Impact of COVID-19 on rural and nonrural recovery housing in the United States

This study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on recovery housing (RH), an important resource for individuals in recovery from substance use disorder (SUD). A cross-sectional survey was disseminated electronically between June and July of 2020 to RH owners and operators affiliated with Oxford House or the National Alliance of Recovery Residences nationwide. The survey intended to develop an understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on RH in terms of (a) resident housing access, (b) mitigation strategies to reduce COVID-19 spread, (c) RH financials, and (d) health and well-being of residents and staff. Impacts were assessed among all houses in the sample and then by rurality of RH location (rural vs. nonrural). Among 1,419 respondents, only 4.6% reported positive COVID-19 cases, and 85% reported having implemented centers for disease control-recommended policies. More than half (59%) reported financial impacts, and close to half (49%) reported COVID-19 had "a lot of impact" on residents attending meetings. Rural RH represented only 9% of respondents and a greater fraction of rural RH respondents reported spending more on all COVID-19 expense categories compared to nonrural RH respondents. Compared to nonrural RH, rural RH were significantly more likely to report having a process for evaluating COVID-19 (p = .007), wearing masks (p = .047), taking temperatures (p = .042), and spending more on food due to COVID-19 (p = .015). With SUD rates and the associated morbidity and mortality from SUD continuing to rise, addressing the financial viability of RH, an important resource supporting individuals in recovery is crucial. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) Impact Statement This study suggests that recovery housing, an important resource for individuals seeking or in recovery from a substance use disorder (SUD), is proactive in ensuring resident safety during national emergencies such as COVID-19. The most prominent impacts found in this study were financial (for the recovery home) and residents' ability to attend mutual aid recovery support meetings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Physical distancing versus testing with self-isolation for controlling an emerging epidemic.

Two distinct strategies for controlling an emerging epidemic are physical distancing and regular testing with self-isolation. These strategies are especially important before effective vaccines or treatments become widely available. The testing strategy has been promoted frequently but used less often than physical distancing to mitigate COVID-19. We compared the performance of these strategies in an integrated epidemiological and economic model that includes a simple representation of transmission by "superspreading," wherein a relatively small fraction of infected individuals cause a large share of infections. We examined the economic benefits of distancing and testing over a wide range of conditions, including variations in the transmissibility and lethality of the disease meant to encompass the most prominent variants of COVID-19 encountered so far. In a head-to-head comparison using our primary parameter values, both with and without superspreading and a declining marginal value of mortality risk reductions, an optimized testing strategy outperformed an optimized distancing strategy. In a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis, an optimized policy that combined the two strategies performed better than either one alone in more than 25% of random parameter draws. Insofar as diagnostic tests are sensitive to viral loads, and individuals with high viral loads are more likely to contribute to superspreading events, superspreading enhances the relative performance of testing over distancing in our model. Both strategies performed best at moderate levels of transmissibility, somewhat lower than the transmissibility of the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2.

The Benefits and Costs of Using Social Distancing to Flatten the Curve for COVID-19

We examine the net benefits of social distancing to slow the spread of COVID-19 in USA. Social distancing saves lives but imposes large costs on society due to reduced economic activity. We use epidemiological and economic forecasting to perform a rapid benefit–cost analysis of controlling the COVID-19 outbreak. Assuming that social distancing measures can substantially reduce contacts among individuals, we find net benefits of about $5.2 trillion in our benchmark case. We examine the magnitude of the critical parameters that might imply negative net benefits, including the value of statistical life and the discount rate. A key unknown factor is the speed of economic recovery with and without social distancing measures in place. A series of robustness checks also highlight the key role of the value of mortality risk reductions and discounting in the analysis and point to a need for effective economic stimulus when the outbreak has passed.

Recovery housing predictors of closure risk during covid-19

Background COVID-19 has had widespread health and economic costs in the United States and around the world, especially for individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs). An important resource to assist those in recovery from SUDs is recovery housing, a housing model that utilizes peer support to help individuals on their path to recovery. Recovery housing has faced additional challenges due to COVID-19. Method We used cross-sectional survey data and a probit regression model to determine important predictors of recovery housing closure risk during COVID-19. Results We found that populations served, COVID-19 policies enacted, and house location are significant predictors of closure risk. We showed that, even when important differences between rural and non-rural houses are controlled for, rural houses are less likely to report being at risk of closing due to COVID-19. Conclusion Rurality remained an important predictor of closure risk, regardless of house characteristics. This may suggest inherent differences across rurality not included in our model. Recovery houses, in both rural and non-rural areas, continue to need support to offer important recovery services as the pandemic continues. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Effects of Physical Distancing to Control COVID-19 on Public Health, the Economy, and the Environment.

Physical distancing measures are important tools to control disease spread, especially in the absence of treatments and vaccines. While distancing measures can safeguard public health, they also can profoundly impact the economy and may have important indirect effects on the environment. The extent to which physical distancing measures should be applied therefore depends on the trade-offs between their health benefits and their economic costs. We develop an epidemiological-economic model to examine the optimal duration and intensity of physical distancing measures aimed to control the spread of COVID-19. In an application to the United States, our model considers the trade-off between the lives saved by physical distancing-both directly from stemming the spread of the virus and indirectly from reductions in air pollution during the period of physical distancing-and the short- and long-run economic costs that ensue from such measures. We examine the effect of air pollution co-benefits on the optimal physical distancing policy and conduct sensitivity analyses to gauge the influence of several key parameters and uncertain model assumptions. Using recent estimates of the association between airborne particulate matter and the virulence of COVID-19, we find that accounting for air pollution co-benefits can significantly increase the intensity and duration of the optimal physical distancing policy. To conclude, we broaden our discussion to consider the possibility of durable changes in peoples' behavior that could alter local markets, the global economy, and our relationship to nature for years to come.

Emphasize personal health benefits to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates.

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines is a tremendous scientific response to the current global pandemic. However, vaccines per se do not save lives and restart economies. Their success depends on the number of people getting vaccinated. We used a survey experiment to examine the impact on vaccine intentions of a variety of public health messages identified as particularly promising: three messages that emphasize different benefits from the vaccines (personal health, the health of others, and the recovery of local and national economies) and one message that emphasizes vaccine safety. Because people will likely be exposed to multiple messages in the real world, we also examined the effect of these messages in combination. Based on a nationally quota representative sample of 3,048 adults in the United States, our findings suggest that several forms of public messages can increase vaccine intentions, but messaging that emphasizes personal health benefits had the largest impact.

Hesitancy Toward a COVID-19 Vaccine.

The scientific community has come together in a mass mobilization to combat the public health risks of COVID-19, including efforts to develop a vaccine. However, the success of any vaccine depends on the share of the population that gets vaccinated. We designed a survey experiment in which a nationally representative sample of 3,133 adults in the USA stated their intentions to vaccinate themselves and their children for COVID-19. The factors that we varied across treatments were: the stated severity and infectiousness of COVID-19 and the stated source of the risk information (White House or the Centers for Disease Control). We find that 20% of people in the USA intend to decline the vaccine. We find no statistically significant effect on vaccine intentions from the severity of COVID-19. In contrast, we find that the degree of infectiousness of the coronavirus influences vaccine intentions and that inconsistent risk messages from public health experts and elected officials may reduce vaccine uptake. However, the most important determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy seem to be distrust of the vaccine safety (including uncertainty due to vaccine novelty), as well as general vaccine avoidance, as implied by not having had a flu shot in the last two years.