Comparing the impact on COVID-19 mortality of self-imposed behavior change and of government regulations across 13 countries.

OBJECTIVE: Countries have adopted different approaches, at different times, to reduce the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Cross-country comparison could indicate the relative efficacy of these approaches. We assess various nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), comparing the effects of voluntary behavior change and of changes enforced via official regulations, by examining their impacts on subsequent death rates. DATA SOURCES: Secondary data on COVID-19 deaths from 13 European countries, over March-May 2020. STUDY DESIGN: We examine two types of NPI: the introduction of government-enforced closure policies and self-imposed alteration of individual behaviors in the period prior to regulations. Our proxy for the latter is Google mobility data, which captures voluntary behavior change when disease salience is sufficiently high. The primary outcome variable is the rate of change in COVID-19 fatalities per day, 16-20 days after interventions take place. Linear multivariate regression analysis is used to evaluate impacts. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: publicly available. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Voluntarily reduced mobility, occurring prior to government policies, decreases the percent change in deaths per day by 9.2 percentage points (pp) (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.5-14.0 pp). Government closure policies decrease the percent change in deaths per day by 14.0 pp (95% CI 10.8-17.2 pp). Disaggregating government policies, the most beneficial for reducing fatality, are intercity travel restrictions, canceling public events, requiring face masks in some situations, and closing nonessential workplaces. Other sub-components, such as closing schools and imposing stay-at-home rules, show smaller and statistically insignificant impacts. CONCLUSIONS: NPIs have substantially reduced fatalities arising from COVID-19. Importantly, the effect of voluntary behavior change is of the same order of magnitude as government-mandated regulations. These findings, including the substantial variation across dimensions of closure, have implications for the optimal targeted mix of government policies as the pandemic waxes and wanes, especially given the economic and human welfare consequences of strict regulations.

The COVID-19 pandemic and new hire engagement: Relationships with unemployment rates, state restrictions, and organizational tenure.

The purpose of this article is to simultaneously advance theory and practice by understanding how the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic relates to new hire engagement. Prior research suggests starting a new job is an uncertain experience; we theorize that the COVID-19 pandemic creates additional environmental stressors that affect new hire engagement. First, we hypothesize that the occurrence of COVID-19 and unemployment rates relate negatively to engagement. Second, we theorize that the effects of the pandemic become more disruptive on new hire engagement as they gain tenure within the organization. Third, drawing from strategic management theory, we test whether States that introduce stronger COVID-19 policies help enhance the engagement of new hires. Examining a U.S. national sample of 12,577 newly hired (90 days or less) quick service restaurant employees across 9 months (January-September, 2020), we find support for these hypotheses. Subsequent model comparisons suggest there may be health stressors that shape engagement more strongly than purely economic stressors. These findings may be important because they highlight the experiences of workers more likely to be exposed to the pandemic and affected by COVID-related policies. Should the results generalize to other samples and jobs, this study offers potentially new research directions for understanding relationships between macro stressors and new hire perceptions and socialization. It also offers practical implications by helping organizations understand the importance of explicitly managing job insecurity, particularly in terms of COVID-19 policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Health and Safety in the Legal Cannabis Industry Before and During COVID-19.

In 2020, medical cannabis is legal in thirty-six states and adult use ("recreational") cannabis is legal in fifteen, despite cannabis remaining illegal at the federal level. Up to 250,000 individuals work as full-time employees in cannabis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, California, Colorado, and other states deemed medical cannabis business as essential, raising occupational challenges and safety issues for cannabis employees. In 2020, interviews were conducted with Ethan, an extraction lab assistant in Las Vegas; Haylee, a trainer with a cannabis company in Sacramento; and Belinda, a Wisconsin-based occupational health and safety trainer, to showcase concerns and experiences in cannabis workplaces and training programs. Findings from interviews reveal pro-worker activities to promote workplace safety and labor unionism while large multistate operators seek to optimize profits and obstruct workers' rights. Knowledge gained through the interviews contributes to discussions to lessen the potential exposure of the cannabis workforce to COVID 19.