The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, had unprecedented global impacts on economic, social, and health systems. Governments implemented stringent measures, leading to economic downturn. While experts previously warned about pandemic possibilities, the scale and extent of COVID-19 were unanticipated. Debates ensued on the pandemic's effects and necessary policy responses. Zoonotic diseases like COVID-19 originate and spread when pathogens jump from animals to humans; their severity depends on transmissibility, illness severity, and societal responses. There's a growing need for a new approach to address current and future pandemics, but diverse perspectives on the causes, consequences, and solutions hinder consensus. Some argue that increased human activity and biodiversity loss contribute to zoonotic disease emergence and spread, advocating for nature conservation and wildlife trade restrictions. Others focus on economic inequality and neoliberal policies, arguing that they exacerbate pandemic impacts. A purely public health perspective emphasizes robust global surveillance and public health systems. Yet others see pandemics as cyclical events requiring behavioral changes rather than stringent policies. This study empirically examines these diverse perspectives by surveying researchers globally on COVID-19's origin, spread, prevention, and post-pandemic expectations.

The introduction extensively cites existing literature on various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. It reviews studies on the economic, social, and health impacts of the pandemic, highlighting the unanticipated scale of the crisis and the subsequent debates on policy responses. The literature review also explores different perspectives on the pandemic’s origins, including the role of zoonotic diseases, anthropogenic activities, biodiversity loss, economic inequality, and the effectiveness of various public health interventions. The review touches upon the ‘One Health’ approach, integrating human, animal, and environmental health considerations. The existing literature is used to establish the context for the research questions and to justify the need for empirical investigation into the diverse perspectives surrounding COVID-19.

The study employed an online survey administered via SoGoSurvey to a sample of researchers obtained from the Elsevier Scopus database. 102,560 researchers across various disciplines and countries were contacted. The survey comprised three parts: (1) demographic data (age, gender, education, nationality, employment); (2) COVID-19 experience (direct/indirect effects, lockdown experiences); and (3) views on COVID-19's origin, spread, prevention, and post-pandemic expectations (20 Likert-scale questions across four areas). Quality control included piloting the survey and modifying questions based on feedback. Ethical approval was obtained, and anonymity was assured. Data analysis involved descriptive statistics, agreement scores (Van der Eijk, 2001), and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify dimensions of thinking about COVID-19. Multinomial logistic regression assessed the relationship between Likert scale responses and demographic variables. The study acknowledges potential caveats related to sample size and its representativeness, addressing these concerns by highlighting the global distribution of respondents and the aggregate nature of data analysis. The sample comprised 3731 responses from 131 countries.

The survey revealed diverse perspectives but not polarization. The strongest consensus supported improving healthcare facilities, providing economic support, strengthening public health systems, and adhering to science-based advice for coping with the pandemic. The least support was for statements linking wildlife trade and consumption as the primary cause. EFA identified three dimensions of thinking about COVID-19: (1) Strengthening public health (prioritizing health infrastructure, environmental quality, economic support, and scientific advice); (2) Science-led public policy (emphasizing evidence-based actions, better environmental policies, and improved sanitation in the post-pandemic world); and (3) Ecosystem-based perspective (linking COVID-19 to ecosystem destruction and advocating for wildlife trade regulation). Multinomial logistic regression showed that demographic variables influenced some responses. Males were more likely to believe things would return to normal after COVID-19. Respondents from high-income countries, those highly educated and experienced, supported wildlife trade bans. Researchers from low- and middle-income countries supported the increased value of scientific work and environmental agendas in post-pandemic development policies. There was no significant association between demographic variables and expectations for improved health and hygiene facilities.

The findings highlight that while diverse perspectives on COVID-19 exist, there's a significant consensus around strengthening public health systems and ensuring economic support. The lack of strong support for ecological perspectives might be due to differences in education levels and economic status. The three dimensions of thinking about COVID-19 identified in this study reflect the complexities of the pandemic and the interplay of public health, science policy, and ecological factors. The study's findings confirm the importance of science-based public policy promoting health equity, environmental governance, and social justice. While age, education, and geographic location influenced views, this did not lead to a complete division of perspectives. The strong support for improved health and hygiene facilities underscores their importance across diverse backgrounds. The study highlights a need for integrating economic and ecological policies to prevent future pandemics.

This study provides valuable insights into the diverse perspectives of researchers globally on COVID-19. A significant consensus emerged regarding the need for robust public health systems, economic support, and science-led policies. However, the relatively weak support for an ecological perspective suggests a need for enhanced communication and education in this area. The findings underscore the importance of incorporating health equity, social justice, and environmental governance in addressing future pandemic threats. Further research could explore the impact of political ideologies and religious beliefs on perspectives on the pandemic.

The study acknowledges the limitations of relying on self-reported data from a sample of researchers. The study’s findings may not be generalizable to the entire global population. The sample, while geographically diverse, might not perfectly represent the proportions of researchers across all countries. The cross-sectional nature of the study limits the ability to draw conclusions about causal relationships between demographic factors and perspectives on COVID-19.