Cargando…
The psychology of protecting the UK public against external threat: COVID-19 and the Blitz compared
The COVID-19 pandemic and the World War 2 aerial bombing campaign against the UK between 1939 and 1945 both exposed the civilian population to a sustained threat. Risk, whether from exposure to viral load or the density of the bombing, led to a range of protective measures and behavioural regulation...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier Ltd.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7834303/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32861267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30342-4 |
_version_ | 1783642252519669760 |
---|---|
author | Jones, Edgar |
author_facet | Jones, Edgar |
author_sort | Jones, Edgar |
collection | PubMed |
description | The COVID-19 pandemic and the World War 2 aerial bombing campaign against the UK between 1939 and 1945 both exposed the civilian population to a sustained threat. Risk, whether from exposure to viral load or the density of the bombing, led to a range of protective measures and behavioural regulations being implemented. The V1 and V2 missiles used in summer and autumn, 1944, functioned as a second wave of bombing, arriving after people believed the danger had passed. Adherence to lockdown and a reluctance to return to work after the lifting of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK were mirrored in the preference for using home-based bomb shelters during the air raids. Heightened sensitivity to risk, or a so-called deep shelter mentality, did not materialise even during the second wave of bomb attacks and some deep bomb shelters were closed because of low occupancy. The most popular protective measures were those that reflected people's preferences, and not necessarily those that provided the greatest safety. As with the COVID-19 pandemic, the public drove government policy as much as they followed it. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7834303 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Elsevier Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78343032021-01-26 The psychology of protecting the UK public against external threat: COVID-19 and the Blitz compared Jones, Edgar Lancet Psychiatry Historical Review The COVID-19 pandemic and the World War 2 aerial bombing campaign against the UK between 1939 and 1945 both exposed the civilian population to a sustained threat. Risk, whether from exposure to viral load or the density of the bombing, led to a range of protective measures and behavioural regulations being implemented. The V1 and V2 missiles used in summer and autumn, 1944, functioned as a second wave of bombing, arriving after people believed the danger had passed. Adherence to lockdown and a reluctance to return to work after the lifting of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK were mirrored in the preference for using home-based bomb shelters during the air raids. Heightened sensitivity to risk, or a so-called deep shelter mentality, did not materialise even during the second wave of bomb attacks and some deep bomb shelters were closed because of low occupancy. The most popular protective measures were those that reflected people's preferences, and not necessarily those that provided the greatest safety. As with the COVID-19 pandemic, the public drove government policy as much as they followed it. Elsevier Ltd. 2020-11 2020-08-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7834303/ /pubmed/32861267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30342-4 Text en © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Historical Review Jones, Edgar The psychology of protecting the UK public against external threat: COVID-19 and the Blitz compared |
title | The psychology of protecting the UK public against external threat: COVID-19 and the Blitz compared |
title_full | The psychology of protecting the UK public against external threat: COVID-19 and the Blitz compared |
title_fullStr | The psychology of protecting the UK public against external threat: COVID-19 and the Blitz compared |
title_full_unstemmed | The psychology of protecting the UK public against external threat: COVID-19 and the Blitz compared |
title_short | The psychology of protecting the UK public against external threat: COVID-19 and the Blitz compared |
title_sort | psychology of protecting the uk public against external threat: covid-19 and the blitz compared |
topic | Historical Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7834303/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32861267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30342-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jonesedgar thepsychologyofprotectingtheukpublicagainstexternalthreatcovid19andtheblitzcompared AT jonesedgar psychologyofprotectingtheukpublicagainstexternalthreatcovid19andtheblitzcompared |