Analyze

I am particularly interested in comparative approaches on how different sites (and academics in those places or studying them) are thinking about COVID in their localities. How are people dealing with issues of trust and information in an era when entire archives are in danger (like the police archives in Guatemala which had been rescued in the past decade and are now in danger). This question expands beyond COVID but has become crucial in the context of Ecuador where reliable data is hard to come by. Another important aspect for us is how indigenous communities are fairing amid the pandemic (here a fabulous article on the terrible situation in Brazil—which is not so different to Ecuador's). This touches on issues of communication, infrastructure, language, systemic racism, and more. Finally, I am also interested in ways in which we might be a able to contribute to some of these issues from our academic spaces. Collaborators (which can take many forms) are certainly welcomed.

So the main 'slowdown' of the economy as well as the 'lockdown' of people appears to come to an end. It's been three exceptional months, as for instance emphasized by altered mobility patterns. (See https://www.covid-19-mobility.org/current-mobility/) However, what do we make out of this?

I would like to propose the following argument: The global health crisis of SARS-CoV-2 triggered a new public engagement with the polluted world produced and inhabited by humans. Media reports and preliminary scientific studies showed how pollution parameters decreased significantly and people visited public parks to a previously unknown extent. A debate on healthy clean air popped up, which was further strengthened by measures to contain the pandemic. Publicly discussed scientific studies suggest a correlation between COVID vulnerability and air pollution; and through hygiene measures, the mask has become popular as an object of protection, which in many societies was previously known primarily as protection against air pollution in public spaces. A few authors even claimed that air pollution should be indentified as a pandemic as well, a non-communicable pandemic with a significant toll.

We know perfectly well that air pollution is a slow disaster that is hard to account for. Threshold limits are not enough. The unequal consequences are not well appreciated, let alone translated into sufficient action. The pandemic experiences might help cherish clean air; it could help in producing clean and healthy air as a common good.

This is just a start, but I'm thinking about doing more research on that topic. One possible approach would be to discuss the "clean air experience" cross-culturally (like we do during the calls), while analysing and drawing on public (social media/media) discussions to enact clean air as a value. In turn, this could help bring pollution prevention and accountability to the forefront.

Science-study wise, it's interesting to see that based on sensing and modelling scientists find it challenging to carve out a "Corona effect". The weather is just very unique this year. However, a new assessment by the German Aerospace Center claims to have "proven" it. In the Italian Lombardai (the North), for example, the effect boils down to 45 percent. This is the main finding of this link (which has some nice gifs, but otherwise is written in German).

Is there any ethnographic science study of how global pollution data is made and processed? Jennifer Gabrys get's pretty close with her work, plus Paul Edward's research on climate data. But there might be more to it. Doing such a study now might produce interesting insights.

I also came across a compelling clip by the Delhi based Centre for Science and Environment, where they explain current Delhi data. They show an explicit interesting in a state of zero/low-pollution, which otherwise can never be observed, as well as its consequences. https://www.cseindia.org/covid-19-lockdown-60-drop-in-air-pollution-in-…

I'm a co-founder of Kaleidos - Center for Interdisciplinary Ethnography, a space for academic experimentations supported by two top ranked universities in Ecuador (University of Cuenca and FLACSO-Ecuador). We are located in Cuenca, where I am assistant professor of medical anthropology. Together with a team of researchers we have been tracking covid19 with a specific focus on Latin America through Spanish language podcasts, collective texts, webinars, and online forums.

My current ethnographic interest is on documenting data distrust networks from the neighborhood scale to the national level in Ecuador, and how these networks have produced distinctive approaches (and failures) to the current pandemic.

Just to begin the discussion for this particular question: here's the Harvard study that is being cited in various newspapers on the apparantly direct link between air pollution and Covid-19 vulnerability. van Donkelaar, A., R. V. Martin, C. Li, R. T. Burnett, Regional Estimates of Chemical Composition of Fine Particulate Matter using a Combined Geoscience-Statistical Method with Information from Satellites, Models, and Monitors, Environ. Sci. Technol., doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06392, 2019.
See e.g. how it is picked up by the NYT. I also find it interesting to link this data with more critical race-ish reports, such as this by Vice.

So, how to draw on this to develop what kinds of ethnographic studies?

Reading lists appear to play an important role in the distribution of knowledge. They might help follow discussions, but they also make things complicated, especially when one is facing non-curated long lists. For example, I am trying to follow the daily updates provided by the The Syllabus -- especially its Anthropocene and Economy parts. I intend to read the articles (and at times listen to the podcasts) that discuss the intersection of Corona and Climate. Or at least safe the important ones to Zotero. Yet, there is a lot to digest. Many repetitions.

Are these lists a data infrastructure 'for us'? What do they mean for 'others'? Might it be helpful to share the workload of reading the updates, and invest a bit of time in some sort of curation process?

I'm staying at home these days, that is, in Erfurt, set in Eastern Germany. My commute to the Ruhr University – roughly 400 km to the west – thus has been put to a hold. I have a background in waste studies, while also becoming increasingly interested in matters of energy production. I’d like to understand how pollution affects bodies, but also how the reactions to the pandemic are changing the way pollution is discussed and experienced. You can contact me via mail: stefan.laser@rub.de

I'm particularly interested in the following questions:

How is COVID-19 impacting and intersecting with air pollution?

What data infrastructure -- in different settings, at different scales -- supports efforts to understand and respond to COVID-19?

What COVID-19 data visualizations are in circulation and to what effect?

How does COVID-19 impact the civil rights of unsheltered populations and challenge ideas of what a healthy environment is?

In their introduction, Vermeylen's argument for a particularist and decolonial approach to justice through a recognition of plural ontologies and epistemologies that decenters Western liberal discourse and its theory of justice. How does bringing the lens of coloniality into environmental justice literature alter our visions of energy futures? Can we make appeals to environmental justice without recourse to liberal theories of individual rights and property ownership? More specifically, I am wondering how our team can study and address this dynamic plurality of ways of understanding and experiencing in/justice in this site, and how can we engage this plurality in productive ways? What axes of difference and inequality should we be looking for/at (race, gender, class, sexual orientation, citizenship, housing status, etc)? If the Anthropocene is coloniality by another name, how can we foreground this in our approach?