The COVID-19 pandemic has had an international impact since the novel coronavirus first surfaced in late 2019. Since then, different countries have taken different approaches to try and limit transmissions and deaths. While this is seemingly unprecedented in modern day times, many pandemics, or plagues, have happened relatively frequently in history. This paper examines three historical plagues through the lens of social psychologist Geert Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions to distinguish between cultures: power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long term orientation and indulgence versus restraint. This paper then applies these dimensions to the modern day U.S. and South Korea, two countries who have had different success in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. Through these dimensions, this paper aims to explain a factor in why South Korea has had better results than the U.S. It also recognizes that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are not the only factor to affect the pandemic, and explores political influences in America through the lens of Henry David Thoreau and John Dewey. Overall, this paper argues that the U.S. has been unsuccessful in taming the pandemic because of certain cultural dimensions, such as more an individualist and indulgent culture, and its unstable and divisive political climate. Given this, the United States has a hopeful, yet arduous path moving forward with COVID-19 and future pandemics.

From 2019, a severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2, SARS-CoV-2, began to be a global pandemic. Many high income countries developed different strategies in response. This analysis intends to highlight how the COVID-19 became a global pandemic and the strategies that account for successes and failures. In identifying key policy differences, the high income countries of the United States, New Zealand and France were examined. The analysis found that New Zealand had proactive elimination strategies that proved highly effective, whereas the United States and France both struggled with mitigation factors that resulted in disproportionately higher confirmed cases and mortality rates. The analysis highlights how the airborne virus became a pandemic and then followed public policies’ effectiveness in terms of existing political institutions,and then their ability to be successful in preventing the spread of the virus.

Survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) often experience chronic symptoms that include fatigue, shortness of breath, and brain fog. The collection of ongoing post-COVID-19 symptoms have been classified as Post-Acute Sequela of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC). Older adult patients are especially susceptible to experiencing PASC related complications and have a high risk for long-term cognitive impairment symptoms. Definitions for categorizing PASC- associated cognitive impairment and neuropsychological assessments used to evaluate cognitive impairment are inconsistent between studies examining older adults. This systematic review aims to identify which neuropsychological tests best identify cognitive impairments associated with PASC and suggest a guide to standardize the measurement of PASC-related cognitive impairments. Through a literature search using PubMed, we included within this review 14 studies that fulfilled our inclusion and exclusion criteria evaluating middle-aged and older adult populations affected by PASC-associated cognitive impairments. The majority of the studies used tests designed to screen for general cognitive function to test for the prevalence of cognitive impairment, with the most common one being Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), followed by MMSE and TICS. MoCA reported the highest prevalence of the general cognitive screeners which suggests higher sensitivity and specificity. Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) demonstrated similar scores as MoCA despite administration being remote while MMSE identified the lowest prevalence. Four studies also used domain-specific cognitive evaluations and reported instances of cognitive impairment in individuals who had previously tested healthy. Furthermore, the results gathered in this review were stratified based on disease symptom severity. This review identifies MoCA to be better suited for evaluating general cognitive impairment in older adults. TICS has the added utility in being able to access a wider range of older adults through remote screening. Disease severity must be clearly defined to allow better comparisons between studies and allow for standardization. Early identification of PASC-associated cognitive impairment in middle-aged and older adults can be performed using general cognitive function evaluations and administering a baseline cognitive evaluation one month after infection is suggested.

Studies during and following the height of the Coronavirus pandemic show that psychological and physical health levels decrease, due to factors such as reduced human contact and anxiety. However, there is little to no research on how quality of life levels would change over the course of the pandemic for families who have the added stress of having a child with a developmental complication. To answer this question, this study utilized longitudinal data from the Babble Boot Camp, a project under the ASU Speech Language Genetics Lab, to analyze quality of life measures in families who have children with Classic Galactosemia (CG). CG is an inborn metabolic disorder that causes an intolerance to galactose, a sugar in dairy, the effects of which can be deadly. These children often show signs of developmental delays in multiple areas within the first few years of life. Studying quality of life surveys before, during, and after the most intense phase of the pandemic, this study investigates the difference between these families and those with typical children.

Our thesis project is a 5-person group thesis that was created over the span of two years. In the summer of 2020, at the height of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, our group first met and discussed our shared interests in mask-wearing and individual factors that we each thought had significant impacts on mask-wearing among Barrett students. We each decided on factors that we wanted to investigate and subsequently split into three main groups based on our interests: culture and geography, medical humanities, and medical and psychological conditions. Despite these different interests, we continued to treat our thesis as a five-person project rather than three different projects. We then constructed a survey, followed by several focus group sessions and interview questions to ask Honors students. In January 2021, we received approval from the IRB for our project, and we quickly finalized our survey, focus group and interview questions. In February 2021, we sent out our survey via the Barrett Digest, which we kept open for approximately one month. We also sent out advertisements for our survey via social media platforms such as Twitter and Discord. Following completion of the survey, we contacted all of the respondents who stated that they were interested in participating in focus groups and interviews. Focus groups and interviews were conducted in March and April 2021, and results were analyzed and correlated to our individual subtopics. Each of the focus group and interview participants received $50 each, and three randomly-selected students who completed the survey received $25 each. From April 2021 until April 2022, we analyzed our results, came to conclusions based on our initial topics of interest, and constructed our paper.