Mass gatherings for political expression had no discernible association with the local course of the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA in 2020 and 2021

IF 21.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Nature Human Behaviour Pub Date : 2023-07-31 DOI:10.1038/s41562-023-01654-1
Eric Feltham, Laura Forastiere, Marcus Alexander, Nicholas A. Christakis
{"title":"Mass gatherings for political expression had no discernible association with the local course of the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA in 2020 and 2021","authors":"Eric Feltham, Laura Forastiere, Marcus Alexander, Nicholas A. Christakis","doi":"10.1038/s41562-023-01654-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Epidemic disease can spread during mass gatherings. We assessed the impact of a type of mass gathering about which comprehensive data were available on the local-area trajectory of the COVID-19 epidemic. Here we examined five types of political event in 2020 and 2021: the US primary elections, the US Senate special election in Georgia, the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, Donald Trump’s political rallies and the Black Lives Matter protests. Our study period encompassed over 700 such mass gatherings during multiple phases of the pandemic. We used data from the 48 contiguous states, representing 3,108 counties, and we implemented a novel extension of a recently developed non-parametric, generalized difference-in-difference estimator with a (high-quality) matching procedure for panel data to estimate the average effect of the gatherings on local mortality and other outcomes. There were no statistically significant increases in cases, deaths or a measure of epidemic transmissibility (Rt) in a 40-day period following large-scale political activities. We estimated small and statistically non-significant effects, corresponding to an average difference of −0.0567 deaths (95% CI = −0.319, 0.162) and 8.275 cases (95% CI = −1.383, 20.7) on each day for counties that held mass gatherings for political expression compared to matched control counties. In sum, there is no statistical evidence of a material increase in local COVID-19 deaths, cases or transmissibility after mass gatherings for political expression during the first 2 years of the pandemic in the USA. This may relate to the specific manner in which such activities are typically conducted. The authors show that political gatherings in the USA in 2021–2022 did not have any effect on COVID-19 case counts.","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"7 10","pages":"1708-1728"},"PeriodicalIF":21.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Human Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01654-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Epidemic disease can spread during mass gatherings. We assessed the impact of a type of mass gathering about which comprehensive data were available on the local-area trajectory of the COVID-19 epidemic. Here we examined five types of political event in 2020 and 2021: the US primary elections, the US Senate special election in Georgia, the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, Donald Trump’s political rallies and the Black Lives Matter protests. Our study period encompassed over 700 such mass gatherings during multiple phases of the pandemic. We used data from the 48 contiguous states, representing 3,108 counties, and we implemented a novel extension of a recently developed non-parametric, generalized difference-in-difference estimator with a (high-quality) matching procedure for panel data to estimate the average effect of the gatherings on local mortality and other outcomes. There were no statistically significant increases in cases, deaths or a measure of epidemic transmissibility (Rt) in a 40-day period following large-scale political activities. We estimated small and statistically non-significant effects, corresponding to an average difference of −0.0567 deaths (95% CI = −0.319, 0.162) and 8.275 cases (95% CI = −1.383, 20.7) on each day for counties that held mass gatherings for political expression compared to matched control counties. In sum, there is no statistical evidence of a material increase in local COVID-19 deaths, cases or transmissibility after mass gatherings for political expression during the first 2 years of the pandemic in the USA. This may relate to the specific manner in which such activities are typically conducted. The authors show that political gatherings in the USA in 2021–2022 did not have any effect on COVID-19 case counts.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2020年和2021年,为表达政治而举行的大规模集会与美国当地新冠肺炎大流行的进程没有明显关联。
流行病可以在大规模集会期间传播。我们评估了一种大规模集会对新冠肺炎疫情本地区轨迹的影响,并获得了全面的数据。在这里,我们研究了2020年和2021年的五种类型的政治事件:美国初选、佐治亚州的美国参议院特别选举、新泽西州和弗吉尼亚州的州长选举、唐纳德·特朗普的政治集会和“黑人的命也是命”抗议活动。我们的研究涵盖了疫情多个阶段700多场此类大规模集会。我们使用了来自48个相邻州(代表3108个县)的数据,并对最近开发的非参数广义差分估计器进行了新的扩展,该估计器具有面板数据的(高质量)匹配程序,以估计集会对当地死亡率和其他结果的平均影响。在大规模政治活动后的40天内,病例、死亡人数或流行病传播性(Rt)指标没有统计学上的显著增加。我们估计了较小的、统计上不显著的影响,对应于-0.0567例死亡的平均差异(95%置信区间 = -0.319、0.162)和8.275例(95%可信区间 = -1.383,20.7)。总之,没有统计证据表明,在美国大流行的头两年,当地新冠肺炎死亡人数、病例或政治表达大规模集会后的传播性大幅增加。这可能与此类活动的具体开展方式有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nature Human Behaviour
Nature Human Behaviour Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
36.80
自引率
1.00%
发文量
227
期刊介绍: Nature Human Behaviour is a journal that focuses on publishing research of outstanding significance into any aspect of human behavior.The research can cover various areas such as psychological, biological, and social bases of human behavior.It also includes the study of origins, development, and disorders related to human behavior.The primary aim of the journal is to increase the visibility of research in the field and enhance its societal reach and impact.
期刊最新文献
Period poverty is a continuing global challenge Why current menstrual policies do not work Broadening menstrual health approaches is key to improving adolescent outcomes Why we should care about trans people and menstruation Open and inclusive communication is key to managing menstrual health
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1