Suchergebnisse

Background The COVID-19 pandemic triggered vast governmental lockdowns. The impact of these lockdowns on mental health is inadequately understood. On the one hand such drastic changes in daily routines could be detrimental to mental health. On the other hand, it might not be experienced negatively, especially because the entire population was affected. Methods The aim of this study was to determine mental health outcomes during pandemic induced lockdowns and to examine known predictors of mental health outcomes. We therefore surveyed n = 9,565 people from 78 countries and 18 languages. Outcomes assessed were stress, depression, affect, and wellbeing. Predictors included country, sociodemographic factors, lockdown characteristics, social factors, and psychological factors. Results Results indicated that on average about 10% of the sample was languishing from low levels of mental health and about 50% had only moderate mental health. Importantly, three consistent predictors of mental health emerged: social support, education level, and psychologically flexible (vs. rigid) responding. Poorer outcomes were most strongly predicted by a worsening of finances and not having access to basic supplies. Conclusions These results suggest that on whole, respondents were moderately mentally healthy at the time of a population-wide lockdown. The highest level of mental health difficulties were found in approximately 10% of the population. Findings suggest that public health initiatives should target people without social support and those whose finances worsen as a result of the lockdown. Interventions that promote psychological flexibility may mitigate the impact of the pandemic. ; peerReviewed

This Master's thesis is an extensive literature review on pandemic management in Finnish flight operations. It aims to answer the following four research questions. First, how is pandemic preparedness and management of Finnish air operators currently regulated. Second, have these regulatory requirements been effective for the management of past SARS and H1N1 pandemics as well as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Third, what type of risk a pandemic event represents to air operations. And fourth, what beneficial lessons can be learned from past and current pandemics in order to cope with them better in the future. The pandemics of SARS, H1N1 and COVID-19 were used as reference cases in this study. Based on this study the following key results and conclusions can be presented. Firstly, pandemic management in flight operations is currently regulated by global and Finnish national level legislation. Present requirements produce a thorough basis for preparedness of air operators, but can be considered lacking in details. Loose legislation on global level leaves individual countries with room for interpretation and possibility to adapt common requirements to country-specifics. On the other hand, this can be considered a major disadvantage. World Health Organization has repeatedly pleaded global community for unison pandemic response, because it is the only viable approach to effective containment of pandemics. Therefore, any room in legislation left for improvisation undermines the goal of common coordinated actions. As of 2020, no common EU level aviation-specific requirements on preparedness for air operators exists. This fact clearly stands out, because in general aviation is considered a very explicitly regulated domain. On the other hand, Finnish legislation has so far included only basic aviation-specific preparedness requirements. During COVID-19 they were complemented with detailed guidance for air operators that aims to improve their preparedness for future disruptions, such as pandemics. Another deficiency identified by this research is the lack of Finnish National Aviation Preparedness Plan that is required of all states by ICAO on global level. Due to these issues, among others, the effectiveness of current legislation on pandemic management for flight operations is considered to be questionable. However, it is important to notice, that each new requirement brings also additional compliance burden to its subjects. Therefore, in regulatory work, balance should be sought between the efforts and resources their implementation requires and the benefits they provide. Overall, seven practical improvement suggestions for current legislation were derived based on this research. In addition to them, other practical contribution as well as many lessons that were learned during SARS, H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics are provided. In terms of scientific contribution, this study produced an interesting viewpoint that a pandemic, although a threat from outside of aviation sector, can in fact fit several existing risk categories relevant for air operations. In addition, numerous areas for further scientific research are suggested.

The paper addresses a puzzle resulting from the current global state of alert: the coronavirus pandemic brought us back to the world of the allegedly sovereign nation states with borders and national governments in charge, yet in fact, this retrieved sovereignty looks very vulnerable and precarious. We explain this controversy through a triad of concepts—sovereignty, governmentality, and post-liberalism—that we apply to an analysis of a corona-imposed state of emergency in Estonia and Finland. Based on comparative case study research, we posit that sovereignty is precarious in post-liberalism due to its large dependence on the technologies of responsibilization and agency. From a biopolitical perspective, a major point in the anti-crisis management is to convince people to sacrifice personal liberties for the sake of public safety. These issues of governmentality will be dealt with based on critical discourse analysis and media analysis in Estonia and Finland. ; peerReviewed

The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clear that the traditional "booth, ballot, and pen" model of voting, based on a specific location and physical presence, may not be feasible during a health crisis. This situation has highlighted the need to assess whether existing national electoral legislation includes enough instruments to ensure citizens' safety during voting procedures, even under the conditions of a global pandemic. Such instruments, often grouped under the umbrella of voter facilitation or convenience voting, range from voting in advance and various forms of absentee voting (postal, online, and proxy voting) to assisted voting and voting at home and in hospitals and other healthcare institutions. While most democracies have implemented at least some form of voter facilitation, substantial cross-country differences still exist. In the push to develop pandemic-sustainable elections in different institutional and political contexts, variation in voter facilitation makes it possible to learn from country-specific experiences. As accessibility and inclusiveness are critical components of elections for ensuring political legitimacy and accountability these lessons are of utmost importance. In this study, we focus on Finland, where the Parliament decided in March 2021 to postpone for two months the municipal elections that were originally scheduled to be held on April 18. Although the decision was mostly justified by the sudden and dramatic daily increase in new COVID-19 infections, the inability to guarantee the opportunity to vote for those in quarantine was included among the likely risks. The failure to organize health-safe voting procedures to accommodate the original schedule emphasizes a certain paradox in the Finnish electoral legislation: caution in introducing new facilitation instruments has led to lower levels of preparedness and flexibility in crisis situations. Although a forerunner in implementing extensive advance voting opportunities, Finland has only recently introduced postal voting, which is ...