Content uploaded by Deborah Lupton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Deborah Lupton on Nov 10, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Australians’ Experiences of COVID-19
STAGE 4 SURVEY FINDINGS, 2023
Deborah Lupton | Vitalities Lab, Centre for Social Research in Health
and Social Policy Research Centre | UNSW Sydney
PAGE 1
Australians’ Experiences of COVID-19
Stage 4 Survey Findings, 2023
Suggested citation: Lupton, D. (2023) Australians’ Experiences of COVID-19: Stage 4
Survey Findings, 2023. Sydney: UNSW Centre for Social Research in Health.
Sydney: UNSW Centre for Social Research in Health
8 November 2023
PAGE 2
Summary
The national online survey findings reported in this report are from the most recent stage
of the ‘Australians’ Experiences of COVID-19’ project. Conducted in mid-September 2023,
this representative survey investigates 1,000 Australians’ experiences of COVID-19 and
preventive practices such as vaccination and face mask wearing, their perceptions of
COVID-19 risk, who they think are the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information
and their views on the federal and their state/territory governments’ current management
of the pandemic. The survey results show that the pandemic continues to badly affect
Australians in terms of accumulated infections and prevalence of long COVID. Yet
respondents were equivocal about the extent to which COVID-19 is a continuing risk to
Australians. For the most part they were not strongly supportive of continued preventive
actions against infection such as face mask wearing and vaccination. They did not hold
high trust in any COVID-19 information source, including medical experts and scientists.
Respondents were divided about how well their governments were managing the
pandemic.
KEY FINDINGS
➢ More than two-thirds of respondents (68%) reported having had at least one
COVID-19 infection to their knowledge. One third (32%) reported one infection. A
further 22% reported two infections, with a total of 13% experiencing three or more.
Younger people reported more infections than older people, as did those in the
middle household income category.
➢ Of those who reported COVID-19 infections, 40% had experienced long COVID.
More younger people experienced long COVID symptoms, while far fewer people on
the lowest household income level reported long COVID.
➢ The respondents reported a high take-up of the first three COVID-19 vaccines. The
vast majority (93%) responded they had been vaccinated, with 21% having had two
doses and 36% reporting three doses. However, after three doses, the proportion
drops considerably.
➢ Responses were mixed concerning plans for future COVID-19 vaccination. A total
of 36% said they were planning to get another vaccine in 12 months, a similar
proportion (37%) said no, and 27% were unsure. Those in the oldest age group were
more likely to say that they were planning to get a further COVID-19 vaccination, as
were people living in a capital city or regional city.
➢ Face mask wearing as a personal practice was low. Only 9% of respondents said
that they always wore a face mask to protect themselves against COVID-19 when
inside public places. A further 26% said that they sometimes used a mask in these
settings. This is a combined total of just over one-third of respondents (35%) who
PAGE 3
were still masking at least sometimes. Younger respondents were more likely to wear
face masks than those in the older groups, as were those in the middle income
category.
➢ Support for face mask mandates for healthcare workers while at work was
higher, with 58% in at least partial support. Here again, younger people and those in
the middle income category were more supportive of mandating face masks for
healthcare workers.
➢ Doctors were considered the most trustworthy sources of COVID-19
information (60%), followed by experts in the field (53%), Australian government
health agencies (52%), global health agencies (49%), scientists (45%), community
health organisations (35%), Australian government leaders (31%) and other
healthcare providers (28%). News reports (17%), friends and family (13%), social
media (7%) and religious institutions (3%) were considered the least trustworthy.
Older people were more likely to trust doctors and Australian government health
agencies. The youngest group was the least trusting of scientists and experts in the
field. Those in towns were less trusting of Australian government leaders, global
health agencies and experts. Those in the lowest income category trusted news
sources more than those in the other categories. A greater percentage of respondents
in the two higher income categories said they trusted global health agencies.
➢ A slight majority (59%) thought that COVID-19 was still posing a risk to
Australians: 17% said definitely, while a further 42% saw COVID-19 as somewhat of
a risk. This left 28% who did not view COVID-19 as much of a continuing risk, and
13% who thought it not a risk at all. The oldest age group saw COVID-19 as more of a
continuing risk to Australians than did the younger groups, as did respondents
located in regional cities and towns and those in the middle income category.
➢ Respondents were mixed in their assessments of how well their federal and
state/territory governments were currently managing COVID-19. They were
evenly divided between positive assessments (36% for both federal and
state/territory governments) and more equivocal assessments: 34% (federal) and 32%
(state/territory). The youngest and oldest age groups were least positive about their
governments’ management of COVID-19. People in towns were less positive than
those in capital cities or regional cities. People with the middle levels of household
income were more positive than those in other income categories.
PAGE 4
Introduction
Australia has experienced multiple waves of COVID-19 outbreaks. COVID-19 infections,
hospitalisations and deaths are continuing to affect Australians’ health and wellbeing. As
the COVID-19 pandemic continues into its fourth year, it is important to know how it is
affecting Australians across the nation, how they assess the risk of infection and what
they are doing to prevent exposure to the virus. The national online survey findings
reported in this report are from the most recent stage of the ‘Australians’ Experiences of
COVID-19’ project. Conducted in mid-September 2023, this representative survey
investigates 1,000 Australians’ experiences of COVID-19 and preventive practices such as
vaccination and face mask wearing, their perceptions of COVID-19 risk, who they think
are the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information and their views on the Australian
federal and their state/territory governments’ current management of the pandemic.
An overview of COVID-19 in Australia, 2020-2023
COVID-19 waves, policies and mitigation measures
The first cases of the disease that came to be known as COVID-19, caused by the novel
coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, were reported by officials in Wuhan, China, on the last day of
2019. One month later, as cases quickly spread beyond China and to other parts of the
world, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared this outbreak as a ‘public health
emergency of international concern’. By 11 March 2020, COVID-19 was officially
characterised as a pandemic by WHO (World Health Organization, 2020).
Throughout 2020 and 2021, the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was well controlled
in Australia due to effective public health mitigations. Australia’s federal government
acted quickly in response to the first notifications of the novel coronavirus. From 23
January 2020, Australian biosecurity officers began screening incoming arrivals on flights
from Wuhan. Two days later, the first official cases of COVID-19 in Australia were
reported. On 27 February 2020, the Prime Minister at the time, Scott Morrison, activated
the Australian Health Sector Emergency Response Plan for Novel Coronavirus (COVID-
19). The first death in Australia was reported on 1 March 2020, followed the next day by
confirmation of the first cases of community transmission in Australia. On 12 March 2020,
Morrison announced an economic stimulus package. In the days following, the federal
government implemented a series of measures to ‘slow the spread’ of the virus, including
voluntary isolation of all arriving travellers, contact tracing and testing services, as well as
lockdown restrictions for all Australians to reduce citizens’ movements outside their
homes. International and some internal border control measures between states and
territories were introduced and non-essential businesses and services and schools were
closed. A second economic stimulus package was announced on 22 March 2020, including
changes to unemployment benefits. On 29 March, a safety net package was introduced to
PAGE 5
expand mental health and telehealth services as well as increased family violence
prevention and food provision services.
These measures proved extremely effective in containing the spread of the virus
within the community, and consequently lockdown restrictions were progressively
removed from mid-May 2020. The state of Victoria went through a second extended
lockdown from mid-2020. By the time this lockdown was eased in late 2020, there were
very few cases of COVID in the nation (Lupton, 2020; Stobart & Duckett, 2022). Tight
control of the pandemic was facilitated by strong test-and-trace and quarantine measures
and continued border controls, together with advocacy of preventive measures such as
face mask wearing, physical distancing and occupancy limits on public venues. Further
region-specific lockdowns were quickly implemented when community cases were
identified. After somewhat of a delay, the federal government eventually managed to
secure adequate supplies of the new COVID-19 vaccines. In mid-2021, mass vaccination
supplies and facilities together with announcements of targets and media campaigns were
established by federal and state/territory governments to encourage eligible Australians
to receive the two doses recommended at that time (Biddle, 2022; Biddle et al., 2023;
Stobart & Duckett, 2022).
Due to these strong public health protection and containment measures,
throughout 2020 and most of 2021, compared with similar wealthy, English-speaking
countries Australia had far fewer case numbers per capita and long periods of time in
which there was no community transmission of the virus (Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare, 2022a). The vast majority of Australians willingly complied with public
health measures to limit case numbers and deaths (Stobart & Duckett, 2022; Young,
2022). However in late 2021, Australian federal and state/territory governments began to
withdraw COVID-19 mitigations, based on the assumption that the then highly
vaccinated population (Biddle, 2022) was well protected against infection and death
caused by the dominant Delta variant circulating at the time. Australians were urged to
learn to ‘live with COVID’ so that Australia could ‘open up again’. Confidence in the
protection offered by double vaccination led to governments dropping many public
health measures, including mask mandates, publicising sites where infected cases had
been identified, checking in to venues using an app, and regular media briefings by
state/territory premiers and health agency leaders such as chief health officers. News
media coverage was much reduced, as political leaders sought to establish a sense of
normality by suggesting that the crisis was over (Duckett, 2022; Lupton, 2021, 2024;
Stobart & Duckett, 2022; Young, 2022).
Unfortunately, the new Omicron viral variant reached Australia soon afterwards,
and from late 2021 and into early 2022 Australia experienced a massive new wave of
infection (Figure 1) with far greater loss of life than had been previously experienced
during the pandemic (Figure 2). The ideal of eliminating COVID-19 which had dominated
government policy in 2020 and 2021 was relinquished. Once most mitigations were
withdrawn and the international borders fully opened in early 2022, hospitalisations and
deaths began a steep trajectory. After a period in which excess mortality decreased in
2020-21, it increased by 12% in 2022. COVID-19 became the third leading cause of death in
2022 (Barrett, 2023).
PAGE 6
Figure 1: Daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases per million people, 1 March 2020-1 January 2023,
Australia. Source: Our World in Data
Figure 2: Daily new confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people, 1 March 2020-1 January 2023,
Australia. Source: Our World in Data
PAGE 7
While in previous years state and territory governments dealt with COVID-19
protections and regulations quite differently (Biddle et al., 2023; Duckett, 2022; Stobart &
Duckett, 2022; Young, 2022), by the beginning of 2023 a similar approach had been
adopted across the nation. It has now become difficult to find relevant data about
COVID-19 cases and vaccinations. Previously strong COVID case data collection and
reporting practices have been progressively dropped and officially reported case numbers
can no longer be relied on. Hospitalisations and deaths due to COVID-19, however, are
still reasonably accurately reported and can be used as a proxy for the extent of COVID-19
outbreaks. As shown in Figure 3, Australia has gone through several peaks of
hospitalisations, including a wave in the weeks preceding the Stage 4 survey. Figure 4
shows cumulative confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million in Australian compared with
some other Western countries as well as with other countries that were known for their
success in controlling the spread of COVID-19 (New Zealand, Singapore and Japan). As
these graphs demonstrate, while Australia avoided the huge loss of life experienced by the
UK, USA, Italy, Germany and Sweden due to the strong public health measures
implemented in 2021-2022, COVID-19 remains a serious threat to Australians’ health.
Figure 3: Number of COVID-19 patients in hospital per million people, 1 March 2020-7
September 2023, Australia. Source: Our World in Data
PAGE 8
Figure 4: Cumulative confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people, 1 March 2020-7
September 2023, Australia. Source: Our World in Data
Prevalence of COVID-19 infections
Data from two studies conducted in 2022 give some indication of how many COVID-19
infections Australians have had and the age profile of those infected. The ANU’s ‘COVID-
19 Impact Monitoring Survey’ series (Biddle & Korda, 2022) found that of the people
surveyed in August 2022, the majority (52.4%) reported having either had COVID-19 or at
the very least thinking they have had it. Younger adults were more likely to have had
COVID-19 than older Australians, with nearly two-thirds (63.2%) of those aged 25-44
years, but only around a third (33.6%) of those aged 75 years and over reporting having
ever having the disease. At that point, the vast majority of Australians (83.4%) who said
they had COVID-19 had gone through it once only. Only 11.2% reported that they had it
twice, and a further 5.4% three times or more.
Another way to measure the prevalence of COVID infection is from the regular
serological tests conducted from Australian donors’ blood by the Australian COVID-19
Surveillance Network. The most recent data are from blood donations received in
November-December 2022 (The Australian COVID-19 Serosurveillance Network, 2023).
These data, which discern the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, show that of this
group of adults who donated blood, more than two-thirds had been infected with this
virus – virtually all since the Omicron outbreak at the beginning of that year. Here again,
PAGE 9
evidence of infection was higher among young adults and declined with age. Of the 18-29
years age group, 83.2% had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies compared with 51.4% of blood donors
in the 70-89 years age group.
Prevalence of long COVID
There are differing definitions of long COVID (also referred to in the medical literature as
post-acute COVID-19 syndrome) and estimates of how many people have suffered from
this condition are complicated by the impacts of previous infections or vaccinations.
Some definitions classify long COVID as symptoms persisting for a minimum of 28 days
(four weeks), while others use a 12-week period. A systematic literature review
synthesising the global evidence on the prevalence of long COVID found that on average,
at least 45% of COVID-19 survivors, regardless of whether they had been hospitalised with
the disease, went on to experience at least one symptom persisting for a minimum of 28
days (O'Mahoney et al., 2023).
There are still little data on long COVID from Australia. Estimates of how many
Australians have experienced or still have symptoms of long COVID are variable, as
different definitions are used and some measurements rely on people’s self-reported
symptoms while others use clinical data. The Australian National Clinical Evidence
Taskforce (2023) defines long COVID as ‘signs and symptoms that develop during or after
an infection consistent with COVID-19, continue for more than 12 weeks and are not
explained by an alternative diagnosis’. Using the 28 day/four weeks definition, one
representative survey conducted in August 2022 found that 29.0% of Australian adults
with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 experienced long COVID (Biddle & Korda, 2022).
An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report published in December 2022 noted
the continuing lack of information about long COVID in Australia. The authors estimated
that at that point 5-10% of Australians had experienced long COVID-19 symptoms
persisting for three or more months (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022b).
Since these data and estimates were published, Australians have been exposed to
more infections, potentially leading to more cases of long COVID. The federal
government inquiry into long COVID-19, released in April 2023, demonstrated the lack of
recognition and treatment for people suffering the prolonged effects of infection
(Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, 2023).
Trust in information sources and government
Throughout the pandemic, Australians have strongly relied on mainstream media news
sources as well as government authorities for information about COVID-19 (Deejay et al.,
2023; Lupton, 2024; Lupton & Lewis, 2021, 2022b; Park et al., 2020; Park et al., 2022;
Young, 2022). In the early phases, many news reports provided accurate and important
information about the pandemic (Nolan et al., 2021; Young, 2022). Unfortunately, as is the
case globally, misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 have also been
disseminated in Australia via news outlets, social media and even by politicians and
medical or public health experts (Baker et al., 2020; Bruns et al., 2020; Lupton, 2023b,
PAGE 10
2023c; Meese et al., 2020; Young, 2022). Australian research has identified fluctuations in
people’s trust in information sources over the course of the pandemic as they navigated
how best to deal with constant change in government policies and case numbers as well
as with disinformation and misinformation (Deejay et al., 2023; Park et al., 2020; Park et
al., 2022).
Due to the demonstrated success of government measures to contain the spread of
the ancestral and Delta coronavirus variants, trust in and support of both federal and
state governments during the first two years of the pandemic was notably high (Biddle et
al., 2023; Browne, 2020; Fenna & Goldfinch, 2023; Goldfinch et al., 2021; Lupton, 2022a;
Young, 2022). The popularity of the premiers and state governments that had
implemented strong COVID protections (Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia)
was particularly strong (Young, 2022). However, support for federal and state/territory
governments gradually declined over 2021 and 2022, affected by problems such as the
timely acquisition and rollout of the first COVID-19 vaccines (Holden & Leigh, 2022) and
the onset of the Omicron wave (Biddle & Gray, 2022).
In 2022, when there were far fewer briefings by government and public health
officials and the frequency of news coverage of pandemic conditions had diminished
(Lupton, 2024; Young, 2022), Australians displayed heightened trust in health and science
experts and least trust in social media news. They also expressed scepticism about the
motivations of public health and government authorities in relation to vaccines and
COVID-19 reporting (Park et al., 2022). By April 2022, just before the federal election in
which Prime Minister Morrison and the Liberal Party were voted out of office, confidence
in the federal government was only just above pre-pandemic levels, while confidence in
state/territory governments declined less precipitously (Biddle et al., 2023).
Vaccination rates
Previous findings from the ‘Australians’ Experiences of COVID-19’ project found that in
2021 Australians responded very positively to their governments’ campaigns to offer the
first two doses of COVID-19 vaccines once difficulties with acquisition were resolved.
Double vaccination was advertised as a ‘way out of the pandemic’ once enough people
had received these doses (Lupton, 2022b, 2023a). Since 2022, however, vaccination rates
have dropped precipitously. A 2022 survey looked at disparities in COVID-19 vaccine
uptake in Australia (Biddle, 2022). These findings showed that despite an extremely high
take-up of the initial two doses of the vaccine offered Australians in 2021, the proportion
seeking further ‘booster’ doses once they became recommended to eligible population
groups declined significantly in 2022. It was concluded that Australia’s COVID-19
immunisation program was stalling, leaving many people susceptible to disease and death
due to waning immunity from the earlier doses. By mid-2023, the acceptance of COVID-
19 vaccines was even lower. The graph in Figure 5 shows the levelling off in numbers of
weekly COVID-19 vaccine doses administered between February 2021 and July 2023.
PAGE 11
Figure 5: Australia COVID-19 weekly doses and total vaccines administered,
18 February 2021-6 July 2023. Source: covidbaseau.com/vaccinations
Face mask wearing
In previous years, Australians have strongly supported preventive measures such as face
mask wearing once they became recommended by governments and health authorities
(Faasse & Newby, 2020; MacIntyre et al., 2021; Quigley et al., 2022). Even though health
officials followed the WHO advice in early 2020 that masks were not effective as
preventive measures, by October 2020 state health authorities in
NSW and Queensland recommended that face masks should be used in situations where
physical distancing was not possible. Earlier that year, Victoria had mandated mask
wearing during its second lockdown.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ ‘Household Impacts of COVID-19’ survey found
that acceptance of mask wearing rose rapidly in response to these recommendations. In
April 2020, only 17% of Australians reported wearing a face mask as part of their
precautions against COVID-19 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020a). By September
2020, this number had increased dramatically. In total, 60% of Australians reported
wearing a face mask in the past week (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020b). In early
2022, mask wearing was exceptionally high in Australia (98%), as mask mandates were
reintroduced across the country to manage the huge Omicron wave that had spiked over
the summer (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022b) (Figure 1). Over three quarters of
Australians (78%) still reported wearing a face mask in April 2022 (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2022a).
PAGE 12
The ‘Australians’ Experiences of COVID-19’ project
The ‘Australians’ Experiences of COVID-19’ project to date is comprised of four stages, as
shown in Figure 6. Stages 1-3 adopted a qualitative approach, each involving semi-
structured telephone/video call interviews conducted with 40 Australian adults. There
was a different group of participants recruited for each stage, for a total of 120 participants
across these three stages. Stage 4 used a quantitative method (a closed-ended online
survey with 1,000 respondents.
Figure 6: The four stages of the ‘Australians’ Experiences of COVID-19’ project
COVID-19 conditions have changed dramatically between each of the research
stages. When the Stage 1 interviews were conducted, Australians were emerging from the
national lockdown and still learning about and coming to terms with the COVID-19 crisis
and how it was affecting their lives. By the time the Stage 2 interviews took place in
September-October 2021, half of Australia’s population were in the final stages of another
lockdown across the eastern states of Queensland, NSW and Victoria as well as the
Australian Capital Territory. People living in the other states of South Australia, Tasmania
and Western Australia, as well those in the Northern Territory, were not included in this
lockdown and life for them was barely affected during this stage. After an initial problem
with the federal government obtaining enough COVID-19 vaccines, by this point all
eligible Australians were being strongly encouraged by governments to receive the two
recommended doses of the first COVID-19 vaccines, which were presented as a way to
end the pandemic. In the year separating Stage 2 and 3 interviews, COVID-19 conditions
had again changed with the dropping of most protections in late 2021 and the arrival of
the Omicron variant.
The period between the Stage 3 interviews in September 2022 and the Stage 4
survey in September 2023 was characterised by less visibility of COVID-19 in public
Figure 1: The four stages of the ‘Australians’ Experiences of COVID-19’ project
Stage 1: 40 interviews, May-July 2020
Stage 2: 40 interviews, September-October 2021
Stage 3: 40 interviews, September 2022
Stage 4: 1,000 survey respondents, September 2023
PAGE 13
forums, even though two new waves of infection and disease had occurred over that year.
The survey was conducted at a time in which most mitigations against the spread of
COVID-19 previously implemented by governments and the medical and public health
systems had been dropped. COVID-19 was at first a highly newsworthy topic: particularly
in the first year of the pandemic, when it was novel and journalists were scrambling to
cover fast-moving events and policy settings (Nolan et al., 2021). As shown in Figure 7, by
the time of the survey, news media attention to COVID-19 had diminished significantly
compared with previous years. Government and health leaders were no longer providing
frequent updates about the state of the pandemic as they did in earlier pandemic years or
running regular health promotion campaigns (Lupton, 2024; Spennemann, 2023; Young,
2022).
Figure 7: Frequency of reports mentioning COVID-19 in the Australian news sources
indexed by Factiva, 1 March 2020 to 31 August 2023
Analysis of the interviews from Stages 1-3 is continuing. Publications to date have
shown how factors such as age, place of residence and health status have had an impact
on people’s concepts of risk, preventive behaviours and wellbeing during the pandemic.
Articles from the Stage 1 interviews address topics such as how Australians first learnt
about COVID-19 (Lupton & Lewis, 2021), how they conceptualised risk (Lupton & Lewis,
2022b), coped with chronic health conditions (Lupton & Lewis, 2022c) or pre-existing
mental illness (Lupton & Lewis, 2022a) and more generally what life was like during the
early months of the pandemic (Lupton & Lewis, 2023). Analysis of the Stage 2 interviews
published thus far discuss participants’ views and experiences of the first COVID-19
vaccines in relation to their understandings of risk and immunity (Lupton, 2022b, 2023a)
PAGE 14
and their attitudes and experiences related to the internal border closures that occurred
during 2020 and 2021 as COVID-19 control measures (Butler & Lupton, 2023).
Stage 4 survey methods
A total of 1,000 adult Australians aged 18 to 77 years completed a short online survey
between 11-16 September 2023. Quotas were implemented in recruitment to ensure that
the sample was representative of the Australian population by age, gender and
state/territory of residence (see the Appendix for further details of methods).
Respondents were grouped into age categories based on standard ‘generational’
categories often used in social research: 18-28 years (‘Generation Z’), 29-43 years
(‘Generation Y’), 44-58 years (‘Generation X’) and 59-77 years (‘Baby Boomers’). Table 1
shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.
Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents
gender
%
age
group
%
state/
territory
%
location
%
household
income/week
%
education
level
%
female
50
18-28
19
NSW
31
capital
city
62
$3,000+ (Cat1)
18
Year 12 or
below
32
male
49
29-43
29
VIC
26
regional
city
15
$2,000-$2,999
(Cat2)
20
Certicate
or diploma
30
other
1
44-58
26
QLD
20
town
19
$1,200-$1,999
(Cat3)
26
University
degree
38
59-77
26
SA
7
remote
area
4
$700-$1,199
(Cat4)
22
WA
11
$699 or less
(Cat5)
14
TAS
2
ACT
2
NT
1
The survey included the following questions:
1. To your knowledge, how many COVID-19 infections have you had? (This includes any
infections you may have had over the course of the last four years.)
2. Have you experienced symptoms of ‘long-COVID-19'? (This may be any ongoing
symptoms following an initial COVID-19 illness that have lasted longer than three
months.)
3. How many COVID-19 vaccinations and/or boosters have you had?
PAGE 15
4. Do you plan to get any COVID-19 vaccinations and/or boosters in the next 12 months?
5. How often do you currently wear a face mask to protect yourself against COVID-19
when inside public places? (Public places include public transport, planes, shops,
medical clinics, restaurants or cafes.)
6. Do you think wearing face masks should be mandatory for healthcare workers while at
work (e.g. hospitals, medical clinics)?
7. Which of the following do you believe are trustworthy sources of information about
COVID-19? Please select all that apply. (Options were: Doctors/Other healthcare
providers/News reports on television/radio/newspapers/Social media sites/Australian
government health agencies (e.g. Federal or State/territory departments of
health/Australian government leaders (e.g. the Prime Minister, Minister of Health, state
premiers, Chief Health Officers)/Global health agencies (e.g. the World Health
Organization)/Community health organisations (e.g. The Heart Foundation, Asthma
Australia)/Friends/family/ Experts in the field/Religious institutions/Scientists/Other
[please specify]/I am unsure)
8. Do you think COVID-19 is still posing a risk to Australians?
9. How effectively do you believe the Australian government is currently managing the
COVID-19 pandemic?
10. How effectively do you believe your state/territory government is currently managing
the COVID-19 pandemic?
Results
Response percentages to each question from across the sample are provided below. Using
simple cross-tabulations, responses to the COVID-19 questions were compared by age
group, residential location (capital city, regional city, town) and income category (Cat1-
Cat5, as shown in Table 1). Where differences were notable, these are outlined below.
COVID-19 infections
More than two-thirds of respondents (68%) reported having had at least one COVID-19
infection to their knowledge. One third (32%) reported one infection. A further 22%
reported two infections, with a total of 13% experiencing three or more (7% with three
infections and 6% with four or more infections). This left 30% of the sample who said that
they have never had COVID-19, with 2% unsure.
Younger people reported more infections than older people. Only 18% of those in
the youngest age group said they had never been infected or were unsure, compared with
25%, 37% and 46% in the older age groups in ascending order of age. More than half
(52%) of respondents aged 18-28 years reported having had more than one COVID
infection, compared with 36% of those aged 29-43 years, 31% aged 44-58 years, and 28% of
the oldest age group (59-77 years). Income level made a difference in infections, with 43%
of those in the middle household category (Cat3) reporting more than one infection
compared with 35-36% of those in Cat1, Cat2 and Cat 4 and only 24% of the lowest
PAGE 16
income category (Cat5) respondents. Cat5 respondents were also more likely to report
having had no COVID-19 at all: almost half (47%) stated no infections, compared with
27% (Cat1), 22% (Cat2), 24% (Cat3) and 38% (Cat4).
Long COVID
Of those respondents who reported COVID-19 infections, 40% had experienced long
COVID, either with symptoms at the time of the survey (15%) or in the past (25%). This
equates to just over a quarter (27%) of the whole sample reporting long COVID
symptoms.
Age factored into prevalence of reported long COVID. Of the youngest age group,
57% of respondents who had had a past COVID-19 infection reported past or current long
COVID symptoms, compared with 44% of those aged 29-43 years, 39% of those aged 44-
58 years and 11% of respondents in the 59-77 years age group. Far fewer people on the
lowest household income level reported long COVID than did those on higher incomes.
Of those who had been infected with COVID, only 15% of respondents in this category
said that they had experienced long COVID symptoms, compared with 45% (Cat1), 41%
(Cat2), 46% (Cat3) and 34% (Cat4).
COVID-19 vaccinations
The respondents reported a high take-up of the first three COVID-19 vaccines. The vast
majority (93%) responded they had been vaccinated, with 21% having had two doses and
37% reporting three doses. However, after three doses, the proportion drops considerably:
17% of respondents reported receiving four doses, with 13% reporting five doses and 1% six
or more doses.
In response to the question about whether they planned to get any COVID-19
vaccines and/or boosters in the next 12 months, there was a high degree of equivocation:
36% said yes, a similar proportion (37%) said no, and 27% were unsure. Older
respondents (in the 58-77 years group) were more likely to say that they were planning to
get a further COVID-19 vaccination in the next 12 months (43% compared with 33-34% in
the other three age groups). People living in a capital city (38%) or regional city (40%)
were more likely than those in a town (30%) to say they planned a vaccination in that
time period.
Face masks
Support of face mask wearing was low. Only 9% of respondents said that they always
wore a face mask to protect themselves against COVID-19 when inside public places and a
further 26% said that they sometimes used a mask in these settings. This is a combined
total of just over one-third of respondents (35%) who were still masking at least
sometimes. Of the remaining respondents, 23% said rarely, 18% said that they did so only
when it was required, and 24% said that they never wore masks in these settings.
PAGE 17
Younger respondents were more likely to wear face masks than those in the older
groups. In the 18-28 years group, a combined total of 43% said that they always or
sometimes used them when inside public places, while 35% of respondents in the 29-43
age group, 37% of those aged 44-58 years and 27% of those aged 59-77 years gave these
responses. Income level made a difference too, with a higher percentage of middle
income (Cat3) respondents compared with other income categories answering that they
always or sometimes wore face masks when inside in public places: 40% gave these
responses compared with 35% (Cat1), 30% (Cat2), 34% (Cat4) and 35% (Cat5).
When asked if they thought face mask wearing should be mandatory for
healthcare workers while at work, 25% said definitely yes and 33% somewhat agreed.
Combined, just over half of the respondents (58%) were in at least partial support of mask
mandates for healthcare workers, leaving 36% respondents not agreeing, and 6% unsure.
Younger people were also more supportive of mandating face masks for healthcare
workers: 66% of the youngest group fully or somewhat agreed, compared with 58% (29-43
years), 54% (44-58 years) and 55% (59-77 years). Furthermore, Cat3 respondents were
more supportive of mask mandates for healthcare workers: 62% of them compared with
56% (Cat1), 55% (Cat2), 58% (Cat4) and 57% (Cat 5) either fully or partially agreed they
should be mandated.
Trusted sources of information
Respondents were provided with a list of sources of COVID-19 information and asked
which of these are trustworthy. Doctors were considered the most trustworthy (60%),
followed by experts in the field (53%), Australian government health agencies (52%),
global health agencies (49%), scientists (45%), community health organisations (35%),
Australian government leaders (31%) and other healthcare providers (28%). News reports
(17%), friends and family (13%), social media (7%) and religious institutions (3%) were
considered the least trustworthy.
Older people were more likely to trust doctors (77% of the oldest age group
compared with 66%, 49% and 47% as the age groups became younger). They were also
more trusting of Australian government health agencies (60% compared with 51%, 49%
and 45% as the age groups became younger). The 44-58 years age group were the most
trusting of news reports compared with other age groups (21% compared with 11% of the
18-28 years group and 17% of respondents in the other two groups). The youngest group
was the least trusting of experts in the field: 41% compared with 52%, 54% and 62% in
each of the older age groups in ascending order of age. The two younger age groups were
also less trusting of scientists compared with the two older age groups (35% and 39% of
the youngest and next youngest age groups compared with 51% for both older age
groups).
There were some differences between those living in capital cities, regional cities
and towns in terms of which sources of information were trusted. Those in towns were
less trusting of Australian government leaders (22% compared with 33% in capital cities
and 38% in regional cities). Those in regional cities and towns were less trusting of global
health agencies (44% and 45% respectively) than were those in capital cities (52%).
PAGE 18
Capital city dwellers were more trusting of experts in the field (56%) than were those in
regional cities (47%) and towns (48%).
Income level also made a difference to some of the responses to this question.
Those in the lowest income category (Cat5) trusted news sources more than those in the
other categories, especially when compared with the two highest income categories: 24%
in Cat5 compared with 12% in Cat2 and 13% in Cat 1. A greater percentage of respondents
in the two higher income categories also said they trusted global health agencies than did
those in the other categories: 54% (Cat1) and 55% (Cat2) compared with 48% (Cat3), 44%
(Cat4) and 45% (Cat5). Highest income respondents (40%, Cat1) together with lower
income respondents in (41%, Cat4) were less trusting of scientists than were those in
other income categories: 48% (Cat2), 46% (Cat3), 47% (Cat5).
COVID-19 risk perception
When asked if they thought COVID-19 was still posing a risk to Australians, 17%
responded it definitely was still a risk, while a further 42% saw COVID-19 as somewhat of
a risk, for a slight majority (59%) acknowledging at least some continuing risk. This left
28% who did not view COVID-19 as much of a continuing risk, and 10% who thought it
not a risk at all, with 3% unsure.
The oldest age group saw COVID-19 as more of a continuing risk to Australians
than did the younger groups: 67% of this group compared with 56-57% in each of the
other age groups responded ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes somewhat’. Respondents located in
regional cities (60%) and towns (59%) were more likely to see COVID-19 as a risk than
were those in capital cities (49%). A higher percentage of those in the middle income
category (64%, Cat3) viewed COVID-19 as a continuing risk than did those in the other
categories: 58% (Cat1), 55% (Cat2), 59% (Cat4), 56% (Cat5).
Governments’ current pandemic management
The final two questions concerned how well the federal and the respondents’
state/territory governments were currently managing the COVID-19 pandemic. The
results for each were remarkably similar. A total of 9% thought that the federal and their
state/territory government were managing the pandemic extremely effectively and 27%
responded very effectively for both, for a total of 36% providing a highly positive
assessment. A further 34% (federal) and 32% (state/territory) were more equivocal giving
a ‘somewhat effectively’ response. On the more negative side, 11% (federal) and 12%
(state/territory) chose the response ‘slightly effectively’ and 11%/12% respectively
responded that they did not think these governments’ current management was at all
effective. A further 8% were unsure about how well both the federal and state/territory
governments were managing COVID-19.
The two middle age groups were more positive than the youngest and oldest age
group about their governments’ management of COVID-19. A total of 34% of the
youngest age group replied ‘extremely effectively’ or ‘very effectively’ in response to the
federal government’s management, while 28% of the oldest group and 41-42% of the two
PAGE 19
middle age groups provided these responses. The equivalent question for the
state/territory governments’ management showed a similar pattern: those viewing their
management as extremely/very effective were 26%, 40%, 41% and 26% respectively across
the age groups from youngest to oldest. People in towns were less positive about the
federal government’s management: 30% responded with ‘extremely/very effective’
compared with those in capital cities (39%) or regional cities (41%).
People with the middle levels of household income were the most positive about
the federal government’s COVID-19 management compared with other income
categories. A total of 35% (Cat1) 40% (Cat2), 41% (Cat3), 32% (Cat4) and 31% (Cat5) gave
the responses ‘extremely effectively’ or ‘very effectively’. A similar pattern was evident in
the percentage who gave these responses in relation to their state/territory governments:
35% (Cat1), 37% (Cat2), 41% (Cat3), 34% (Cat4) and 32% (Cat5) said that their
management was ‘extremely/very effective’.
Discussion
Among the respondents in this latest stage of the ‘Australians’ Experiences of COVID-19’
project, there was a high degree of uncertainty about the level of COVID-19 risk. The
majority of respondents saw COVID-19 as at least somewhat of a continuing risk to
Australians, but a sizeable minority refuted the risk. Yet the survey also demonstrates an
increase in infections compared with studies conducted in 2022 (Biddle & Korda, 2022;
The Australian COVID-19 Serosurveillance Network, 2023). The prevalence of long
COVID in this sample is concerning in the current environment where the needs of
people with long COVID are being ignored or unmet, and few options are available for
formal diagnosis and treatment (Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport,
2023).
The survey responses further show a weakening in Australians’ willingness to
engage in preventive actions such as vaccination and masking. While the majority of
respondents had received three COVID vaccine doses, fewer had taken up further doses.
Respondents’ reports of their COVID-19 vaccine uptake are aligned with other research
showing a significant decrease in vaccinations delivered in 2022 (Biddle, 2022) and
population-wide data from 2023 (Figure 5). Only a minority of the respondents definitely
planned a further vaccination in the next 12 months. These findings from Stage 4 contrast
strongly with the attitudes and practices expressed by Australians who were interviewed
in 2021 for Stage 2 of the project, in which there were high levels of appreciation of
interest in and willingness to receive the two doses made available that year (Lupton,
2022b, 2023a).
So too, despite continuing waves of infection in 2023, many respondents for the
most part were not wearing masks themselves and only a bare majority supported mask
mandates for healthcare workers in clinical settings. Compared with previous years of the
pandemic (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020b, 2022a) and particularly when face
masks were mandated for everyone (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022b), this is a major
change in attitudes and practices related to masking.
PAGE 20
The survey findings further showed that in contrast to earlier pandemic times
(Park et al., 2020), trust in COVID-19 information sources was low. In line with research
from 2022 demonstrating an increase in generalised scepticism towards all types of news
and information (Park et al., 2022), respondents demonstrated uncertainty about the
sources of the COVID information. Even figures usually considered reputable, such as
doctors, experts in the field, Australian government health agencies and scientists, were
not considered particularly trustworthy. Australian government leaders were ranked well
below these sources in terms of their trustworthiness. Similarly, compared with the first
two years of the pandemic (Biddle et al., 2023; Browne, 2020; Fenna & Goldfinch, 2023;
Goldfinch et al., 2021; Holden & Leigh, 2022; Lupton, 2022a), there was relatively muted
support of federal and state/territory governments’ approaches to COVID-19
management.
Sociodemographic attributes were associated with some differences in responses.
Younger respondents reported more COVID-19 infections and more experience of long
COVID, especially in comparison to the oldest age group. Younger respondents also
expressed greater support of face mask wearing than did older respondents but were less
trusting of traditional sources of authority such as doctors, Australian government health
agencies, scientists and experts. The oldest group were more likely to plan another
COVID vaccine in the next 12 months and to assess COVID-19 as more of a continuing
threat than did other age groups. Both the youngest and oldest groups were less positive
about governments’ current management of the pandemic compared with respondents in
the middle age groups.
Respondents with lower household incomes reported fewer infections and
experiences of long COVID. Those in the middle income category were more supportive
of face mask wearing and mandates for healthcare workers. They were also more likely to
perceive COVID as a continuing risk than were those in other income categories and
more positive about governments’ current COVID management. Higher income
respondents were less trusting of news sources, but more trusting of global news agencies
compared with those on a lower income. People living in towns were less likely than
those in capital or regional cities to plan another COVID-19 vaccine in the next 12 months
but (with those in regional cities) were more likely to see COVID-19 as a continuing risk
to Australians. Town dwellers were also less positive about the federal government’s
current management of the pandemic and less trusting of Australian government leaders,
experts and global health agencies.
Concluding comments
During earlier years of the pandemic, the vast majority of Australians were compliant
with public health protections and restrictions and supportive of the shared effort to ‘stop
the spread’ and ‘flatten the curve’ of COVID-19. They understood the serious threat posed
to their own health and that of others by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Even though
waves of COVID-19 continue to occur, Australians’ attitudes and behaviours have
changed now that most public signage about COVID-19 safety have been removed from
public settings, far less information is gathered or publicised about crucial data such as
PAGE 21
positive cases, hospitalisations, deaths and the prevalence of long COVID, and
mainstream media and government leaders and health departments provide little
information or warnings about the continuing risk. Trust in government leaders, health
authorities and news sources has significantly eroded compared with previous years of
the pandemic. Australians need much better leadership, accurate and up-to-date
information and public health communication to lessen the burden of further COVID-19-
related infections, illness, disability and death.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by funding provided by UNSW Sydney to Deborah Lupton
as part of her professorial appointment.
Cover images credit: Deborah Lupton.
Appendix
This study was designed by Deborah Lupton and approved by the UNSW Human
Research Ethics Committee (HC230531). All participants were provided with an
information and consent form before starting the survey. Responses were collected
between 11-16 September 2023 using an online survey administered through the
McCrindle research company’s secure national survey platform using their pre-registered
survey panel members. All recruitment and data gathering were facilitated and handled
by McCrindle, who then provided the data to Deborah Lupton for analysis and reporting.
The number of participants ensured a confidence level of 95% for the survey results, with
a 3.1% margin of error.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020a). Household impacts of COVID-19 survey, 1-6 April 2020.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/household-impacts-
covid-19-survey/1-6-apr-2020
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020b). Household impacts of COVID-19 survey, September 2020.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/household-impacts-
covid-19-survey/sep-2020#precautions
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2022a). Household impact of COVID-19 survey, April 2022.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/household-impacts-
covid-19-survey/apr-2022#precautions
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2022b). Household impacts of COVID-19, February 2022.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/household-impacts-
covid-19-survey/feb-2022#precautions
PAGE 22
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022a). Australia's Health 2022: Data Insights.
Australian Government.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022b). Long COVID in Australia - a review of the
literature. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/covid-19/long-covid-in-australia-a-review-of-
the-literature/summary
Baker, S. A., Wade, M., & Walsh, M. J. (2020). The challenges of responding to misinformation
during a pandemic: content moderation and the limitations of the concept of harm. Media
International Australia, 177(1), 103-107.
Barrett, A. (2023). Covid-19 was the third leading cause of death in Australia last year. British
Medical Journal, 381. http://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj.p842.abstract
Biddle, N. (2022). Ongoing Disparities in COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Australia using Survey Data–
August 2022. ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods.
Biddle, N., & Gray, M. (2022). Tracking Wellbeing Outcomes during the COVID-19 Pandemic
(January 2022): Riding the Omicron Wave. ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods.
Biddle, N., Gray, M., & McAllister, I. (2023). Federalism and condence in Australian governments
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Publius: The Journal of Federalism.
https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjad032
Biddle, N., & Korda, R. (2022). The Experience of COVID-19 in Australia, Including Long COVID:
Evidence from the COVID-19 Impact Monitoring Survey Series, August 2022. ANU Centre for
Social Research and Methods.
Browne, B. (2020). Global Attitudes to COVID-19 Pandemic and Response.
https://apo.org.au/sites/default/les/resource-les//apo-nid303579.pdf
Bruns, A., Harrington, S., & Hurcombe, E. (2020). ‘Corona? 5G? or both?’: the dynamics of COVID-
19/5G conspiracy theories on Facebook. Media International Australia, 177(1), 12-29.
Butler, E., & Lupton, D. (2023). Bubbles, fortresses and rings of steel: risk and socio-spatialities in
Australians’ accounts of border controls during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social & Cultural
Geography, online rst.
Deejay, A., Henne, K., Pine, K. H., Johnson, W. G., & Alphonso, F. C. (2023). Navigating a public
health crisis: governance and sensemaking during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia.
SSM-Qualitative Research in Health, 4.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321523001014
Duckett, S. (2022). Public health management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia: the role of
the Morrison government. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 19(16). https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/16/10400
Faasse, K., & Newby, J. (2020). Public perceptions of COVID-19 in Australia: perceived risk,
knowledge, health-protective behaviors, and vaccine intentions. Frontiers in Psychology,
11(2553). https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.551004
Fenna, A., & Goldnch, S. (2023). The politics and policy of COVID-19 in Australia and New
Zealand. In Crisis Leadership and Public Governance during the COVID-19 Pandemic:
International Comparisons (pp. 211-235). World Scientic Publishing Company.
Goldnch, S., Taplin, R., & Gauld, R. (2021). Trust in government increased during the Covid-19
pandemic in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 80(1),
3-11.
Holden, R., & Leigh, A. (2022). The race that stopped a nation: lessons from Australia’s Covid
vaccine failures. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 38(4), 818-832.
Lupton, D. (2020). Timeline of COVID-19 in Australia. Medium.
https://medium.com/@deborahalupton/timeline-of-covid-19-in-australia-1f7df6ca5f23
PAGE 23
Lupton, D. (2021). Conceptualising and managing COVID-19 risk: the six phases in Australia.
Medium. https://deborahalupton.medium.com/conceptualising-and-managing-covid-19-
risk-the-six-phases-in-australia-6bb5ba8b8d5b
Lupton, D. (2022a). Bungled vaccine rollout, welcome nancial support - here's what Aussies
thought of Morrison's COVID response. The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/bungled-vaccine-rollout-welcome-nancial-support-heres-
what-aussies-thought-of-morrisons-covid-response-181149
Lupton, D. (2022b). Understandings and practices related to risk, immunity and vaccination during
the Delta variant COVID-19 outbreak in Australia: an interview study. Vaccine: X, 11.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590136222000432
Lupton, D. (2023a). Attitudes to COVID-19 vaccines among Australians during the Delta variant
wave: a qualitative interview study. Health Promotion International, 38(1).
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daac192
Lupton, D. (2023b). Investigating the changing nature of risk, in a time of permacrisis, bad actors
and misinformation. Croakey. https://www.croakey.org/investigating-the-changing-
nature-of-risk-in-a-time-of-permacrisis-bad-actors-and-misinformation/
Lupton, D. (2023c). Risk (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Lupton, D. (2024). COVID-19 and crisis communication. In B. Grien-Foley & S. Turnbull (Eds.),
The Media and Communications in Australia (pp. 285-289). Routledge.
Lupton, D., & Lewis, S. (2021). Learning about COVID-19: a qualitative interview study of
Australians’ use of information sources. BMC Public Health, 21(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10743-7
Lupton, D., & Lewis, S. (2022a). Coping with COVID-19: the sociomaterial dimensions of living
with pre-existing mental illness during the early stages of the coronavirus crisis. Emotion,
Space and Society, 42.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755458621000980
Lupton, D., & Lewis, S. (2022b). ‘The day everything changed’: Australians’ COVID-19 risk
narratives. Journal of Risk Research, 25(10), 1147-1160.
Lupton, D., & Lewis, S. (2022c). Sociomaterialities of health, risk and care during COVID-19:
experiences of Australians living with a medical condition. Social Science & Medicine, 293.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621010017
Lupton, D., & Lewis, S. (2023). Australians' experiences of COVID-19 during the early months of the
crisis: a qualitative interview study. Frontiers in Public Health, 11.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1092322/full
MacIntyre, C. R., Nguyen, P.-Y., Chughtai, A. A., Trent, M., Gerber, B., Steinhofel, K., & Seale, H.
(2021). Mask use, risk-mitigation behaviours and pandemic fatigue during the COVID-19
pandemic in ve cities in Australia, the UK and USA: A cross-sectional survey. International
Journal of Infectious Diseases, 106, 199-207.
Meese, J., Frith, J., & Wilken, R. (2020). COVID-19, 5G conspiracies and infrastructural futures.
Media International Australia, 177(1), 30-46.
National Clinical Evidence Taskforce COVID-19. (2023). Australian guidelines for the clinical care
of people with COVID-19: Care after COVID-19.
https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/L4Q5An/section/jDJJJQ
Nolan, D., McGuinness, K., McCallum, K., & Hanna, C. (2021). Covering COVID-19: How Australian
Media Reported the Coronavirus Pandemic in 2020. News & Media Research Centre,
University of Canberra
O'Mahoney, L. L., Routen, A., Gillies, C., Ekezie, W., Welford, A., Zhang, A., Karamchandani, U.,
Simms-Williams, N., Cassambai, S., Ardavani, A., Wilkinson, T. J., Hawthorne, G., Curtis,
PAGE 24
F., Kingsnorth, A. P., Almaqhawi, A., Ward, T., Ayoubkhani, D., Banerjee, A., Calvert, M.,
Shafran, R., Stephenson, T., Sterne, J., Ward, H., Evans, R. A., Zaccardi, F., Wright, S., &
Khunti, K. (2023). The prevalence and long-term health eects of Long Covid among
hospitalised and non-hospitalised populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
eClinicalMedicine, 55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101762
Park, S., Fisher, C., Lee, J. Y., & McGinness, K. (2020). COVID-19: Australian News and
Misinformation. News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200722012227/https:/apo.org.au/node/306728
Park, S., McCallum, K., Young Lee, J., Holland, K., McGuinness, K., Fisher, C., & John, E. (2022).
COVID-19: Australian News and Misinformation Longitudinal Study. News and Media
Research Centre, University of Canberra. https://apo.org.au/node/316582
Quigley, A. L., Trent, M., Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., & MacIntyre, C. R. (2022). Cross-sectional
survey of changes in knowledge, attitudes and practice of mask use in Sydney and
Melbourne during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open, 12(6).
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/6/e057860
Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport (2023). Sick and Tired: Casting a Long
Shadow. Inquiry into Long COVID and Repeated COVID Infections.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Health_Aged_Care_
and_Sport/LongandrepeatedCOVID/Report
Spennemann, D. H. (2023). The decentralized generation of public knowledge during the COVID-
19 pandemic: examples from Australia. Knowledge, 3(3), 320-332.
Stobart, A., & Duckett, S. (2022). Australia's Response to COVID-19. Health Economics, Policy and
Law, 17(1), 95-106.
The Australian COVID-19 Serosurveillance Network. (2023). Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-specic
Antibodies among Australian Blood Donors: Round 4 Update.
World Health Organization. (2020). Timeline: WHO's COVID-19 response.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/interactive-
timeline?gclid=CjwKCAiA17P9BRB2EiwAMvwNyGWSa7LCiCAgb9r1TIgGmjmcYnZzOj7_z
VA80ZeeVZyUsfqM35BvrhoCofQQAvD_BwE#event-7
Young, S. (2022). Rituals, reassurance, and compliance: government communication in Australia
during the COVID-19 pandemic. In P. J. Maarek (Ed.), Manufacturing Government
Communication on Covid-19 : A Comparative Perspective (pp. 147-174). Springer
International Publishing.
