Risk avoidance, offsetting community effects, and COVID-19: Evidence from an indoor political rally

Dave, Dhaval; Friedson, Andrew I.; Matsuzawa, Kyutaro; McNichols, Drew; Redpath, Connor; Sabia, Joseph J.

doi:10.1007/s11166-021-09359-4

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These restrictions help to select on factors that may be important to COVID-19 spread (Friedson et al 2021 ; Dave et al 2021a , 2021b ). 22 We also explored the sensitivity of results to alternate urbanicity cutoffs as well as the use of a measure of county population density but our findings were not sensitive to these choices.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11 SafeGraph provides data at census-block-group (CBG) level from 45 million anonymized cell phones. These data, which have been widely by economists examining the impacts of stay-at-home orders (Abouk and Heydari 2020 ; Lasry et al 2020 ; Friedson et al 2021 ; Dave et al 2020a , 2021a , 2021b ) and large gatherings (Dave et al 2020b , 2020c , 2022 ) on stay-at-home behavior, allow researchers to examine mobility behavior tied to home residences. 12…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dr. Robert Redfield, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, predicted that the Capitol riot would spur a surge of COVID-19, not only from the increased risk posed to local residents of Washington, D.C., but also for those who have traveled long distances to attend the event and then returned back to their homes (Wilner 2021 ). 3 While epidemiologists have nearly uniformly predicted that large gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic would lead to community-level spread, the actual public health impacts of such events have been far more heterogeneous (Dave et al 2020a , 2021a , 2021b ; Ahammer et al 2020 ; Carlin et al 2020 ). This is, in part, because narrow epidemiological arguments often fail to consider health- or violence-related risk avoidance behaviors of non-participants (Dave et al 2020a ), 4 the impact of increased congestion on stay-at-home-behavior, or the relative risk of counterfactual behaviors in which participants and non-participants would have been engaged in the absence of the gathering (Dave et al 2020a ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Large social/political rallies from each end of the political spectrum — for example, the Summer 2020 Black Lives Matter protests (Dave et al 2020a ) and President Trump’s May 2020 Presidential campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma (Dave et al 2021a ) — have invariably prompted concerns from public health experts of causing COVID-19 superspread. However, neither of these gatherings did.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 21 This method has been used by several recent studies to investigate how shelter-in-place orders (Friedson et al 2021 ; Dave et al 2020b , 2020c ) and large gatherings (Dave et al 2020a , 2021a , 2021b ) have affected stay-at-home behavior, foot traffic, and community-level COVID-19 growth. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Political violence, risk aversion, and population health: Evidence from the US Capitol riot

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is the first to explore the impact of the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot on risk avoidance behavior and the spread of COVID-19. First, using anonymized smartphone data from SafeGraph, Inc., and an event-study approach, we document a substantial increase on January 6 in non-resident smartphone pings at the sites of the protest: the Ellipse, the National Mall, and the US Capitol Building. Then, using data from the same source and a synthetic control approach, we find that the Capitol riot led to an increase in stay-at-home behavior among District of Columbia residents, consistent with risk avoidance behavior and post-riot policies designed to limit large in-person gatherings. Finally, while we find no evidence that the Capitol riot substantially increased the spread of COVID-19 in the District of Columbia, we do find that counties with the highest inflows of out-of-town protesters experienced a 0.004 to 0.010 increase in the rate of daily cumulative COVID-19 case growth during the month following the event. These findings are exacerbated in counties without COVID-19 mitigation policies in place. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00148-022-00914-0.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Political violence, risk aversion, and population health: Evidence from the US Capitol riot

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Spreading the disease: Protest in times of pandemics

Lange

Monscheuer

2022

Health Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyzes the impact of COVID-19 deniers on the spread of COVID-19 in Germany. In a rst step, we establish a link between regional proxies of COVID-19 deniers and infection rates. We then estimate the causal impact of large anti-lockdown protests on the spread of COVID-19 using an event study framework. Employing novel data on bus stops of travel companies specialized in driving protesters to these gatherings, and exploiting the timing of two large-scale demonstrations in November 2020, we nd sizable increases in infection rates in protesters' origin regions after these demonstrations. Individual-level evidence supports the main results by documenting that COVID-19 deniers engage less in health protection behavior. Our results contribute to the debate about the public health costs of individual behavior that has detrimental externalities for the society.

show abstract

Do elections make you sick? Evidence from first‐time voters

Chang

Meyerhoefer

2023

Health Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the best efforts of governments to mitigate conflict during elections, there is evidence that elections can adversely affect health. Most studies focus on mental health, finding that higher levels of psychological distress occur during campaign periods, on Election Day and following the election. For example, Lotto (2016) and Williams and Medlock (2017) suggest that the stigmatization and marginalization of minorities, immigrants and the poor in recent U.S. election campaigns led to anxiety and psychological distress among the targeted groups. Likewise, clinically significant stress was more commonly reported by young women and others who were more likely to be disadvantaged by the election outcome (DeJonckheere et al., 2018;Hagan et al., 2020).Similar levels of stress and anxiety have been documented in India, where political attacks on minority groups and liberals escalated in the run-up to the 2019 general election (Ganesan, 2018), and in Taiwan, psychiatrists reported a 30% increase in anxiety attacks and related disorders in some hospitals during the 2012 election campaign (The Telegraph, 2012). The pathology surrounding negative psychological reactions to political campaigns is so common that it has been referred to in several countries as "election syndrome" or "election stress disorder" (

show abstract

Risk avoidance, offsetting community effects, and COVID-19: Evidence from an indoor political rally

Cited by 16 publications

References 31 publications

Political violence, risk aversion, and population health: Evidence from the US Capitol riot

Political violence, risk aversion, and population health: Evidence from the US Capitol riot

Spreading the disease: Protest in times of pandemics

Do elections make you sick? Evidence from first‐time voters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About