Social vulnerability and the impact of policy responses to COVID‐19 on disabled people

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a conceptual framework for understanding the impact of the policy responses to COVID‐19 on disabled people. These responses have overwhelmingly focused on individual vulnerability, which has been used as a justification for removing or restricting rights. This suggests the need to shift the attention towards the social determinants of disabled people's vulnerability. We do this by bringing literature on social vulnerability in disaster risk management or ‘disaster studies’ in contact with key concepts in disability studies such as the social model of disability, independent living, intersectionality, and biopower. Empirically, we draw on the findings of the global COVID‐19 Disability Rights Monitor ( www.covid‐drm.org ), as well as on reports from academic journals, civil society publications, and internet blogs. We put the proposed conceptual framework to work by developing a critical analysis of COVID‐19 policies in three interrelated areas—institutional treatment and confinement of disabled people, intersectional harms, and access to health care. Our conclusion links this analysis with strategies to address disabled people's social vulnerability in post‐pandemic reconstruction efforts. We make a case for policies that address the social, economic, and environmental conditions that disproportionately expose disabled people to natural disasters and hazards.

Healing the Digital Divide With Digital Inclusion: Enabling Human Capabilities

“…In natural hazard research, vulnerability refers to "the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural hazard" (Blaikie et al 2003, p. 11). The term vulnerability is often used to describe women, children, frail and older adults, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, undocumented residents, and refugees (Blaikie et al 2003;Mladenov and Brennan 2021). Baker, Gentry and Rittenburg (2005) identified the importance of changing the labeling from "vulnerable consumers" to "customers experiencing vulnerability."…”

Social Policy Review 35

“…These findings are echoed in research with health professionals including a lack of knowledge and confidence in supporting Autistic patients (Corden et al, 2022). Furthermore, during COVID-19, Autistic people were involuntarily subjected to Do Not Resuscitate orders, showing dehumanisation in healthcare (Mladenov and Brennan, 2021).…”

Introduction: Journaling and Mental Health during COVID-19: Insights from the Pandemic Journaling Project

“…For many groups, structural and intersectional forms of vulnerability exacerbate physical and mental health risk ( Prohaska, 2020 ; Vickery, 2018 ). This includes people of color ( Hawke et al., 2021 ; Kormendi and Brown, 2021 ; Mladenov and Brennan, 2021 ), people with disabilities ( Breaux et al., 2021 ; Petzold et al., 2020 ; Wagner et al., 2022 ), members of LGBTQIA+ ​communities ( Dominey-Howes et al., 2014 ; Ramirez et al., 2018 ), and people living in poverty ( Drescher et al., 2014 ; Patel et al., 2020 ). While evidence of resilience is emerging in certain groups ( Breaux et al., 2021 ; Killgore et al., 2020 ; Kumar et al., 2021 ; Petzold et al., 2020 ; Scheffers et al., 2021 ), the long-term mental health impact of the pandemic is likely to reverberate for years, if not decades, to come.…”