Search

We examine five summer Olympics and identify stocks that media outlets hype as benefiting from the Olympics (Olympic stocks). There is a seven-year period from the time that a country first learns it has won the Olympic bid to the start of the games (Olympic time period). We predict that the excitement of the Olympics along with the greater media attention impacts the valuation and risk of Olympic stocks. Consistent with this prediction, we show that Olympic stocks earn higher returns than their matched counterparts and comove more strongly with each other over the Olympic time period. Olympic stocks also exhibit increases in trading volume and stock volatility on days when media outlets have stories linking the firm to the Olympic Games. However, we find no evidence that the Olympic Games translate into stronger fundamentals for Olympic firms or stronger fundamental comovements. These findings suggest that investors are not purchasing the stocks based on an analysis of fundamentals, but are purchasing them based on their Olympic attribute. To confirm that event-based groupings occur in other settings, we show that comovement increases for stocks classified by the media as "stay-at-home" stocks at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper was accepted by Eric So, accounting. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02218. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital surveys, such as mobile phone ecological momentary assessment (EMA), bear the potential to assess and target individual wellbeing in a personalized, real-time approach and allow for interaction in situations when in-person contact is not possible, such as during the coronavirus pandemic. While the use of digital technology might especially benefit research in older adults who find themselves in circumstances of reduced mobility, little is known about their barriers to adherence. We investigated baseline and structural factors that predict study withdrawal and adherence from daily smartphone EMA self-report surveys in the StayWELL Study. The StayWELL study is a longitudinal, observational study on the relationship between social restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic and mental well-being in 95 community-dwelling older aged adults (67-87 years) who were participants in a randomized clinical trial using EMA. Withdrawal was associated with less research staff changes and less likely in participants that reached the study mid-point. No baseline characteristics predicted withdrawal. Main reasons for withdrawal were communication issues, i.e. staff not being able to contact participants. We found an adherence rate of 82% and no fatigue effects. Adherence was predicted by education status, study participation duration, reaching the study midpoint and time between study start and enrollment. COVID infections or supporting people in the household was not related to adherence. To conclude, it is feasible to conduct an EMA study in older people without impacting engagement during a pandemic. Furthermore, personal characteristics and smartphone operating system (Android vs. iOS) used did not relate to engagement, allowing for a broad distribution of digital health technologies. Our study adds information on single predictive variables relevant for adherence and withdrawal from EMA smartphone surveys in older people that can inform the design of future digital EMA research to maximize engagement and reliability of study results.

BackgroundThis study sought to determine the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 stay-at-home (SAH) and reopening orders on trends and types of firearm violence in California, Ohio, and the United States, hypothesizing increased firearm violence after SAH.Materials and methodsRetrospective data (January 1, 2018, to July 31, 2020) on firearm incidents/injuries/deaths and types of firearm violence were obtained from the Gun Violence Archive. The periods for SAH and reopening for the US were based on dates for California. Ohio dates were based on Ohio's timeline. Mann-Whitney U analyses compared trends and types of daily firearm violence per 100,000 legal firearm owners across 2018-2020 periods.ResultsIn California, SAH and reopening orders had no effect on firearm violence in 2020 compared with 2018 and 2019 periods, respectively. In Ohio, daily median firearm deaths increased during 2020 SAH compared with 2018 and 2019 and firearm incidents and injuries increased during 2020 reopening compared with 2018, 2019 and 2020 SAH. In the United States, during 2020, SAH firearm deaths increased compared with historical controls and firearm incidents, deaths and injuries increased during 2020 reopening compared with 2018, 2019 and 2020 SAH (all P

The recent spread of COVID-19 across the U.S. led to concerted efforts by states to ``flatten the curve" through the adoption of stay-at-home mandates that encourage individuals to reduce travel and maintain social distance. Combining data on changes in travel activity with COVID-19 health outcomes and state policy adoption timing, we characterize nationwide changes in mobility patterns and isolate the portion attributable to statewide mandates. We find evidence of dramatic nationwide declines in mobility prior to adoption of any statewide mandates. Once states adopt a mandate, we estimate further mandate-induced declines between 2.1 and 7.0 percentage points across methods that account for states' differences in travel behavior prior to policy adoption. In addition, we investigate the effects of stay-at-home mandates on changes in COVID-19 health outcomes while controlling for pre-trends and observed pre-treatment mobility patterns. We estimate mandate-induced declines between 0.13 and 0.17 in deaths (5.6 to 6.0 in hospitalizations) per 100 thousand across methods. Across 43 adopting states, this represents 23,366-30,144 fewer deaths (and roughly one million averted hospitalizations) for the months of March and April - which indicates that death rates could have been 42-54% higher had states not adopted statewide policies. We further find evidence that changes in mobility patterns prior to adoption of statewide policies also played a role in reducing COVID-19 mortality and morbidity. Adding in averted deaths due to pre-mandate social distancing behavior, we estimate a total of 48-71,000 averted deaths from COVID-19 for the two-month period. Given that the actual COVID-19 death toll for March and April was 55,922, our estimates suggest that deaths would have been 1.86-2.27 times what they were absent any stay-at-home mandates during this period. These estimates represent a lower bound on the health impacts of stay-at-home policies, as they do not account for spillovers or undercounting of COVID-19 mortality. Our findings indicate that early behavior changes and later statewide policies reduced death rates and helped attenuate the negative consequences of COVID-19. Further, our findings of substantial reductions in mobility prior to state-level policies convey important policy implications for re-opening.Take Away Link https://are.berkeley.edu/sites/are.berkeley.edu/files/PolicyTakeAway_Web.pdf

Abstract Background The CDC recently reported that firearm homicide rates in the United States increased in 2020, particularly among Black/African American individuals and men 25–44 years old. It is unclear whether firearm hospitalizations also increased, and more importantly, what impact the COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-related policies had. Using the North Carolina Trauma Registry, a statewide registry of trauma admissions to eighteen North Carolina hospitals, we calculated weekly GSW hospitalization rates from 1/2019 to 12/2020, overall and stratified by race-ethnicity, age, and sex. Interrupted time-series design and segmented linear regression were used to estimate changes in weekly hospitalization rates over time after (1) U.S. declaration of a public health emergency; (2) statewide Stay-at-Home order; (3) Stay-at-Home order lifted with restrictions (Phase 2: Safer-at-Home); and (4) further lifting of restrictions (Phase 2.5: Safer-at-Home). Non-GSW assault hospitalizations were used as a control to assess whether trends were observed across all assault hospitalizations or if effects were specific to gun violence. Findings Overall, 47.3% (n = 3223) of assault hospitalizations were GSW. Among GSW hospitalizations, median age was 27 years old (interquartile range [IQR] 21–25), 86.2% were male, and 49.5% occurred after the U.S. declared a public health emergency. After the Stay-at-Home order was implemented, weekly GSW hospitalization rates began increasing substantially among Black/African American residents (weekly trend change = 0.775, 95% CI = 0.254 to 1.296), peaking at an average 15.6 hospitalizations per 1,000,000 residents. Weekly hospitalization rates declined after restrictions were lifted but remained elevated compared to pre-COVID levels in this group (average weekly rate 10.6 per 1,000,000 at the end of 2020 vs. 8.9 per 1,000,000 pre-pandemic). The Stay-at-Home order was also associated with increasing GSW hospitalization rates among males 25–44 years old (weekly trend change = 1.202, 95% CI = 0.631 to 1.773); rates also remained elevated among 25–44-year-old males after restrictions were lifted in 2020 (average weekly rate 10.1 vs. 7.9 per 1,000,000). Non-GSW hospitalization rates were relatively stable in 2020. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic and statewide Stay-at-Home orders appeared to have placed Black/African American residents and men ages 25–44 at higher risk for GSW hospitalizations, exacerbating pre-existing disparities. Persistent gun violence disparities must be addressed.

Abstract Background To combat the coronavirus pandemic, states implemented several public health policies to reduce infection and transmission. Increasing evidence suggests that these prevention strategies also have had a profound impact on non-COVID healthcare utilization. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of a statewide Stay-at-Home order and other COVID-related policies on trauma hospitalizations, stratified by race/ethnicity, age, and sex. Methods We used the North Carolina Trauma Registry, a statewide registry of trauma hospitalizations for 18 hospitals across North Carolina, including all North Carolina trauma centers, to calculate weekly rates of assault, self-inflicted, unintentional motor vehicle collision (MVC), and other unintentional injury hospitalizations between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Interrupted time-series design and segmented linear regression were used to estimate changes in hospitalization rates after several COVID-related executive orders, overall and stratified by race/ethnicity, age, and sex. Changes in hospitalization rates were assessed after 1) USA declaration of a public health emergency; 2) North Carolina statewide Stay-at-Home order; 3) Stay-at-Home order lifted with restrictions (Phase 2: Safer-at-Home); and 4) further lifting of restrictions (Phase 2.5: Safer-at-Home). Results There were 70,478 trauma hospitalizations in North Carolina, 2019–2020. In 2020, median age was 53 years old and 59% were male. Assault hospitalization rates (per 1,000,000 NC residents) increased after the Stay-at-Home order, but substantial increases were only observed among Black/African American residents (weekly trend change = 1.147, 95% CI = 0.634 to 1.662) and 18–44-year-old males (weekly trend change = 1.708, 95% CI = 0.870 to 2.545). After major restrictions were lifted, assault rates decreased but remained elevated compared to pre-COVID levels. Unintentional non-MVC injury hospitalizations decreased after the USA declared a public health emergency, especially among women ≥ 65 years old (weekly trend change = -4.010, 95% CI = -6.166 to -1.855), but returned to pre-pandemic levels within several months. Conclusions Statewide Stay-at-Home orders placed Black/African American residents at higher risk of assault hospitalizations, exacerbating pre-existing disparities. Males 18–44 years old were also at higher risk of assault hospitalization. Fear of COVID-19 may have led to decreases in unintentional non-MVC hospitalization rates, particularly among older females. Policy makers must anticipate policy-related harms that may disproportionately affect already disadvantaged communities and develop mitigation approaches.

This study investigated the impact of stay-at-home orders on depressive symptoms among community-dwelling older adults during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. A questionnaire was administered to older adults living in Ayase City, Kanagawa Prefecture, in July 2020, after the Japanese government declared its first COVID-19 state of emergency and stay-at-home order. In a sample of 1056 people, 69.1% were stay-at-home, and 30.9% were not. Those in the first group were more likely to be women, young-old, or non-workers. In addition, the patients tended to have more diseases. Of the participants, 39.3% had depressive symptoms and 60.7% did not. Multivariate analysis revealed that depressive symptoms were associated with increased frequency of being alone during the daytime (OR = 1.27; 95% CI = 1.07, 1.51), less face-to-face contact with friends or acquaintances (OR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.65, 0.94), increased contact with friends or acquaintances through email/LINE app (OR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.60), and refraining from going out (OR = 1.54; 95% CI = 1.12, 2.09). These results suggest that quarantine measures related to soft lockdowns may aggravate the mental health of community-dwelling older adults. Therefore, it is necessary to consider macro-level policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to determine the consequences of parents staying at home during the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence of parental violence against children. The researcher used a descriptive-analytical technique in this study, and the sample consisted of 350 children who were abused by their parents. The researcher designed a questionnaire to identify the most common forms of parental violence (physical, sexual, verbal, economic, and psychological) against children as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed that parents staying at home during the COVID-19 pandemic led to a high prevalence of risks of parental violence against children, at 79.84%. Verbal violence ranked first at 21.3%, followed by psychological violence at 21%. Physical violence came in third place at 20.5%, economic violence at 18.7%, and sexual violence at 18.5%. One of the most important recommendations of this study is the necessity to take a set of serious measures, such as strengthening family values between parents and children, in order to strengthen the family unit in times of crisis, in general, and during the COVID-19 crisis, in particular.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic in Egypt triggered national preparedness, public engagement, and an integrated response that included social distancing measures, for example, staying at home. We aimed to investigate community awareness of and commitment to complying with the stay-at-home orders in Damietta Governorate, Egypt, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A web-based cross-sectional survey was designed and completed by 500 adult participants from Damietta, Egypt, between April 10 and July 15, 2020. Participants were asked about their sociodemographics, sources of knowledge about COVID-19, awareness of COVID-19 prevention methods, commitment to stay-at-home orders, and their trust in governmental measures, community resources, and emergency services. The participants were classified as stay-at-home responders or nonresponders. Results Of the participants, 18.4% responded to stay-at-home orders; the main reasons for leaving home were buying essentials, especially food, and going to work. Compliance was significant among elderly individuals and those with a history of chronic illness. Nonresponse was significant among individuals who were married, working, or had low family income. More than one-third (39.2%) had good knowledge of effective methods of COVID-19 prevention, and the overall accepted knowledge was significantly higher among stay-at-home responders than nonresponders. Their trust in governmental measures, community resources, and emergency services to manage the pandemic was poor—84.6%, 71.8%, and 79%, respectively—with no significant differences between the groups. Conclusions Participants’ compliance with and engagement in stay-at-home orders in Damietta Governorate, Egypt, was poor. Public response to stay-at-home orders is affected by sociodemographics, and the public’s trust in governmental measures, community resources, and emergency services was poor. Understanding how social distancing is perceived in Egypt is important to provide public support and improve pandemic disease containment.

This paper explores the relationship between residential confinement to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus, seen as a public policy, and how it affects the informal labor sector, as well as the responseof individuals to the pandemic in the states of Mexico. Forming panels for various levels of informality applied to panel vector auto-regressive (PVAR) shows that staying at home as public policy becomes more effective as informality decreases. In addition, the response of individuals to an increase in the spread of the pande-mic depends on the level of informality: for states with lower rates of informality, individuals respond to a higher concentration of residential confinement. But for states with a higher level of informality, the evidence is not significant. The paper considers the role of informality in the development of an effective public policy.

This study aimed to better understand the factors driving reported trends in domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the effect of the pandemic on survivors' experiences of violence and ability to seek support. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 32 DV service providers operating in organizations across 24 U.S. cities. The majority of providers described a decrease in contact volume when shelter-in-place orders were first established, which they attributed to safety concerns, competing survival priorities, and miscommunication about what resources were available. For most organizations, this decrease was followed by an increase in contacts after the lifting of shelter-in-place orders, often surpassing typical contact counts from the pre-pandemic period. Providers identified survivors' ability to return to some aspects of their pre-pandemic lives, increased stress levels, and increased lethality of cases as key factors driving this increase. In addition, providers described several unique challenges faced by DV survivors during the pandemic, such as the use of the virus as an additional tool for control by abusers and an exacerbated lack of social support. These findings provide insight into the lived experiences driving observed trends in DV rates during COVID-19. Understanding the impact of the pandemic on survivors can help to shape public health and policy interventions to better support this vulnerable population during future crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The CDC recently reported that firearm homicide rates in the United States increased in 2020, particularly among Black/African American individuals and men 25–44 years old. It is unclear whether firearm hospitalizations also increased, and more importantly, what impact the COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-related policies had. Using the North Carolina Trauma Registry, a statewide registry of trauma admissions to eighteen North Carolina hospitals, we calculated weekly GSW hospitalization rates from 1/2019 to 12/2020, overall and stratified by race-ethnicity, age, and sex. Interrupted time-series design and segmented linear regression were used to estimate changes in weekly hospitalization rates over time after (1) U.S. declaration of a public health emergency; (2) statewide Stay-at-Home order; (3) Stay-at-Home order lifted with restrictions (Phase 2: Safer-at-Home); and (4) further lifting of restrictions (Phase 2.5: Safer-at-Home). Non-GSW assault hospitalizations were used as a control to assess whether trends were observed across all assault hospitalizations or if effects were specific to gun violence. Findings: Overall, 47.3% (n = 3223) of assault hospitalizations were GSW. Among GSW hospitalizations, median age was 27 years old (interquartile range [IQR] 21–25), 86.2% were male, and 49.5% occurred after the U.S. declared a public health emergency. After the Stay-at-Home order was implemented, weekly GSW hospitalization rates began increasing substantially among Black/African American residents (weekly trend change = 0.775, 95% CI = 0.254 to 1.296), peaking at an average 15.6 hospitalizations per 1,000,000 residents. Weekly hospitalization rates declined after restrictions were lifted but remained elevated compared to pre-COVID levels in this group (average weekly rate 10.6 per 1,000,000 at the end of 2020 vs. 8.9 per 1,000,000 pre-pandemic). The Stay-at-Home order was also associated with increasing GSW hospitalization rates among males 25–44 years old (weekly trend change = 1.202, 95% CI = 0.631 to 1.773); rates also remained elevated among 25–44-year-old males after restrictions were lifted in 2020 (average weekly rate 10.1 vs. 7.9 per 1,000,000). Non-GSW hospitalization rates were relatively stable in 2020. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic and statewide Stay-at-Home orders appeared to have placed Black/African American residents and men ages 25–44 at higher risk for GSW hospitalizations, exacerbating pre-existing disparities. Persistent gun violence disparities must be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whether the stay-at-home order and face mask mandate are effective in slowing down the COVID-19 virus transmission is up for debate. To investigate this matter, we employ a unique angle. A two-wave logistic equation is proposed and then fitted to the cumulative case counts of all 50 states in the U.S. from the onset to early December of 2020 when vaccinating begins at large scale. The data period is confined to isolate the effects of executive orders from that of vaccination. The length of the first wave's accelerating phase is regressed on variables describing the stay-at-home order and face mask mandate, along with control variables. A state's lockdown duration is discovered to be negatively related to the time it takes for the virus to transit from accelerating to decelerating rates. This finding provides statistical support to the executive orders and can be useful in guiding risk management of future pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To combat the coronavirus pandemic, states implemented several public health policies to reduce infection and transmission. Increasing evidence suggests that these prevention strategies also have had a profound impact on non-COVID healthcare utilization. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of a statewide Stay-at-Home order and other COVID-related policies on trauma hospitalizations, stratified by race/ethnicity, age, and sex. Methods: We used the North Carolina Trauma Registry, a statewide registry of trauma hospitalizations for 18 hospitals across North Carolina, including all North Carolina trauma centers, to calculate weekly rates of assault, self-inflicted, unintentional motor vehicle collision (MVC), and other unintentional injury hospitalizations between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Interrupted time-series design and segmented linear regression were used to estimate changes in hospitalization rates after several COVID-related executive orders, overall and stratified by race/ethnicity, age, and sex. Changes in hospitalization rates were assessed after 1) USA declaration of a public health emergency; 2) North Carolina statewide Stay-at-Home order; 3) Stay-at-Home order lifted with restrictions (Phase 2: Safer-at-Home); and 4) further lifting of restrictions (Phase 2.5: Safer-at-Home). Results: There were 70,478 trauma hospitalizations in North Carolina, 2019–2020. In 2020, median age was 53 years old and 59% were male. Assault hospitalization rates (per 1,000,000 NC residents) increased after the Stay-at-Home order, but substantial increases were only observed among Black/African American residents (weekly trend change = 1.147, 95% CI = 0.634 to 1.662) and 18–44-year-old males (weekly trend change = 1.708, 95% CI = 0.870 to 2.545). After major restrictions were lifted, assault rates decreased but remained elevated compared to pre-COVID levels. Unintentional non-MVC injury hospitalizations decreased after the USA declared a public health emergency, especially among women ≥ 65 years old (weekly trend change = -4.010, 95% CI = -6.166 to -1.855), but returned to pre-pandemic levels within several months. Conclusions: Statewide Stay-at-Home orders placed Black/African American residents at higher risk of assault hospitalizations, exacerbating pre-existing disparities. Males 18–44 years old were also at higher risk of assault hospitalization. Fear of COVID-19 may have led to decreases in unintentional non-MVC hospitalization rates, particularly among older females. Policy makers must anticipate policy-related harms that may disproportionately affect already disadvantaged communities and develop mitigation approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic in Egypt triggered national preparedness, public engagement, and an integrated response that included social distancing measures, for example, staying at home. We aimed to investigate community awareness of and commitment to complying with the stay-at-home orders in Damietta Governorate, Egypt, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A web-based cross-sectional survey was designed and completed by 500 adult participants from Damietta, Egypt, between April 10 and July 15, 2020. Participants were asked about their sociodemographics, sources of knowledge about COVID-19, awareness of COVID-19 prevention methods, commitment to stay-at-home orders, and their trust in governmental measures, community resources, and emergency services. The participants were classified as stay-at-home responders or nonresponders. Results: Of the participants, 18.4% responded to stay-at-home orders; the main reasons for leaving home were buying essentials, especially food, and going to work. Compliance was significant among elderly individuals and those with a history of chronic illness. Nonresponse was significant among individuals who were married, working, or had low family income. More than one-third (39.2%) had good knowledge of effective methods of COVID-19 prevention, and the overall accepted knowledge was significantly higher among stay-at-home responders than nonresponders. Their trust in governmental measures, community resources, and emergency services to manage the pandemic was poor—84.6%, 71.8%, and 79%, respectively—with no significant differences between the groups. Conclusions: Participants' compliance with and engagement in stay-at-home orders in Damietta Governorate, Egypt, was poor. Public response to stay-at-home orders is affected by sociodemographics, and the public's trust in governmental measures, community resources, and emergency services was poor. Understanding how social distancing is perceived in Egypt is important to provide public support and improve pandemic disease containment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Omicron, the current SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, is much more contagious than other previous variants. Whether strict lockdown could effectively curb the transmission of Omicron is largely unknown. In this retrospective study, we compared the strictness of government lockdown policies in Shanghai and other countries. Based on the daily Omicron case number from 1 March 2022 to 30 April 2022, the effective reproductive numbers in this Shanghai Omicron wave were calculated to confirm the impact of strict lockdown on Omicron transmission. Pearson correlation was conducted to illustrate the determining factor of strict lockdown outcomes in the 16 different districts of Shanghai. After a very strict citywide lockdown since April 1st, the average daily effective reproductive number reduced significantly, indicating that strict lockdown could slow down the spreading of Omicron. Omicron control is more challenging in districts with higher population mobility and lockdown is more likely to decrease the number of asymptomatic carriers than the symptomatic cases. All these findings indicate that the strict lockdown could curb the transmission of Omicron effectively, especially for the asymptomatic spread, and suggest that differentiated COVID-19 prevention and control measures should be adopted according to the population density and demographic composition of each community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The state of emergency (SOE) period in Tokyo under the COVID-19 pandemic restricted people to staying in their homes and changed human mobility, which has impacted the major agricultural markets in Tokyo. In this research, we analyzed how the changes in people's staying-at-home behaviors during the four SOE periods (7 April 2020–28 October 2021) in Tokyo affected the daily market prices of cabbage, tomato, Japanese radish, carrot, and potato. Using the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model, the study reveals that all the investigated vegetables except potatoes have a long-term relationship with the staying-at-home index. The long-term influence of staying-at-home behaviors on cabbage, tomato, radish, and carrot markets during the early SOE periods had a negative impact on these vegetable prices, indicating that an increase in the hours of staying-at-home as related to SOE measures might have decreased the demand for these vegetables. The negative impact of the stay-at-home index on vegetable prices lessened in the fourth SOE period, likely because more people did not remain in their homes. Moreover, the study findings reveal that, compared to less perishable vegetables, the price of perishable vegetables is more likely to have been affected by human mobility constraints during the pandemic. Therefore, agricultural policymakers should consider providing subsidies to producers based on the negative influence on market prices of perishable and less perishable vegetables in pandemic situations, such as COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many states imposed stay-at-home (SAH) and mandatory face mask (MFM) orders to supplement the United States CDC recommendations. The purpose of this study was to characterize the relationship between SAH and MFM approaches with the incidence and fatality of COVID-19 during the pandemic period until 23 August 2020 (about 171 days), the period with no vaccines or specific drugs that had passed the phase III clinical trials yet. States with SAH orders showed a potential 50–60% decrease in infection and fatality during the SAH period (about 45 days). After normalization to population density, there was a 44% significant increase in the fatality rate in no-SAH + no-MFM states when compared to SAH + MFM. However, many results in this study were inconsistent with the intent of public health strategies of SAH and MFM. There were similar incidence rates (1.41, 1.81, and 1.36%) and significant differences in fatality rates (3.40, 2.12, and 1.25%; p < 0.05) and mortality rates (51.43, 34.50, and 17.42 per 100,000 residents; p < 0.05) among SAH + MFM, SAH + no-MFM, and no-SAH + no-MFM states, respectively. There were no significant differences in total positive cases, average daily new cases, and average daily fatality when normalized with population density among the three groups. This study suggested potential decreases in infection and fatality with short-term SAH order. However, SAH and MFM orders from some states' policies probably had limited effects in lowering transmission and fatality among the general population. At the policy-making level, if contagious patients would not likely be placed in strict isolation and massive contact tracing would not be effective to implement, we presume that following the CDC's recommendations with close monitoring of healthcare capacity could be appropriate in helping mitigate the COVID-19 disaster while limiting collateral socioeconomic damages.

Digital surveys, such as mobile phone ecological momentary assessment (EMA), bear the potential to assess and target individual wellbeing in a personalized, real-time approach and allow for interaction in situations when in-person contact is not possible, such as during the coronavirus pandemic. While the use of digital technology might especially benefit research in older adults who find themselves in circumstances of reduced mobility, little is known about their barriers to adherence. We investigated baseline and structural factors that predict study withdrawal and adherence from daily smartphone EMA self-report surveys in the StayWELL Study. The StayWELL study is a longitudinal, observational study on the relationship between social restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic and mental well-being in 95 community-dwelling older aged adults (67–87 years) who were participants in a randomized clinical trial using EMA. Withdrawal was associated with less research staff changes and less likely in participants that reached the study mid-point. No baseline characteristics predicted withdrawal. Main reasons for withdrawal were communication issues, i.e. staff not being able to contact participants. We found an adherence rate of 82% and no fatigue effects. Adherence was predicted by education status, study participation duration, reaching the study midpoint and time between study start and enrollment. COVID infections or supporting people in the household was not related to adherence. To conclude, it is feasible to conduct an EMA study in older people without impacting engagement during a pandemic. Furthermore, personal characteristics and smartphone operating system (Android vs. iOS) used did not relate to engagement, allowing for a broad distribution of digital health technologies. Our study adds information on single predictive variables relevant for adherence and withdrawal from EMA smartphone surveys in older people that can inform the design of future digital EMA research to maximize engagement and reliability of study results.

This study explores how changes in hours spent at home during the COVID-19 pandemic (February 2020–February 2022) affected the volume of municipal waste generated by households. Applying autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) to a time series model created to measure the volume of combustible waste, recyclable plastic, plastic bottles, glasses and cans, and used paper, this study finds that an increase in the number of hours spent at home elevated the amount of combustible waste, recyclable plastic bottles, and glass bottles and cans generated. The increase in the volume of waste during the pandemic tended to be related to increased demand for delivery and take-out containers, and the increase in combustible waste was likely caused by a surge in the use of unrecyclable plastic containers. Thus, the results of the study suggest the importance of enhancing the use of recyclable containers and the need for support to develop ways to spread the use of such containers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced restrictions on social activities in some areas. There has also been a decrease in the number of trauma patients in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a traumatic disorder that often develops following head injury. We therefore investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CSDH. In this retrospective single-center descriptive study from April 2018 through September 2021, there were 5,282 head trauma patients and 196 patients with CSDH in the pre-pandemic group compared to 4,459 head trauma patients and 140 patients with CSDH in the intra-pandemic group. Significant decreases in the incidence rate (IR) of head trauma (951/100,000 vs. 795/100,000 person-years; IR ratio (IRR): 0.836, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.803–0.870, p < 0.001) and also in the IR of CSDH (35.0/100,000 vs. 24.8/100,000 person-years, IRR: 0.708, 95% CI: 0.570–0.879, p = 0.002) were seen in the intra-pandemic group compared to the pre-pandemic group. In this study, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with significant decreases in the IRs of head trauma and CSDH due to forced restrictions on social activities. Besides, the IR of mild cases of CSDH was significantly lower in the intra-pandemic group than in the pre-pandemic group (IRR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51–0.89, p = 0.006). Fewer people being out in communities should result in fewer chances for head trauma and CSDH. On the other hand, forced restrictions on social activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic should aggravate CSDH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced restrictions on social activities in some areas. There has also been a decrease in the number of trauma patients in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a traumatic disorder that often develops following head injury. We therefore investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CSDH. In this retrospective single-center descriptive study from April 2018 through September 2021, there were 5,282 head trauma patients and 196 patients with CSDH in the pre-pandemic group compared to 4,459 head trauma patients and 140 patients with CSDH in the intra-pandemic group. Significant decreases in the incidence rate (IR) of head trauma (951/100,000 vs. 795/100,000 person-years; IR ratio (IRR): 0.836, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.803–0.870, p < 0.001) and also in the IR of CSDH (35.0/100,000 vs. 24.8/100,000 person-years, IRR: 0.708, 95% CI: 0.570–0.879, p = 0.002) were seen in the intra-pandemic group compared to the pre-pandemic group. In this study, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with significant decreases in the IRs of head trauma and CSDH due to forced restrictions on social activities. Besides, the IR of mild cases of CSDH was significantly lower in the intra-pandemic group than in the pre-pandemic group (IRR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51–0.89, p = 0.006). Fewer people being out in communities should result in fewer chances for head trauma and CSDH. On the other hand, forced restrictions on social activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic should aggravate CSDH.

COVID-19 has created a general state of worry and distress, especially among vulnerable groups such as those with psychiatric diagnoses. Worldwide, psychiatric care provision has drastically suffered during the pandemic, with many patients unable to access proper care, which may have implications for increased mental health consequences in patients with psychiatric disorders (e.g., relapse and suicide). This cross-sectional study used structural equation modeling to investigate COVID-19-related trauma and distress among Arab psychiatric population during COVID-19 quarantine. Patients with pre-existing psychiatric disorders (N = 168) completed an online survey that comprised the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21), the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and a questionnaire on COVID-19-related attitudes/perceptions, sources of information, used protective measures, and socio-demographic information. Respondents commonly reported feeling down-hearted/blue, trouble concentrating, along with symptoms of avoidance and rumination related to the pandemic. Patients with depression and sleep disorders expressed higher COVID-19-related trauma than patients with other disorders. Perceived physical health mediated the effect of co-morbid chronic physical disorders on COVID-19 trauma, psychological distress, perceived vulnerability to COVID-19, and perceived likelihood of recovery in case of contracting COVID-19. Perceived physical health and perceived vulnerability to COVID-19 were strong direct predictors of COVID-19-related trauma and psychological distress. Staying at home negatively predicted COVID-19 trauma and exerted an indirect negative effect on psychological distress via COVID-19 trauma. COVID-19 trauma, age, and marital status directly predicted psychological distress, with COVID-19 trauma being the strongest predictor. Educational level, income, having family members working in the medical field, keeping up to date with the news on deaths/infected cases or the development of COVID-19 drugs or vaccines, satisfaction with available information on COVID-19, and using different protective measures were not associated with significant differences in COVID-19 trauma and psychological distress scores. Immuno-psychiatric interventions should be designed to target COVID-19-trauma and distress among younger single patients with perceived poor physical health, especially those diagnosed with depression and sleep disorders.

We visualize the rates of stay-home for residents by region using the difference between day-time and night-time populations to detect residential areas, and then observing the numbers of people leaving residential areas. There are issues with measuring stay-home rates by observing numbers of people visiting downtown areas, such as central urban shopping centers and major train stations. The first is that we cannot eliminate the possibility that people will avoid areas being observed and go to other areas. The second is that for people visiting downtown areas, we cannot know where they reside. These issues can be resolved if we quantify the degree of stay-home using the number of people leaving residential areas. There are significant differences in stay-home levels by region throughout Japan. By this visualization, residents of each region can see whether their level of stay-home is adequate or not, and this can provide incentive toward compliance suited to the residents of the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has induced large-scale behavioral changes, presenting a unique opportunity to study how air pollution is affected by societal shifts. At 455 PM2.5 monitoring sites across the United States, we conduct a causal inference analysis to determine the impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns on PM2.5. Our approach allows for rigorous confounding adjustment with highly spatio-temporally resolved effect estimates. We find that, with the exception of the Southwest, most of the US experienced increases in PM2.5 compared to concentrations expected under business-as-usual. To investigate possible drivers of this phenomenon, we use a regression model to characterize the relationship of various factors with the observed impacts. Our findings have immense environmental policy relevance, suggesting that mobility reductions alone may be insufficient to substantially and uniformly reduce PM2.5.

We examine how first-person plural and second-person singular pronouns used in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) communications impact people's likelihood to follow stay-at-home recommendations. A 2 (first-person plural ["we"] vs. second-person singular ["you"]) by continuous trait self-control between-subjects experiment (N = 223) was used to examine individuals' adherence to stay-at-home recommendations. Results suggest that "you"-based appeals may be more broadly effective in garnering stay-at-home adherence, whereas low self-control individuals are less responsive to "we" appeals. Implications for research and practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID‐19 confinement has dramatically altered daily routines, causing decreased sleep quality in adults. This necessitates careful observation, as sleep plays a crucial role in brain maturation and poor sleep increases the risk of psychopathology, particularly in the young population. Through an online survey with one baseline (April 2020) and two follow‐up assessments (May and June 2020), we examined the effect of confinement on sleep quality in 452 babies (0–35 months) and 412 preschool children (36–71 months) from several, mainly European, countries. An acute decrease in sleep quality was found in both groups of children. However, at follow‐up assessments, this effect rebounded to the level reported for the period before the confinement. Importantly, caregiver's stress level was identified as a substantial risk factor determining lower sleep quality in both groups of children across assessments. Protective factors conserving children's sleep quality included caregiver's engagement in mindfulness techniques or childcare, and the presence of siblings and pets. In the near future, we may repeatedly experience the circumstances of abruptly enforced confinement. Our findings reveal promising pathways of action to protect young children's sleep, with which to essentially mitigate the long‐term consequences of the pandemic on brain development and mental health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Particulate matter (PM) is recognized as the most harmful air pollutant to the human health. The Yangon city indeed suffers much from PM-related air pollution. Recent research has interestingly been focused on the novel subject of changes in the air quality associated with the restrictive measures in place during the current coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The first case of COVID-19 in Myanmar was diagnosed on March 23, 2020. In this article, we report on our attempt to evaluate any effects of the COVID-19-restrictive measures on the ambient PM pollution in Yangon. Methods: We measured the PM concentrations every second for 1 week on four occasions at three study sites with different characteristics; the first occasion was before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and the remaining three occasions were while the COVID-19-restrictive measures were in place, including Stay-At-Home and Work-From-Home orders. The Pocket PM2.5 Sensor [PRO] designed by the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Japan, in cooperation with Yaguchi Electric Co., Ltd., (Miyagi, Japan) was used for the measurement of the ambient PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations. Results: The results showed that there was a significant reduction (P < 0.001) in both the PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations while the COVID-19-restrictive measures were in place as compared to the measured values prior to the pandemic. The city experienced a profound improvement in the PM-related air quality from the "unhealthy" category prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to the "good" category during the pandemic, when the restrictive measures were in place. The percent changes in the PM concentrations varied among the three study sites, with the highest percent reduction noted in a semi-commercial crowded area (84.8% for PM2.5; 88.6% for PM10) and the lowest percent reduction noted in a residential quiet area (15.6% for PM2.5; 12.0% for PM10); the percent reductions also varied among the different occasions during the COVID-19 pandemic that the measurements were made. Conclusions: We concluded that the restrictive measures which were in effect to combat the COVID-19 pandemic had a positive impact on the ambient PM concentrations. The changes in the PM concentrations are considered to be largely attributable to reduction in anthropogenic emissions as a result of the restrictive measures, although seasonal influences could also have contributed in part. Thus, frequent, once- or twice-weekly Stay-At-Home or Telework campaigns, may be feasible measures to reduce PM-related air pollution. When devising such an action plan, it would be essential to raise the awareness of public about the health risks associated with air pollution and create a social environment in which Telework can be carried out, in order to ensure active compliance by the citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 related stay-at-home (SAH) orders created many economic and social stressors, possibly increasing the risk of drug/alcohol abuse in the community and trauma population. Objectives: Describe changes in alcohol/drug use in traumatically injured patients after SAH orders in California and evaluate demographic or injury pattern changes in alcohol or drug-positive patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 11 trauma centers in Southern California (1/1/2020-6/30/2020) was performed. Blood alcohol concentration, urine toxicology results, demographics, and injury characteristics were collected. Patients were grouped based on injury date – before SAH (PRE-SAH), immediately after SAH (POST-SAH), and a historical comparison (3/19/2019-6/30/2019) (CONTROL) – and compared in separate analyses. Groups were compared using chi-square tests for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables. Results: 20,448 trauma patients (13,634 male, 6,814 female) were identified across three time-periods. The POST-SAH group had higher rates of any drug (26.2% vs. 21.6% and 24.7%, OR = 1.26 and 1.08, p <.001 and p =.035), amphetamine (10.4% vs. 7.5% and 9.3%, OR = 1.43 and 1.14, p <.001 and p =.023), tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (13.8% vs. 11.0% and 11.4%, OR = 1.30 and 1.25, p <.001 and p <.001), and 3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine (MDMA) (0.8% vs. 0.4% and 0.2%, OR = 2.02 and 4.97, p =.003 and p <.001) positivity compared to PRE-SAH and CONTROL groups. Alcohol concentration and positivity were similar between groups (p >.05). Conclusion: This Southern California multicenter study demonstrated increased amphetamine, MDMA, and THC positivity in trauma patients after SAH, but no difference in alcohol positivity or blood concentration. Drug prevention strategies should continue to be adapted within and outside of hospitals during a pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Omicron, the current SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, is much more contagious than other previous variants. Whether strict lockdown could effectively curb the transmission of Omicron is largely unknown. In this retrospective study, we compared the strictness of government lockdown policies in Shanghai and other countries. Based on the daily Omicron case number from 1 March 2022 to 30 April 2022, the effective reproductive numbers in this Shanghai Omicron wave were calculated to confirm the impact of strict lockdown on Omicron transmission. Pearson correlation was conducted to illustrate the determining factor of strict lockdown outcomes in the 16 different districts of Shanghai. After a very strict citywide lockdown since April 1st, the average daily effective reproductive number reduced significantly, indicating that strict lockdown could slow down the spreading of Omicron. Omicron control is more challenging in districts with higher population mobility and lockdown is more likely to decrease the number of asymptomatic carriers than the symptomatic cases. All these findings indicate that the strict lockdown could curb the transmission of Omicron effectively, especially for the asymptomatic spread, and suggest that differentiated COVID-19 prevention and control measures should be adopted according to the population density and demographic composition of each community.

This study sought to determine the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 stay-at-home (SAH) and reopening orders on trends and types of firearm violence in California, Ohio, and the United States, hypothesizing increased firearm violence after SAH. Retrospective data (January 1, 2018, to July 31, 2020) on firearm incidents/injuries/deaths and types of firearm violence were obtained from the Gun Violence Archive. The periods for SAH and reopening for the US were based on dates for California. Ohio dates were based on Ohio's timeline. Mann–Whitney U analyses compared trends and types of daily firearm violence per 100,000 legal firearm owners across 2018-2020 periods. In California, SAH and reopening orders had no effect on firearm violence in 2020 compared with 2018 and 2019 periods, respectively. In Ohio, daily median firearm deaths increased during 2020 SAH compared with 2018 and 2019 and firearm incidents and injuries increased during 2020 reopening compared with 2018, 2019 and 2020 SAH. In the United States, during 2020, SAH firearm deaths increased compared with historical controls and firearm incidents, deaths and injuries increased during 2020 reopening compared with 2018, 2019 and 2020 SAH (all P < 0.05). Nationally, when compared with 2018 and 2019, 2020 SAH had increased accidental shootings deaths with a decrease in defensive use, home invasion, and drug-involved incidents. During 2020 SAH, the rates of firearm violence increased in Ohio and the United States but remained unchanged in California. Nationally, firearm incidents, deaths and injuries also increased during 2020 reopening versus historical and 2020 SAH data. This suggests a secondary "pandemic" as well as a "reopening phenomenon," with increased firearm violence not resulting from self-defense. • Defensive forms of firearm violence decreased in the US during SAH. • Ohio had increased firearm deaths during SAH, whereas California did not. • Nationally there was increased firearm violence during the reopening, suggesting a "reopening phenomenon". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims/Introduction: Amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the Japanese government declared a state of emergency and urged people to stay at home to prevent disease transmission. Herein, we investigated this emergency situation's effect on diabetes patients' lifestyle and glycemic control Materials and methods: Diabetes patients who visited our hospital between April 1 and June 13, 2020, for a regular consultation were asked about changes in their physical activities and dietary habits during the state of emergency period. Results: Among 168 patients, 26 (15.5%) gained > 2 kg; HbA1c levels were elevated or decreased by > 0.2% compared to that at the last visit in 57 and 51 patients (Groups D and I), respectively. Group D patients were affected to a larger extent by changes in commuting (transition to teleworking) and closures of sport gyms than Group I patients. Increased snacks, sweets, total diet, and alcohol intake could have contributed to worsening of glucose control in Group D, whereas a healthy diet and less alcohol intake could have led to better glucose control in Group I. Conclusion: During the state of emergency period, decreased physical activity levels negatively affected glycemic control. However, despite changes in physical activity level, maintaining or improving dietary habits could lead to better glycemic control in diabetes patients. During this COVID-19 pandemic, more diabetes patients are likely to shift to teleworking and stay home for longer periods. Therefore, we should develop effective and feasible measures to promote exercise and dietary therapy, especially for those who engage in teleworking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Although anecdotal evidence indicates the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) social-distancing policies, their effectiveness in relation to what is driven by public awareness and voluntary actions needs to be determined. We evaluated the effectiveness of the 6 most common social-distancing policies in the United States (statewide stay-at-home orders, limited stay-at-home orders, nonessential business closures, bans on large gatherings, school closure mandates, and limits on restaurants and bars) during the early stage of the pandemic. Methods: We applied difference-in-differences and event-study methodologies to evaluate the effect of the 6 social-distancing policies on Google-released aggregated, anonymized daily location data on movement trends over time by state for all 50 states and the District of Columbia in 6 location categories: retail and recreation, grocery stores and pharmacies, parks, transit stations, workplaces, and residences. We compared the outcome of interest in states that adopted COVID-19–related policies with states that did not adopt such policies, before and after these policies took effect during February 15–April 25, 2020. Results: Statewide stay-at-home orders had the strongest effect on reducing out-of-home mobility and increased the time people spent at home by an estimated 2.5 percentage points (15.2%) from before to after policies took effect. Limits on restaurants and bars ranked second and resulted in an increase in presence at home by an estimated 1.4 percentage points (8.5%). The other 4 policies did not significantly reduce mobility. Conclusion: Statewide stay-at-home orders and limits on bars and restaurants were most closely linked to reduced mobility in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the potential benefits of other such policies may have already been reaped from voluntary social distancing. Further research is needed to understand how the effect of social-distancing policies changes as voluntary social distancing wanes during later stages of a pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was effective all over the world. The stay-athome period was proposed to protect against the pandemic. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic stay-at-home period on body structures and functions, activity and participation levels, and environmental factors of children with cerebral palsy (CP) from the parental perspective in Turkey. Methods. A twenty-question survey, using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth set to understand the functional changes of children with CP during the stay-athome period, was sent to parents in this prospective study. Motor function levels of children were determined by the Gross Motor Function Classification System parent report. The structural equation model was used for statistical analysis. Results. One hundred and three parents of children with CP participated. At least one of four children with CP had increased levels of anxiety (41.8%), and increased level of a sensation of pain (34%) and sleep problems (25.2%). More than half of the children had increased tonus (67%), decreased range of motion (60.2%), decreased physical activity level (55.3%), and decreased support level of rehabilitation services (82.6%). During the stay-at-home period activity and participation levels and environmental factors of children explained the changes of body functions as 70% and 33% (RMSEA=0.077, p<0.05). Conclusions. This study is the first study to examine the functional health of children with CP biopsychosocially during the COVID-19 stay-at-home period. According to the parents, the functional health of children with CP was affected at different levels during the COVID-19 pandemic. Body functions may also be affected positively if physical activity level, home program and environmental supports increase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A. Introduction COVID-19 represents a crisis at the intersection of personal conviction and public policy. The pandemic challenges the essence of what it means to be a member of a society that highly values civil liberties, and is governed by traditions and social norms, as well as rules and regulations. When government acts decisively using the least restrictive methods to manage the crisis, it is essential that people act ethically and follow recommendations to avoid inviting government to abuse emergency powers. The people and policy makers both must strive for the common good. The power to enact stay-at-home orders,[1] which 42 states have issued, while technically justified by the mere fact that an emergency has arisen, must be backed up with reason and an appeal to morality. In accountable societies, an explicit ethical justification (usually necessity) for each emergency provision is necessary. Understanding the justification for uniform action as resting on a myriad of reasons reflecting diverse points of view should provide a basis for creating a better framework for the next national emergency. B. Public and private morality: Does COVID-19 response belong exclusively to either? The sphere of private morality should compel behavior for the good of others. Yet people have vastly different views on what is good for others. To many, it is as reasonable to feel obligated to remain working in order to earn money and support a household as to stay at home to reduce the spread of disease at the risk of being unable to support a household. People both unreasonable (even in denial about the scope of the pandemic) as well as reasonable may have a valid reason not to stay at home. Liberal democracy supports variance in the view of what is reasonable. Emergencies cannot allow everyone who holds a reasonable opinion on how to proceed to proceed as they wish. Management of COVID-19 policy is properly in the public sphere where government must impose on the reasonable in society to be reasonable the same way and on the unreasonable to follow suit against their will. Private morality can overlap with government policy: many people who understand the gravity of COVID-19 will follow the orders as they would if the orders were mere recommendations, and the recommendations as if they were orders. A private morality failure can occur when people do not want to sacrifice for the good of others. To achieve either the utilitarian goal of maximizing happiness or to take a humanistic approach maximizing social good while minimizing suffering, the people must follow the orders as long as the orders are reasonable.[2] Arguably, capitalist society relies on incentives, even greed, and people are not easily moved to make personal and financial sacrifices. If stay-at-home recommendations remained a private morality issue, COVID-19 would thrive due to differing points of view. Norms and social pressure were not enough to achieve social distancing where the government has not insisted on it. For example, in Florida, beaches, bars, and restaurants remained crowded until this week while in New York, orders that became stricter progressively did change behavior using the law. Those with preexisting conditions should stay at home for their own protection aligning their actions with best practices regardless of the motive, creating an opportunity for overlapping consensus. The safety of healthcare workers is another moral impetus for individual’s precautionary actions. A shortage of personal protective equipment is well established. Staying at home benefits healthcare workers just like using good judgment in recreational activities saves rescue workers. Fewer severe cases of COVID-19 would be safer for healthcare workers. Some people who do not want to stay home for other reasons might be compelled to out of respect for healthcare workers. Private morality is intertwined with public morality. In California, the general population may have been more supportive of the measures than people in other states would be. Some governors did not fear that most of their constituents would not understand the need for action. While skeptics exist even in New York and California, and many do find the stay-at-home order too restrictive, the overall acceptance is shored up by a prevailing view that the order is aligned with the correct solution. Private morality eases the need for punishment in enforcement. In Reshaping the Common Good in Times of Health Emergencies, George Smith argues an educated electorate will understand the need for intrusive public health measures in emergencies.[3] Arguably, even an undereducated electorate is certainly capable of understanding the necessity of staying home and limiting social contact. The scope of government action can be condensed by a broader willingness of the people to participate in the actions set forth in stay-at-home orders and recommendations. Public morality also varies: Governors have overseen COVID-19 statewide actions differently. Some states took decisive action early while others have kept businesses open and made no statements about social distancing, staying home, or even encouraging recommended behaviors set forth by WHO and the CDC. California moved quickly to establish a stay-at-home order while some states’ governors have still failed to act. (National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Association of Counties have maps showing state and county orders.[4]) Florida’s new stay-at-home order does not prohibit religious groups from worship services, a known risk. Some states have been steadfast in their inaction for various reasons: their skepticism of action is fueled by misinformation about the severity of the pandemic; and, their governors and local officials fear the political cost of temporarily shutting down non-essential businesses, forcing non-essential workers to stay home, and limiting personal freedom. Their approaches are outside the scope of scientific reasoning and must be overridden. There is debate about the best course of action but the do-nothing approach is not within reason. Governors of the eight states without an order, Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming reflect the prevailing views of their states’ residents. Governor Noem of South Dakota argues people are responsible for their safety, absolving government of the public health responsibility. Most of the other governors assert that changing personal behavior through recommendations is more important than executing an order.[5] If the people in those states were more willing to change their own behavior, more invested in making moral decisions within the scope of scientific reason for the common good, the governors would be proven right: urging behavior would be enough. However, the prevailing mindset in those states might be that because the government is not making a strict order, COVID-19 does not pose a major public health threat. The lack of orders also reflects a phenomenon: the public and the state governments do not really believe the science. If they did, reducing deaths through public policy would probably trump notions of freedom. The public policy makers are reflecting social norms that do not define the common good in an emergency appropriately and that ignore that government is the entity that should act for safety and the general welfare. A libertarian or small government tradition should not be an excuse for the unrealistic expectation that all people will converge to protect public health. Idaho has a more severe local problem: a lapse in both public and private morality based specifically on the constitution and legal arguments regardless of the science. The governor, Brad Little, issued a stay-at-home order on March 25.[6] Northern Idaho has representatives in its state legislature condoning and encouraging boycotting the order and drumming up enthusiasm for the idea that the constitution guarantees an unconditional right to assemble.[7] Ammon Bundy, known for taking over a federal wildlife reserve in Oregon on similar anti-government grounds, spearheaded a movement to ignore the stay-at-home order encouraging people to attend meetings and even a 1,000 person church service on Easter. He aims to create a civilian militia to “physically stand in defense.”[8] While other states also have civil liberties extremists operating in a sphere well to the right of libertarians, the documented reasons to ignore a stay-at-home order or not issue them at all tend to have some link to advisors giving unscientific recommendations and people failing to believe the developing science supporting the high risk. The Bundy formula violates the US body of constitutional law that fully supports the exercise of emergency powers as well as the many noted exceptions to first amendment rights. The northern Idaho community’s view is indifferent to the high risk of deaths from COVID-19 and values civil liberties decisively. In a polarized political climate, it is easy to argue that the differences between states’ reactions are political. In 2016, Trump won the eight states that are now without stay-at-home orders with a wide margin. However, just weeks ago, many New Yorkers were uncertain of what would be necessary to slow the spread of COVID-19. The virus had reached a nursing home in Washington state. New York may have taken action sooner if the physical distance and the targeted age group of the first cluster of the virus were different. It did not hit close to home. Although schools and government officials did take action, many felt they overreacted at first. Now, information from WHO, other countries including Italy and South Korea, and states that have addressed COVID-19 can educate others about which policies are most likely to succeed. There are states and counties where the actions that are reasonable may vary but at this point it looks like even rural states are experiencing cases of COVID-19 which would spread through schools, social interactions, and businesses if not contained. Emergencies that do not recognize state borders call for consensus in the action of government. Weather events, wildfires, mass shootings, and even terrorism are manageable because resources can be moved from state to state. The Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA can be instrumental in overseeing logistics of resource movement. Presidential power is at its greatest in times of an emergency[9] yet the current president, after failing to act in a timely manner, has deferred to states to manage the virus. The balance of power is three-pronged: individuals, states, and the federal government vie for power yet the federal government is not promoting compelling public health orders. Without federal action, governors should agree on the best course of action for COVID-19. Without consensus, the states that fail to take action will undermine the measures taken in other states. The states failing to act may face worse economic conditions in the long run as COVID-19 spreads. Keeping businesses thriving longer now will come with a human cost soon. If states will not act, the president should act and his actions must be within “reason.”[10] In Germany, Angela Merkel’s actions were decisive despite a fear of powerful governments stemming from her own communist East German upbringing. Yet her “appeal to reason” and her attributing “absolute necessity” as a justification were well received.[11] There are many government rationales for taking swift action that can be invoked to spark action by governors failing to act so far. David Fidler sees multiple rationales for government power in the public health sphere: health, international relations, national security, macroeconomics, and international trade, among others. He introduced two paradigms. The first, the “power paradigm” asserts governments have multiple completely different motives for power. The CIA, the World Trade Organization, and humanitarian organizations might all promote public health for international relations for different reasons. The second, “the paradise paradigm” sees public health policy as humanitarian, viewing “power in terms of health” rather than “health in terms of power,” and is more likely to recognize health as a human right. Fidler finds it difficult to reach consensus. An “axis of illness” that recognizes combined causes for the spread of dangerous pathogens calls for some cohesive policies regardless of the many motives behind them. His axis calls attention to factors ranging from microbial resilience to social determinants of health.[12] Overlapping consensus among governors should help: if a governor does not care about the people’s health, the governor might care about any one of the economic catastrophe, the effect of the virus on trade, savings accounts, the strain on the healthcare system, and jobs. The government has the ability to regulate businesses and places as well as people’s actions. Heavier regulation of businesses can alleviate the need to heavily regulate individuals. Closing places of employment, beaches, and public parks, and regulating how restaurants may serve people (takeout and delivery only), and changing the maximum number of people allowable in grocery stores (something fire codes already govern for many spaces) would encourage social distancing and staying home: having nowhere to go helps. The eight states resisting the best policy (stay-at-home orders) need to expand their limited policies and invoke regulatory powers more. C. Clear Goals and Absolute Necessity: What is the common good and how do we achieve it? The goals of the stay-at-home orders should be reducing deaths. Doctors and officials say to stay home to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and invoke the term “flatten the curve” referring to an effort to decrease the number of new diagnoses which would help hospitals handle patients slowing the number of cases with immediate needs. People may be less accepting of sacrifices for the public good when the public good is for the collective benefit rather than for the benefit of known individuals. Public schools benefit individuals and thus society as a whole while many environmental laws exist for the collective good but often do not benefit distinct predictable individuals.[13] Similarly, social security has buy-in from the public because known predictable individuals benefit from it while healthcare reform has been fraught with controversy over how much some should subsidize the healthcare of others. COVID-19 stay-at-home orders fall in murky space between collective benefit (an interest in saving lives) and an unpredictable individual benefit. While high risk categories have been identified, it is impossible to predict who will contract the virus and what outcome they will have. Utilitarianism in determining the goal in an emergency might not be the best framework to decide how the burden is shared. If maximizing happiness maximizes utility, and there is an assumption that the maximum happiness is happiness for the most people, then other important values could be inadvertently set aside. Strict utilitarianism could lead to every single person staying home regardless of personal risks, fairness, or justice. Wiggle room is needed even in an emergency. A goal of minimizing harm could focus differently on those at the most risk.[14] The same action (staying home) would extend to the general public by appealing to people’s moral and ethical reasons for also wanting to protect the vulnerable and reduce suffering. John Locke expressed concern for executive overreach in emergencies partly because it could set a precedent that is abused later making it difficult for “people…[to] recover their original right.”[15] If the goal is not only maximizing happiness, and reducing suffering, but also doing so as fairly and with as little intrusion into rights as possible, the goal might better represent the intersection of private and public morality. Buy-in is key to attaining success without relying on unlimited emergency powers, especially police power. Stay-at-home orders have huge benefits to unknown individuals and a distinct collective benefit in society’s goal of preventing death. To justify the inconvenience, the loss of income, the sacrifice of freedom, an effort to convey the benefits should be more extensive. The public in some states clearly understands the risks and wants to do the recommended actions. Where there is not buy-in, justification must be delineated more clearly. Instead of dismissing each person weighing a right to work, to travel, and to socialize, a larger more important public health goal must be clear. Other people should not have to die for any one person’s right to work, to travel, or, especially, to socialize in person. Necessity is the appropriate excuse: there is no known solution that would impinge on freedom less so staying at home is an acceptable requirement. The life and death aspect should be exploited in a responsible way: governments must justify stay-at-home orders as necessary to reduce death. D. Efficacy and the Least restrictive means In China, a single party decides everything and has no nationally expressed legal obligation to consider individual rights when it makes policies. In the US, elected officials are expected to act within the bounds of the constitution and in accordance with public morality but presidential power does extend to the temporary suspension of normally recognized rights for the sake of public health.[16] The public should understand the rationales for strong action to decrease the human cost of the COVID-19. There is also a human cost to closing schools and businesses. The appropriate policy must see public morality as able to address many types of human cost weighing the benefits and harms. Exceptions (even some unforeseen) to stay-at-home orders will be necessary. For example, domestic abuse victims must be permitted to join other households if they can. Stay-at-home orders do include exceptions for leaving the household to purchase food or medicines, for medical care, and to go outside for walks and exercise in public spaces as long as social distancing rules are followed. The exceptions recognize that orders that outstep the bounds of liberal society must be narrow and reasonable. People should only be asked to sacrifice what might be their entire savings as well as their freedom to move about if stay-at-home orders actually prevent transmission of COVID-19. To argue stay-at-home orders are a necessity for the common good, leaders should demonstrate a “substantial relationship to the public health, the public morals, or the public safety.”[17] [18]Most stay-at-home orders allow people to be outdoors. Evidence of the efficacy of the US style restrictions is developing. Earlier action is best: South Korea[19] followed a social distancing regimen without closing down schools and businesses to the extent of Italy which fared worse. Italy and France have already fined people and some countries also threaten prison time for those violating quarantines. France has added police who are tasked with issuing fines if people leave their apartments without proper paperwork attesting to an allowable reason. The shift in power must be controlled. COVID-19 must not be an excuse for increasing centralized power that could be abused. The least restrictive means should not need to include imprisonment for violating quarantines. Many local mayors have made efforts not to detain people for minor offenses in order to decrease prison populations and prevent transmissions of COVID-19 in prisons. Populations in Europe so far seem amenable to sacrificing rights for the COVID-19 emergency orders: they want to save lives so they are willing to be subject (or to have others be subject to) to fines and imprisonment. In the US, we should take measures to protect democracy. Opposition to fines and imprisonment should remain strong. Instead, stay-at-home orders should be free of punitive measures that fall into criminal rather than civil actions. “Public health police powers are an expression of the civil, not criminal, authority of the state.”[20] For those in public and not social distancing very low fines should prevail or possibly future community service, not New York City’s proposed $1,000 fines. Incentives to follow the orders should be strong enough to ensure new crimes are not written in criminal codes where they can be rehashed in lesser emergencies. Neighborhood watch programs should manage the stay-at-home orders ensuring that private morality is a driving force partnered with government orders that reflect the best public health recommendations. E. Power Grabs with weak or no relationship to COVID-19 prevention In New York, hospitals tried to forbid pregnant women from being accompanied by a partner or spouse while giving birth but New York’s governor overrode the measure. Texas is forbidding abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic unless they are to save the life or health of the mother. Most abortions in Texas are medical rather than surgical and the performance of medical abortions are not as complex and would not free up hospital beds or healthcare workers. A narrower restriction could be reasonable but even Ohio’s restriction on surgical abortions is unnecessarily restrictive. “The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology recently issued a statement saying that abortion should not fall into the category of procedures that can be delayed during the coronavirus outbreak, calling it “an essential component of comprehensive health care.””[21] Ending the two visit requirement imposed for abortions would help decrease transmissions if the Texas governor’s motive were to decrease transmission of the virus. The Justice department asked congress for the power to detain people without a trial in a move contrary to many localities trying to halt arrests in an effort to decrease the prison population.[22] [23] The Trump administration has also tried to violate habeas corpus rights by pausing judicial proceedings, yet the same result (closing courts that do arraignments) could be easily accomplished by choosing not to make an arrest. The ends do not justify the means when other options are available. Trump also looked to closing borders, restricting flights, and rejecting asylum seekers some of which may be substantially correlated to controlling the pandemic and should be priorities if there is a proven relationship to public health. F. Conclusion Democracy in a federalist society should not allow the least reasonable laws to prevail when the fallout will cross state lines. Divisions in society and different preconceptions of what is moral can be resolved by appealing to the framework of the democratic system: use the least restrictive means to reach an articulated goal in an efficacious way and then restore any right that was temporarily suspended. The systemic reinstitution and lasting continuity of those rights must be a pillar of democratic systems. If the common good as projected in public policy could never trump rights, and the public does not engage in the private morality for the common good, then, as George Smith argues, the healthcare crisis could turn the constitution into “a suicide pact.”[24] Reason must be the basis of governmental public health decisions so that the skeptics cannot stand in the way of the solution and the government cannot outstep its powers. When a novel contagious pathogen appears in the world, absent presidential action, governors must agree on reasonable science-based action. Some technique to garner consensus or override governors that fail to act should be developed. Elections were the chance to decide who would make difficult decisions. A new paradigm could be in place in time for the next pandemic. It should not matter who the president is or which political party is in power in each state: the new paradigm must follow reason and public morality. Private morality must support a government that is acting within the bounds of reason, informed by renowned scientific organizations. The odd problem in the US remains a president not using his powerful post to take steps necessary to stop the virus but stealthily seeking to change other policies under the guise of necessity. Private and public morality call for the same goal: eradicating COVID-19 with rights intact. April 4, 2020 Photo credit: Ohm Kittipong, Sioux Falls [1] In this paper, stay-at-home orders, safer-at-home orders, and shelter-in-place orders are encompassed by the term stay-at-home orders. The varying specifics among the orders are discussed when relevant. [2] Smith, George P., II. "Re-shaping the Common Good in Times of Public Health Emergencies: Validating Medical Triage," 18 Annals of Health Law 1 (2009). [3] Joshua L. Friedman, Emergency Powers of the Executive: The President’s Authority When All Hell Breaks Loose, 25 Journal of Law and Health, Vol 25:265 (2012) at 296 quoting George P. Smith. https://www.law.csuohio.edu/sites/default/files/academics/jlh/friedman_final_version_of_article-2.pdf [4] National Conference of State Legislators https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-action-on-coronavirus-covid-19.aspx National Association of Counties map of counties https://ce.naco.org/?dset=COVID-19&ind=Emergency%20Declaration%20Types [5] https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/04/politics/republican-governors-stay-at-home-orders-coronavirus/index.html [6] https://coronavirus.idaho.gov/statewide-stay-home-order/ [7] Some state representatives, including Heather Scott, a Republican from northern Idaho, argue people should ignore the order. A local sheriff, Darryl Wheeler, spreads the idea that the state can only legally restrict the movement of the sick. Tim Remington a pastor with a seat in the state legislature also claims the order violates constitutional rights. Baker, Mike. “A ‘Liberty’ Rebellion in Idaho Threatens to Undermine Coronavirus Orders.” New York Times. April 7, 2020. [8] Baker. [9] Friedman, 267 quoting Alexander Hamilton, “The Federalist.” “There can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community in any matter essential to its efficacy.” [10] Friedman, 178 and 279. Friedman favors strong presidential powers but his analysis presupposes a president willing to take bold action. [11] Rising, David and Moulson, Geir. (of Associated Press). “Germany’s Merkel shines in virus crisis even as power wanes.” PBS Newshour Online. Mar 29, 2020. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/germanys-merkel-shines-in-virus-crisis-even-as-power-wanes?fbclid=IwAR0PoAMjUL6e_D7cTaHH97ZGedbDqzhF3Xqg_lz3Y0cBfAXbQHq_LwELBsk; Bennhold, Katrin. “A German Exception? Why the Country’s Coronavirus Death Rate Is Low.” New York Times. April 4, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/world/europe/germany-coronavirus-death-rate.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR2_U204R7GXueIAggtZ6A6etRo47rmux6Qs4BGDwnyrkfnlZcf8sdb_G-Q [12] Fidler, David P., “Caught between paradise and power: public health, pathogenic threats, and the axis of illness.” McGeorge Law Rev, 2004; 35(1):45-104. [13] Environmental laws can help individuals by removing pollution from their area or by imposing workplace protections but regulations to do with largescale items like carbon cap and trade or protection of endangered species are for the collective good. They tend to face more scrutiny without well defined beneficiaries although all benefit. [14] Smith, George P., 14. Smith favors a balanced approach recognizing society values actions based on fairness and justice not just maximum utility. Smith also professes a balance of public health benefit and civil liberties arguing in times of emergency the equilibrium shifts temporarily. Smith, 34. [15] Friedman, 269-70 quoting John Locke. [16] Friedman. [17] Friedman citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11, 25 (1905). [18] Jonathan Smith, lecturer in Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases and Global Health Yale University School of public Health, argues to get the public health benefit of social distancing all members of the household must keep a distance from all nonmembers of the household. The smallest transgressions spread the virus. “If your son sneaks to see his girlfriend, and you later sneak to have coffee with a neighbor, your neighbor is now connected to the infected office worker that your son’s girlfriend’s mother shook hands with.” Social distancing done early enough could break chains of viral transmission. Looking at each family as an individual unit and separating each unit from all others, as recommended by epidemiologists, should be achievable without mandatory government action. Ladra, “Epidemiologist explains why social distancing is #1 weapon vs COVID19.” Political Cortadito blog.March 24, 2020. http://www.politicalcortadito.com/2020/03/24/epidemiologist-explains-why-social-distancing-is-1-weapon-vs-covid19/ [19] South Korea ramped up testing early and tracked cases more accurately allowing it to be less restrictive in its response. As a result of testing both the symptomatic and the asymptomatic, South Korea was able to quarantine large groups immediately. While quarantines are severely restrictive, South Korea never needed to have the entire population stay at home except for essential workers. The United States did not have enough tests to implement strategic quarantines. To slow the spreading virus, cities and states in the US had to issue orders to the general population. The less restrictive means used in North Korea required tests, fever testing, and spreading knowledge of how the asymptomatic may also be identified and quarantined. South Korea suggested young people who lose their sense of taste and smell should be tested for the virus and isolated. To address COVID-19, the least restrictive way still must cover more people because of the lack of available tests. https://www.wired.com/story/a-south-korean-covid-19-czar-has-some-advice-for-trump/ [20] Galva, Jorge, Christopher Atchison, and Samual Levy, “Public Health Strategy and the Police Powers of the State.” Public Health Reports (2005 Supplement) Vol. 120, p 25. [21] Bazelon, Emily. “The Coronavirus Becomes an Excuse to Restrict Abortions: Texas and Ohio say the procedures are nonessential and must yield to the pandemic.” New York Times. March 26, 2020. [22] Politico https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/21/doj-coronavirus-emergency-powers-140023 [23] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/when-disease-comes-leaders-grab-more-power/608560/ citing this https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-18/israel-coronavirus-netanyahu [24] Smith, George P., citing Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 US 37 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting). Smith also refers to Posner, Richard A., Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency, Oxford University Press (2006).

Background: The coronavirus pandemic presented a unique opportunity to study the daily temporal patterns and sleep habits of humans. The question to be explored was: Are there discernible differences in sleep between the normal operational environment and the stay-at-home condition?Methods: This international prospective study analyzed results from the sleep-wake patterns questionnaire, daily logs, and interviews. Surveys were administered to the healthy volunteers (age 15-60 y) with stay-at-home for a month or more, without previous sleep disorders and mood-related complaints; volunteers were not involved in online education/work daily timetable-related activities.Results: We analyzed 3787 subjects with average stay-at-home of 65 ± 9 days. The most significant changes in sleep occurred during the first ten days when the difference between weekdays and weekends disappeared and changes occurred in napping habits. The majority of the participants (66.8%) shifted toward eveningness when the self-selected sleep was possible and 1869 volunteers appeared to be owls (49.4%), 823 (21.7%) exercised "typical" sleep, 478 (12.6%) were larks, and 617 (16.3%) participants were completely desynchronized to the end of stay-at-home. In addition, 497 participants (13.1%) alternated their sleep habits. The most of the desynchronized participants (n = 414) were older than 50 years (age correlation r = 0.80), and predominantly males (n = 297, r = 0.76).Conclusion: In self-selected sleep conditions, the timing of sleep and sleep habits significantly differ from those of socially and economically fixed daily routine conditions. The changes in daily temporal patterns of humans during a prolonged stay-at-home situation indicate that human sleep habits may change according to existing living conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Daily Google mobility data covering 130 countries over the period between February 15, 2020 and May 2, 2020 suggest that less mobility is associated with lower COVID-19 cases and deaths. This observation is formally tested by using a difference-in-difference design, where country-fixed effects, day-fixed effects, as well as the country-specific timing of the 100th COVID-19 case are controlled for. The results suggest that 1% of a weekly increase in being at residential places leads to about 70 less weekly COVID-19 cases and about 7 less weekly COVID-19 deaths, whereas 1% of a weekly decrease in visits to transit stations leads to about 33 less weekly COVID-19 cases and about 4 less weekly COVID-19 deaths, on average across countries. Similarly, 1% of a weekly reduction in visits to retail & recreation results in about 25 less weekly COVID-19 cases and about 3 less weekly COVID-19 deaths, or 1% of a weekly reduction in visits to workplaces results in about 18 less weekly COVID-19 cases and about 2 less weekly COVID-19 deaths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the widespread of COVID-19, stay-at-home and social distancing have become the important means of epidemic prevention, but they also have changed patterns of human interaction. Under this circumstance, the impact of epidemic-specific social capital on physical activity and health status is examined. A most recent survey of WeChat networkers shows the following results. Bonding social capital and bridging social capital are the two main components of epidemic-specific social capital, and both jointly promote physical activity participation and health status. Physical isolation moderates the effect of epidemic-specific social capital on physical activity and health status. Physical activity mediates the effect of epidemic-specific social capital on health status and its mediating role is significant. The following conclusions are supported: (1) Physical isolation during the epidemic is an effective way to maintain people' s health status. (2) The epidemic-specific social capital plays an important role during the epidemic, and its feature of maintaining interpersonal relationship can improve the effectiveness of epidemic prevention. (3) Although physical isolation limits physical exercise conditions, intimate interactions and online communications can encourage new forms of physical activity, paving the path to smooth transition of the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the little time after the emergence of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in China, the deceptive gossips and conspiracy concepts about the pandemic, surveillance, death rates and regarding threats are closely associated with social media and mass media. Since the outbreak started in the fall 2019, till now approximately 114, 291 people have died across the globe. The choices on quarantine applying must be based on the authentic accessible resources. Most of the studies reported adversative psychological impression slike frustrations, stress, anger, confusions and fear of infections as continuing paraphernalia throughout largest quarantine. The prominent meticulousness of such disaster is the coincidence of virology which is increasing rapidly as compared to itself virus is the domestic and family violence. The likelihoods of children and women being exposed to violence is intensely amplified, as family participants spend long time in close contact as well as home stress exaggerates which grows the risks even greater than to deal with potential financial losses. This study has been conducted in the Pakistan where cases of domestic violence have been increased during pandemic lockdown to assess the qualitative consequences in this duration. In current study, a higher percentage of immense kind of domestic abusive violence reported with ratio of 50-55 per day cases with 60% females 30% children were reported in radiology department with fracture bones in multiple anatomical positions. Multiple recommendations have been provided to overcome such devastating situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on the lives of persons around the world and social scientists are just beginning to understand its consequences on human behavior. One policy that public health officials put in place to help stop the spread of the virus were stay-at-home/shelter-in-place lockdown-style orders. While designed to protect people from the coronavirus, one potential and unintended consequence of such orders could be an increase in domestic violence – including abuse of partners, elders or children. Stay-at-home orders result in perpetrators and victims being confined in close quarters for long periods of time. In this study, we use data from Dallas, Texas to examine the extent to which a local order was associated with an increase in domestic violence. Our results provide some evidence for a short-term spike in the 2 weeks after the lockdown was instituted but a decrease thereafter. We note that it is difficult to determine just how much the lockdown was the cause of this increase as the domestic violence trend was increasing prior to the order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes which characteristics are correlated with mobility reductions during the COVID-19 pandemic, using census-division-level mobility data for Canada from Facebook. There is significant variation in the extent to which social distancing was applied in April, relative to a preperiod of February. I find that the population and population density of a census division are strongly correlated with larger mobility reductions. Conversely, I find that areas with a larger share of dwellings that are apartments exhibit smaller mobility reductions, suggesting that those in tighter living conditions may find it less possible to stay at home during the pandemic. Finally, I examine the persistence of mobility reductions into May and show that areas with a larger apartment dwelling share are more likely to maintain their social distancing over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Study links social media sentiment with NYC urban building traits. • NLP and RoBERTa model assess 'Stay-at-Home' impact on occupancy. • Analysis connects 'Energy Bill' and 'HVAC' to public sentiment. • Uses PLUTO and LEAD data to further reveal urban emotional disparities. • Findings support spatial justice for NYC's inclusive, equitable growth. This study explores the intricate relationship between human sentiment on social media data, herein tweet posts on X platform, urban building characteristics, and the socio-spatial dynamics of New York City (NYC) boroughs. Leveraging Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques, particularly sentiment analysis, augmented by the capabilities of transformer deep learning models, RoBERTa, the study places particular emphasis on the term 'Stay-at-Home' to encapsulate the pronounced shift in building occupancy during the pandemic's inaugural year. This focus intertwines with pivotal terms like 'Energy Bill' and 'HVAC', shedding light on their interconnected implications. The sentiment analysis leverages data from New York City's PLUTO and the Department of Energy's LEAD databases to emotional disparities connected to urban building characteristics as well as demographic and socioeconomic factors. This analytical approach unravels prevailing public emotions and extends the discussion to include energy justice concerns, viewing them through the lens of the city's built infrastructure. The research uncovers profound disparities in the built environment and the allocation of resources in NYC, highlighting the critical need to embrace a spatial justice framework for a sustainable future. This research can aid designers, planners, and policymakers in their efforts to promote equitable and inclusive urban development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Geopolitica(s): Revista de Estudios Sobre Espacio y Poder is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)