9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Impact of the COVID-19 Movement Restrictions on the Road Traffic in the Czech Republic during the State of Emergency

      1 , 1 , 1
      Journal of Advanced Transportation
      Hindawi Limited

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The COVID-19 pandemic crisis has impacted numerous areas of people’s work and free-time activities. This article aims to present the main impacts of the COVID-19 movement restrictions on the road traffic in the Czech Republic, measured during the first epidemic wave, i.e., from 12 March to 17 May 2020. The state of emergency was imposed by the Czech government as a de jure measure for coping with the perceived crisis, although the measure eventually resulted only in a quite liberal de facto form of stay-at-home instruction. Unique country-scale traffic data of the first six months of 2020 from 37,002 km of roads, constituting 66% of all roads in the Czech Republic, were collected and analyzed. For the prediction of the prepandemic traffic conditions and their comparison with the measured values in the period of the state of emergency, a long-term traffic speed prediction ensemble model consisting of case-based reasoning, linear regression, and fallback submodels was used. The authors found out that the COVID-19 movement restrictions had a significant impact on the country-wide traffic. Traffic density was reduced considerably in the first three weeks, and the weekly average traffic speed in all road types increased by up to 21%, expectedly due to less crowded roads. The exception was motorways, where a different trend in traffic was found. In sum, during the first three weeks of the state of emergency, people followed government regulations and restrictions and changed their travel behavior accordingly. However, following this period, the traffic gradually returned to the prepandemic state. This occurred three weeks before the state of emergency was terminated. From a behavioral perspective, this article briefly discusses the possible causes of such discrepancies between de jure and de facto pandemic measures, i.e., the governmental communication strategy related to loosening of movement restrictions, media reality, and certain culture-related traits.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The COVID-19 social media infodemic

          We address the diffusion of information about the COVID-19 with a massive data analysis on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit and Gab. We analyze engagement and interest in the COVID-19 topic and provide a differential assessment on the evolution of the discourse on a global scale for each platform and their users. We fit information spreading with epidemic models characterizing the basic reproduction number \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$R_0$$\end{document} R 0 for each social media platform. Moreover, we identify information spreading from questionable sources, finding different volumes of misinformation in each platform. However, information from both reliable and questionable sources do not present different spreading patterns. Finally, we provide platform-dependent numerical estimates of rumors’ amplification.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            “Pandemic fear” and COVID-19: mental health burden and strategies

            In the wake of the September 11 attack in the United States and the Kiss Nightclub fire in Brazil, psychological assistance task forces for victims and their families were quickly organized. However, during pandemics it is common for health professionals, scientists and managers to focus predominantly on the pathogen and the biological risk in an effort to understand the pathophysiological mechanisms involved and propose measures for preventing, containing and treating the disease. In such situations, the psychological and psychiatric implications secondary to the phenomenon, both on an individual and a collective level, tend to be underestimated and neglected, generating gaps in coping strategies and increasing the burden of associated diseases.1,2 Although infectious diseases have emerged at various times in history, in recent years, globalization has facilitated the spread of pathological agents, resulting in worldwide pandemics. This has added greater complexity to the containment of infections, which has had an important political, economic and psychosocial impact, leading to urgent public health challenges.2-6 HIV, Ebola, Zika and H1N1, among other diseases, are recent examples.1 The coronavirus (COVID-19), identified in China at the end of 2019, has a high contagion potential, and its incidence has increased exponentially. Its widespread transmission was recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a pandemic. Dubious or even false information about factors related to virus transmission, the incubation period, its geographic reach, the number of infected, and the actual mortality rate has led to insecurity and fear in the population. The situation has been exacerbated due to the insufficient control measures and a lack of effective therapeutic mechanisms.5,7,8 These uncertainties have had consequences in a number of sectors, with direct implications for the population’s daily life and mental health. This scenario raises a number of questions: is there a fear/stress pandemic concomitant with the COVID-19 pandemic? How can we evaluate this phenomenon? To understand the psychological and psychiatric repercussions of a pandemic, the emotions involved in it, such as fear and anger, must be considered and observed. Fear is an adaptive animal defense mechanism that is fundamental for survival and involves several biological processes of preparation for a response to potentially threatening events. However, when it is chronic or disproportionate, it becomes harmful and can be a key component in the development of various psychiatric disorders.9,10 In a pandemic, fear increases anxiety and stress levels in healthy individuals and intensifies the symptoms of those with pre-existing psychiatric disorders.11 During epidemics, the number of people whose mental health is affected tends to be greater than the number of people affected by the infection.12 Past tragedies have shown that the mental health implications can last longer and have greater prevalence than the epidemic itself and that the psychosocial and economic impacts can be incalculable if we consider their resonance in different contexts.11,12 Since the economic costs associated with mental disorders is high, improving mental health treatment strategies can lead to gains in both physical health and the economic sector. In addition to a concrete fear of death, the COVID-19 pandemic has implications for other spheres: family organization, closings of schools, companies and public places, changes in work routines, isolation, leading to feelings of helplessness and abandonment. Moreover, it can heighten insecurity due to the economic and social repercussions of this large-scale tragedy. During the Ebola outbreak, for example, fear-related behaviors had an epidemiological impact both individually and collectively during all phases of the event, increasing the suffering and psychiatric symptom rates of the population, which contributed to increases in indirect mortality from causes other than Ebola.13 Currently, ease of access to communication technologies and the transmission of sensational, inaccurate or false information can increase harmful social reactions, such as anger and aggressive behavior.14 Diagnostic, tracking, monitoring and containment measures for COVID-19 have been established in several countries.6 However, there are still no accurate epidemiological data on disease-related psychiatric implications or their impact on public health. A Chinese study provided some insights in this regard. Approximately half of the interviewees classified the psychological impact of the epidemic as moderate to severe, and about a third reported moderate to severe anxiety.15 Similar data have been reported in Japan, where the economic impact has also been dramatic.11 Another study reported that patients infected with COVID-19 (or suspected of being infected) may experience intense emotional and behavioral reactions, such as fear, boredom, loneliness, anxiety, insomnia or anger,11 as has been reported about similar situations in the past.16 Such conditions can evolve into disorders, whether depressive, anxiety (including panic attacks and post-traumatic stress), psychotic or paranoid, and can even lead to suicide.17,18 These conditions can be especially prevalent in quarantined patients, whose psychological distress tends to be higher.16 In some cases, uncertainty about infection and death or about infecting family and friends can potentiate dysphoric mental states.11,18 Even among patients with common flu symptoms, stress and fear due to the similarity of the conditions can generate mental distress and worsen psychiatric symptoms.15,19 Despite the fact that the rate of confirmed vs. suspected cases of COVID-19 is relatively low and that the majority of cases are considered asymptomatic or mild, as well as that the disease has a relatively low mortality rate,20,21 the psychiatric implications can be significantly high, overloading emergency services and the health system as a whole. In conjunction with actions to help infected and quarantined patients, strategies targeting the general population and specific groups must be developed, including health professionals who are directly exposed to the pathogen and have high stress rates.22 Although some protocols for clinicians have been established, most health professionals who work in isolation units and hospitals are neither trained to provide mental health assistance during pandemics1,17 nor receive specialized care. Previous studies have reported high rates of anxiety and stress symptoms, as well as mental disorders, such as post-traumatic stress, in this population (especially among nurses and doctors), which reinforces the need for care.22,23 Other specific groups are especially vulnerable in pandemics: older adults, the immunocompromised, patients with previous clinical and psychiatric conditions, family members of infected patients and residents of high-incidence areas. In these groups, social rejection, discrimination, and even xenophobia are frequent.17 Providing psychological first aid is an essential care component for populations that have been victims of emergencies and disasters, but there are no universal protocols or guidelines for the most effective psychosocial support practices.24 Although some reports on local mental health care strategies have been published, more comprehensive emergency guidelines for such scenarios are unknown,1,17,19 since previous evidence refers only to specific situations.24 In Brazil, a large developing country with pronounced social disparity, low education levels and humanitarian-cooperative culture, there are no parameters for estimating the impact of this phenomenon on the population’s mental health or behavior. Will it be possible to implement effective preventive and emergency actions aimed at the psychiatric implications of this biological pandemic in broad spheres of society? Specifically for this new COVID-19 scenario, Xiang et al., suggest that three main factors should be considered when developing mental health strategies: 1) multidisciplinary mental health teams (including psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, clinical psychologists and other mental health professionals); 2) clear communication involving regular, accurate updates on the COVID-19 outbreak; and 3) establishing safe psychological counseling services (for example, via electronic devices or apps).17 Finally, it is extremely necessary to implement public mental health policies in conjunction with epidemic and pandemic response strategies before, during and after the event.13 Mental health professionals, such as psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers, must be on the front line and play a leading role in emergency planning and management teams.1 Assistance protocols, such as those used in disaster situations, should cover areas relevant to the individual and collective mental health of the population. Recently, the WHO25 and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention26 published a series of psychosocial and mental health recommendations, several of which are included in Box 1. This is in line with longitudinal data from the WHO demonstrating that psychological factors are directly related to the main causes of morbidity and mortality in the world.25 Thus, increased investment in research and strategic actions for mental health in parallel with infectious outbreaks is urgently needed worldwide.1 Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How COVID-19 and the Dutch ‘intelligent lockdown’ change activities, work and travel behaviour: Evidence from longitudinal data in the Netherlands

              COVID-19 has massively affected the lives of people all over the world. This paper presents first insights in current and potential future effects of the virus and the Dutch government's ‘intelligent lockdown’ on people's activities and travel behaviour. Findings are based on a representative sample of about 2500 respondents from the Netherlands Mobility Panel (MPN). We show that approximately 80% of people reduced their activities outdoors, with a stronger decrease for older people. 44% of workers started or increased the amount of hours working from home and 30% have more remote meetings. Most of these workers report positive experiences. Students and school pupils, however, are mostly not happy with following education from home. Furthermore, the amount of trips and distance travelled dropped by 55% and 68% respectively when compared to the fall of 2019. So-called ‘roundtrips’ (e.g. a walking or cycling tour) gained in popularity. People are currently more positive towards the car and far more negative towards public transport. Changes in outdoor activities seem to be temporal, with over 90% of people who currently reduced their outdoor activities not expecting to continue this behaviour in the future after corona. However, 27% of home-workers expect to work from home more often in the future. In addition, 20% of people expect to cycle and walk more and 20% expect to fly less in the future. These findings show that the coronavirus crisis might result in structural behavioural changes, although future longitudinal analyses are needed to observe these possible structural effects.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Advanced Transportation
                Journal of Advanced Transportation
                Hindawi Limited
                2042-3195
                0197-6729
                April 20 2021
                April 20 2021
                : 2021
                : 1-20
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Informatics and Statistics, Prague University of Economics and Business, W. Churchill Sq. 1938/4, Prague, Czech Republic
                Article
                10.1155/2021/6622028
                45aa171c-4d17-43e8-906d-553516f9bc4a
                © 2021

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article