Background: Crisis communication might not reach non-native speakers or persons with low literacy levels, a low socio-economic status, and/or an auditory or visual impairments as easily as it would reach other citizens. The aim of this rapid review was to synthesize the evidence on strategies used to improve inclusive pandemic-related crisis communication in terms of form, channel, and outreach. Methods: After a comprehensive search and a rigorous screening and quality assessment exercise, twelve comparative studies were selected for inclusion in this review. Data were analyzed and represented by means of a structured reporting of available effects using narrative tables. Results: The findings indicate that a higher message frequency (on any channel) may lead to a lower recall rate, audio–visual productions and tailored messages prove to be valuable under certain conditions, and primary healthcare practitioners appear to be the most trusted source of information for most groups of citizens. Trust levels were higher for citizens who were notified in advance of potential exceptions to the rule in the effect of preventive and curative measures promoted. Conclusions: This review contributes to combatting information inequality by providing evidence on how to remove the sensorial, linguistic, cultural, and textual barriers experienced by minorities and other underserved target audiences in COVID-19-related governmental crisis communication in response to the societal, health-related costs of ineffective communication outreach.

The debate on the conventionality of simultaneity and the debate on the dimensionality of the world have been central in the philosophy of special relativity. The link between both debates however has rarely been explored. The purpose of this paper is to gauge what implications the former debate has for the latter. I show the situation to be much more subtle than was previously argued, and explain how the ontic versus epistemic distinction in the former debate impacts the latter. Despite claims to the contrary, I conclude that special relativity leaves the debate on the dimensionality of the world underdetermined.

Human freedom is in tension with nomological determinism and with statistical determinism. The goal of this paper is to answer both challenges. Four contributions are made to the free-will debate. First, we propose a classification of scientific theories based on how much freedom they allow. We take into account that indeterminism comes in different degrees and that both the laws and the auxiliary conditions can place constraints. A scientific worldview pulls towards one end of this classification, while libertarianism pulls towards the other end of the spectrum. Second, inspired by Hoefer, we argue that an interval of auxiliary conditions corresponds to a region in phase space, and to a bundle of possible block universes. We thus make room for a form of non-nomological indeterminism. Third, we combine crucial elements from the works of Hoefer and List; we attempt to give a libertarian reading of this combination. On our proposal, throughout spacetime, there is a certain amount of freedom (equivalent to setting the initial, intermediate, or final conditions) that can be interpreted as the result of agential choices. Fourth, we focus on the principle of alternative possibilities throughout and propose three ways of strengthening it.

This review paper provides a detailed overview and critical analysis of the philosophical literature on the Rietdijk–Putnam–Maxwell argument for the four-dimensionality of the world. After briefly introducing the debate on the dimensionality of the world, I present the arguments by Rietdijk, Putnam and Maxwell, and highlight the differences between them. I subsequently raise a total of eleven objections against the Rietdijk–Putnam–Maxwell argument, and conclude that its validity is underdetermined by the formalism of special relativity.