Perspectives of scholars on the origin, spread and consequences of COVID-19 are diverse but not polarized

The study examines how researchers worldwide perceive the origin and spread of COVID-19, approaches to cope with it, strategies to avoid future pandemics, and expectations for the post-COVID-19 world. Contextualized by the pandemic’s widespread socio-economic and health impacts and prior warnings about zoonotic outbreaks, the authors note diverse ideological and disciplinary perspectives, including ecological drivers (e.g., biodiversity loss, wildlife trade), socio-economic inequality and neoliberal policies, and public health system strength. The paper aims to: (1) assess agreement levels among researchers on COVID-19 origins/spread, coping, avoidance, and post-pandemic expectations across social, economic, health, and ecological views; (2) identify distinct patterns (dimensions) of thinking; and (3) determine demographic and contextual factors associated with post-COVID expectations.

The paper situates debates across ecological, socio-economic, public health, and political lenses. Ecological literature links anthropogenic activities, biodiversity loss, land-use change, and wildlife trade to zoonotic spillover, advocating conservation and stricter trade regulation. Socio-economic work highlights how inequality and neoliberal policies exacerbate impacts by weakening public health infrastructure and access. Public health perspectives emphasize strong systems, surveillance, and science-based interventions. The One Health framework integrates animal–human–environment domains for sustainable public health. The authors note media and social media influence on public opinion and the need to understand researcher perspectives as highly informed stakeholders. Overall, prior work is often siloed; this study seeks an integrated, empirical mapping of scholars’ perspectives.

Design: Online global survey administered via SoGoSurvey between June 5 and September 5, 2020. Sampling: Email invitations sent to 102,560 researchers identified as corresponding authors in Elsevier’s Scopus across four domains (social, physical, life, health sciences), targeting at least 25,000 per domain. Authors also shared the survey via professional networks and social media to researchers. Questionnaire: 34 items in three parts. Part 1 (Q1–8): demographics (age, gender, discipline, degree, nationality, employment). Part 2 (Q9–13): COVID-19 experiences and effects (one item with seven experience statements; multiple selection). Part 3 (Q14–33): twenty Likert prompts (7-point scale) across four areas: causes/spread, coping, avoiding future pandemics, and expectations after COVID-19 (five items each). Q34 asked whether COVID-19 is an environmental crisis (agree/partially/no). Questionnaire link: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WNLSLV. Quality control: Pilot-tested with 14 colleagues for clarity; refined based on feedback. Questions used simple checkboxes; no open-ended responses required. Ethics: Approved by Kathmandu Institute of Applied Sciences Research Ethics Committee (REC2020-01). Anonymous data; informed consent obtained before participation. Analysis: Descriptive statistics (age, experience: mean ± SD; categorical variables as percentages). For each of the 20 Likert prompts, computed frequency distributions and Van der Eijk agreement score (range 1 to −1). Dimensionality assessed via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on Likert responses: KMO = 0.83; Bartlett’s χ²(496) = 16,786.99, p < 0.0001. Parallel analysis and scree plot indicated three factors; maximum likelihood estimation with direct oblimin rotation. Retained items with loadings > 0.500 (12 of 20). Model fit: RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.040. Reliability across factors: 0.75, 0.76, 0.71. Determinants: Multinomial logistic regression modeled 3-level outcomes (disagree/neutral/agree) for each item under “expectations after COVID-19” using predictors: gender, age, academic level, employment status, job experience, economic ranking of country of citizenship, COVID-19 impact, anticipation of COVID-19’s impact, and whether COVID-19 is an environmental issue. Ten hierarchical models (full + nine nested), compared via χ² tests; best fit assessed by AIC. Analyses in R v1.2.1335 using pastecs, ggplot2/ggalluvial/likert/Tableau for visualization; agrmt for agreement; ordinal, lmtest, VGAM, nnet for regression.

Sample: 3,731 analyzable respondents from 131 countries (range per country: 1–601; top countries: India 16%, Nigeria 4%, Bangladesh 4%, Ethiopia 4%, Indonesia 3%, Brazil 3%, United States 3%, Pakistan 2%, Italy 2%, Malaysia 2%, Nepal 2%). Demographics: 68% male; mean age 40.9 ± 12.2 years; work experience 13.3 ± 11.4 years (median 10); employment: full-time 74.0%, unemployed 15.3% (students/homemakers), part-time 5.9%, self-employed 2.7%, retired 2.2%; degrees: PhD 66%, university graduate 26%, undergraduate 8%. COVID-19 experiences: 78% reported direct/indirect effects (very affected 13%, affected 37%, slightly affected 28%); 15% not affected; 7% neutral. Experience statements endorsed: quality time with family 61%; worried about future uncertainties 56%; enjoyed working from home 45%; enjoyed calmness/better air quality/landscape 41%; difficulty due to isolation 28%; time to meditate 25%; frequent wildlife sightings/sounds 23%. Agreement patterns (Van der Eijk scores; −1 to 1 higher = more consensus): Highest consensus: S9 Economic support from government to minimize impacts (0.741); S7 Improving healthcare facilities/services to reduce impacts (0.729); S15 Strengthening public health systems to avoid future pandemics (0.705). Other notable: S8 Follow scientific advice incl. lockdowns (0.696); S10 Improve environmental quality to cope (0.683); S20 Improved health and hygiene services will be in place (0.566); S18 Increased value of science and centrality of environmental agendas (0.548); S19 Stricter regulation of wildlife consumption/hunting/trade (0.548); S11 Nature has potential to recover (0.544); S3 Inadequate precautions/preparations aggravated spread (0.520). Lower consensus on ecological causation: S2 Ecosystem destruction linked to emergence (0.212); S1 Wildlife trade/consumption as major cause (0.188). Additional: S5 Globalization responsible for spread (0.433); S6 Pandemics are regular phenomena (0.383); S12 Conserving nature as only option (0.339); S13 Ban wildlife consumption to avoid future pandemics (0.290); S4 Capitalist production/consumption caused spread (0.250); S16 Only temporal changes; everything same as pre-COVID (0.201); S17 Paradigm shift to people-centered economy (0.452); S14 Reducing poverty/inequalities will prevent crises (0.424). Dimensionality (EFA): Three factors (12 items retained, loadings > 0.50; RMSEA 0.06; SRMR 0.040; reliability 0.75/0.76/0.71): - Factor 1: Strengthening public health and safety protocols (e.g., S7, S9, S10, S8). - Factor 2: Science-led public policy with emphasis on health equity, social justice, environmental governance, sanitation, and regulatory measures (e.g., S15, S20, S19, S18). - Factor 3: Ecosystem-based perspective on causes/avoidance (e.g., S2, S1, S13, S17). Determinants (multinomial regression on “expectations after COVID-19”): - S16 (“temporal changes; everything same”): Males, college/university graduates, and those slightly affected or unaffected were less likely to disagree vs agree; higher work experience associated with lower odds of neutrality; those who had not anticipated COVID-19’s impact more likely to disagree. - S17 (paradigm shift to people-centered economy): Except respondents from high-income countries, partially affected respondents, and those who anticipated impacts, others were less likely to be neutral vs agree. - S18 (increased value of science; environmental agendas central): Neutral responses less likely from low-income countries; respondents with very high anticipation of impacts less likely to be neutral vs agree. - S19 (strict wildlife use regulation): Neutral vs agree less likely among respondents from low- and upper-middle-income countries and among those who did not view COVID-19 as an environmental problem; disagree vs agree more likely for older but less experienced respondents. - S20 (improved health/hygiene services): No predictor showed significant association, reflecting broad support. Overall: Strongest agreement around economic support and public health system strengthening; lowest around ecological causation; expectations include improved health/hygiene, elevated scientific role, stricter wildlife trade regulation.

Findings indicate broad consensus among researchers on the primacy of public health measures and economic support for coping with COVID-19 and preparing for future pandemics. The EFA confirms three coherent dimensions—public health strengthening, science-led policy and governance, and ecosystem-based prevention—suggesting diversity of perspectives but no sharp polarization. The lowest agreement on ecological causation (e.g., wildlife trade as major cause) contrasts with higher support for public health and economic interventions, potentially reflecting immediate pandemic experiences and perceived efficacy of health systems. Demographic and country income-related differences explain some variance in expectations (e.g., views on economic paradigm shifts, valuation of science, wildlife regulation), yet improved health/hygiene saw uniform support. These results address the research questions by quantifying agreement levels, revealing underlying dimensions of thought, and identifying determinants of post-pandemic expectations, underscoring the need for global health equity and science-informed policy that integrates social justice and environmental governance.

The study contributes empirical evidence on globally diverse but not polarized scholarly perspectives on COVID-19. Researchers largely agree on the need for science-based public policy that promotes health equity, strengthens public health infrastructure, and provides economic support. A smaller subset emphasizes ecosystem integrity and wildlife trade regulation to reduce zoonotic risks. Differences by age, education, and geography exist but do not preclude consensus. The authors call for integrating economic and ecological policies—aligned with One Health—to build resilience against future pandemics. Future research should deepen understanding of how disciplinary background, ideology, and cultural context shape pandemic-related preferences, and track how views evolve over time and across regions.

The authors acknowledge potential caveats related to sample composition and representativeness: although n=3,731 respondents from 131 countries is large, response frequencies were not proportional across countries or disciplines. Emails were drawn from Scopus corresponding authors and supplemented via networks, potentially introducing selection bias. Analyses were aggregated rather than country-specific, and the cross-sectional, self-reported Likert data reflect perceptions at a specific period (June–September 2020). Despite these limitations, the authors argue the sample is adequate for the analyses and that biases are minimal for the aggregate conclusions.