The political cost of sanctions: Evidence from COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fazio A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9232262 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) deem large indoor gatherings without social distancing the "highest risk" activity for COVID-19 contagion. On June 20, 2020, President Donald J. Trump held his first mass campaign rally following the US coronavirus outbreak at the indoor Bank of Oklahoma arena. In the weeks following the event, numerous high-profile national news outlets reported that the Trump rally was "more than likely" the cause of a coronavirus surge in Tulsa County based on time series data. This study is the first to rigorously explore the impacts of this event on social distancing and COVID-19 spread. First, using data from SafeGraph Inc, we show that while non-resident visits to census block groups hosting the Trump event grew by approximately 25 percent, there was no decline in net stay-at-home behavior in Tulsa County, reflecting important offsetting behavioral effects. Then, using data on COVID-19 cases from the CDC and a synthetic control design, we find little evidence that COVID-19 grew more rapidly in Tulsa County, its border counties, or in the state of Oklahoma than each's estimated counterfactual during the five-week post-treatment period we observe. Difference-in-differences estimates further provide no evidence that COVID-19 rates grew faster in counties that drew relatively larger shares of residents to the event. We conclude that offsetting risk-related behavioral responses to the rally-including voluntary closures of restaurants and bars in downtown Tulsa, increases in stay-at-home behavior, displacement of usual activities of weekend inflows, and smaller-than-expected crowd attendance-may be important mechanisms.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11166-021-09359-4.
| S-EPMC8535106 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While scientific uncertainty always invites the risk of politicization and raises questions of how to communicate about science, this risk is magnified for COVID-19. The limited data and accelerated research timelines mean that some prominent models or findings inevitably will be overturned or retracted. In this research, we examine the attitudes of more than 6000 Americans across five different survey experiments to understand how the cue giver and cue given about scientific uncertainty regarding COVID-19 affect public trust in science and support for science-based policy. Criticism from Democratic political elites undermines trust more than criticism from Republicans. Emphasizing uncertainty in projections can erode public trust in some contexts. Downplaying uncertainty can raise support in the short term, but reversals in projections may temper these effects or even reduce scientific trust. Careful science communication is critical to maintaining public support for science-based policies as the scientific consensus shifts over time.
| S-EPMC7577608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although militaristic metaphors have been pervasive during health crisis in political and science communication, few works have examined how these linguistic devices may influence crisis communication. Drawing on critical discourse analysis (CDA) and on crisis communication literature, I show how political representatives have used the war metaphor for very different purposes in terms of crisis communication and management of the current Covid-19 pandemic. I suggest that these findings challenge previous criticisms of the war metaphor as inherently negative and damaging. Finally, I discuss possibilities of using CDA, and specifically, metaphor analysis to inform and expand crisis communication.
| S-EPMC8022596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a global health emergency since December 2019, leading to millions of deaths worldwide and placing significant pressures, including economic burden, on individual patients and healthcare systems. As of February 2022, remdesivir is the only US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment for severe COVID-19. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to summarise economic evaluations, and cost and resource use (CRU) evidence related to remdesivir during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsSearches of MEDLINE, Embase the International Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, reference lists, congresses and grey literature were performed in May 2021. Articles were reviewed for relevance against pre-specified criteria by two independent reviewers and study quality was assessed using published checklists.ResultsEight studies reported resource use and five reported costs related to remdesivir. Over time, the prescription rate of remdesivir increased and time from disease onset to remdesivir initiation decreased. Remdesivir was associated with a 6% to 21.3% decrease in bed occupancy. Cost estimates for remdesivir ranged widely, from $10 to $780 for a 10-day course. In three out of four included economic evaluations, remdesivir treatment scenarios were cost-effective, ranging from ~ 8 to ~ 23% of the willingness-to-pay threshold for the respective country.ConclusionsEconomic evidence relating to remdesivir should be interpreted with consideration of the broader clinical context, including patients' characteristics and the timing of its administration. Nonetheless, remdesivir remains an important option for physicians in aiming to provide optimal care and relieve pressure on healthcare systems through shifting phases of the pandemic.
| S-EPMC9555695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19-the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu-has dramatically changed the world, with a significant number of people suffering from and dying of the disease. Some scholars argue that democratic governments are disadvantaged in coping with the current pandemic mainly because they cannot intervene in their citizens' lives as aggressively as their authoritarian counterparts. Other scholars, however, suggest that possible data manipulation may account for the apparent advantage of authoritarian countries. Taking such a possibility seriously, this paper analyzes the relationship between political regimes, data transparency, and COVID-19 deaths using cross-national data for over 108 countries, obtained from Worldometer COVID-19 Data, Polity V Project, Variety of Democracy (V-Dem) Project, HRV Transparency Project among other sources. Regression analyses indicate that authoritarian countries do not necessarily tend to have fewer COVID-19 deaths than their democratic counterparts after controlling for other factors, especially data transparency. The transparency variable itself, on the other hand, is positively correlated with the number of death cases more consistently (P <0.05). Overall, the estimation results point to the possible data manipulation, not the nature of regime characteristics itself, as a more significant source for the seemingly low casualty rates in authoritarian countries.
| S-EPMC8219996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic was severely aggravated in Brazil due to its politicization by the country's federal government. However, the impact of diffuse political forces on the fatality of an epidemic is notoriously difficult to quantify. Here we introduce a method to measure this effect in the Brazilian case, based on the inhomogeneous distribution throughout the national territory of political support for the federal government. This political support is quantified by the voting rates in the last general election in Brazil. This data is correlated with the fatality rates by COVID-19 in each Brazilian state as the number of deaths grows over time. We show that the correlation between fatality rate and political support grows as the government's misinformation campaign is developed. This led to the dominance of such political factor for the pandemic impact in Brazil in 2021. Once this dominance is established, this correlation allows for an estimation of the total number of deaths due to political influence as 350±70 thousand up to the end of 2021, corresponding to (57±11)% of the total number of deaths.
| S-EPMC9275831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments have advocated numerous social distancing measures, and compliance with these has likely saved millions of lives globally. In an online sample drawn from the U.S. and Canada (N = 209), participants completed measures of political orientation, moral foundations, and COVID-19 social distancing attitudes and behaviours. A more left-wing political orientation, and greater endorsement of the individualizing moral foundations were significantly related to more positive social distancing attitudes, and greater self-reported compliance with relevant restrictions. A more right-wing political orientation, and greater endorsement of the binding and economic liberty foundations were associated with less positive attitudes and reduced compliance. In a series of mediation analyses, the relationships between political orientation and various social distancing measures were significantly mediated by variations in participants' moral foundations, particularly their endorsement of economic liberty and the individualizing foundations. Further data indicated that the perceived persuasiveness of messages based on each moral foundation advocating for continued social distancing was significantly related to both participants' moral values and their political orientation. Findings are discussed in terms of understanding politicized differences around social distancing as partly reflecting differential valuation of the moral foundations, and in creating effective public health messaging regarding compliance.
| S-EPMC9232135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In two large-scale longitudinal datasets (combined N = 5761), we investigated ability-related political polarization in responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We observed more polarization with greater ability in emotional responses, risk perceptions, and product-purchase intentions across five waves of data collection with a diverse, convenience sample from February 2020 through July 2020 (Study 1, N = 1267). Specifically, more liberal participants had more negative emotional responses and greater risk perceptions of COVID-19 than conservative participants. Compared to conservatives, liberal participants also interpreted quantitative information as indicating higher COVID-19 risk and sought COVID-related news more from liberal than conservative news media. Of key importance, we also compared verbal and numeric cognitive abilities for their independent capacity to predict greater polarization. Although measures of numeric ability, such as objective numeracy, are often used to index ability-related polarization, ideological differences were more pronounced among those higher in verbal ability specifically. Similar results emerged in secondary analysis of risk perceptions in a nationally representative longitudinal dataset (Study 2, N = 4494; emotions and purchase intentions were not included in this dataset). We further confirmed verbal-ability-related polarization findings on non-COVID policy attitudes (i.e., weapons bans and Medicare-for-all) measured cross-sectionally. The present Study 2 documented ability-related polarization emerging over time for the first time (rather than simply measuring polarization in existing beliefs). Both studies demonstrated verbal ability measures as the most robust predictors of ability-related polarization. Together, these results suggest that polarization may be a function of the amount and/or application of verbal knowledge rather than selective application of quantitative reasoning skills.
| S-EPMC8455947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:What effect has the COVID-19 pandemic had on the political donations gender gap in Canada? Drawing on data from two national surveys conducted in May and August 2020, as well as Elections Canada data from 2019 and 2020, we find an overall decline in contributions to political parties and a reduced but still significant gender gap, with women less likely to donate to political parties than men.
| S-EPMC9829954 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other