Cross-National Measures of the Intensity of COVID-19 Public Health Policies

We show in this research note that the complex nature of COVID-19 policy responses means that models trying to identify the effect of individual policies can produce spurious results unless they take into account systematic measurement error. Employing a simulation of the policymaking process, we find that regression analyses of multiple related policy indicators results in spurious inferences due to measurement error. To remedy this issue, we estimate six new indices of the overall intensity of different types of COVID-19 restrictions that incorporate policymaker intentions behind the design of similar policies. These indices are derived from novel granular data on COVID-19 restrictions from the CoronaNet dataset, and we augment this data with the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker dataset. To gain estimates with uncertainty, we use a Bayesian time-varying measurement model that provides time-varying policy intensity scores from January 1, 2020, to May 1, 2021, for over 180 countries. We show with these measures that regression models of policy scores on important pandemic outcomes are robust to measurement error and fully incorporate uncertainty.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Politics
Published
2024-12-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1086/734241
Primary Topic
COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cross-National Measures of the Intensity of COVID-19 Public Health Policies

Caress Schenk, Luca Messerschmidt, Timothy Model, Vanja Grujić et al.
The Journal of Politics
COVID-19 epidemiological studies
article

Cross-National Measures of the Intensity of COVID-19 Public Health Policies

Caress Schenk, Luca Messerschmidt, Timothy Model, Vanja Grujić, Thomas Hale, Anna Petherick, Rafael Goldszmidt, Robert Kubinec, Cindy Cheng, Joan Barceló
article en

Abstract

We show in this research note that the complex nature of COVID-19 policy responses means that models trying to identify the effect of individual policies can produce spurious results unless they take into account systematic measurement error. Employing a simulation of the policymaking process, we find that regression analyses of multiple related policy indicators results in spurious inferences due to measurement error. To remedy this issue, we estimate six new indices of the overall intensity of different types of COVID-19 restrictions that incorporate policymaker intentions behind the design of similar policies. These indices are derived from novel granular data on COVID-19 restrictions from the CoronaNet dataset, and we augment this data with the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker dataset. To gain estimates with uncertainty, we use a Bayesian time-varying measurement model that provides time-varying policy intensity scores from January 1, 2020, to May 1, 2021, for over 180 countries. We show with these measures that regression models of policy scores on important pandemic outcomes are robust to measurement error and fully incorporate uncertainty.

The Journal of PoliticsVol. 87(4)
University of South Carolina (US), Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (BR), University of Oxford (GB), International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics (BE), Fundação Getulio Vargas (BR), New York University (US), Nazarbayev University (KZ), Technical University of Munich (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
COVID-19 epidemiological studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.