Only connect: social survival during lockdown

Posted by Mihirini Sirisena, Research Associate, Newcastle University 

During the time when stringent national lockdown measures were in place, I noticed a new habit I had picked up, whenever I was outdoors. Every time I crossed the road to make way for a fellow runner or a walker, I made an attempt to catch their eye to thank, say hello or at least smile. Smiling or saying hello had gained a new meaning for me. It meant that I established a sense of solidarity and therefore rebutted the slightest chance of offending the other through avoidance by crossing the road. I don’t think I was alone in feeling like this. I crossed paths with many who seemed keen to connect at some level, including one woman who pulled a mask out of her pocket as I approached, covered her mouth and said, “I hope we don’t have to do this for long.” Many would agree that one of most significant challenges brought on by the measures to control the spread of COVID-19 was lockdown, for not only did it curtail our movements, it compelled us to do something that we are incapable of doing as a species - staying away from each other.

Initially, as the news of the epidemic spread, so did the stories of our responses. These stories recorded an array of responses, ranging from stock-piling and racism to altruism, and expressions of fear, suspicion, insecurity in the face of uncertainty and looking for culprits to place blame. As the dust started settling, focus shifted ever so slightly to talking about the mental health costs of lockdown, specifically in relation to social isolation. Alongside this developed a repertoire of how we could stay connected.

One of the first things that appeared on social media when the UK government and mass media began speaking about social distancing was that it is not social but physical distancing that we needed to overcome the epidemic. The message did not become a tagline but in myriad ways, it was clear that we had started to pay heed and show that we are together though apart. We sort alternative ways to maintain connections through digital platforms, despite many of us - including myself - being previously cautious about social media. These are not new but during lockdown we turned to them with vigour, deploying the likes of Zoom, Skype, WhatsApp and Microsoft Teams as platforms to live both our professional and personal lives[1]. Even gaming was pointed out as an effective way of socialising during lockdown and an antidote to social isolation.

Along with the quick assertion of social media as the platform to maintain human connection followed the conviction that these platforms are capable of extending human connection. Movements such as ‘clap for carers’ which were initiated and marketed through social media, stood as evidence of this capacity. In celebrating the success of this capacity to reach and connect, which is largely facilitated through social media itself, we run the risk of creating a one-dimensional discourse or version of social connection during lockdown. For instance, placing emphasis on social media as a means of connecting allows less space to recognise the other creative and meaningful methods some of us turned to, such as letters in the post or checking in at the doorstep.

In addition, a less discussed aspect of social media is its use to brandish intolerance - arguably no different to times before COVID-19 - of those who were seen to have violated ‘lockdown rules’ by driving for exercise or those who were seen to have crossed ‘community boundaries’, however they were defined. Cyclists were a popular target of such diatribes[2]. Similar vindications were abundant when the UK government announced plans to open schools to certain pupils. A narrative that was underlying such vindications appeared to be one that called for the celebration of the nucleus social unit, which took different forms. At times, this unit was understood to be ‘family’ as in instances that called for parents to see the lockdown as an opportunity to connect and spend time with their children. At other times, it was the ‘community’ as in instances where residents wanted to protect their locality from visitors. 

Yet another layer worthy of consideration is the effects of recent developments, such as those that emerged during the second wave of COVID-19 related restrictions, where the public was encouraged to ‘snitch’ on neighbours, if they were thought to be flouting lockdown rules. At one level, these expose our convictions about who we connect with, under what conditions, at what level, in which ways and the modes and the media we resort to, to connect and disconnect. At another, they hint at far reaching implications for what we might come to see or mean by social connections. 

As researchers and practitioners, considering the different ways in which connections were made and maintained will be helpful in our efforts to support and improve collective as well as individual wellbeing. Most importantly, we need to consider the less discussed topic of complex realities of everyday life and how they impact upon the connections that we can and cannot make and, the ways in which they impinge upon our collective and personal wellbeing[3]. 

References:

1. Some suggest the rise in use of social media continues even as lockdown measures have begun to relax: https://thenextweb.com/growth-quarters/2020/07/21/everything-you-need-to-know-about-digital-use-around-the-world-in-july-2020/
2. See also: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11547977/cyclists-coronavirus-lockdown-social-distancing/ and https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/covidiot-cyclists-stay-home-spike-4083230
3. Particularly, in the period of time that followed the lockdown, popular discourses have begun to highlight ‘social connection’ as one of the positive developments that emerged during the lockdown. Such romantic notions of ‘connection’, which propose that it is 'not money nor fame that a good life needs but to be connected with the others,' tend to undermine the weight socio-economic realities of life have on individual as well as collective wellbeing. For instance, refer to Alain de Botton’s interview with Lauren Laverne on BBC Radio 6 (Aired on 27th August 2020) (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lyx0 from 2:08:45, last accessed on 07 September 2020).

Image 2: capture from the BBC news website, 26 April 2020, Coronavirus: Are cyclists being wrongly targeted during lockdown? By Alex Regan (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-52389245)

Is the UK an intolerant society for children?

Posted by Peter van der Graaf, AskFuse Manager, Teesside University

UNICEF statistics about child wellbeing among the 29 wealthiest countries in the world made for uncomfortable reading in 2007 with the UK bottom of the league table. Children and young people in Britain were among the unhappiest, unhealthiest, poorest and least educated in the developed world in the early years of the new millennium. Since then many initiatives and policies have been implemented to increase child wellbeing in the UK and when the league table was repeated by UNICEF in 2013 the UK moved up 15 places to a mid-table position of 16th.

However, we are still behind many European countries and with the ongoing austerity measures and continued disinvestment in health and social care services for children we could find ourselves back at the bottom league in the not too distant future. This begs the questions whether ‘simply’ improving health and other services for children is enough?

According to Sir Al Aynsley-Green, Professor Emeritus of Child Health at University College London and former President of the British Medical Association, the problem runs much deeper. He argued at the Fuse Knowledge Exchange Seminar yesterday in Newcastle, titled 'Think Adult - Think Child', that the real problem in the UK is that we are becoming an intolerant society for children. He pointed to the dire straits of politics for children in the UK: not only is the voice of children lacking from national policy making (an argument that he is well positioned to make as the first Children’s Commissioner for England), the policy making itself has often been poor.

The BMA published a damning report in 2013 in which it concluded that “the national focus on children has been short term, inconsistent and untrustworthy”. Specific policies to support children, such as Every Child Matters, have been systematically eroded by consecutive governments; the recent much watered-down Childhood Obesity Strategy is another example of this and Theresa May’s new enthusiasm for grammar schools strikes further fear into the hearts of child rights advocates.

Politicians are not the only ones to blame according to Sir Al: the media regularly publish headlines about children and young people being a nuisance and causing crimes, while shops put up signs in their windows stating that dogs are welcome but that kids can only enter two at a time and, only then, without a backpack and when closely supervised. Most shockingly, public places such as railway stations are increasingly being fitted with high pitched devices that adults can’t hear but which are very unpleasant for young people and deliberately intend to drive them away.

One area where the neglect of children’s needs is particularly visible is bereavement: every 22 minutes a child in the UK loses a parent. While no routine data are collected in the UK on this group, estimates suggest that the majority of young people face the death of a close relative or friend by the time they are 16 years old. In spite of the many services available to families to help them stop smoking, exercise more and eat healthier, there is very little available for children who experience bereavement.


Sir Al presenting at the Fuse Knowledge Exchange Seminar

Specialist service providers attending the Knowledge Exchange (KE) seminar expressed their concern about not being able to cope with the current demand, as school teachers and parents lack basic skills in being able to talk to children about emotional problems, such as bereavement. In spite of this, we know from research that bereavement can have a lasting impact on the life of children long into adulthood. Bereavement in childhood has been linked to educational underachievement, joblessness, fractured adult relationships, adverse psychological and psychiatric consequences, together with poor physical health.

Sir Al’s presentation was therefore more a call to arms. What can we do in and outside Fuse to improve child health and wellbeing in the North East? Firstly, we can act as an advocate organisation to draw more attention to the needs of children and their position in society. Are their voices heard within Fuse? Do we engage with them in our projects?

Secondly, we can bring partners together across public health and related sectors in the North East to focus attention on this topic and bring together evidence and best practice to inform new collaborations. The KE seminar provided a platform for this that could be followed up. We also have a dedicated Early Life and Adolescence Programme (ELAP) within Fuse but does our research link to education and events later in the life course? For example, in Finland shops can rent a grandparent to help them engage with children when they visit their shop.

Thirdly, we need to turn this dialogue into a research agenda for child wellbeing in the North East. How can we mobilise evidence to change the prevailing attitude among politicians and the wider society so that they instead see children as valuable assets and a key policy priority for any government? This also involves challenging popular concepts, such as school readiness, which focus on individual responsibility. As Sir Al suggested at the end of the seminar, we should turn this concept around: are schools ready for children and what do they need to be able to be ready? Are they able to support children’s emotional development and can they help them to cope with bereavement experiences?

Making the UK a better place to live for children requires more than service redesign, it needs political will and consistent pressure from a coalition of organisations to achieve this, supported by actionable research to change hearts and minds.