Considering COVID-19 through the Lens of Hazard and Disaster Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is the first paper I have read on a sociological analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic, and I fully enjoyed it. The paper offers a balanced overview of the sociology of the pandemic covering relevant aspects of the pandemic as a disaster and a catastrophe. My only suggestion for improvement is to rearrange sections for a better narrative. Sections 2-4 are quite fragmented and independent, and suddenly in 5, the analysis starts by focusing on Gill and Ritchie's framework. The framework is for characterising a disaster, not a catastrophe, is it? There is an addition 5.4.1. Catastrophic Impacts, but what does it mean? Are you proposing something here, e.g. updating the framework? The framework doesn't refer to vulnerability either. So the connection between 2-4 and 5 could be enhanced. It would also be good to have a critical reflection on the framework as well, rather than concluding with a general remark on the ongoing pandemic. 

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract: It would be nice to provide some concrete takeaway messages in the abstract. For the most part, the abstract is a repeat of the first paragraph of the manuscript introduction. It needs a bit more substance. 

Line 53: I believe it is more accurate to say that "...25 percent of Americans are reluctant to receive the vaccine..." Using the word resistant invokes an immunological reason rather than a psycho-social reason. 

Lines 149-152: These statements are vague, nonobjective and unscientific. The authors should be aware that the current President (Biden) is calling for re-consideration of the role of the biocontainment facility in Wuhan, China, in regards to the origin of the pandemic. Further, Pacific Islanders have not been significantly targeted for violence. Although violence against Asians (especially on the continental US) has increased, the reason for that increase in violence is very speculative, despite the theories promoted by media specialists.

Lines 202-207: It is evident that the authors are dissatisfied with the handling of the pandemic by the prior (Trump) administration. That is fair enough, but efforts to close boarders and slow the influx of the virus (as was eventually done elsewhere in the world) were politically opposed at the time by the US opposition party. The prior administration initiated Operation Warp Speed that helped bring COVID vaccines to healthcare workers and the public in record time. The prior administration also pushed hard to expand COVID testing procedures and encouraged widespread emergency use authorizations to bring new testing technology and therapies into play more quickly. These things are not said to defend the prior administration, but this throw-away paragraph (lines 202-207) has little to offer this manuscript. 

Lines 281-221 again appear to be another unnecessary potshot at the prior administration based upon media opinion. 

Lines 278-291 would be improved, if the authors provided specific elements from the Obama era plan. A table that lists the key elements and which were followed and which were either not followed or were delayed in their implementation would be more valuable than the superficial statements which are provided. The commentary regarding the former President stating that the virus will vanish is itself unscientific and not helpful. We know that unanticipated sudden extinction of viral outbreaks have previously occurred - several in recent times. We also know that the "influenza pandemic" of the 1920's resolved before herd immunity was likely to have developed and without a vaccine. 

Lines 292-303: This would be a good place to interject that the association between case numbers and the impact upon individual and societal health has evolved. At this time, proportionately more of the infections produce mild to no symptoms. Numbers of hospitalized or critically ill patients as a percentage of those infected has declined dramatically with this illness and was occurring prior to the widespread introduction of vaccines. Thus, prior measures of pandemic impact must be reconsidered. Certainly, the potential for a variant to be more symptomatic in the future cannot be ruled out, but clearly the disease itself is changing. 

Lines 401-409: The general premise that life style changes, fear (much accentuated by relentless media messaging), loss of livelihoods, etc. is important to emphasize. The protest mob that stormed the US Capitol in January 2021 has no relevance to a discussion of the pandemic (lines 408-409). The protest mob was not accepting the US process of elections and the results of that process. Although a sign of underlying political divisiveness, it was not a manifestation of the pandemic per se and should be removed from the discussion. 

Lines 416-431: These paragraphs highlight perhaps the greatest tragedy of the pandemic.  That is, the US people were so polarized by political voices (often directed through major media outlets) that the public approach to the pandemic was driven by extreme (and often opposing) elements when a more nuanced middle ground approach would have provided satisfactory modulation of public health issues while averting the extremes of social isolation and economic dysfunction which were observed in many geographic areas. 

Conclusions: As noted above, the politicization of public health policy likely was a factor in delaying optimal public health measure enactment. This politicization has led to deep societal divides that will be hard to mend with continued poor economic performance and societal isolation. Throughout this very recent divisive time, the role of the media in stoking public emotions (especially during times of physical separation from colleagues and loved ones, unemployment with economic uncertainty, and civil unrest/protests/rioting) should not be given a pass in an article of this nature. Much of the damage to long-term population mental health may have been inflicted by the media during the pandemic. It would have been helpful for the authors to explore that concept in their essay. 

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately the revised clean version of this manuscript available on the journal website does not correspond with the information in the response to reviewer #2. I note that the authors also indicated that the manuscript lines which were indicated in the review did not match up with their submission either. 

Therefore, this response to the revision is limited in that I was only able to read the authors response to reviewer #2, although the track change version of the revised manuscript does seem to mirror many of the items mentioned in the response to reviewer #2. 

In general, I am supportive of the changes which have produced a much more objective and scientific presentation of the authors' perspectives. The use of media quotes as scientific data points is always dangerous. We experienced a prolonged and highly politicized period of US media reporting. I remain interested in seeing a more critical review of the media's impact on US health during and following the pandemic, but such a critique may be decades away and may itself be limited by the polarizing nature of the topic.