School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University NSW, Australia.
Soc Sci Med. 2022 Nov;313:115196. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115196. Epub 2022 Jul 11.
What is the impact of social security on public health? And what mechanisms does it operate through? To answer these questions, we take advantage of the unique circumstances of temporary migrant workers two Covid-19 lockdowns in Australia - one in which they were provided with social security, and one in which they were not. We undertook 47 qualitative interviews with South Asian international students who had lost their jobs in two lockdowns in 2020-2021. In Australia, international students represent the largest group of a growing temporary migration program, with many working in low-skilled occupations, in conditions below legal minimum standards. We compare our findings to two models of social security: the self-insurance model and state-insurance model. In first lockdown, without social security, participants struggled to comply with public health orders because of the need to work for income, lack of housing suitable for isolation, and lack of medical leave. Participants tended to avoid testing, and to work while potentially contagious. Participants reported high levels of anxiety, depression and emotional distress caused by job loss and exclusion from an implicit social contract with the rest of Australian society. In contrast, during the second lockdown, where temporary migrants were provided social security payments, participants reported avoiding risky work, undertook Covid-19 testing many times, and self-isolated successfully. There was little evidence of emotional distress. Participants felt like a valued part of Australian society. These results suggest a self-insurance model of social security does not protect the physical and psychological health of vulnerable populations and can exacerbate the spread of communicable diseases. In contrast, state-insurance and social welfare payments to marginalised communities, particularly unemployment benefits and medical leave, are crucial public health policy levers for both protecting vulnerable populations and tackling outbreaks of communicable diseases such as Covid-19.
社会保障对公众健康有何影响?它通过什么机制发挥作用?为了回答这些问题,我们利用了澳大利亚两次新冠疫情封锁期间临时移民工人的特殊情况——一次他们获得了社会保障,另一次则没有。我们对 2020 年至 2021 年期间两次封锁中失去工作的南亚国际学生进行了 47 次定性访谈。在澳大利亚,国际学生是不断增长的临时移民计划中最大的群体之一,他们从事低技能职业,工作条件低于法定最低工资标准。我们将我们的发现与两种社会保障模式进行了比较:自我保险模式和国家保险模式。在第一次封锁中,由于需要工作以获取收入、缺乏适合隔离的住房以及缺乏病假,没有社会保障的参与者难以遵守公共卫生命令。参与者往往避免检测,并在可能具有传染性的情况下工作。参与者报告说,失业和被排除在与澳大利亚社会其他成员的隐含社会契约之外,导致他们焦虑、抑郁和情绪困扰程度很高。相比之下,在第二次封锁期间,向临时移民提供社会保障金,参与者报告说他们避免从事高风险工作,多次进行新冠病毒检测,并成功自我隔离。几乎没有情绪困扰的证据。参与者觉得自己是澳大利亚社会有价值的一部分。这些结果表明,自我保险模式的社会保障不能保护弱势群体的身心健康,反而会加剧传染病的传播。相比之下,向边缘化社区(特别是失业救济金和病假)提供国家保险和社会福利金,是保护弱势群体和应对新冠等传染病爆发的重要公共卫生政策手段。