Death by political party: The relationship between COVID-19 deaths and political party affiliation in the United States.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: This study explored social factors that are associated with the US deaths caused by COVID-19 after the declaration of economic reopening on May 1, 2020 by President Donald Trump. We seek to understand how county-level support for Trump interacted with social distancing policies to impact COVID-19 death rates. Overall, controlling for several potential confounders, counties with higher levels of Trump support do not necessarily experience greater mortality rates due to COVID-19. The predicted weekly death counts per county tended to increase over time with the implementation of several key health policies. However, the difference in COVID-19 outcomes between counties with low and high levels of Trump support grew after several weeks of the policy implementation as counties with higher levels of Trump support suffered relatively higher death rates. Counties with higher levels of Trump support exhibited lower percentages of mobile staying at home and higher percentages of people working part time or full time than otherwise comparable counties with lower levels of Trump support. The relative negative performance of Trump-supporting counties is robust after controlling for these measures of policy compliance. Counties with high percentages of older (aged 65 and above) persons tended to have greater death rates, as did more populous counties in general. This study indicates that policymakers should consider the risks inherent in controlling public health crises due to divisions in political ideology and confirms that vulnerable communities are at particularly high risk in public health crises.
Project description:Ecological and cross-sectional studies have indicated that conservative political ideology is associated with better health. Longitudinal analyses of mortality are needed because subjective assessments of ideology may confound subjective assessments of health, particularly in cross-sectional analyses.Data were derived from the 2008 General Social Survey-National Death Index data set. Cox proportional analysis models were used to determine whether political party affiliation or political ideology was associated with time to death. Also, we attempted to identify whether self-reported happiness and self-rated health acted as mediators between political beliefs and time to death.In this analysis of 32,830 participants and a total follow-up time of 498,845 person-years, we find that political party affiliation and political ideology are associated with mortality. However, with the exception of independents (adjusted HR (AHR)=0.93, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.97), political party differences are explained by the participants' underlying sociodemographic characteristics. With respect to ideology, conservatives (AHR=1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12) and moderates (AHR=1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11) are at greater risk for mortality during follow-up than liberals.Political party affiliation and political ideology appear to be different predictors of mortality.
Project description:Popular press articles have asserted that those with certain political orientations are less likely to wear face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. We propose that this relation is due to differential information shared by political parties rather than values associated with face mask wearing. We further propose that, when assessed together, political party affiliation (e.g., Republican, Democrat) but not political ideology (e.g., conservative, liberal) predicts face mask wearing, and this effect is mediated by perceptions of efficacy doubts but not perceptions that face masks infringe upon the wearer's independence. We performed a three-wave, time-separated survey study with 226 participants. Each proposal was supported. When assessed together, political party affiliation but not political ideology significantly predicted face mask wearing, and a significant indirect effect was observed via perceptions of efficacy doubts but not independence. Our results support that face mask wearing is a unique preventative action, which should be understood using political theory.
Project description:IntroductionPolitical polarization has increased in the USA within recent years. Studies have shown Republicans are less likely to accept COVID-19 vaccinations than Democrats; however, little is known regarding the association between COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and political polarization.MethodsWe used data from a nationally-representative survey of 1427 participants conducted between 9 February 2021 and 17 February 2021. We estimated multivariate-adjusted odds ratios for COVID-19 vaccination intent and receipt according to perceived political polarization (measured as the perceived size of the ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans), political party affiliation, and social trust, controlling for demographic and socioeconomic factors.ResultsAmong participants perceiving high levels of polarization, Republicans (versus Democrats) reported a 90% lower odds of vaccination intent (OR = 0.10 [0.05, 0.19], P < 0.001). Participants with high (versus low) social trust and low perceived polarization had a 2-folder higher vaccination intent (OR = 2.39 [1.34, 4.21], P = 0.003); this association was substantially weaker in the high perceived polarization group.ConclusionsHigh perceived levels of political polarization appear to magnify the decrease in the odds of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine and the intent to get vaccinated among Republicans versus Democrats. Political polarization may further attenuate the protective associations of high social capital with vaccination.
Project description:IntroductionThe response to the COVID-19 pandemic became increasingly politicized in the U.S., and the political affiliation of state leaders may contribute to policies affecting the spread of the disease. This study examines the differences in COVID-19 infection, death, and testing by governor party affiliation across the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.MethodsA longitudinal analysis was conducted in December 2020 examining COVID-19 incidence, death, testing, and test positivity rates from March 15, 2020 through December 15, 2020. A Bayesian negative binomial model was fit to estimate the daily risk ratios and posterior intervals comparing rates by gubernatorial party affiliation. The analyses adjusted for state population density, rurality, Census region, age, race, ethnicity, poverty, number of physicians, obesity, cardiovascular disease, asthma, smoking, and presidential voting in 2020.ResultsFrom March 2020 to early June 2020, Republican-led states had lower COVID-19 incidence rates than Democratic-led states. On June 3, 2020, the association reversed, and Republican-led states had a higher incidence (risk ratio=1.10, 95% posterior interval=1.01, 1.18). This trend persisted through early December 2020. For death rates, Republican-led states had lower rates early in the pandemic but higher rates from July 4, 2020 (risk ratio=1.18, 95% posterior interval=1.02, 1.31) through mid-December 2020. Republican-led states had higher test positivity rates starting on May 30, 2020 (risk ratio=1.70, 95% posterior interval=1.66, 1.73) and lower testing rates by September 30, 2020 (risk ratio=0.95, 95% posterior interval=0.90, 0.98).ConclusionsGubernatorial party affiliation may drive policy decisions that impact COVID-19 infections and deaths across the U.S. Future policy decisions should be guided by public health considerations rather than by political ideology.
Project description:Despite calls for political consensus, there is growing evidence that the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been politicized in the US. We examined the extent to which this polarization exists among the US public across two national studies. In a representative US sample (N = 699, March 2020) we find that liberals (compared to conservatives) perceive higher risk, place less trust in politicians to handle the pandemic, are more trusting of medical experts such as the WHO, and are more critical of the government response. We replicate these results in a second, pre-registered study (N = 1000; April 2020), and find that results are similar when considering partisanship, rather than political ideology. In both studies we also find evidence that political polarization extends beyond attitudes, with liberals consistently reporting engaging in a significantly greater number of health protective behaviors (e.g., wearing face masks) than conservatives. We discuss the possible drivers of polarization on COVID-19 attitudes and behaviors, and reiterate the need for fostering bipartisan consensus to effectively address and manage the COVID-19 pandemic.
Project description:BackgroundAlthough the direct toll of COVID-19 in the United States has been substantial, concerns have also arisen about the indirect effects of the pandemic. Hospitalizations for acute cardiovascular conditions have declined, raising concern that patients may be avoiding hospitals because of fear of contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome- coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Other factors, including strain on health care systems, may also have had an indirect toll.ObjectivesThis investigation aimed to evaluate whether population-level deaths due to cardiovascular causes increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThe authors conducted an observational cohort study using data from the National Center for Health Statistics to evaluate the rate of deaths due to cardiovascular causes after the onset of the pandemic in the United States, from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, relative to the period immediately preceding the pandemic (January 1, 2020 to March 17, 2020). Changes in deaths were compared with the same periods in the previous year.ResultsThere were 397,042 cardiovascular deaths from January 1, 2020, to June 2, 2020. Deaths caused by ischemic heart disease increased nationally after the onset of the pandemic in 2020, compared with changes over the same period in 2019 (ratio of the relative change in deaths per 100,000 in 2020 vs. 2019: 1.11, 95% confidence interval: 1.04 to 1.18). An increase was also observed for deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 1.26), but not for heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system. New York City experienced a large relative increase in deaths caused by ischemic heart disease (2.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.39 to 4.09) and hypertensive diseases (2.64, 95% confidence interval: 1.52 to 4.56) during the pandemic. More modest increases in deaths caused by these conditions occurred in the remainder of New York State, New Jersey, Michigan, and Illinois but not in Massachusetts or Louisiana.ConclusionsThere was an increase in deaths caused by ischemic heart disease and hypertensive diseases in some regions of the United States during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings suggest that the pandemic may have had an indirect toll on patients with cardiovascular disease.
Project description:BackgroundAdherence to COVID-19 social distancing guidelines varies across individuals.PurposeThis study examined the relations of pseudoscientific and just world beliefs, generalized and institutional trust, and political party affiliation to adherence to COVID-19 social distancing guidelines over three months, as well as the explanatory role of COVID-19 risk perceptions in these relations.MethodsA U.S. nationwide sample of 430 adults (49.8% women; mean age = 40.72) completed a prospective online study, including an initial assessment (between March 27 and April 5, 2020), a 1 month follow-up (between April 27 and May 21, 2020), and a 3 month follow-up (between June 26 and July 15, 2020). We hypothesized that greater pseudoscientific and just world beliefs, lower governmental, institutional, and dispositional trust, and Republican Party affiliation would be associated with lower initial adherence to social distancing and greater reductions in social distancing over time and that COVID-19 risk perceptions would account for significant variance in these relations.ResultsResults revealed unique associations of lower governmental trust, greater COVID-19 pseudoscientific beliefs, and greater trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to lower initial adherence to social distancing. Whereas greater COVID-19 risk perceptions and CDC trust were associated with less steep declines in social distancing over time, both Republican (vs. Democratic) Party affiliation and greater COVID-19 pseudoscientific beliefs were associated with steeper declines in social distancing over time (relations accounted for by lower COVID-19 risk perceptions).ConclusionsResults highlight the utility of public health interventions aimed at improving scientific literacy and emphasizing bipartisan support for social distancing guidelines.
Project description:Since the outbreak in China in late 2019, the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has spread around the world and has come to dominate online conversations. By linking 2.3 million Twitter users to locations within the United States, we study in aggregate how political characteristics of the locations affect the evolution of online discussions about COVID-19. We show that COVID-19 chatter in the United States is largely shaped by political polarization. Partisanship correlates with sentiment toward government measures and the tendency to share health and prevention messaging. Cross-ideological interactions are modulated by user segregation and polarized network structure. We also observe a correlation between user engagement with topics related to public health and the varying impact of the disease outbreak in different U.S. states. These findings may help inform policies both online and offline. Decision-makers may calibrate their use of online platforms to measure the effectiveness of public health campaigns, and to monitor the reception of national and state-level policies, by tracking in real-time discussions in a highly polarized social media ecosystem.
Project description:BackgroundThe mortality effects of COVID-19 are a critical aspect of the disease's impact. Years of life lost (YLLs) can provide greater insight than the number of deaths by conveying the shortfall in life expectancy and thus the age profile of the decedents.MethodsWe employed data regarding COVID-19 deaths in the USA by jurisdiction, gender and age group for the period 1 February 2020 through 11 July 2020. We used actuarial life expectancy tables by gender and age to estimate YLLs.ResultsWe estimated roughly 1.2 million YLLs due to COVID-19 deaths. The YLLs for the top six jurisdictions exceeded those for the remaining 43. On a per-capita basis, female YLLs were generally higher than male YLLs throughout the country.ConclusionsOur estimates offer new insight into the effects of COVID-19. Our findings of heterogenous rates of YLLs by geography and gender highlight variation in the magnitude of the pandemic's effects that may inform effective policy responses.