Pandemic fatigue or enduring precautionary behaviours? Canadians’ long-term response to COVID-19 public health measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The long-term dynamics of COVID-19 disease incidence and public health measures may impact individuals' precautionary behaviours as well as support for measures. The objectives of this study were to assess longitudinal changes in precautionary behaviours and support for public health measures. Survey data were collected online from 1030 Canadians in each of 5 cycles in 2020: June 15-July 13; July 22-Aug 8; Sept 7-15; Oct 14-21; and Nov 12-17. Precautionary behaviour increased over the study period in the context of increasing disease incidence. When controlling for the stringency of public health measures and disease incidence, mixed effects logistic regression models showed these behaviours did not significantly change over time. Odds ratios for avoiding contact with family and friends ranged from 0.84 (95% CI 0.59-1.20) in September to 1.25 (95% CI 0.66-2.37) in November compared with July 2020. Odds ratios for attending an indoor gathering ranged from 0.86 (95% CI 0.62-1.20) in August to 1.71 (95% CI 0.95-3.09) in October compared with July 2020. Support for non-essential business closures increased over time with 2.33 (95% CI 1.14-4.75) times higher odds of support in November compared to July 2020. Support for school closures declined over time with lower odds of support in September (OR 0.66 [95% CI 0.45-0.96]), October (OR 0.48 [95% CI 0.26-0.87]), and November (OR 0.39 [95% CI 0.19-0.81]) compared with July 2020. In summary, respondents' behaviour mirrored government guidance between July and November 2020 and supported individual precautionary behaviour and limitations on non-essential businesses over school closures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".