Exploration of the impact of political ideology disparity on COVID-19 transmission in the United States

Abstract

Background Based on individual-level studies, previous literature suggested that conservatives and liberals in the United States had different perceptions and behaviors when facing the COVID-19 threat. From a state-level perspective, this study further explored the impact of personal political ideology disparity on COVID-19 transmission before and after the emergence of Omicron. Methods A new index was established, which depended on the daily cumulative number of confirmed cases in each state and the corresponding population size. Then, by using the 2020 United States presidential election results, the values of the built index were further divided into two groups concerning the political party affiliation of the winner in each state. In addition, each group was further separated into two parts, corresponding to the time before and after Omicron predominated. Three methods, i.e., functional principal component analysis, functional analysis of variance, and function-on-scalar linear regression, were implemented to statistically analyze and quantify the impact. Results Findings reveal that the disparity of personal political ideology has caused a significant discrepancy in the COVID-19 crisis in the United States. Specifically, the findings show that at the very early stage before the emergence of Omicron, Democratic-leaning states suffered from a much greater severity of the COVID-19 threat but, after July 2020, the severity of COVID-19 transmission in Republican-leaning states was much higher than that in Democratic-leaning states. Situations were reversed when the Omicron predominated. Most of the time, states with Democrat preferences were more vulnerable to the threat of COVID-19 than those with Republican preferences, even though the differences decreased over time. Conclusions The individual-level disparity of political ideology has impacted the nationwide COVID-19 transmission and such findings are meaningful for the government and policymakers when taking action against the COVID-19 crisis in the United States.

The Effect of Human Capital, Economic Anxiety, And Political Ideologies on Immigrant Health Perceptions: a Between-Subjects Experimental Approach

“…There is a fear that unchecked immigration may erode national identity, strain public resources, and disrupt labor markets, potentially disadvantaging native-born citizens. Such perspectives can lead to detrimental stereotypes against immigrants, driven by apprehensions about healthcare systems, diseases, and adherence to health norms in host countries (Kerr, Panagopoulos, & van der Linden, 2021;Rui, Tian, & Xiong, 2022).…”

Exploring the link between public health compliance and voting patterns in the 2020 U.S. presidential election

“…Understanding voting behaviors necessitates an analysis of the political factors influencing voter's choices, with partisanship recognized as a key determinant. Scholars such as Campbell et al (1980), Wattenberg (1981), Rose andMishler (1998), andCampbell et al (1980) have debated the role of partisanship in U.S. voting behaviors. Some argue for a decline in its relevance (partisan dealignment) (Franklin et al, 2009), while others like Bartels (2000) affirm its enduring influence in shaping not only voting behavior but also the broader political landscape in America.…”

“…This phenomenon was particularly evident during a period of intense political division in the United States, which played a significant role in both how the government handled the pandemic and how the public perceived these efforts. Understanding public opinion and ensuring active participation is crucial in devising effective health policies, especially in environments where political opinions are deeply divided (Rodriguez et al, 2022;Rui et al, 2022).…”

Effect of self-instructional module towards the prevention of cataract among elderly people in India

“…Despite the ease with which cataracts can be treated and the fact that cataract surgery is among the most cost-effective procedures, many isolated and underdeveloped regions of the developing world continue to see a high rate of cataract-related blindness, largely because of limited access to eye care [ 9 ]. According to the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, the percentage of blindness caused by cataracts among all eye illnesses varies from 5% in wealthy nations to 50% or more in impoverished and/or isolated areas [ 10 ].…”

“…Eye care that is comprehensive should be accessible, inexpensive, and responsible [ 16 ]. Even with all these advancements, the majority of people living in rural areas still cannot afford quality eye care [ 10 ]. Up until recently, surgical and screening eye camps have been the core of eye care services in the majority of these communities, and it has long been debatable how well these camps deliver their services [ 17 ].…”