Linking self-reported social distancing to real-world behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic

In an effort to combat COVID-19 and future pandemics, researchers have attempted to identify the factors underlying social distancing. Yet, much of this research relies on self-report measures. In two studies, we examine whether self-reported social distancing predicts objective distancing behavior. In Study 1, individuals' self-reported social distancing predicted decreased mobility (assessed via smartphone step counts) during the COVID-19 pandemic. While participants high in self-reported distancing (+ 1 SD) exhibited a 33% reduction in daily step counts, those low in distancing (-1 SD) exhibited only a 3% reduction. Study 2 extended these findings to the group level. Self-reported social distancing at the U.S. state level accounted for 20% of the variance in states' objective reduction in overall movement and visiting nonessential services (calculated via the GPS coordinates of ~15 million people). Collectively, our results indicate that self-reported social distancing tracks actual social distancing behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

When not helping is nice: Children's changing evaluations of helping during COVID-19.

A key aspect of children's moral and social understanding involves recognizing the value of helpful behaviors. COVID-19 has complicated this process; behaviors generally considered praiseworthy were considered problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic. The present study examined whether 6- to 12-year-olds (N = 228; residing in the United States) adapt their evaluations of helpful behavior in response to shifting norms. Specifically, we presented children with scenarios featuring helpful and unhelpful actions that involved physical interaction (e.g., hugging) or nonphysical interaction (e.g., recruiting a teacher); although all children were tested during the COVID-19 pandemic, stories portrayed individuals either before or during COVID-19. While children generally judged helpfulness positively and unhelpfulness negatively, children exhibited a selective shift in their judgments for COVID-19 scenarios: children considered helpfulness negatively and unhelpfulness positively if helping required physical interaction. These findings demonstrate that children flexibly tune their social evaluations of helping to align with evolving norms. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Children's judgments of interventions against norm violations: COVID-19 as a naturalistic case study.

The coronavirus pandemic has had a significant influence on social interactions, introducing novel social norms such as mask-wearing and social distancing to protect people's health. Because these norms and associated practices are completely novel, it is unknown how children assess what kinds of interventions are appropriate under what circumstances and what principles they draw on in their decisions. We investigated children's reasoning about interventions against individuals who failed to adhere to COVID-19 norms. In this pre-registered study (N = 128), 4- to 7-year-olds heard stories about a norm violator, that is, a person who refuses to wear a mask in class (COVID condition) or wear indoor shoes in class when his or her shoes are muddy (Muddy Shoes condition). Children evaluated four different interventions-giving a mask/indoor shoes (Giving), preventing the person from entering (Exclusion), throwing a paper ball at the person (Throwing), and not intervening (Doing Nothing)-in terms of their rightness, niceness, and effectiveness. We found that across measures children evaluated Giving most positively, whereas they viewed Throwing most negatively. Doing Nothing and Exclusion received mixed evaluations across measures, revealing nuanced judgments of these interventions in children. In most measures, there was no difference between the COVID and Muddy Shoes conditions, suggesting that children's evaluations are not specific to the novel COVID-19 context. Together, our results show that children dynamically evaluate each intervention, taking multiple factors into account. The current study has implications for the development of interventions against norm violations.

Housing Precarity & the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impacts of Utility Disconnection and Eviction Moratoria on Infections and Deaths Across US Counties

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the adoption of a number of policies that aim to reduce the spread of the disease by promoting housing stability. Housing precarity, which includes both the risk of eviction and utility disconnections or shut-offs, reduces a person’s ability to abide by social distancing orders and comply with hygiene recommendations. Our analysis quantifies the impact of these various economic policies on COVID-19 infection and death rates using panel regression techniques to control for a variety of potential confounders. We find that policies that limit evictions are found to reduce COVID-19 infections by 3.8% and reduce deaths by 11%. Moratoria on utility disconnections reduce COVID-19 infections by 4.4% and mortality rates by 7.4%. Had such policies been in place across all counties (i.e., adopted as federal policy) from early March 2020 through the end of November 2020, our estimated counterfactuals show that policies that limit evictions could have reduced COVID-19 infections by 14.2% and deaths by 40.7%. For moratoria on utility disconnections, COVID-19 infections rates could have been reduced by 8.7% and deaths by 14.8%. Housing precarity policies that prevent eviction and utility disconnections have been effective mechanisms for decreasing both COVID-19 infections and deaths.

Linking Self-Reported Social Distancing to Real-World Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic

In an effort to combat COVID-19 and future pandemics, researchers have attempted to identify the factors underlying social distancing. Yet, much of this research relies on self-report measures. In two studies, we examine whether self-reported social distancing predicts objective distancing behavior. In Study 1, individuals? self-reported social distancing predicted decreased mobility (assessed via smartphone step counts) during the COVID-19 pandemic. While participants high in self-reported distancing (+1 SD) exhibited a 33% reduction in daily step counts, those low in distancing (?1 SD) exhibited only a 3% reduction. Study 2 extended these findings to the group level. Self-reported social distancing at the U.S. state level accounted for 20% of the variance in states? objective reduction in overall movement and visiting nonessential services (calculated via the GPS coordinates of ?15 million people). Collectively, our results indicate that self-reported social distancing tracks actual social distancing behavior.

Safety and immunogenicity of a candidate Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus viral-vectored vaccine: a dose-escalation, open-label, non-randomised, uncontrolled, phase 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection continue to rise in the Arabian Peninsula 7 years after it was first described in Saudi Arabia. MERS-CoV poses a significant risk to public health security because of an absence of currently available effective countermeasures. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the candidate simian adenovirus-vectored vaccine expressing the full-length spike surface glycoprotein, ChAdOx1 MERS, in humans. METHODS: This dose-escalation, open-label, non-randomised, uncontrolled, phase 1 trial was done at the Centre for Clinical Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine (Oxford, UK) and included healthy people aged 18-50 years with negative pre-vaccination tests for HIV antibodies, hepatitis B surface antigen, and hepatitis C antibodies (and a negative urinary pregnancy test for women). Participants received a single intramuscular injection of ChAdOx1 MERS at three different doses: the low-dose group received 5 × 109 viral particles, the intermediate-dose group received 2·5 × 1010 viral particles, and the high-dose group received 5 × 1010 viral particles. The primary objective was to assess safety and tolerability of ChAdOx1 MERS, measured by the occurrence of solicited, unsolicited, and serious adverse events after vaccination. The secondary objective was to assess the cellular and humoral immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 MERS, measured by interferon-γ-linked enzyme-linked immunospot, ELISA, and virus neutralising assays after vaccination. Participants were followed up for up to 12 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03399578. FINDINGS: Between March 14 and Aug 15, 2018, 24 participants were enrolled: six were assigned to the low-dose group, nine to the intermediate-dose group, and nine to the high-dose group. All participants were available for follow-up at 6 months, but five (one in the low-dose group, one in the intermediate-dose group, and three in the high-dose group) were lost to follow-up at 12 months. A single dose of ChAdOx1 MERS was safe at doses up to 5 × 1010 viral particles with no vaccine-related serious adverse events reported by 12 months. One serious adverse event reported was deemed to be not related to ChAdOx1 MERS. 92 (74% [95% CI 66-81]) of 124 solicited adverse events were mild, 31 (25% [18-33]) were moderate, and all were self-limiting. Unsolicited adverse events in the 28 days following vaccination considered to be possibly, probably, or definitely related to ChAdOx1 MERS were predominantly mild in nature and resolved within the follow-up period of 12 months. The proportion of moderate and severe adverse events was significantly higher in the high-dose group than in the intermediate-dose group (relative risk 5·83 [95% CI 2·11-17·42], p<0·0001) Laboratory adverse events considered to be at least possibly related to the study intervention were self-limiting and predominantly mild in severity. A significant increase from baseline in T-cell (p<0·003) and IgG (p<0·0001) responses to the MERS-CoV spike antigen was observed at all doses. Neutralising antibodies against live MERS-CoV were observed in four (44% [95% CI 19-73]) of nine participants in the high-dose group 28 days after vaccination, and 19 (79% [58-93]) of 24 participants had antibodies capable of neutralisation in a pseudotyped virus neutralisation assay. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 MERS was safe and well tolerated at all tested doses. A single dose was able to elicit both humoral and cellular responses against MERS-CoV. The results of this first-in-human clinical trial support clinical development progression into field phase 1b and 2 trials. FUNDING: UK Department of Health and Social Care, using UK Aid funding, managed by the UK National Institute for Health Research.