This article explores how people do sympathetic talk in relation to the European “refugee crisis.” The analysis was grounded in critical discursive psychology and also drew on the concept of affective–discursive practice. Data was retrieved from a phone‐in program on Irish national radio over a 6‐month period when the refugee crisis debate was at its height. It is shown that speakers deployed elaborate sympathetic repertoires with ease that described their normative emotional response to the plight of the asylum seekers. But these same speakers found it problematic to present explicit, unambiguous, and unconditional calls of inclusive political solidarity with the asylum seekers, advocating increased asylum provision in Ireland. These findings are discussed in light of the hostile affective–discursive environment towards asylum and the common sense understanding that nation‐states have the moral right to exclude, which appears to constrain the talk to a position of ambivalent paternalism.

No abstract

Despite ever improving advances in antiretroviral therapy, neurocognitive impairments such as asymptomatic and mild neurocognitive impairment remain a significant problem for the HIV-positive population. We distributed a post-neurocognitive impairment screening service evaluation questionnaire to assess satisfaction and anxiety. Subjects were HIV positive and aged 18-50. They were screened using the Brief Neurocognitive Score and International HIV Dementia Score as well as undergoing screening for anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment [GAD-7]), depression (Participant Health Questionnaire Mood Scale [PHQ-9]) and memory (Everyday Memory Questionnaire [EMQ-R]). On completion, they were either reassured that the tests were normal or were referred for further investigation. Following assessment, subjects were asked to complete an anonymous satisfaction survey; 101 surveys were analysed. Forty-nine per cent of participants stated that they "felt better" following screening, 43% said it "made no difference", 6% stated it "worried me" and 1% "did not understand". On a scale of 0-10 of helpfulness, the mean score was 7.53. Forty-seven subjects indicated that they were referred for further investigation and 46 subjects that nothing else was needed; 8 reported they did not know. Those referred on rated satisfaction at a mean of 7.54/10 and those with normal screen as 7.09/10 (p = 0.46). Of the groups that were referred for further investigation, 6% said the test "worried them" compared to 4% in the non-referred group. Forty-nine per cent said they "felt better" despite an abnormal result compared to 50% in a normal screening result (p = 0.76). The results of this survey show that screening for neurocognitive impairment by this method is acceptable and helpful to participants. It did not lead to an increase in anxiety and there was no correlation between referred for further investigations and anxiety suggesting concerns about creating undue anxiety by screening and referral are unfounded.

Background: Although citizens in countries worldwide took coordinated steps to support collective public health during the COVID-19 pandemic, the processes that encourage citizens to adhere with COVID-19 restrictions are not fully understood. Method: A three-wave study with a sample of Irish citizens (N Wave 1 = 1,800) was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to examine the effect of national trust on individual and normative compliance with COVID-19 restrictions directly or indirectly through social cohesion. Two longitudinal mediation models were tested. Results: In the first model, national trust significantly and positively predicted social cohesion, which in turn significantly and positively predicted personal compliance with COVID-19 restrictions. The second model showed a similar pattern, whereby national trust significantly predicted social cohesion, which in turn predicted normative compliance with the restrictions. Conclusions: National trust and social cohesion both work to promote adherence to COVID19 guidelines.