Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey, Report #48: Assessing the Impact of the Pause in J&J Vaccine Use on COVID Vaccination Intent

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "On April 13 [2021], the FDA and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommended a pause in the use of the Johnson and Johnson (J&J) COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] vaccine. This followed reports of a rare type of blood clot emerging in a small number of individuals following the use of the vaccine. This action raised serious concerns and criticisms of these agencies that the pause might lead to an increase in vaccine hesitancy and resistance in the United States. In this report, we evaluate the likely impact of the pause on vaccine resistance. We do this through two types of analyses, both of which took advantage of the fact that we began fielding our survey on April 1st, collecting over 8,000 responses before the April 13th pause, and continued beyond the April 23 suspension of the pause. The first analysis compares responses of individuals who participated in the survey before the pause to those who participated after the pause, to assess whether there was a post-pause change in intentions to vaccinate. For the second analysis, we conducted a smaller 'panel' survey following the pause, re-interviewing a subset of respondents who had participated in our survey before April 13th and indicated that they were not yet vaccinated. This allows an evaluation of whether particular individuals changed their view toward vaccination from shortly before the pause to shortly after the pause. Below, we first evaluate the public awareness of the pause, and then turn to analyses of changes in vaccine attitudes in each of these samples."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Lazer, David; Ognyanova, Katherine; Green, Jon . . .

  2021-04-30
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey, Report #47: Update on COVID-19 Vaccine Attitudes Among Healthcare Workers

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "This report is an update of our February report [hyperlink] on attitudes and vaccination rates of healthcare workers. The essential patterns are similar, with the obvious exception being the increased rates of vaccination. We focus on vaccination, vaccine resistance, vaccine hesitancy, vaccine access, and vaccine refusal." The previous report can be found at [https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=850470].

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Lazer, David; Ognyanova, Katherine; Green, Jon . . .

  2021-03-22
• Symptoms of COVID-19 Infection and Magnitude of Antibody Response in a Large Community-Based Study

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Abstract: "The majority of COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] cases are asymptomatic, or minimally symptomatic with management in the home. Little is known about the frequency of specific symptoms in the general population, and how symptoms predict the magnitude of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 [severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2] infection. [...] The researchers quantified IgG [Immunoglobulin G] antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) in home-collected dried blood spot samples from 3,365 adults participating in a community-based seroprevalence study in the city of Chicago, USA, collected between June 24 and November 11, 2020."

  Northwestern University (Evanston, Ill.). Institute for Policy Research

  McDade, Thomas; Schrock, Joshua; D'Aquila, Richard . . .

  2021-02-19
• Association Between COVID-19 Relief Funds and Hospital Characteristics in the US

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Abstract: "In response to financial stress created by the reduction in care during the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic, hospitals received financial assistance through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act program. To date, the allocation of CARES Act funding is not well understood. [...] This cross-sectional analysis of US-based hospitals and health systems assesses the hospital characteristics associated with CARES Act funding with linear regression models using linked hospital and health system-level information on CARES Act funding with hospital characteristics from Hospital Cost Report data. [...] The analysis included 952 hospital-level entities with an average payment of $33.6 million, most of which was received during the first payment round. Wide ranges existed in CARES Act funding, with 24% of matched hospitals receiving less than $5 million in funding and 8% receiving more than $50 million. Academic-affiliated hospitals, hospitals with higher pre-COVID-19 assets and hospitals with higher COVID-19 cases received higher levels of funding, while critical access hospitals received lower levels of financial assistance. A 10% increase in hospital assets, endowment size, and COVID-19 cases was associated with 1.4% (95% CI, 0.8% to 2.0%; P = .003), 0.2% (95% CI, 0.1% to 0.3%; P < .001), and 3.5% (95% CI, 2.8% to 4.2%; P < .001) increases in CARES Act funding, respectively. [...] In this cross-sectional study of US hospitals and health systems, findings suggest that High-Impact Distribution CARES Act funds may have disproportionately gone to hospitals that were in a stronger financial situation prior to the pandemic compared with those that were not, but funds also went disproportionately to those that eventually had the most cases."

  Journal of the American Medical Association (Firm)

  Qureshi, Nabeel Shariq; Whaley, Christopher; Briscombe, Brian . . .

  2021-10-22
• Temporary Safety-Net Policies and Pandemic-Related Insurance Loss in New York State

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  From the Webpage: "The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-related recession and resulting job loss raised significant concerns that the U.S. uninsured population could increase, perhaps by millions. However, predictions about coverage loss have not materialized. Because this recession is the first economic downturn since the Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) major coverage provisions took effect in 2014, a possible explanation for the lack of coverage loss is that the ACA's safety-net provisions -- such as Medicaid expansion and Advance Premium Tax Credits (APTCs) for marketplace coverage -- did their job. However, it is also possible that other responses to the pandemic contributed to the maintenance of insurance levels. For example, more than half of covered workers who lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic retained their employer-sponsored insurance, perhaps because the layoffs were not expected to be permanent. Temporary policies to retain Medicaid enrollees appear to have increased insurance enrollment. Furthermore, some states opened their health care marketplaces for a special enrollment period in 2020, enabling people to newly enroll in insurance in the middle of the year. In 2021, the American Rescue Plan, which temporarily enhanced marketplace tax credits, also led to an enrollment bump. To explore this issue, RAND researchers (1) assess the importance of temporary provisions relative to long-standing policies in stabilizing health insurance enrollment despite heavy job loss and (2) run simulations using New York state as a case study."

  RAND Corporation

  Eibner, Christine; Liu, Jodi L.; Price, Carter C. . . .

  2021
• COVID-19 in the California Workers' Compensation System: A Study of COVID-19 Claims and Presumptions Under Senate Bill 1159

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "This report describes work undertaken by the RAND Corporation for the California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation (CHSWC) in the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). The goal of this study is three-fold: (1) evaluate the overall impacts of COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] claims on California's workers' compensation system, (2) evaluate the overall impacts of COVID-19 claims on California's workers' compensation indemnity benefits, medical benefits, and death benefits, including differences in the impacts across differing occupational groups, and (3) assess the overall and cost impacts of the frontline worker and outbreak presumptions created by Senate Bill (SB) 1159 on California workers' compensation system. This mixed-methods evaluation has two main tasks. First, describe the volume and outcomes of COVID-19 claims and estimate the associated costs. Second, document the views and experiences of key stakeholders. The main stakeholder groups were: [1] Workers who contracted COVID-19 and inquired about or used the workers' compensation system for COVID-19 claims and medical care provision [2] Public health officials [3] Claims administrators and employers from frontline and known-outbreak industries across Northern and Southern California."

  RAND Corporation

  Quigley, Denise D.; Dworsky, Michael; Qureshi, Nabeel Shariq . . .

  2022-01
• COVID-19 and Workers' Compensation: Considerations for Policymakers

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  From the Webpage Description: "Working outside the home during a pandemic brings serious risks. Workers who do so are at a much higher risk for exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) because of their need to interact daily with broad segments of the population. Workers who are exposed to COVID-19 in their workplaces face not only a threat to personal and family health but also the risks of high medical expenses and lost wages. Labor groups argue that covering losses related to COVID-19 through the workers' compensation system offers protection for vulnerable workers whose jobs put them at higher risk of infection than the general public. Business groups argue that given the difficulties in contact tracing and the virus's three- to five-day incubation period, it would be unfair to require insurers to pay benefits (which would ultimately be passed along to employers in the form of higher premiums) to workers who could have contracted the disease outside of work. The authors of this Perspective examine the initial efforts and reasoning of policymakers to grant access to workers' compensation benefits to employees who are required to work outside the home during the COVID-19 pandemic. They briefly assess the potential impacts of continuing to expand such access on workers, employers, and insurers. And finally, they pose further questions that policymakers and others may want to consider when evaluating past policies and crafting new ones to meet future public health emergencies."

  RAND Corporation

  Dworsky, Michael; Saunders-Medina, Bethany

  2022
• COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Intentions Following US Food and Drug Administration Approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  From the Webpage: "Despite the availability of safe and effective COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] vaccines, 25% of American adults remained partially vaccinated or unvaccinated against COVID-19 at the beginning of 2022. Lack of a formally approved COVID-19 vaccine was a common reason given for non-vaccination in polls prior to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the biologics license application--also called 'full approval'--for the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine. Understanding the repercussions for vaccination intentions after FDA full approval is important for informing vaccination interventions and policy in future infectious disease outbreaks. The primary objective of this survey with unvaccinated US adults was to assess vaccination intentions in response to full approval of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine and any demographic associations with these intentions."

  American Medical Association

  Scherer, Aaron M.; Parker, Andrew M.; Gidengil, Courtney A.

  2022-04-11
• COVID-19's Impacts on California's Workers' Compensation System: Evaluating the Effects of Senate Bill 1159

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "With coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and deaths in California mounting in 2020, state policymakers were forced to adopt extraordinary policies to cope with the most severe global pandemic in more than 100 years. One of those policies, Senate Bill (SB) 1159, facilitated access to workers' compensation (WC) benefits for select groups of workers with a high risk of COVID-19 exposure. [...] To provide an early evaluation of SB 1159's impacts, California's Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation (CHSWC) asked the RAND Corporation to conduct a study addressing a breadth of questions about how COVID-19 claims have affected California's WC system. In the resulting report, COVID-19 in the California Workers' Compensation System: A Study of COVID-19 Claims and Presumptions Under Senate Bill 1159, RAND researchers brought to light several challenges that the WC system experienced during the early part of the pandemic (2020 through mid-2021). For employers, these challenges primarily related to handling a large, fluctuating volume of claims within shortened time frames for claims investigations. For workers, confusion around filing a COVID-19 claim presented challenges, including questions about what occupations were covered and qualified for WC under the presumption and what specific documentation (such as a positive COVID-19 test) was needed."

  RAND Corporation

  Quigley, Denise D.; Dworsky, Michael; Qureshi, Nabeel Shariq . . .

  2022
• Inflation Equation: Corporate Profiteering, Supply Chain Bottlenecks, and COVID-19, Hybrid Hearing Before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, Second Session, March 8, 2022

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the March 8, 2022 hearing on "Inflation Equation: Corporate Profiteering, Supply Chain Bottlenecks, and COVID-19 [Coronavirus Disease 2019]," held before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services. From the opening statement of Maxine Waters: "We are still in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects, including higher prices at the grocery store and higher monthly rents that are taking a toll on household budgets. Today, I expect we will hear some of our colleagues attempt to pin inflation on the successful American Rescue Plan, a bill that helped attack this deadly virus and get millions of people vaccinated, supported 6 million small businesses, and helped fuel the economic growth, while resulting in the first reduction of Federal debt seen since the Obama Administration." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Demond Drummer, Tyler Goodspeed, Rakeen Mabud, Sandeep Vaheesan, and Mark Zandi.

  United States. Government Publishing Office

  2022
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey Report #69: Student Attitudes About University COVID-19 Policies

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Introduction: "With the return of students to U.S. colleges and universities this September, more than 1,000 institutions [hyperlink] of higher education have implemented COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] vaccine mandates to keep COVID-19 cases low. The majority of students have complied [hyperlink] with these mandates, and according to our recent survey data, nearly three-fourths of university students report having received at least one COVID-19 vaccine (Figure 1). Also according to our data, university students in the U.S. are getting vaccinated at around the same rate as the full survey sample. University students therefore may have slightly higher vaccination rates than others in their age group; according to our survey data, 67% of Americans aged 18- 24 have received at least one vaccine."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Trujillo, Kristin Lunz; Druckman, James N., 1971-; Shere, Anjuli . . .

  2021-11-15
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey Report #68: Heightened Parental Concerns About COVID-19 Vaccinations for Children

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "In early October 2021, Pfizer and BioNTech asked [hyperlink] the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to authorize their COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] vaccine for children between the ages of 5 and 11. The success of vaccinating children is, however, still contingent upon whether parents feel their children should get the COVID-19 vaccine. Before the pandemic, vaccine hesitancy among parents was prevalent in certain pockets of the US. Parental vaccine hesitancy [hyperlink] led to decreased inoculation rates among children for immunizations such as the MMR [measles, mumps, and rubella] vaccine. This subsequently led to outbreaks [hyperlink] of previously-eradicated diseases - like the measles - among children in states [hyperlink] such as Washington and New York in 2018, and Minnesota in 2017. With the COVID-19 vaccine, parental vaccine hesitancy could similarly lead to higher levels of COVID-19 cases among minors, while also transmitting the disease to other populations. Investigating parental vaccine concerns is important in understanding and addressing parental vaccine hesitancy surrounding COVID-19. For this reason, in June 2021 [hyperlink] we asked parents across the country about various concerns regarding childhood COVID-19 vaccination. We isolated their top five concerns: how new the vaccine is, whether the vaccine has been tested enough, whether the vaccine actually works, immediate side effects of the vaccine, and long-term side effects of the vaccine. We asked parents about these concerns again in September 2021 to detect shifts over time. Across the board, we find that the proportion of parents who felt these five items were major concerns increased substantially."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Trujillo, Kristin Lunz; Santillana, Mauricio; Pippert, Caroline . . .

  2021-10-18
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey Report #70: MA Governor Charlie Baker's Approval

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker's announcement [hyperlink] last week that he would not seek re-election comes on the heels of a wave of retirements [hyperlink] of moderate Republican politicians who have found themselves at odds with former President Donald Trump and his vision of the Republican Party. Governor Baker's decision to not seek re-election is somewhat surprising, given the Republican has consistently garnered some of the highest gubernatorial approval ratings according to numerous polls [hyperlink] (including our own [hyperlink]). However Baker has struggled to garner support from members of his own party, with numerous polls [hyperlink] finding higher approval among Democrats and Independents than among Republicans. Baker's struggles with his own party were on full display when President Trump endorsed [hyperlink] Baker's primary challenger, Geoff Diehl, in October. Baker faced grim primary prospects according to a Public Policy Polling poll [hyperlink] that found Baker trailing Diehl in a hypothetical matchup between the two candidates. Baker has already served two terms as leader of the Bay state, and a third consecutive term would have been unprecedented [hyperlink] for a Massachusetts governor. The Covid States Project regularly asks people in all 50 states about their approval of their governor's handling of the pandemic and, in our most recent survey, about approval of their governor's overall job performance. In this report, we focus on the approval of Governor Charlie Baker's handling of the coronavirus pandemic since April 2020, and Baker's most recent general approval rating."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Safarpour, Alauna; Perlis, Roy H.; Lazer, David . . .

  2021-12-11
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey, Report #72: School Board Elections

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "The COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic and the backlash against Critical Race Theory have led to increased attention to school board elections. To better understand who votes in these elections and who attends school board meetings, this report examines the demographic characteristics of individuals who say they attended a school board meeting in the past 6 months and those who say they voted for school board at some point in the past year. [...] In the run up to the November 2021 elections, rancorous school board meetings garnered national attention and prompted U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland [hyperlink] to marshal the resources of federal authorities to address the growing threats directed at school board members nationwide. Federal involvement in the issue was sparked by a request [hyperlink] for help from the National School Board Association sent to the Biden administration in late September 2021. Given these recent events, in this report we examine participation in school board elections and school board meetings - providing survey estimates of who participates in school board elections and meetings, and what issues motivate these individuals."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Safarpour, Alauna; Trujillo, Kristin Lunz; Uslu, Ata A. . . .

  2021-12-17
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey Report #81: Child Vaccination Rate

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "It has been approximately 9 months since the FDA authorized youth ages 12 to 17 [hyperlink] to receive the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] vaccine, and 3 months since authorization for kids ages 5 to 11 [hyperlink]. After each authorization, vaccination rates initially surged among those age groups. Now that more time has elapsed - along with the spike in cases due to the Omicron variant - how have vaccination rates fared among minors, and how have parents' likelihood of vaccinating their kids changed? Understanding these trends may also allow predictions about vaccination uptake among younger children, now that Pfizer has asked the FDA to approve the COVID-19 vaccine for children under 5 [hyperlink]. [...] For youth ages 12-18, the COVID-19 vaccination rate has barely moved upward over the last four months (Figure 1). In September 2021, 54% of parents said their child in this age group had gotten at least one vaccine, compared to 55% in November 2021 and 57% in January 2022. Greater increases occurred for kids ages 5-11 in the past two months: 27% of parents reported their child in this age group getting at least one vaccine, versus 36% in January 2022. Overall, the vaccination rate among kids ages 5-11 remains lower than the rate among youth ages 12-18--not surprising, given that kids ages 5-11 could only start getting vaccinated in early November 2021--but the gap between these age groups is closing. In both groups, a substantial number of individuals remain unvaccinated against COVID-19."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Trujillo, Kristin Lunz; Druckman, James N., 1971-; Qu, Hong . . .

  2022-02-04
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey, Report #85: Unvaccinated Older Americans

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "In this report, we examine how many older Americans are unvaccinated against COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019], and who these unvaccinated individuals are. The risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19 is far higher for older adults, making vaccination particularly critical in reducing the impact of the pandemic. [...] Who are the older Americans who are unvaccinated? This is one of the key questions in terms of the future trajectory of serious illnesses and deaths from COVID [coronavirus disease]. Vaccines were approved first for this age group, and public health efforts have stressed their importance in reducing risk in this group. Age is strongly related to vulnerability to COVID infections, where 75% of deaths [hyperlink] from COVID are individuals who were 65 and older, versus a population share of 16.5%. Vaccinations have shown great efficacy at reducing mortality from COVID infection for all ages, including older individuals, by 90+% [hyperlink]. Thus, vaccinating older Americans has been the single intervention with the most promise of reducing mortality. Here we ask, first, how many older Americans remain unvaccinated? And who are the older Americans who remain unvaccinated?"

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Lazer, David; Uslu, Ata A.; Guo, Zhen . . .

  2022-04-22
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey, Report #84: COVID-19 Deaths and Depression

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "The number of deaths associated with COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] in the United States is approaching the grim milestone of 1 million people [hyperlink], or around 1 in 330 people. In many communities, this number is far higher. The magnitude of these losses--and their impact on the survivors--can be difficult to comprehend. A recent White House memorandum [hyperlink] acknowledges this impact as a key consideration as the nation seeks to recover: 'Each soul is irreplaceable, and the families and communities left behind are still reeling from profound loss.' To better understand this impact, the COVID-19 States Project surveyed 22,234 adults from all 50 U.S. States and the District of Columbia in March 2022. For 18,103, we asked whether they knew anyone who died of COVID-19, and whether they were family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, or acquaintances. To understand the emotional impact of these losses, we also asked about symptoms of depression using a 9-item questionnaire (the Patient Health Questionnaire [hyperlink]) commonly used to identify major depression in primary care settings. In prior waves, we found that rates of depression in the U.S. were 3-4 times greater than the roughly 8% in adults [hyperlink] seen prior to COVID-19."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Perlis, Roy H.; Green, Jon; Guo, Zhen . . .

  2022-04-21
• Why the World Should Care About the COVID Outbreak in North Korea

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "The COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] outbreak in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is an immediate global concern. The country's healthcare infrastructure, which the Global Health Index has ranked 193rd out of 195, is not equipped to handle a pandemic, especially not one that transmits as quickly as the Omicron variant. Without proper treatments and vaccines, the virus threatens to run rampant in the country. This would create the perfect conditions for new variants to arise, which is a threat to the rest of the world. Many will rightfully point out here that the US, South Korea and multilateral initiatives like COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) have expressed a willingness to provide COVID [coronavirus disease] aid, which North Korea has not accepted to date. Extending beyond the likely frustrations in Washington and Seoul, it's crucial to underscore that the rapid spread of Omicron and other emerging variants are not just about North Korea--these issues are a global security threat. As such, assistance efforts should be pursued as an urgent common objective. Moreover, it's necessary to understand the recent history of humanitarian cooperation in the country to know why North Koreans may be hesitant to accept aid, and what policy shifts might make them more amenable to receiving assistance."

  38 North

  Jasper, Daniel

  2022-05-27
• Assessing North Korean Media Coverage of a Domestic COVID-19 Outbreak

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "North Korea's official acknowledgment of a novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, though not shocking, was an unusually bold step. State-run media for more than two years have been saturated with reports sounding the alarm about the virus and highlighting the country's quarantine efforts, all clear indicators that the leadership harbored strong concern about the possibility of an outbreak. However, both the level of detail disclosed and the targeting of the domestic audience are remarkable, given the regime's general reluctance to explicitly acknowledge any disease outbreak. That said, we are left with the question of why North Korea decided to now disclose this damning information after more than two years of denying any cases (contrary to many outside reports [hyperlink]). Moreover, why is the North reporting on the status of suspected COVID [coronavirus disease] cases in such detail, providing daily tallies--down to city and provincial levels--of new cases and even deaths?"

  38 North

  Lee, Rachel Minyoung

  2022-05-24
• North Korean COVID-19/Fever Data Tracker

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "After two years of claiming no confirmed COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] cases, North Korea disclosed a nationwide outbreak [hyperlink] on May 13 and launched emergency epidemic prevention measures. The epidemic began in late April. Officially, only a handful of cases have been confirmed as COVID-19, with the rest attributed to an unidentified 'fever.' This is likely due to insufficient testing capabilities, and many are assumed to be COVID-19 related, however, that might not be the entire picture. North Korean state media has been publishing daily data on the outbreak, which is featured below. 38 North will update these numbers daily as new information becomes available."

  38 North

  2022-06-08
• Officer Safety and Wellness Group Meeting Summary: Pandemic Policing: Emerging Issues and Recommendations

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Overview of the July 2021 Virtual Meetings: "On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] a global pandemic (World Health Organization 2020). [...] Less than three months into the pandemic, George Floyd was killed in the custody of Minneapolis (Minnesota) police officers attempting to arrest him for passing a counterfeit $20 at a convenience store. Mr. Floyd's death sparked widespread demonstrations as hundreds of thou sands of people across the United States took to the streets in protest (Wright 2021). Consequently, law enforcement executives across the country faced the challenge of protecting their communities and their officers from COVID-19 while also needing to determine how to keep their workforce healthy as they policed the protests[.] [...] It was abundantly clear in the discussions over the course of the three virtual meetings that for police leadership, the health of their workforce is of utmost concern. Each law enforcement executive in the meetings explicitly identified the health and well-being of their officers as their number one priority. Law enforcement officials were forced to navigate unfamiliar terrain and provide critical leadership and guidance to their officers while adapting to the contours the pandemic would take locally, statewide, nationally, or worldwide."

  United States. Department of Justice. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; United States. Bureau of Justice Assistance

  Bradley, Kelly D.

  2021-07
• Winning the Web: How Beijing Exploits Search Results to Shape Views of Xinjiang and COVID-19

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Executive Summary: "As the war in Ukraine unfolds, Russian propaganda about the conflict has gotten a boost from a friendly source: government officials and state media out of Beijing. In multiple languages and regions around the world, China's 'wolf warrior' diplomats and state media routinely amplify Kremlin conspiracy theories rationalizing President Vladimir Putin's invasion, and undermining the credibility and appeal of the United States, NATO, and independent media -- even as China declines to endorse the Kremlin's adventurism wholesale. This spring, for example, China's messengers promoted the baseless Russian claim that the United States has been supporting a biological weapons program in Ukraine -- at times, more aggressively than Russia itself. Because Russian state media have been deamplified or banned by multiple Western social media platforms, Beijing's messaging could play an outsized role in channeling Kremlin talking points to audiences around the world. These narratives do not just spread on social media. Beijing's state-funded publishers have considerable success in a domain that has received comparatively little attention: search results. For months, our team has been tracking how China has exploited search engine results on Xinjiang and COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019], two subjects that are geopolitically salient to Beijing -- Xinjiang, because the Chinese government seeks to push back on condemnation of its rights record; COVID-19, because it seeks to deflect criticism for its early mishandling of the pandemic. In both cases, Beijing is quite focused on positioning itself as a responsible global leader and softening perceptions to the contrary. To evaluate these concerns, we compiled daily data over a 120-day period on 12 terms related to Xinjiang and COVID-19 from five different sources: (1) Google Search; (2) Google News; (3) Bing Search; (4) Bing News; and (5) YouTube."

  Brookings Institution. Foreign Policy; German Marshall Fund of the United States. Alliance for Securing Democracy

  Brandt, Jessica; Schafer, Bret; Aghekyan, Elen . . .

  2022-05
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey, Report #53: Public Support for Vaccine Passports

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "'Vaccine certification [hyperlink]' requirements were first introduced in the United States in response to smallpox in the 1800s. Today, physicians routinely provide certification that students have received an array of vaccinations that are required in order to attend school or summer camp, or to participate in sports or other group activities. A similar concept -- recently labeled 'Vaccine Passports [hyperlink]' ('VPs') -- has been suggested with respect to COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] vaccination, requiring individuals to provide proof of vaccination in order to engage in certain activities, such as indoor dining or shopping, flying on an airplane, or attending school. However, requiring that Americans prove that they have been vaccinated in order to participate in such activities has generated fierce opposition [hyperlink]. The success or failure of these initiatives likely rests on a better understanding of the breadth and depth of this opposition, and its basis. Is it simply that the term 'vaccine passport' has been politicized? Or is the underlying concept viewed by Americans as problematic? Or, in the wake of a year of lockdowns and mask mandates, are Americans concerned about yet another government mandate? The purpose of this report is thus to explore two questions. First, is public resistance to vaccine passports mainly due to the politicization of the term itself, or is the public genuinely opposed to any sort of vaccine mandate? Second, do those who oppose vaccine passports object only to the government requiring them, or do they object to any institution, public or private, making them a requirement?"

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Baum, Matthew A., 1965-; Simonson, Matthew; Chwe, Hanyu . . .

  2021-05-17
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey Report #78: American Mask Use and CDC Guidance

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "Late Friday [hyperlink], the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] updated its guidance regarding mask types for Americans, saying that people now 'can choose' to wear higher quality respirators such as N95 or KN95 masks, if they wish. The updated guidance comes on the heels of President Biden's announcement on Thursday [hyperlink] that the nation has more than tripled its stockpile of N95s to help ensure the masks are available to the general population. In this report, we examine Americans' current attitudes towards mask use including whether and what type of masks Americans currently use, beliefs regarding CDC mask recommendations (attitudes collected before the CDC's updated guidance issued January 14, 2022), beliefs about which types of masks offer the greatest protection, and how mask use has changed over the course of the pandemic. These data shed light on the current masking behavior of Americans and point to current popular understanding (or misunderstanding) of CDC recommendations."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Safarpour, Alauna; Druckman, James N., 1971-; Quintana, Alexi . . .

  2022-01-15
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey Report #66: Update on Executive Approval

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "The COVID [coronavirus disease] States Project survey regularly asks people in all 50 states about their approval of their governors and the President. Since our last report on executive approval, which examined trends through March 2021, the pandemic has notably evolved, with huge surges of cases and deaths associated with the Delta variant throughout the summer and early fall. Most states reacted to the dip in coronavirus infections and increase in vaccinations in late spring and early summer by lifting indoor mask mandates, only to struggle to adapt as cases surged again in the late summer and early fall 2021. Some of these states were responding to CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance [hyperlink], which announced in May that fully vaccinated people no longer needed to wear masks indoors or outdoors, only to reverse that guidance a few months later and recommend masks indoors for Americans living in areas of high transmission regardless of vaccination status. Other states rebuffed the guidance of public health agencies by, for instance, banning mask mandates in schools, businesses, and other public places. These policy decisions received wide criticism1 particularly as COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths surged in those states with the loosest pandemic restrictions. [...] In this report, we examine the approval of governors and the President for their handling of the pandemic -- and for the president's overall approval -- over time across the U.S. to assess how the public reacted to the policy decisions and developments surrounding the pandemic as well as state and federal governmental responses."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Safarpour, Alauna; Quintana, Alexi; Baum, Matthew A., 1965- . . .

  2021-10-08
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey, Report #54: Mental Health in the US

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "With rapid progress toward vaccination in the United States along with falling COVID-19 case rates and a reopening economy, federal and state leaders speak optimistically [hyperlink] about a return to normalcy this summer. But as cases diminish, have the unprecedented rates of depression and anxiety documented in our reports, and in other US surveys [hyperlink], also begun to normalize? On the one hand, as a recent 'New York Times' op-ed notes [hyperlink], people in general are remarkably resilient. And in our prior work we showed that depression and anxiety were tied closely to economic stress [hyperlink]; as the economy improves, we might expect mental health to improve as well. On the other hand, the impact of a year of COVID-19 quarantine and fear of illness - perhaps compounded by political and societal turmoil - might not resolve so readily. In this report, we characterize rates of depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance, as we have done on a regular basis since May 2020. We used a standard screening measure drawn from primary care, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9 [hyperlink]), which asks about the symptoms of major depression, as well as 2 items that ask about anxiety (the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2, or GAD-2 [hyperlink]). We define major depression as a score on the PHQ-9 of 10 or greater, or moderate depression, often the point at which an individual would be referred for treatment. Sleep disruption and thoughts of suicide are defined based on items on the PHQ-9. We examine whether depression and anxiety symptoms are becoming less prevalent overall, and then focus on whether rates of depression among particular groups of people have changed. We also consider the relationship between depression and vaccination status."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Perlis, Roy H.; Green, Jon; Simonson, Matthew . . .

  2021-05-21
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey Report #80: Americans' Views on Violence Against the Government

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "Recent years have seen armed protests, threats, and violence against government officials following mask mandates, COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] related closures [hyperlink], and the 2020 election [hyperlink] (including, most notably, the deadly January 6, 2021 attack on the US capitol). These events have sparked concern about the state of American democracy and the safety of government officials. In this report, we examine Americans' attitudes toward the acceptability of violent protest against the government."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Safarpour, Alauna; Santillana, Mauricio; Druckman, James N., 1971- . . .

  2022-01-28
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey, Report #39: Public Attitudes Towards the Storming of the Capitol Building

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "This was the latest in a series of surveys we have been conducting since April 2020, examining attitudes and behaviors regarding COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] in the United States. [...] The 2020 election produced two distinct perceived realities for the United States public. The first perceived reality holds that the election was conducted fairly, and that Joe Biden won. Individuals who hold this vision of reality feel their votes were counted accurately, and that the events of January 6th [hyperlink] were repugnant. This is also the version of reality for 60-70% of the US population. This reality is documented by court cases, our government officials (Republican and Democratic) in charge of administering the election, and the credible news media. The second vision of reality holds that the election was essentially corrupt--driven, in particular, by illegal mail-in ballots, noncitizen voting, and voting machine fraud. In this perceived reality, Biden is a usurper to the presidency. Further, the people who stormed the Capitol had a point, although the worst actions were taken by individuals affiliated with Antifa activists masquerading as Trump supporters. This is the expressed reality of former President Trump, certain Republican leaders, a subset of conservative media, and certain corners of the social media ecosystem. This is also the reality for 25-30% of the US population, and roughly half of Republicans. These two perceived realities are not created equal. The facts, as presented by the fact sorting institutions of the government and media, unambiguously support the first."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Rutgers University; Northwestern University (Evanston, Ill.) . . .

  Lazer, David; Baum, Matthew A., 1965-; Ognyanova, Katherine . . .

  2021-02-15
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey Report #79: At-Home COVID Tests

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "The availability of home antigen testing alongside continued challenges in pursuing PCR [polymerase chain reaction] and antigen tests outside of the home means it is likely that some positive cases are not represented in official counts of cases or positivity rates. Community survey methods could prove helpful in evaluating the extent to which such cases may be missing from official COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] tracking statistics. In this brief report, we assess the extent to which positive results on home antigen tests are not reflected in the number of official cases in the United States. In our current survey, we asked individuals if they had tested positive, and then whether they had ever tested positive using an 'at-home' test. [...] In our most recent wave, out of 10,759 respondents: [1] 63% reported ever having been tested for COVID-19. [2] 18% reported ever having tested positive using any type of test. [3] 4% reported testing positive using an at-home test. [5] 31% of individuals who had a positive test at home did not follow up with a test at their doctor's office or a testing facility, and thus are likely not captured in official data. [6] We estimate that cases have been undercounted by about 6% on average among adults, and likely more so for demographics that use at-home tests more heavily (younger individuals, those with higher income and education, Democrats)."

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Lazer, David; Uslu, Ata A.; Ognyanova, Katherine . . .

  2022-01-20
• COVID States Project: A 50-State COVID-19 Survey Report #76: Storming of the Capitol, One Year Later

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "The COVID [coronavirus disease] states project conducted a survey and issued a report [hyperlink] in the immediate aftermath of the storming of the Capitol building on January 6, 2021. Here, we revisit some of the opinions regarding January 6th, a year later. [...] Public support for the storming of the Capitol building remains quite low. Overall, only 5% of respondents indicate that they support the storming of the Capitol on January 6th, as compared to 76% who oppose. However, there are significant variations among partisan groups in the 'neither support nor oppose' category, with 28% of Republicans, 23% of Independents, and only 8% of Democrats reporting neither supporting nor opposing the storming of the Capitol. Further, these partisan splits have increased since January, 2021: whereas the opposition to the storming of the Capitol has remained steady with Democrats at 89%, it has dropped by 11 percentage points among Republicans, and 8 points among Independents. [...] The events of January 6th still evoke strong, negative emotional reactions by Americans, but especially among Democrats. The top emotions evoked by the storming of the Capitol building are sadness (52%), anger (52%), and shame (49%), with almost twice as many Democrats citing those emotions as Republicans." The aforementioned report can also be found here in the HSDL: [https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=850482].

  Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.); Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy; Harvard Medical School . . .

  Ognyanova, Katherine; Green, Jon; Lazer, David . . .

  2022-01-06