Page 9 - IJPS-8-2

International Journal of
Population Studies Psychosocial stress and risk assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic

justify the misconceptions concerning risk. Such biases largest mobile service provider in Serbia, sent the following
resulted from a set of general inherent rules observed text message to all users: “The situation is dramatic. We are
by individuals in everyday situations. These rules are approaching the scenarios seen in Italy and Spain. Please,
technically called heuristics, and their purpose is to make stay home,” which caused additional fear and increased the
complex mental tasks as simple as possible. Systemic biases perception of risk among citizens (Vujčić, Safiye, Milikić,
that could justify the misconceptions about risk include et al., 2021).
overconfidence, desire for safety, and the conviction that However, risk assessment is not as simple as one might
something will never happen to me/us (Witte, Meyer, and initially assume, especially when one considers all aspects
Martell, 2001). A common misconception is the idea of risk – types, levels, and consequences. Experts are
that, when an unfortunate event or accident occurs, it is expected to formulate clear, unequivocal, and depoliticized
less likely to occur for a long time afterward. People are conclusions, on the basis of which public policies are then
prone to assessing risk in a multifaceted but subjective way, formed. When a situation is complex and it threatens to have
which is why it is important to communicate about risk serious consequences for the individuals and the society, the
– to exchange risk information interactively among risk question arises if epidemiologists are currently the only ones
assessors, persons in charge, the media, stakeholders, and who are competent to develop public policies and what is
the broader public (Witte, Meyer, and Martell, 2001).
currently understood as professional expertise, which is
3. The specificity of the global health crisis called on by the political decision-makers. Does professional
caused by the current covid-19 pandemic expertise also involve economists, psychologists,
sociologists, statisticians, and other experts, who could
The appearance of the coronavirus strain (SARS-CoV-2) form a multidisciplinary team and provide answers on
that causes the COVID-19, which led to a pandemic crisis communication strategies, change management, and
by affecting almost every world country, has resulted assessments of health, psychological, and economic losses in
in collective stress and a unique crisis in Serbia and the the different ways public policies are carried out?
rest of the world, changing the routine of personal and Complex and dynamic states necessitate a systemic,
family life and suspending many types of work, trade, and active, contextual, and multidisciplinary approach instead
communication (Vujčić, Safiye, Milikić, et al., 2021). of the bureaucratic implementation of previous practices.
When the pandemic was officially declared, it appears Occasionally, previous good practice can prove successful
that many countries were underprepared for a prompt in dealing with certain issues, for instance in containing
and decisive response to the psychosocial stress and infectious diseases in China and in Serbia, but it became
the crisis. The risk of an epidemic had initially been clear that in every crisis, the available information and
underestimated in most countries, but when the WHO resources need to be adjusted to the local context, which
declared a pandemic, a panic-driven race ensued to find should be accompanied by a vigorous approach and the
the necessary assets, resources, and methods to control preparedness to take certain risks. Therefore, in addition
the emergent disease. Since this is a case of a biological to public policy makers, crisis management teams and
hazard that also poses a health risk for the entire human expert teams should also include top experts from different
population – not just the directly afflicted countries, fields, who could ensure that the dynamic and complex
decision-making regarding control measures has been processes are dealt with vigorously and according to the
entrusted to health experts – epidemiologists, virologists, best available data. Comparative studies of the effects
infectologists, and other medical specialists. Serbia, as well of different strategies in different countries, focusing on
as most other countries, arrived at a political and general the advantages and disadvantages of different models
social consensus that it is best to allow the experts to make currently in use (e.g., what can be learned from China,
decisions regarding risk assessment and to recommend Germany, Sweden, Italy, South Korea, Russia, the USA,
measures for dealing with the COVID-19 crisis. Although or Singapore), can prove useful, but must not be simply
government measures were essential for containing the copied and applied to the current circumstances in Serbia.
spread of the COVID-19, the disrupting of a normal life The principle of complexity and vigorousness in assessing
during the state of emergency has proven to be a serious risk and combating the pandemic would further involve
threat to the mental health and well-being of the general simultaneous collection, monitoring, and interpretation
population, students and especially health care workers, of data in terms of economic, psychological, social, and
as shown in the previous studies (Vujčić, Safiye, Milikić, other societal effects, in addition to analyzing statistical
et al., 2021; Safiye and Vukčević, 2020; Safiye, Vukčević indicators of health and taking medical measures to save
and Čabarkapa, 2021). On March 31, 2020, “Telekom,” the every life.

Volume 8 Issue 2 (2022) 3 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.v8i2.1335