Shared social identifications (family, community, nation, humanity) predict normative actions and psychological well‐being and can be invoked discursively by leaders to mobilize their followers. We illustrate the potential for harnessing shared identities to mobilize resilient public responses against COVID‐19. Study 1 explored which patterns of social identification predicted protective behaviors (personal hygiene, physical distancing), prosocial actions (helping proximal and distal others), and psychological well‐being (mental well‐being, depressive symptoms, anxiety) among 560 U.K. adults surveyed during lockdown. Study 2 contrasted Prime Minister Ardern's use of identity‐based rhetoric to mobilize New Zealanders, with Prime Minister Johnson's use of individualistic appeals to the U.K. public. Our findings suggest how political leaders might beneficially use social identities in communications about extreme events. Highlights Political leaders seeking to mobilize cooperative, resilient public responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic should portray themselves and their followers as sharing multiple group identities. They should attribute collective agency and norms of solidarity to these groups. They should portray desired public behaviors as morally necessary acts of mutual helping, stemming from the “character” of the invoked group identities. They should show they have a personal stake in the political choices they make, as members of the groups affected.

To support the global restart of elective surgery, data from an international prospective cohort study of 8492 patients (69 countries) was analysed using artificial intelligence (machine learning techniques) to develop a predictive score for mortality in surgical patients with SARS-CoV-2. We found that patient rather than operation factors were the best predictors and used these to create the COVIDsurg Mortality Score (https://covidsurgrisk.app). Our data demonstrates that it is safe to restart a wide range of surgical services for selected patients.

Background This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January–October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P < 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P < 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P < 0.001). Conclusion Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Shared social identifications (family, community, nation, humanity) predict normative actions and psychological well-being, and can be invoked discursively by leaders to mobilise their followers. We illustrate the potential for harnessing shared identities to mobilise resilient public responses against COVID-19. Study 1, a discursive thematic analysis, contrasted Prime Minister Ardern’s use of identity-based rhetoric to mobilise New Zealanders, with Prime Minister Johnson’s use of individualistic appeals to the UK public. Study 2 explored which patterns of social identification predicted protective behaviours (personal hygiene, physical distancing), prosocial actions (helping proximal and distal others), and psychological wellbeing (mental wellbeing, depressive symptoms, anxiety), among 560 UK adults surveyed during lockdown. Our findings suggest how political leaders might beneficially use social identities in communications about extreme events.

No abstract