A system dynamics model of the COVID‐19 pandemic considering risk perception: A case study of Iran

The COVID‐19 pandemic has brought significant challenges to healthcare systems worldwide, prompting governments to allocate substantial resources toward public health spendings (PHS). However, the uncertainties surrounding the pandemic have raised questions about the effectiveness and sustainability of such expenditures. This research analyzes the nonlinear link between pandemic uncertainty (PNU) and PHS in countries with highest PNU (USA, India, France, Germany, UK, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Indonesia, Japan, and China). Previous studies have employed panel data methodologies to establish consistent findings regarding the relationship between pandemics and health spendings, regardless of the fact that several countries have not autonomously recognized this connection. In contrast, this current research adopts a distinctive tool called “quantile‐on‐quantile,” which enables the examination of time series dependency within each economy, providing both international and country‐specific perspectives on the relationship between the variables. The estimations indicate that PNU leads to an increase in PHS in the vast majority of economies chosen by us, focusing on definite segments of the data distribution. Moreover, the data demonstrates that there are differences in the asymmetry between the variables across various nations. This underscores the need for policymakers to take careful deliberation when formulating policies related to health spendings and addressing the challenges posed by pandemic uncertainty.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Asymmetric nexus between pandemic uncertainty and public health spendings: Evidence from quantile estimation

Teng,

Zhu,

Nazar

et al. 2023

“…Economically, the world's energy market downturn is one of the biggest in a few decades, placing many RE firms at risk of bankruptcy. The abrupt production stoppage, in particular, has caused substantial interruptions in the worldwide RE supply chain (Korzebor & Nahavandi, 2023; Yasmeen et al., 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revealing the energy paradox: Assessing the asymmetric impact of pandemic uncertainty on consumption of renewable and nonrenewable energy

Lin,

Ali

et al. 2023

Uncertainties have grown around the world during the last few decades. Pandemic uncertainty has a substantial impact on economic activities, which may have a big influence on energy consumption. The goal of this investigation is to appraise the asymmetric influence of pandemic uncertainty on nonrenewable and renewable energy consumption in the top 10 energy consumer economies of the European Union (Germany, Poland, Spain, Netherlands, France, Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Czech Republic, and Finland). Previously, panel data approaches were utilized to obtain reliable outcomes on the pandemic‐energy consumption nexus, regardless of the fact that various nations did not autonomously exhibit similar relationship. This investigation, on the other hand, implements a special technique “Quantile‐on‐Quantile” that supports us to appraise time‐series interdependence in each economy by providing international yet nation‐specific perceptions of the connection among the variables. Estimates show that pandemic uncertainty reduces both nonrenewable and renewable energy consumption in most selected nations at stated quantiles of the data distribution. Nonrenewable energy consumption is much more influenced by pandemic uncertainty than renewable energy consumption. Furthermore, the rank of asymmetries across our variables differentiates by the economy, emphasizing the need for decisionmakers to pay much attention to pandemics‐related uncertainty and the energy sector.

Special issue: Risk science foundations in light of COVID‐19

Aven,

Cox,

Flage

et al. 2024

The outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was followed by millions of cases and deaths with Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) globally. Societies have faced significant challenges in adequately assessing, communicating, and managing risks associated with COVID-19. The Coronavirus pandemic clearly demonstrated the relevance and challenges of applying risk analysis and risk science.Risk science represents an important knowledge base for guiding the application of concepts, principles, approaches, methods, and models for assessing, communicating, and handling risk related to the Coronavirus, as discussed at the 2021 SRA Annual Meeting roundtable "Risk analysis foundations in light of Covid-19." Still, as discussed at the roundtable, further efforts are needed to strengthen both the foundations and practical applications of risk science. This is especially so for "wicked" problems such as COVID-19 risk management. The Coronavirus pandemic represents a rich source of challenges and inspiration for such efforts. It involved situations where risk science could not adequately inform practice and where existing risk science knowledge was available and useful but not fully used in practice.The purpose of this special issue has been to stimulate and disseminate knowledge (i) illustrating how COVID-19 challenged risk analysis at the fundamental level (e.g., by demanding answers when knowledge was still very incomplete and perceptions differed widely) and/or advancing risk science knowledge related to such challenges or (ii) demonstrating how the application of generic, foundational risk science knowledge can help to improve risk analysis practice related to COVID-19.This special issue seeks to advance the foundations of risk science and the risk science-informed practice of risk analysis for managing pandemic risks. The coordination of this special issue has been part of the SRA Foundational Issues in Risk Analysis Specialty Group activities.This special issue consists of nine articles that are briefly summarized in the following. Dawson and Hanoch (2022) investigate the role of perceived risk in dishonest decision-making during the Coronavirus pandemic. The article reports on three studies, where the first two studies assess whether perceived risk influenced the decision to behave dishonestly to gain access to vaccines and furlough payments, while the third study assesses to what extent such dishonesty was discouraged by the communicated probability ("objective risk") and the subjective probability (perceived risk) of being detected. The article finds that heightened health risk perceptions were positively correlated with lying to obtain a vaccine but finds no evidence