New research presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) in Copenhagen, Denmark reveals the high human costs and the negative repercussions of border restrictions and travel bans during the pandemic COVID-19 for citizens stranded abroad.
The research, conducted by UNSW Associate Professor Holly Seale, Sydney, Australia, and colleagues, also highlights the little financial and health support provided by national governments to their citizens stranded abroad. These measures have affected various groupssuch as tourists, business travelers, families, international students and short-term migrant workers.
“Too little attention has been paid to the unintended consequences of these restrictions on people’s lives and well-being,” Seale points out. “The focus is often on the tourism and vacations, but many tens of thousands of people were separated from their partners or families for 18 months or more. We hope that our conclusions help policy makers to plan and communicate aid packages for this vulnerable population in future public health crises”.
Up to four different studies
In a large research program, which included four separate studies, the researchers charted the impact of border and travel restrictions on international and Australian travelers. First, they looked at online government information related to COVID-19 and the support options provided by 11 countries to their citizens stranded abroad in June 2021.
The analysis revealed that most countries offered some form of assistance in relation to the repatriation options, border control and re-entry measures, medical assistance and traveler registration. But no country offered all these kinds of help.
In addition, only three countries offered information and support for emergency accommodation (United Kingdom, Australia and Canada) and only five offered any type of mental health support (United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States). Less than half (5/11 countries) offered any type of financial aid (UK, Australia, Canada, France, US).
Worse still, the Quality of the information Information about COVID-19 provided by government websites in the four countries examined (Australia, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom) was poorly accessible, especially for people with low literacy, disabilities, or limited English proficiency. “Our results reveal gaps, inconsistencies and possible inequalities in the support available, and raise questions about the quality, accessibility and ease of use of information,” says Seale.
Consequences of being abroad
In further research to examine the psychological and financial impact Due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the team surveyed more than 2,400 people stranded abroad in the six world regions between July and September 2021 and November and December 2021. More than half had been stranded more than five months and most had experienced more than one flight cancellation or change.
Almost two thirds (64%) of the sample declared financial stress and depression moderate to severe, with more than 40% experiencing anxiety and almost 60% reporting being stressed. Additionally, 1 in 10 became homeless.
Distress levels were even higher among people separated from their partners or immediate family members and temporary visa holders. Of them, more than 71% declared financial stress (with an average spend of US$7,285); 77% experienced moderate to extremely severe depression; and more than half declared moderate to severe levels of anxiety (52%) or stress (63%).
“The levels of anguish declared by this especially vulnerable group are drastically higher -more than 50% more serious in some cases- than those declared by migrant workers, health personnel and the general population during the pandemic, adds Seale. Respondents also reported little or no assistance by their national governments, underscoring the importance of providing additional support to this vulnerable group in future public health crises.”
The role of social networks
Finally, the research team asked respondents how they accessed the information about COVID-19 travel restrictions and their perceived usefulness. The vast majority (78%) thought social media groups were the most useful, with Facebook the most useful and used (87%), suggesting that this platform could be especially influential for governments to disseminate information on future travel restrictions. In contrast, government sources, including local embassy websites, call centers and social media posts, were considered the less useful.
However, this hides the role played by age and sex in information seeking behavior. For example, women tend to find social media more useful than men, who tend to appreciate information provided by friends and family more.
For citizens and permanent residents abroad over the age of 50, the preferred method for governments to disseminate information was through a designated websitewhile for those 50 and under, social media, government emails, and a specific website were recommended.
“The shift towards searching for information on social networks instead of more traditional sources brings with it the challenge of curbing the widespread misinformation and harmful. More than 60% of our respondents reported receiving inaccurate or misleading information in social media groups, Seale says. Furthermore, the search for information is not unambiguouswhich underscores the need for governments to consistently disseminate clear, accurate and timely information through multiple communication channels.”