 1784 US adults) into similarities and differences in individuals' reactions to COVID-19 and climate change in June 2020. Participants identified many similarities between the issues, indicating that both are harmful to public health, politically polarizing, have global impacts, and have solutions. Participants also perceived many differences between the two threats: many perceived COVID-19 as medical, natural, and on a shorter timescale, while many perceived climate change as environmental, human caused, and on a longer timescale. Emotional reactions to each topic predict topic-relevant behaviors, but more strongly, and with a broader range of emotional reactions, for climate change than COVID-19. Open-ended responses show that hope was elicited for both issues in response to contemplating taking collective and individual actions, and despair was elicited for both issues in response to perceiving that others do not take the issues seriously. Finally, participants perceived that they were engaging in relatively more COVID-19 mitigation behaviors and some climate change mitigation behaviors than others (i.e., the "better-than-average" effect). Many participants believed others were relatively unconcerned about both threats because of the invisibility of the threats, ignorance, and elite cues (e.g., then-President Trump downplaying the threat).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10584-021-03143-8.

Biodiversity conservation as a promising frontier for behavioural science

Human activities are degrading ecosystems worldwide, posing existential threats for biodiversity and humankind. Slowing and reversing this degradation will require profound and widespread changes to human behaviour. Behavioural scientists are therefore well placed to contribute intellectual leadership in this area. This Perspective aims to stimulate a marked increase in the amount and breadth of behavioural research addressing this challenge. First, we describe the importance of the biodiversity crisis for human and non-human prosperity and the central role of human behaviour in reversing this decline. Next, we discuss key gaps in our understanding of how to achieve behaviour change for biodiversity conservation and suggest how to identify key behaviour changes and actors capable of improving biodiversity outcomes. Finally, we outline the core components for building a robust evidence base and suggest priority research questions for behavioural scientists to explore in opening a new frontier of behavioural science for the benefit of nature and human wellbeing.

Cross-Country Comparisons of Covid-19: Policy, Politics and the Price of Life

Coronavirus has claimed the lives of over half a million people world-wide and this death toll continues to rise rapidly each day. In the absence of a vaccine, non-clinical preventative measures have been implemented as the principal means of limiting deaths. However, these measures have caused unprecedented disruption to daily lives and economic activity. Given this developing crisis, the potential for a second wave of infections and the near certainty of future pandemics, lessons need to be rapidly gleaned from the available data. We address the challenges of cross-country comparisons by allowing for differences in reporting and variation in underlying socio-economic conditions between countries. Our analyses show that, to date, differences in policy interventions have out-weighed socio-economic variation in explaining the range of death rates observed in the data. Our epidemiological models show that across 8 countries a further week long delay in imposing lockdown would likely have cost more than half a million lives. Furthermore, those countries which acted more promptly saved substantially more lives than those that delayed. Linking decisions over the timing of lockdown and consequent deaths to economic data, we reveal the costs that national governments were implicitly prepared to pay to protect their citizens as reflected in the economic activity foregone to save lives. These 'price of life' estimates vary enormously between countries, ranging from as low as around $100,000 (e.g. the UK, US and Italy) to in excess of $1million (e.g. Denmark, Germany, New Zealand and Korea). The lowest estimates are further reduced once we correct for under-reporting of Covid-19 deaths.

Cross-Country Comparisons of Covid-19: Policy, Politics and the Price of Life

Coronavirus has claimed the lives of over half a million people world-wide and this death toll continues to rise rapidly each day. In the absence of a vaccine, non-clinical preventative measures have been implemented as the principal means of limiting deaths. However, these measures have caused unprecedented disruption to daily lives and economic activity. Given this developing crisis, the potential for a second wave of infections and the near certainty of future pandemics, lessons need to be rapidly gleaned from the available data. We address the challenges of cross-country comparisons by allowing for differences in reporting and variation in underlying socio-economic conditions between countries. Our analyses show that, to date, differences in policy interventions have out-weighed socio-economic variation in explaining the range of death rates observed in the data. Our epidemiological models show that across 8 countries a further week long delay in imposing lockdown would likely have cost more than half a million lives. Furthermore, those countries which acted more promptly saved substantially more lives than those that delayed. Linking decisions over the timing of lockdown and consequent deaths to economic data, we reveal the costs that national governments were implicitly prepared to pay to protect their citizens as reflected in the economic activity foregone to save lives. These 'price of life' estimates vary enormously between countries, ranging from as low as around $100,000 (e.g. the UK, US and Italy) to in excess of $1million (e.g. Denmark, Germany, New Zealand and Korea). The lowest estimates are further reduced once we correct for under-reporting of Covid-19 deaths.