When COVID-19 was first introduced to the United States, state and local governments enacted a variety of policies intended to mitigate the virulence of the epidemic. At the time, the most effective measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 included stay-at-home orders, closing of nonessential businesses, and mask mandates. Although it was well known that regions with high population density and cold climates were at the highest risk for disease spread, rural counties that are economically reliant on tourism were incentivized to enact fewer precautions against COVID-19. The uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic, the multiple policies to reduce transmission, and the changes in outdoor recreation behavior had a significant impact on rural tourism destinations and management of protected spaces. We utilize fine-scale incidence and demographic data to study the relationship between local economic and political concerns, COVID-19 mitigation measures, and the subsequent severity of outbreaks throughout the continental United States. We also present results from an online survey that measured travel behavior, health risk perceptions, knowledge and experience with COVID-19, and evaluation of destination attributes by 407 out-of-state visitors who traveled to Maine from 2020 to 2021. We synthesize this research to present a narrative on how perceptions of COVID-19 risk and public perceptions of rural tourism put certain communities at greater risk of illness throughout 2020. This research could inform future rural destination management and public health policies to help reduce negative socioeconomic, health and environmental impacts of pandemic-derived changes in travel and outdoor recreation behavior.
Supporting Individual Risk Assessment during COVID-19 (2022)
Many individual states and localities have loosened or eliminated mitigation measures as the
COVID-19 pandemic has evolved. Individuals who wish to mitigate their risk of contracting COVID-19 must decide on effective strategies in environments that may have returned to pre-pandemic norms. Individuals must assess their level of risk and risk tolerance amid different mitigation measures, regulations, and metrics across states and localities. The public is also exposed to misinformation and disinformation through social and mainstream media—all occurring within a politically polarized environment.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2029039
- PAR ID:
- 10357785
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Publications listing National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine National Research Council
- ISSN:
- 0276-0533
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
Alam, Mumtaz (Ed.)
-
The US and the rest of the world have suffered from the COVID-19 pandemic for over a year. The high transmissibility and severity of this virus have provoked governments to adopt a variety of mitigation strategies. Some of these previous measures, such as social distancing and mask mandates, were effective in reducing the case growth rate yet became economically and administratively difficult to enforce as the pandemic continued. In late December 2020, COVID-19 vaccines were first approved in the US and states began a phased implementation of COVID-19 vaccination. However, there is limited quantitative evidence regarding the effectiveness of the phased COVID-19 vaccination. This study aims to provide a rapid assessment of the adoption, reach, and effectiveness of the phased implementation of COVID-19 vaccination. We utilize an event-study analysis to evaluate the effect of vaccination on the state-level daily COVID-19 case growth rate. Through this analysis, we assert that vaccination was effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 shortly after the first shots were given. Specifically, the case growth rate declined by 0.124, 0.347, 0.345, 0.464, 0.490, and 0.756 percentage points corresponding to the 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, 21–25, and 26 or more day periods after the initial shots. The findings could be insightful for policymakers as they work to optimize vaccine distribution in later phases, and also for the public as the COVID-19 related health risk is a contentious issue.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created substantial challenges for public health officials who must communicate pandemic-related risks and recommendations to the public. Their efforts have been further hampered by the politicization of the pandemic, including media outlets that question the seriousness and necessity of protective actions. The availability of highly politicized news from online platforms has led to concerns about the notion of ‘‘echo chambers,’’ whereby users are exposed only to information that conforms to and reinforces their existing beliefs. Using a sample of 5,000 US residents, we explored their information-seeking tendencies, reliance on conservative and liberal online media, risk perceptions, and mitigation behaviors. The results of our study suggest that risk perceptions may vary across preferences for conservative or liberal bias; however, our results do not support differences in the mitigation behavior across patterns of media use. Further, our findings do not support the notion of echo chambers, but rather suggest that people with lower information-seeking behavior may be more strongly influenced by politicized COVID-19 news. Risk estimates converge at higher levels of information seeking, suggesting that high information seekers consume news from sources across the political spectrum. These results are discussed in terms of their theoretical implications for the study of online echo chambers and their practical implications for public health officials and emergency managers.more » « less
-
Background: The health belief model suggests that individuals' beliefs affect behaviors associated with health. This study examined whether Ohioans' pre-existing medical health diagnoses affected their belief about personal health risk and their compliance with social distancing during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Prior research examining physical and mental diagnoses and social distancing compliance is nearly nonexistent. We examined whether physical and mental health diagnoses influenced individuals' beliefs that their health is at risk and their adherence with social distancing guidelines. Methods: The study used longitudinal cohort data from the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS) (n = 790), which surveyed Ohioans prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dependent variables included belief that an individual's own health was at risk and social distancing compliance. Independent variables included physical and mental health diagnoses, pandemic-related factors (fear of COVID-19, political beliefs about the pandemic, friends social distance, family social distance, COVID-19 exposure), and sociodemographic variables (age, gender, race/ethnicity, educational level). Results: Individuals who had a pre-existing physical health diagnosis were more likely to believe that their personal health was at risk during the pandemic but were not more likely to comply with social distancing guidelines. In contrast, individuals who had a pre-existing mental health diagnosis were more compliant with social distancing guidelines but were not more likely to believe their personal health was at risk. Individuals who expressed greater fear of COVID-19 believed their health is more at risk than those who expressed lower levels of fear. Conclusion: Health considerations are important to account for in assessments of responses to the pandemic, beliefs about personal health risk, and social distancing behavior. Additional research is needed to understand the divergence in the findings regarding physical health, beliefs about personal health risk, and social distancing compliance. Further, research is needed to understand how mental health issues impact decision-making related to social distancing compliance.more » « less
-
Due to the essential role of dentists in stopping the COVID-19 pandemic, the purpose of this review is to help dentists to detect any weaknesses in their disinfection and cross-contamination prevention protocols, and to triage dental treatments to meet the needs of patients during the pandemic. We used PRISMA to identify peer-reviewed publications which supplemented guidance from the center for disease control about infection control and guidelines for dentists. Dentists must triage dental treatments to meet the needs of patients during the pandemic. The ongoing pandemic has changed the practice of dentistry forever, the changes make it more cumbersome, time-consuming, and costly due to the possible pathways of transmission and mitigation steps needed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Dental chairside rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 are urgently needed. Until then, dentists need to screen patients for COVID-19 even though 75% of people with COVID-19 have no symptoms. Despite the widespread anxiety and fear of the devastating health effects of COVID-19, only 61% of dentists have implemented a change to their treatment protocols. As an urgent matter of public health, all dentists must identify the additional steps they can take to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The most effective steps to stop the pandemic in dental offices are to; vaccinate all dentists, staff, and patients; triage dental treatments for patients, separate vulnerable patients, separate COVID-19 patients, prevent cross-contamination, disinfect areas touched by patients, maintain social distancing, and change personal protective equipment between patients.more » « less