Going Viral
Older People are Less Pessimistic about the Health Risks of Covid-19
Pedro Bordalo et al.
NBER Working Paper, July 2020
Abstract:
A central question for understanding behaviour during the Covid-19 pandemic, at both the individual and collective levels, is how people perceive the health and economic risks they face. We conducted a survey of over 1,500 Americans from May 6 - 13, 2020, to understand these risk perceptions. Here we report some preliminary results. Our most striking finding is that perceived personal health risks associated with Covid-19 fall sharply with age.
COVID-19 Worries and Behavior Changes in Older and Younger Men and Women
Sarah Barber & Hyunji Kim
Journals of Gerontology: Series B, forthcoming
Methods: From March 23-31, 2020, we administered an online questionnaire assessing COVID-19 perceptions, worries, and behavior changes. Participants were a convenience sample of United States residents, who were community-dwelling younger adults (18-35) or older adults (65 to 81). Analyses included 146 younger adults (68 men, 78 women) and 156 older adults (82 men, 74 women). Participants was predominately White, living in suburban/urban areas, and had completed some college.
Results: During the early phase of the outbreak in the United States, older adults perceived the risks of COVID-19 to be higher than did younger adults. Despite this, older men were comparatively less worried about COVID-19 than their younger counterparts. Compared to the other participants, older men had also implemented the fewest behavior changes.
Did the Wisconsin Supreme Court Restart a COVID-19 Epidemic? Evidence from a Natural Experiment
Dhaval Dave et al.
NBER Working Paper, June 2020
Abstract:
Both the White House and state governors have explicitly linked thresholds of reduced COVID-19 case growth to the lifting of statewide shelter-in-place orders (SIPOs). This "hardwired" policy endogeneity creates empirical challenges in credibly isolating the causal effect of lifting a statewide SIPO on COVID-19-related health. To break this simultaneity problem, the current study exploits a unique natural experiment generated by a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision. On May 13, 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court abolished the state's "Safer at Home" order, ruling that the Wisconsin Department of Health Services unconstitutionally usurped legislative authority to review COVID-19 regulations. We capitalize on this sudden, dramatic, and largely unanticipated termination of a statewide SIPO to estimate its effect on social distancing and COVID-19 case growth. Using a synthetic control design, we find no evidence that the repeal of the state SIPO impacted social distancing, COVID-19 cases, or COVID-19-related mortality during the fortnight following enactment. Estimated effects were economically small and nowhere near statistically different from zero. We conclude that the impact of shelter-in-place orders is likely not symmetric across enactment and lifting of the orders.
Correcting misperceptions of exponential coronavirus growth increases support for social distancing
Joris Lammers, Jan Crusius & Anne Gast
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, forthcoming
Abstract:
The most effective way to stem the spread of a pandemic such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is social distancing, but the introduction of such measures is hampered by the fact that a sizeable part of the population fails to see their need. Three studies conducted during the mass spreading of the virus in the United States toward the end of March 2020 show that this results partially from people's misperception of the virus's exponential growth in linear terms and that overcoming this bias increases support for social distancing. Study 1 shows that American participants mistakenly perceive the virus's exponential growth in linear terms (conservatives more so than liberals). Studies 2 and 3 show that instructing people to avoid the exponential growth bias significantly increases perceptions of the virus's growth and thereby increases support for social distancing. Together, these results show the importance of statistical literacy to recruit support for fighting pandemics such as the coronavirus.
Black Lives Matter Protests, Social Distancing, and COVID-19
Dhaval Dave et al.
NBER Working Paper, June 2020
Abstract:
Sparked by the killing of George Floyd in police custody, the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests have brought a new wave of attention to the issue of inequality within criminal justice. However, many public health officials have warned that mass protests could lead to a reduction in social distancing behavior, spurring a resurgence of COVID-19. This study uses newly collected data on protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities to estimate the impacts of mass protests on social distancing and COVID-19 case growth. Event-study analyses provide strong evidence that net stay-at-home behavior increased following protest onset, consistent with the hypothesis that non-protesters' behavior was substantially affected by urban protests. This effect was not fully explained by the imposition of city curfews. Estimated effects were generally larger for persistent protests and those accompanied by media reports of violence. Furthermore, we find no evidence that urban protests reignited COVID-19 case growth during the more than three weeks following protest onset. We conclude that predictions of broad negative public health consequences of Black Lives Matter protests were far too narrowly conceived.
Scarring Body and Mind: The Long-Term Belief-Scarring Effects of COVID-19
Julian Kozlowski, Laura Veldkamp & Venky Venkateswaran
NBER Working Paper, June 2020
Abstract:
The largest economic cost of the COVID-19 pandemic could arise from changes in behavior long after the immediate health crisis is resolved. A potential source of such a long-lived change is scarring of beliefs, a persistent change in the perceived probability of an extreme, negative shock in the future. We show how to quantify the extent of such belief changes and determine their impact on future economic outcomes. We find that the long-run costs for the U.S. economy from this channel is many times higher than the estimates of the short-run losses in output. This suggests that, even if a vaccine cures everyone in a year, the Covid-19 crisis will leave its mark on the US economy for many years to come.
The Political Scar of Epidemics
Cevat Giray Aksoy, Barry Eichengreen & Orkun Saka
NBER Working Paper, June 2020
Abstract:
What will be political legacy of the Coronavirus pandemic? We find that epidemic exposure in an individual's "impressionable years" (ages 18 to 25) has a persistent negative effect on confidence in political institutions and leaders. We find similar negative effects on confidence in public health systems, suggesting that the loss of confidence in political leadership and institutions is associated with healthcare-related policies at the time of the epidemic. In line with this argument, our results are mostly driven by individuals who experienced epidemics under weak governments with less capacity to act against the epidemic, disappointing their citizens. We provide evidence of this mechanism by showing that weak governments took longer to introduce policy interventions in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. These results imply that the Coronavirus may leave behind a long-lasting political scar on the current young generation ("Generation Z").
Estimating and Forecasting Disease Scenarios for COVID-19 with an SIR Model
Andrew Atkeson, Karen Kopecky & Tao Zha
NBER Working Paper, June 2020
Abstract:
This paper presents a procedure for estimating and forecasting disease scenarios for COVID-19 using a structural SIR model of the pandemic. Our procedure combines the flexibility of noteworthy reduced-form approaches for estimating the progression of the COVID-19 pandemic to date with the benefits of a simple SIR structural model for interpreting these estimates and constructing forecast and counterfactual scenarios. We present forecast scenarios for a devastating second wave of the pandemic as well as for a long and slow continuation of current levels of infections and daily deaths. In our counterfactual scenarios, we find that there is no clear answer to the question of whether earlier mitigation measures would have reduced the long run cumulative death toll from this disease. In some cases, we find that it would have, but in other cases, we find the opposite - earlier mitigation would have led to a higher long-run death toll.