Analysis of Zarkov and Covid19 in Social Work Practices

This article analyzes the effects of COVID-19 on social work practices and explores Zarkov's perspective on the social construction of the pandemic. It discusses the unequal impact of the virus on different socioeconomic groups and the relevance of economic theories in understanding and addressing the crisis. The article concludes that COVID-19 is not a leveller and highlights the need for a holistic approach in dealing with the virus.

Analysis of Zarkov and Covid19 in Social Work Practices
1

Table of Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................3
Zarkov and Social Construction ....................................................................................................3
Modern Implication and Relevance to Social Practices..................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................4
2

Introduction
Massive effects of COVID 19 are seen throughout the world as the pandemic have hit the
population in a massive scale. The cases and mortality rates are breaking records every new day.
Different nations have differing ratio of infection and mortality rates. There are some social work
practices as well as theories that can be used to examine the effects of COVID 19 from different
point of views such as socially, economically rather than just relating it to medical field. The
article On economy, health and politics of COVID 19 pandemic states that whoever said that
COVID-19 is a great equalizer as it affects celebrities, heads of states and common people alike-
is either brain dead or privileged beyond belied or both (Miller, Hayward, 2017). The report is
clearly explaining that it is a fact as the effects of virus is highly affecting poor people and poor
countries as the amount of resources present with them to face the pandemic and recover from it
are relatively low. Different economic theories are also used which support the argument.
Zarkov and Social Construction
The outbreak of COVID-19 is massive as there are more than fifty million people who
have been affected by it. Zarkov is one of the social thinker in these modern times and judging
the crisis due to this pandemic states that this pandemic cannot be stated as a leveller for the
social construction (Mendes, 2009). This means that the capacity of the virus to effect different
people at different stage of income and spending are not equal.
The above stated statement can also be supported by the ideology that has been
dominating the world. This is just like the monopolistic nature of rich in society who have more
power and resources to effectively afford the healthcare treatment and precautions have less
chances to be affected by it (Mares, 2016). However, the cure for this pandemic have not yet
been discovered but still it can be assumed that whenever the cure is discovered it will first reach
to the rich rather than the poor sections of society. It can be proved from the theory of demand
and supply where the demand for the cure will be more that its supply. Due to this the prices will
rise and not every section in society could then afford it.
However when considering the factors without treatment it can be seen that the mortality
rate in both the sections of society remains to be the same (Flatau, Summerfield, and Young,
2010). The only reason behind it is that the cure has not yet been discovered. The medical
facilities for both the rich and poor are same as the governments of nations are also looking at
3

healthcare services so that facilities could be provided to all. Therefore it is stated by Zarkov that
the ideology of COVID 19 being a leveller is not true. Also there are some valid points referring
to it discussed further.
Modern Implication and Relevance to Social Practices
When taking the above argument there can be some theories for economic stability used
such as Keynes's general theory (Fawcett, Plath, 2014) There were a number of nations that took
a critical step in order to deal with it announcing lock down nationwide. This step was taken in
order to maintain social distancing between individuals. The global economies are collapsing as
almost all the sectors including manufacturing, logistics, hospitality, travel&tourism etc. are shut
down due to this. In the theory developed by Keynes it is mentioned that in order to bring
economic stability it is required by manufacturers to produce goods and implement various
innovative ideas in these practices and operations (Miller & Orchard, 2014). It is required to
build a collaborative approach including social work and economical rise in order to deal with
the outbreak of this pandemic. It is essentially explained in this theory that market requires some
intervention in between in order to make sure that the economic stimulus is keeping economy in
pace. The spending power present with individuals are also taken into consideration such as the
the spending power of individuals and the demand (Carson & Kerr, 2017). It is also required in
order to support the production level which will also help them to maintain their standard of
living. When the economy is not regulated well it is often assumed that the stability of economy
will occur at a level of demand and supply below the acceptable rate.
Conclusion
With the help of above description it can be concluded that COVID 19 is not a leveller.
The argument is also relevant as the formal support and arguments are carefully examined along
with medical support. The effect of COVID 19 on all the classes of people is also not same.
There are theories provided in the readings that also help in concluding how the introduction of
vaccines of virus will also be available to the people with high income level before those who
have low income level. It is necessary to understand the holistic approach in order to deal with
this virus.
4

References
Books and Journals
Carson, E. & Kerr, L. 2017 Australian Social Policy and the Human Services (2nd Ed.)
Cambridge: Port Melbourne.
Fawcett, B., Plath, D. 2014 ’A National Disability Insurance Scheme: What Social Work has to
offer’. British Journal
of Social Work, 44, 747-762.
Flatau, P., Harman., Summerfield, T. and Young, L. 2010. ’Child support and Welfare to work
reforms: the economic
Mares, P. 2016. Not Quite Australian: How temporary migration is changing the nation. Text
Publishing [CHAPTER
Mendes, P. 2009. ’Retrenching or renovating the welfare state: the paradox of the Howard
government’s neoliberalism,
Miller, P., Hayward, D. 2017. Social policy ’generosity’ at a time of fiscal austerity: The strange
case of Australia’s
Pearson, Noel. 1999. Positive and negative welfare and Australia’s indigenous communities.
Family Matters, (54)
Miller, C. & Orchard, L. (Eds) 2014. Australian Public Policy : Progressive Ideas in the
Neoliberal Ascendency.
5