英国为何遵守新冠肺炎封锁法

S. Halliday, N. Finch, J. Meers, Joe Tomlinson, M. Wilberforce
{"title":"英国为何遵守新冠肺炎封锁法","authors":"S. Halliday, N. Finch, J. Meers, Joe Tomlinson, M. Wilberforce","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2022.2109233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In March 2020, the UK introduced a set of rules to ‘lockdown’ the country in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These restrictions represented an extraordinary curtailment of normal life for the entire population, prohibiting people from leaving their homes without a reasonable excuse. The lockdown rules constituted a key feature of governmental efforts to manage the early stages of the pandemic crisis. Their central purpose was to change people’s routine behaviours in order to contain the rate of infections, thus protecting public health and preserving the NHS’s capacity to treat the anticipated influx of patients. Evidence suggests that the UK’s first lockdown attracted high levels of compliance. Yet, a question remains about exactly why the UK public complied. Understanding people’s motivations towards compliance is important for governments when, in periods of crisis, they seek to use rules to change an entire population’s routine behaviour at considerable pace. This is particularly the case in the context of a pandemic where changes in even a small number of people’s behaviours can make a big difference to the overall number of infections. While hitherto research has generally explored adherence to behavioural restrictions irrespective of the legal status of their underpinning rules, our analysis focuses","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"22 14_suppl 1","pages":"386 - 410"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why the UK Complied with COVID-19 Lockdown Law\",\"authors\":\"S. Halliday, N. Finch, J. Meers, Joe Tomlinson, M. Wilberforce\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09615768.2022.2109233\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In March 2020, the UK introduced a set of rules to ‘lockdown’ the country in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These restrictions represented an extraordinary curtailment of normal life for the entire population, prohibiting people from leaving their homes without a reasonable excuse. The lockdown rules constituted a key feature of governmental efforts to manage the early stages of the pandemic crisis. Their central purpose was to change people’s routine behaviours in order to contain the rate of infections, thus protecting public health and preserving the NHS’s capacity to treat the anticipated influx of patients. Evidence suggests that the UK’s first lockdown attracted high levels of compliance. Yet, a question remains about exactly why the UK public complied. Understanding people’s motivations towards compliance is important for governments when, in periods of crisis, they seek to use rules to change an entire population’s routine behaviour at considerable pace. This is particularly the case in the context of a pandemic where changes in even a small number of people’s behaviours can make a big difference to the overall number of infections. While hitherto research has generally explored adherence to behavioural restrictions irrespective of the legal status of their underpinning rules, our analysis focuses\",\"PeriodicalId\":88025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"King's law journal : KLJ\",\"volume\":\"22 14_suppl 1\",\"pages\":\"386 - 410\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"King's law journal : KLJ\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2022.2109233\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"King's law journal : KLJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2022.2109233","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

2020年3月,为应对COVID-19大流行,英国推出了一套“封锁”规则。这些限制极大地限制了全体人民的正常生活,禁止人们在没有合理理由的情况下离开家园。封锁规则是政府努力管理大流行危机早期阶段的一个关键特征。它们的中心目的是改变人们的日常行为,以控制感染率,从而保护公众健康,并保持国民保健制度治疗预期涌入的病人的能力。有证据表明,英国的第一次封锁吸引了高度的合规。然而,一个问题仍然存在,那就是英国公众究竟为什么会遵守规定。在危机时期,当政府试图利用规则以相当快的速度改变整个人口的日常行为时,了解人们遵守规则的动机对政府来说非常重要。在大流行的情况下尤其如此,因为即使少数人的行为发生改变,也会对感染的总人数产生重大影响。虽然迄今为止的研究一般都是探讨遵守行为限制,而不考虑其基础规则的法律地位,但我们的分析侧重于
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why the UK Complied with COVID-19 Lockdown Law
In March 2020, the UK introduced a set of rules to ‘lockdown’ the country in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These restrictions represented an extraordinary curtailment of normal life for the entire population, prohibiting people from leaving their homes without a reasonable excuse. The lockdown rules constituted a key feature of governmental efforts to manage the early stages of the pandemic crisis. Their central purpose was to change people’s routine behaviours in order to contain the rate of infections, thus protecting public health and preserving the NHS’s capacity to treat the anticipated influx of patients. Evidence suggests that the UK’s first lockdown attracted high levels of compliance. Yet, a question remains about exactly why the UK public complied. Understanding people’s motivations towards compliance is important for governments when, in periods of crisis, they seek to use rules to change an entire population’s routine behaviour at considerable pace. This is particularly the case in the context of a pandemic where changes in even a small number of people’s behaviours can make a big difference to the overall number of infections. While hitherto research has generally explored adherence to behavioural restrictions irrespective of the legal status of their underpinning rules, our analysis focuses
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Unity in diversity? Constitutional identities, deliberative processes and a ‘Border Poll’ in Ireland The Nation vs. the People. The unconstitutionality of secessionist referendums under Belgian constitutional law The impact of federalism on secession referendums: comparing Scotland and Québec Assessing the Legitimacy of Referendums as a Vehicle for Constitutional Amendment: Reform and Abolition of the Legislative Councils in Queensland and New South Wales Referendums and representation in democratic constitution making: Lessons from the failed Chilean constitutional experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1