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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".