Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

27 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Public support for U.S. social safety net policies throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT: COVID-19 has stretched the U.S. social safety net and prompted federal legislation designed to ameliorate the pandemic's health and economic impacts. We surveyed a nationally representative cohort of 1222 U.S. adults in April 2020 and November 2020 to evaluate changes in public opinion about 11 social safety net policies and the role of government over the course of the pandemic. A majority of U.S. adults supported six policies at both time points, including policies guaranteeing two weeks of paid sick leave; enacting universal health insurance; increasing the federal minimum wage; and increasing government spending on construction projects, business tax credits, and employment education and training. From April to November 2020, public support was stable for nine of the 11 policies but declined nearly 10 percentage points for policies guaranteeing two weeks paid sick leave (from 76% support in April 2020 to 67% support in November 2020) and extending unemployment insurance benefits (51% to 42%). Declines in support for these two policies were concentrated among those with higher incomes, more education, in better health status, the employed, and those with health insurance. The share of respondents believing in a strong role of government also declined from 33% in April to 26% in November 2020 (p > 0.05). Despite these shifts, we observed consistent majority support for several policies enacted during the pandemic, including guaranteeing paid sick leave and business tax credits, as well as employment-related policies.

SUBMITTER: Topazian RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8620405 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Predictors of Public Support for Social Safety Net Policy During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Project description:IntroductionU.S. residents had varying experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic and social safety net policy in 2020. Past research has suggested that partisanship, ideology, racial attitudes, and personal experience may each influence policy attitudes. In this study, we explore whether variation in support for social safety net policy in 2020 is predicted by negative experiences of the pandemic when controlling for racial attitudes, partisanship, and ideology.MethodsSupport for 12 social safety net policies in 2020 was estimated using data from a nationally representative panel survey of U.S. adults conducted in 2020 (n=1,222). Logistic regression was used to examine differences in the predicted probability of supporting a majority of social safety net policies related to health, housing, and employment by partisanship, ideology, racial attitudes, and negative experiences of the pandemic. Analyses were conducted in 2021.ResultsHigher levels of symbolic racism was a consistently strong predictor of lower social safety net policy support across health, housing, and employment policies; as was identifying as either Conservative or Republican. Negative experiences of the pandemic were generally unpredictive of support for the social safety net policy.ConclusionsDespite the pandemic's consequences as well as the potential for social safety net policy to address these consequences, negative experiences of the pandemic failed to predict policy support, even as racial attitudes, partisanship, and ideology strongly predicted these preferences in 2020. Building public support for social safety net policy requires communication strategies that identify the shared benefits of these policies.

| S-EPMC8853750 | biostudies-literature

Public Support for Policies to Increase Housing Stability During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated longstanding housing precarity. This study measures the public support for policies designed to increase housing stability and gauges whether support levels are associated with views about the role of evictions in COVID-19 transmission and the existence of racial inequities in the housing market.MethodsA cross-sectional survey with a representative sample of U.S. adults in November 2020 assessed support for 4 housing policies. Logistic regression models estimated the adjusted levels of support for each policy, with separate models testing the association with whether or not a respondent recognized the role of evictions in increased COVID-19 transmission or acknowledged racial inequities in the housing market.ResultsMost U.S. adults supported policies aimed to increase housing stability during the COVID-19 pandemic, including extending moratoriums on evictions (63%) and foreclosures (67%) and increasing emergency rental assistance (63%). In total, 54% supported increased government spending on housing vouchers. Adults who agreed that averting eviction would slow COVID-19 transmission had higher support for housing stability policies, as did those who agreed that it was easier for White families to find affordable, high-quality housing than Black families.ConclusionsSupport for housing stability policies was strong among U.S. adults, particularly among those who agreed that preventing evictions slowed COVID-19 transmission and among those who acknowledged racial inequities in the housing market. Raising public awareness of the connections among unstable housing, infectious disease transmission, and racial inequity could broaden the support for policies to keep people in their homes through the pandemic.

| S-EPMC8595088 | biostudies-literature

Experience of the COVID-19 pandemic and support for safety-net expansion.

Project description:Did individuals' experiences with the harms of the COVID-19 pandemic influence their attitudes towards safety-net programs? To assess this question, we combine rich information about county-level impacts and individual-level perceptions of the early pandemic, repeated measurements of attitudes towards safety-net expansion, and pre-pandemic measurements of related political attitudes. Individuals facing higher county-level impact or greater perceived risks are more likely to support long-term expansions to unemployment insurance and government-provided healthcare when surveyed in June 2020. These differences persist across time, with experiences in the early months of the pandemic remaining strongly predictive of attitudes towards safety-net expansion in early 2021.

| S-EPMC9263690 | biostudies-literature

Public support for tax policies in COVID-19 times: evidence from Luxembourg.

Project description:We study attitudes towards the introduction of hypothetical new taxes to finance the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic. We rely on survey data collected in Luxembourg in 2020. The survey asks for the agreement of respondents over: a one-time net wealth tax, an inheritance tax, a temporary solidarity income tax, and a temporary increase in VAT. All questions include different and randomly assigned tax attributes (tax rates and exemption amounts). We find a clear divide with relatively high support for new wealth and inheritance taxes on the one hand and a low support for increases in VAT and income taxes on the other hand. While 58% of respondents agree or strongly agree with a one-time tax levied on net worth, only 24% are in favor of a small increase in VAT. Support for any tax is however negatively associated with the size of the tax as measured by the predicted revenues. Our results indicate that a one-time wealth tax could raise substantial revenues and still garner public support.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10797-022-09744-y.

| S-EPMC9310375 | biostudies-literature

Public support for development aid during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:Global pandemics are a serious concern for developing countries, perhaps particularly when the same pandemic also affects donors of development aid. During crises at home, donors often cut aid, which would have grave ramifications for developing countries with poor public health capacity during a time of increased demand for health care. Because the major donors are democracies, whether they renege on promises would depend intimately on how donor citizens respond to the specific crisis. We conduct two survey experiments with 887 U.S. residents to examine how the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic influences their attitudes toward aid. We demonstrate that people's concern about the impact of COVID-19 on their country's financial situation reduces their support for aid. If they think that aid can help curb the next wave of the disease at home by first alleviating its impact in developing countries, people become substantially more supportive of giving aid. In contrast, merely stressing how COVID-19 might ravage developing countries barely changes their aid attitudes. Our findings have implications for what to expect from donors during global pandemics as well as how advocates may prevent aid from being cut.

| S-EPMC7577681 | biostudies-literature

Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries.

Project description:Political polarization impeded public support for policies to reduce the spread of COVID-19, much as polarization hinders responses to other contemporary challenges. Unlike previous theory and research that focused on the United States, the present research examined the effects of political elite cues and affective polarization on support for policies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic in seven countries (n = 12,955): Brazil, Israel, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Across countries, cues from political elites polarized public attitudes toward COVID-19 policies. Liberal and conservative respondents supported policies proposed by ingroup politicians and parties more than the same policies from outgroup politicians and parties. Respondents disliked, distrusted, and felt cold toward outgroup political elites, whereas they liked, trusted, and felt warm toward both ingroup political elites and nonpartisan experts. This affective polarization was correlated with policy support. These findings imply that policies from bipartisan coalitions and nonpartisan experts would be less polarizing, enjoying broader public support. Indeed, across countries, policies from bipartisan coalitions and experts were more widely supported. A follow-up experiment replicated these findings among US respondents considering international vaccine distribution policies. The polarizing effects of partisan elites and affective polarization emerged across nations that vary in cultures, ideologies, and political systems. Contrary to some propositions, the United States was not exceptionally polarized. Rather, these results suggest that polarizing processes emerged simply from categorizing people into political ingroups and outgroups. Political elites drive polarization globally, but nonpartisan experts can help resolve the conflicts that arise from it.

| S-EPMC8784107 | biostudies-literature

The limitations of polling data in understanding public support for COVID-19 lockdown policies.

Project description:Opinion polls regarding policies designed to tackle COVID-19 have shown public support has remained high throughout the first year of the pandemic in most places around the world. However, there is a risk that headline support over-simplifies people's views. We carried out a two-wave survey with six-month interval on a public sample (N = 212) in the UK, examining the factors that underpin lockdown policy support. We find that the majority of people support most public health measures introduced, but that they also see significant side effects of these policies, and that they consider many of these side effects as unacceptable in a cost-benefit analysis. We also find that people judged the threat of COVID-19 via the magnitude of the policy response, and that they do not use their perception of the personal threat to themselves or close others to guide their support for policy. Polling data only offer one simple perspective and do not illustrate the ambivalence many people feel around lockdown policies. There is also a meaningful risk of public opinion and government policy forming a symbiotic relationship, which impacts upon how effectively such policies are implemented both now, and in relation to future threats.

| S-EPMC8261221 | biostudies-literature

Public parks and the pandemic: How park usage has been affected by COVID-19 policies.

Project description:Public parks serve an important societal function as recreational spaces for diverse communities of people, with well documented physical and mental health benefits. As such, parks may be crucial for how people have handled effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the increasingly limited recreational opportunities, widespread financial uncertainty, and consequent heightened anxiety. Despite the documented benefits of parks, however, many states have instituted park shutdown orders due to fears that public parks could facilitate SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Here we use geotagged social media data from state, county, and local parks throughout New Jersey to examine whether park visitation increased when the COVID-19 pandemic began and whether park shutdown orders were effective at deterring park usage. We compare park usage during four discrete stages of spring 2020: (1) before the pandemic began, (2) during the beginning of the pandemic, (3) during the New Jersey governor's state-wide park shutdown order, and (4) following the lifting of the shutdown. We find that park visitation increased by 63.4% with the onset of the pandemic. The subsequent park shutdown order caused visitation in closed parks to decline by 76.1% while parks that remained open continued to experience elevated visitation levels. Visitation then returned to elevated pre-shutdown levels when closed parks were allowed to reopen. Altogether, our results indicate that parks continue to provide crucial services to society, particularly in stressful times when opportunities for recreation are limited. Furthermore, our results suggest that policies targeting human behavior can be effective and are largely reversible. As such, we should continue to invest in public parks and to explore the role of parks in managing public health and psychological well-being.

| S-EPMC8133454 | biostudies-literature

Social distancing as a public good under the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study is to show that social distancing is a public good under the COVID-19 pandemic.Study designWe apply economic theory to analyse a cross-sectional survey.MethodsEconomic theory is complemented with empirical evidence. An online survey of those aged 30-49 years in Japan (n = 2177) was conducted between April 28 and May 7. Respondents were selected by quota sampling with regard to age group, gender and prefecture of residence. Our main figure shows the proportion of people who increased/did not change/decreased social distancing, relative to the level of altruism and sensitivity to public shaming. The results of OLS and logit models are shown in Supplementary Materials.ResultsSocial distancing is a public good under the COVID-19 pandemic for which the free-rider problem is particularly severe. Altruism and social norms are crucial factors in overcoming this problem. Using an original survey, we show that people with higher altruistic concerns and sensitivity to shaming are more likely to follow social distancing measures.ConclusionsAltruism and social norms are important for reducing the economic cost of the pandemic.

| S-EPMC7425541 | biostudies-literature

COVID-19 Pandemic and the Cholecystitis Experience at a Major Urban Safety-Net Hospital.

Project description:BackgroundAcute cholecystitis is a common reason for emergency general surgery admission. The declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic may have resulted in treatment delays and corresponding increases in severity of disease. This study compared cholecystitis admissions and disease severity pre- and postdeclaration of pandemic.Materials and methodsRetrospective review of adult acute cholecystitis admissions (January 1,2020-May 31, 2020). Corresponding time periods in 2018 and 2019 comprised the historical control. Difference-in-differences analysis compared biweekly cholecystitis admissions pre- and postdeclaration in 2020 to the historical control. Odds of increased severity of disease presentation were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsCholecystitis admissions decreased 48.7% from 5.2 to 2.67 cases (RR 0.51 [0.28,0.96], P = 0.04) following pandemic declaration when comparing 2020 to historical control (P = 0.02). After stratifying by severity, only Tokyo I admissions declined significantly postdeclaration (RR 0.42 [0.18,0.97]), when compared to historical control (P = 0.02). There was no change in odds of presenting with severe disease after the pandemic declaration (aOR 1.00 [95% CI 0.30, 3.38] P < 0.99) despite significantly longer lengths of symptoms reported in mild cases.ConclusionsPostpandemic declaration we experienced a significant decrease in cholecystitis admissions without corresponding increases in disease severity. The pandemic impacted healthcare-seeking behaviors, with fewer mild presentations. Given that the pandemic did not increase odds of presenting with increased severity of disease, our data suggests that not all mild cases of cholecystitis progress to worsening disease and some may resolve without medical or surgical intervention.

| S-EPMC7970019 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data