Paper short abstract:

We analyse how government, and public health stakeholders, as well as civil society organisations, conceptualise vulnerability in times of COVID-19 in Austria, Germany and Belgium. We focus on changes and contradictions as well as how vulnerability is embedded in discourses on solidarity.

Paper long abstract:

Many countries around the globe have experienced unseen mobility and social contact restrictions to stop the spread of COVID-19. It was the job of governments and health officials to explain to their citizens and residents why they had to stay home and physically distance themselves from family and friends. In the beginning, buzzwords such as 'for the common good', 'solidarity with vulnerable groups' were often used to motivate people to stay at home and stick to the rules. However, over the two-year course of this pandemic, the strategies of virus containment and the associated pandemic restrictions have evolved, and the ideas around who is vulnerable have shifted. In this presentation, we analyse how government and public health stakeholders as well as civil society organisation (CSO) representatives talk about and conceptualise vulnerability in times of COVID-19. The analysis will focus on changes and contradictions of who is considered vulnerable as well as how concepts such as solidarity and 'the common good' were instrumentalised to motivate people to protect vulnerable groups in Austria, Germany and Belgium. We will draw on qualitative expert interviews conducted with government and public health stakeholders as well as CSO representatives as in the three countries. The data we are building on was collected for the EU-funded COVID-19 research project COVINFORM (grant agreement ID: 101016247). The project analyses COVID-19 responses on the level of government, public health, community, and information and communication with a focus on the impacts on vulnerable individuals and groups in 15 countries.