• COVID-19
• Publicationsclose
• Other research productsclose
• 2018-2022close
• DK close
• English close
• COVID-19 close
• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage close

This article builds on fieldwork conducted in 2019 and 2020 and examines the implications of Covid-19 lockdown for the engagement of Danish Muslim women in Islamic educational activities. Drawing on Deleuze and Guattari (2012) and Larkin (2008b), it displays how technological infrastructure influences religious practice and the constitution of religious space. For the women engaged in Islamic education, the forced use of digital-media technologies unmoored conditions for being at activities, reorganized time and space, and changed conditions for relating to communities. As home became the territory from where the women conducted all religious practices, including educational activities, classes and seminars were accessed on more individualized terms and became more easily integrated with other everyday activities. This made room for expanding engagement and accessing more diverse educational opportunities. At the same time, it withdrew the women from spaces of bodily and sensory togetherness, where feelings of community and connection would usually be nurtured.

We are living in a world which is severely crisis-ridden and faces some major challenges. The fact that we are currently facing a genuine global pandemic (COVID-19) brings about even more uncertainty. The social and political institutions, which emerged and consolidated during the 20th century, and which created stability, have become fragile. The young generation born in the 1990s and onwards have experienced 9/11 and the ‘war against terrorism’, the financial crisis of 2008, changes to climate, environmental degradation, and most recently the COVID-19 pandemic. The generation born between 1960 and 1990 have had the same experiences along with severe economic crises in the 1970s and 1980s and the Cold War. Some of these challenges are in different ways intertwined with capitalism and its crises, while others are linked to the rapid development of new technologies, in particular innovations within communication and information technologies. This introduction lists the most important grand challenges facing the world as they have emerged more recently. The five articles following this introduction address some of these challenges, with particular attention to the problems of capitalism and democracy and the relation between these two areas. Most authors agree that climate change and the destruction of the environment are the biggest and most pertinent problems to address, but it is their stance that we can only meet these challenges if democracy is functioning well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Thesis Eleven is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The years 2020 and 2021 will be remembered as a time profoundly marked by the COVID-19 pandemic. We have all had to come to grips with the effects of this invisible global menace, which has left any number of visible traces behind in its wake, not only individually but also as members of the communities, whatever contours and foundations they may have, to which we belong. Religious communities in particular have attempted to adapt to, or in some cases resist, the strictures imposed by various forms of lockdown which have lasted for varying stretches of time, have created rituals intended to address the needs and concerns of their members, and have formulated explanations for the emergence of the pandemic in terms of their doctrinal systems. The first five articles in this issue of Approaching Religion explore such community-based ways of interpreting and dealing with the impact of the COVID-19 crisis.

The Lancet Countdown is an international collaboration that independently monitors the health consequences of a changing climate. Publishing updated, new, and improved indicators each year, the Lancet Countdown represents the consensus of leading researchers from 43 academic institutions and UN agencies. The 44 indicators of this report expose an unabated rise in the health impacts of climate change and the current health consequences of the delayed and inconsistent response of countries around the globe—providing a clear imperative for accelerated action that puts the health of people and planet above all else.\ud \ud The 2021 report coincides with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26), at which countries are facing pressure to realise the ambition of the Paris Agreement to keep the global average temperature rise to 1·5°C and to mobilise the financial resources required for all countries to have an effective climate response. These negotiations unfold in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic—a global health crisis that has claimed millions of lives, affected livelihoods and communities around the globe, and exposed deep fissures and inequities in the world's capacity to cope with, and respond to, health emergencies. Yet, in its response to both crises, the world is faced with an unprecedented opportunity to ensure a healthy future for all.

State actions impact the lives of citizens in general and government benefit recipients in particular. However, little is known about whether experiences of psychological costs among benefit recipients can be relieved by reducing compliance demands in interactions with the state. Across three studies, we provide evidence that reducing demands causes relief. In a survey experiment, we show that psychological costs experienced by Danish unemployment insurance recipients change in response to information about actual reduced compliance demands. In two field studies, we exploit survey data collected around a sudden, exogenous shock (the COVID-19 lockdown of the Danish society in March 2020), which led to immediate reductions in compliance demands in Denmark's active labor market policies. We test whether two groups of benefit recipients experienced reduced psychological costs in response to these sudden reductions in compliance demands imposed by the state. Across all studies, we find that the reduction of compliance demands is associated with an increased sense of autonomy, and in two of the three studies, it is associated with reduced stress. Overall, our findings suggest that psychological costs experienced by benefit recipients are indeed affected by state actions in the form of compliance demands. © 2021 The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Public Management Research Association.

In a recent commentary, Seth Lewis calls for a “rethinking” of the “objects and objectives” of journalism studies in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whilst not underestimating the significant effects of this ongoing global health crisis, the authors of this commentary do not share the sense of urgency for revising the field on such a broad scale. We wish to raise three key points that criticize and supplement Lewis’ reflections in light of existing debates in and beyond journalism studies and digital journalism studies in particular. These concern (1) the assumption that news journalism is relevant independent of its orientation towards audiences, an assumption that is problematized especially in digital journalism studies, (2) the overlooked importance of journalism education in a global perspective to create impact of research, and (3) the problematic assumption of a common identity of journalism studies scholars across the field as such. In this reply, the authors wish to make a pledge towards a greater importance of diversity in relation to global journalism studies and the importance of the field of digital journalism studies to realize such an ambition.

Background Various forms of contact restrictions have been adopted in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Around February 2021, rapid testing appeared as a new policy instrument. Some claim it may serve as a substitute for contact restrictions. We study the strength of this argument by evaluating the effects of a unique policy experiment: In March and April 2021, the city of Tübingen set up a testing scheme while relaxing contact restrictions. Methods We compare case rates in Tübingen county to an appropriately identified control unit. We employ the synthetic control method. We base interpretations of our findings on an extended SEIR model. Findings The experiment led to an increase in the reported case rate. This increase is robust across alternative statistical specifications. This is also due to more testing leading initially to more reported cases. An epidemiological model that corrects for ‘more cases due to more testing’ and ‘reduced testing and reporting during the Easter holiday’ confirms that the overall effect of the experiment led to more infections. Interpretation The number of rapid tests were not sufficiently high in this experiment to compensate for more contacts and thereby infections caused by relaxing contact restrictions.

Objectives To develop an international consensus on managing penile cancer patients during the COVID-19 acute waves. A major concern for patients with penile cancer during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is how the enforced safety measures will affect their disease management. Delays in diagnosis and treatment initiation may have an impact on the extent of the primary lesion as well as the cancer-specific survival because of the development and progression of inguinal lymph node metastases. Materials and methods A review of the COVID-19 literature was conducted in conjunction with analysis of current international guidelines on the management of penile cancer. Results were presented to an international panel of experts on penile cancer and infection control by a virtual accelerated Delphi process using 4 survey rounds. Consensus opinion was defined as an agreement of ≥80%, which was used to reconfigure management pathways for penile cancer. Results Limited evidence is available for delaying penile cancer management. The consensus rate of agreement was 100% that penile cancer pathways should be reconfigured, and measures should be developed to prevent perioperative nosocomial transmission of COVID-19. The panel also reached a consensus on several statements aimed at reconfiguring the management of penile cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions The international consensus panel proposed a framework for the diagnostic and invasive therapeutic procedures for penile cancer within a low-risk environment for COVID-19. Highlights • In response to the dramatic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care pathways and delivery, including delays in management of aggressive cancers, an international expert panel was convened to address the management pathways for patients with penile cancer. • This study reports the statements developed by the panel to reconfigure the management pathways for penile cancer patients during the COVID-19 acute waves. • The adaptation of the EAU and NCCN penile cancer guidelines for use in the setting of COVID-19 acute waves was guided mainly by 2 necessities: To minimize the numbers of hospital visits and hospitalization and to prevent COVID-19-related complications attributed to cancer treatment • A consensus was reached regarding multiple items related to the diagnosis and management of penile cancer throughout the COVID-19 acute waves. • Non-urgent procedures should be postponed and non-invasive procedures should be encouraged to delay or avoid the need for procedures that require general anesthesia because of the morbidity associated with perioperative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection.

Even before it had been developed there had already been skepticism among the general public concerning a vaccine for COVID-19. What are the factors that drive this skepticism? While much has been said about how political differences are at play, in this article I draw attention to two additional factors that have not received as much attention: witnessing the fallibility of the scientific process play out in real time, and a perceived breakdown of the distinction between experts and non-experts.

In March 2020 I published the ‘emergency editorial’ in Postdigital Science and Education and invited the community to ‘explore all imaginable aspects of this large social experiment that the Covid-19 pandemic has lain down in front of us’ (Jandrić 2020a: 237). Articles immediately started pouring in; within weeks, the journal’s contributions had been recognized by institutions such as the World Health Organization, the US National Library of Medicine’s Nature Public Health Emergency Collection, and UNESCO (see Jandrić 2021 for details). After publication of the October 2020 issue of Postdigital Science and Education,Footnote 1 consisting of almost 60 articles on the Covid-19 pandemic, the first wave of pandemic research has wound down. As it has become obvious that Covid-19 is here to stay, research on immediate Covid-19 experiences and responses slowly gives way to research which ‘reaches beyond the pandemic to the point where the pandemic experience is transformed from an object of research to an intrinsic part of our theories, approaches, research methodologies, and social struggles’ (Jandrić 2021: 262).