Dataset Information

The intensity of COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions and labor market outcomes in the public sector.

ABSTRACT: This paper examines whether the intensity of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has differentially impacted the public sector labor market outcomes. This extends the analysis of the already documented negative economic consequences of COVID-19 and their dissimilarities with a typical economic crisis. To capture the intensity of the NPIs, we build a novel index (COVINDEX) using daily information on NPIs merged with state-level data on out-of-home mobility (Google data). We show that among individuals living in a typical state, NPI enforcement during COVID-19 reduces the likelihood of being employed (at work) by 5% with respect to the pre-COVID period and the hours worked by 1.3% using data on labor market outcomes from the monthly Current Population Survey and difference-in-difference models. This is a sizable amount representing the sector with the higher job security during the pandemic. Public sector workers in a typical state are 4 percentage points more likely to be at work than salaried workers in the private sector and 7 percentage points more likely to be at work than self-employed workers (the worst so far). Our results are robust to the endogeneity of the NPI measures and present empirical evidence of heterogeneity in response to the NPIs, with those in local employment being the hardest hit.

SUBMITTER: Marcen M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8251414 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) (such as wearing masks and social distancing) have been implemented by governments around the world to slow the spread of COVID-19. To promote public adherence to these regimes, governments need to understand the public perceptions and attitudes toward NPI regimes and the factors that influence them. Twitter data offer a means to capture these insights.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to identify tweets about COVID-19 NPIs in six countries and compare the trends in public perceptions and attitudes toward NPIs across these countries. The aim is to identify factors that influenced public perceptions and attitudes about NPI regimes during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe analyzed 777,869 English language tweets about COVID-19 NPIs in six countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The relationship between tweet frequencies and case numbers was assessed using a Pearson correlation analysis. Topic modeling was used to isolate tweets about NPIs. A comparative analysis of NPIs between countries was conducted.ResultsThe proportion of NPI-related topics, relative to all topics, varied between countries. The New Zealand data set displayed the greatest attention to NPIs, and the US data set showed the lowest. The relationship between tweet frequencies and case numbers was statistically significant only for Australia (r=0.837, P<.001) and New Zealand (r=0.747, P<.001). Topic modeling produced 131 topics related to one of 22 NPIs, grouped into seven NPI categories: Personal Protection (n=15), Social Distancing (n=9), Testing and Tracing (n=10), Gathering Restrictions (n=18), Lockdown (n=42), Travel Restrictions (n=14), and Workplace Closures (n=23). While less restrictive NPIs gained widespread support, more restrictive NPIs were perceived differently across countries. Four characteristics of these regimes were seen to influence public adherence to NPIs: timeliness of implementation, NPI campaign strategies, inconsistent information, and enforcement strategies.ConclusionsTwitter offers a means to obtain timely feedback about the public response to COVID-19 NPI regimes. Insights gained from this analysis can support government decision making, implementation, and communication strategies about NPI regimes, as well as encourage further discussion about the management of NPI programs for global health events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:ImportanceVaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to significantly reduce transmission and COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. The relative importance of vaccination strategies and nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is not well understood.ObjectiveTo assess the association of simulated COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and coverage scenarios with and without NPIs with infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.Design, setting, and participantsAn established agent-based decision analytical model was used to simulate COVID-19 transmission and progression from March 24, 2020, to September 23, 2021. The model simulated COVID-19 spread in North Carolina, a US state of 10.5 million people. A network of 1 017 720 agents was constructed from US Census data to represent the statewide population.ExposuresScenarios of vaccine efficacy (50% and 90%), vaccine coverage (25%, 50%, and 75% at the end of a 6-month distribution period), and NPIs (reduced mobility, school closings, and use of face masks) maintained and removed during vaccine distribution.Main outcomes and measuresRisks of infection from the start of vaccine distribution and risk differences comparing scenarios. Outcome means and SDs were calculated across replications.ResultsIn the worst-case vaccination scenario (50% efficacy, 25% coverage), a mean (SD) of 2 231 134 (117 867) new infections occurred after vaccination began with NPIs removed, and a mean (SD) of 799 949 (60 279) new infections occurred with NPIs maintained during 11 months. In contrast, in the best-case scenario (90% efficacy, 75% coverage), a mean (SD) of 527 409 (40 637) new infections occurred with NPIs removed and a mean (SD) of 450 575 (32 716) new infections occurred with NPIs maintained. With NPIs removed, lower efficacy (50%) and higher coverage (75%) reduced infection risk by a greater magnitude than higher efficacy (90%) and lower coverage (25%) compared with the worst-case scenario (mean [SD] absolute risk reduction, 13% [1%] and 8% [1%], respectively).Conclusions and relevanceSimulation outcomes suggest that removing NPIs while vaccines are distributed may result in substantial increases in infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, as NPIs are removed, higher vaccination coverage with less efficacious vaccines can contribute to a larger reduction in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with more efficacious vaccines at lower coverage. These findings highlight the need for well-resourced and coordinated efforts to achieve high vaccine coverage and continued adherence to NPIs before many prepandemic activities can be resumed.

Dataset Information

The intensity of COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions and labor market outcomes in the public sector.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets