 |
The study was conducted by Dr. Ina Levy, a researcher and lecturer in the Department of Behavioral Sciences at the Safed Academic College, in collaboration with Dr. Keren Cohen-Luke of Ariel University.
This study examined the factors influencing civilian functioning during the corona crisis.
The study found that contrary to expectations, the young population, who are less prone to health damage as a result of contracting the virus, reported poorer personal functioning than the older citizens, who are in risk groups, getting sick and even dying from the virus.
As part of the study, the two researchers conducted a random and representative survey that included a population of about 500 participants, all citizens of Israel, during which the factors influencing the functioning of citizens during the corona crisis were examined.
An analysis of the survey data found what the researchers called the ‘victim paradox’ – a positive relationship between age and function, i.e .: as the chronological age increases – a person’s functioning improves, contrary to the expectation that older citizens, who are at risk, get sick and even die of coronary heart disease. Poor functioning while young people who are less prone to health damage as a result of contracting the virus will report better personal functioning.
The new study found that the young population who were less prone to health damage as a result of contracting the virus reported poorer functioning than the older citizens, who are in risk groups, getting sick and even dying from the virus.
The survey findings also show that there is a negative relationship between employment and functioning – employed people function better than the unemployed.
In the discussion of the results of the study, the researchers offer an explanation for the two main conclusions above, according to which the ‘victim paradox’ lies in the factors that mediate between age and employment and function.
According to them, the mediating factors were the level of depression and the level of fear of Corona. Thus, young people who reported depression and fear of corona consequences performed less well than young people who did not report depression and were not afraid of corona consequences, and unemployed people who reported depression and feared corona less well.
In the study, the researchers examined several types of fears: fear of being infected with corona, fear of a relative being infected, fear of dying from the virus, fear of a relative dying of the virus and fear of the negative economic consequences associated with corona.
The study found that fears associated with corona virus infection and death did not affect functioning. The only fear that was relevant to predicting functioning was the fear of the economic consequences of Corona.
According to the study, this fear was stronger among young people and weaker among adults.
According to the researchers, this is due to the fact that young people are less’ financially ‘organized’, and their economic future is in the fog, working in workplaces, most of which have closed due to the closures.
These findings reinforce the centrality of the economic component among the various vulnerabilities that accompany the viral victim phenomenon found in the study.
In light of the study, Dr. Ina Levy and Dr. Keren Cohen-Locke offer a different concept for defining and dealing with the phenomenon: ‘viroism’, which means: victims against the background of a viral epidemic and it refers to the total health, economic, mental and social harm.
Levy: ‘The corona plague is not only harming public health. This epidemic and epidemics in general, have consequences, health, economic, mental and social. Historical studies on the economic effects of epidemics have shown that economic recovery after taking over epidemics takes longer than economic recovery that comes after the end of major wars. Therefore, it is important to pay attention not only to the health component but also to the economic component. Since the corona plague is not the first or last plague that humanity will experience, it is important to treat it from a systemic and historical point of view. ‘