In the first��month��of the��COVID-19��pandemic, nearly all 50��states announced��restrictions on gatherings and��businesses, and most issued stay-at-home orders, aiming to��curb��disease transmission and��avoid��overburdening health systems.

States��eased��those��policies��based on politics as much as��COVID-19��death rates��or��case counts, according to new research from the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý.��The researchers also found��that states with large Black communities,��despite those communities being��hit hardest by the pandemic, also lifted restrictions earlier.

In general,��the����in��Perspectives on Politics��found��that states with Republican governors�����Ի���a��larger��vote share��for��Donald��Trump in 2016��eased their restrictions��two��weeks��earlier��than states with Democratic governors�����Ի���smaller Trump vote shares, all else equal.

“The��push by Trump to politicize social distancing policy��came at a critical time:��In April 2020, cases were��still very high��in many states.��Many��Republican governors��pulled the trigger on easing too early,”��said��lead author��, a��professor of political science at the UW.

The��study is the latest from��the����led by Adolph. Last year, the team published papers on the influence of politics on social distancing policies�����Ի���mask mandates��and, like the latest research, found that a governor’s political party was a key driver in what are��ostensibly��public health decisions.��There��was a “near-immediate politicization of this public health crisis,” the authors wrote in their new paper, exacerbated when then-President Trump declared that��.

The new study looked at when states eased five��policies, beginning in mid-April 2020: stay-at-home orders; limits on gatherings; closures of nonessential businesses such as gyms��and movie theaters; and��restrictions on the operation of��restaurants and��bars.��In all five categories, researchers found that Republican-led states��eased��restrictions��on indoor activity��earlier��than Democratic-led ones, but by early July��2020,��all states had eased at least one��social distancing policy.

The team analyzed those moves taking into account other��factors��—��health��indicators��such as COVID-19��deaths, confirmed cases�����Ի���test positivity rates,��along with��other��variables��such as governor’s political party, Trump’s��share of the vote in 2016,��state��population density��and some��demographic characteristics.

Public health indicators did play a role, the researchers point out,��as states with��better trends in��epidemiological indicators��could be��expected��to ease restrictions��two weeks (an��average of 14.1 days) ahead of states��where��trends in��case counts and deaths��were��worsening or improving more��slowly. But the��influence��of��COVID-19 trajectories��was slightly less than that of the governor’s political party and the share of Trump voters.��All else equal, states��with a Republican governor and a majority of Trump voters��could be��expected to begin easing restrictions just over two weeks��(an average of 14.5 days)��ahead of Democratic-led states.

“Since March��2020,��state-level decisions��on��the response to��COVID-19��have been��influenced��by politics as much as��— and sometimes more than —��public health data and evidence on evolving pandemic needs.��In the U.S.,��this��has happened for��,��, vaccination and testing requirements,��travel restrictions —��everything,”��said��,��a study��co-author��and doctoral��candidate��in��political science��at the UW.

The authors warn��that��polarized��politics��could further��hinder��how��future public health emergencies��are��handled in the United States.��For instance,��following the initial loosening of social distancing restrictions,��.��Yet a��fragmented��approach��toward COVID-19��continued through the summer and fall of 2020, culminating in��a��devastating winter surge��and deepening��partisan��divisions.

“Public health��inherently involves political considerations and trade-offs, so��completely��divorcing politics from��public health��decision-making and policy implementation��isn’t really��an��option.��Instead,��we should��recognize how��public health policy and practice��occur��within��existing political��environments, and��actively��work within those systems to ensure��strong science��and timely data can inform��decisions,” said��, a study co-author and doctoral student in global health at the UW.

The team also analyzed the��association between the��loosening of restrictions and��a state’s Black population, given the��.��Indeed,��states with larger percentages of their population identifying as Black saw COVID-19 social distancing policies eased nearly a week��(an average of��6.7 days)��earlier than states with a smaller Black population — a finding that may mirror patterns of systemic racism and enduring neglect toward��Black communities��in the U.S.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact an uneven toll for individuals and communities, especially people of color and frontline��workers who face higher exposure to the virus. Each decision to reduce��COVID-related protections��places��already marginalized groups��at risk,��and needs to be made very carefully.��This was true in 2020,�����Ի���it remains true today,”��Adolph��said.

The study was funded by��the��Benificus��Foundation and��the UW Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences.

In addition to��Adolph, Bang-Jensen, and��Fullman, co-authors were��, professor and chair of political science at the��UW;��,��,�������Ի���, all doctoral students in political science at the UW; and��, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto��who completed this work while a doctoral student in political science at the UW.

For more information, contact Adolph at cadolph@uw.edu.

Politics, above COVID-19 cases or deaths, determined whether states enacted mask mandates during the first months of the pandemic, a new study finds.

States with Republican governors delayed imposing indoor mask requirements by an average of nearly 30 days, controlling for other factors. The study by researchers at the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý examined a series of factors surrounding the announcement (or lack thereof) of statewide mask mandates in all 50 states, and found that partisanship, particularly at the state executive level, where such restrictions can be imposed, was the most significant factor in the timing of new rules.

The is posted to the preprint server medRxiv and has not been peer-reviewed.

“Wearing masks in public places is one of the easiest ways to reduce transmission of the coronavirus, and clear, consistent mandates are one of the best tools we have to get everyone to wear masks regularly. Our team has been tracking mask mandates covering indoor public spaces, where the risk of transmission is highest, and we wanted to know whether adoption was really as partisan as it seemed, or if there were other explanations,” said , an associate professor of political science at the UW and lead author of the study. The research is part of the UW COVID-19 State Policy Project, led by Adolph and , political science professor and chair of the department.

Evidence for the effectiveness of mask-wearing in combatting COVID-19 has grown , and scientists in the United States and around the world agree that the virus, commonly spread through the air, can be curtailed . Leaders of some countries have imposed , but such decisions in the United States are currently left to the states.

That’s where politics appears to enter the fray.

Adolph and his team, who earlier this year released a study on the role of politics in imposing statewide social distancing measures, examined statewide mask requirements adopted from early April through mid-August 2020. The researchers grouped mask laws by the breadth of mandates and focused on those that, at minimum, required a mask in all indoor public spaces. States requiring masks indoors and outdoors are considered most restrictive; 25 states now have that requirement.

Currently, 14 states do not have any statewide mask mandate; three states have a limited requirement for masks in some settings.

The team then analyzed the timing of those laws taking into account other state data, such as the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths, the average partisan ideology of its population, and the governor’s political party (which often, but doesn’t always, match the dominant party affiliation of citizens).

The study found that, after accounting for other factors, states with Democratic governors were seven times as likely as those with Republican governors to impose broad statewide mask mandates. Described another way, if two states were identical except for the party of the governor, the researchers would expect the Republican-governed state to adopt a mask mandate 29.9 days later than its Democrat-led twin.

Adolph argues it’s at least somewhat surprising that Republican governors resisted mask mandates. After all, he points out, requiring masks could help stave off the costly reimposition of social distancing mandates. “President Trump spent crucial months deriding masks and refusing to wear them in public,” Adolph said. “This deepened a partisan divide that few Republican governors have been willing to cross, even as their states’ cases shot up this summer.”

The severity of the pandemic mattered less than governors’ party affiliation, researchers noted. ��The epidemiological indicator that had the largest impact on mask mandates is the rate of COVID-19 deaths, which lags several weeks behind current conditions. Controlling for other factors, states with higher daily death rates were an average of 10.5 days quicker to adopt mask mandates than those with lower rates. But mask mandates did not appear to respond to real-time metrics like new cases per million or the rates of people testing positive, the study points out.

The team analyzed other demographic factors, such as the resident’s education levels, or the percentage of the population over age 70, but those didn’t have any noticeable effect, according to the study.

The paper has been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The study was funded by the at the UW and the Benificus Foundation.

In addition to Wilkerson, co-authors were , a doctoral student in health metrics sciences at the UW; and political science doctoral students , , and .

For more information, contact Adolph at cadolph@uw.edu.

States led by Republican governors and with a significant share of Trump supporters were an average of nearly three days later than other states to enact social distancing measures related to the COVID-19 outbreak, according to a new study.

The finding is part of new research by the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý examining factors that contributed to decision-making by governors in all 50 states to combat the novel coronavirus. The explores whether the adoption of state-level social distancing measures depends on the number of coronavirus cases in the state, the affluence of the state, and the partisanship of the state’s governor and voters.

The rapid spread of the novel coronavirus, which as of March 31 has killed more than 3,000 people in the United States and, by many estimates, is projected to cause anywhere from to ��domestically, has prompted public health officials to push social distancing as the key, proactive way of limiting the rise of infection. The World Health Organization more than 750,000 confirmed cases worldwide, and more than 36,000 deaths.

But the response to and attitude toward the virus have been mixed among political leaders. For several weeks at the beginning of the outbreak, President Trump and some right-leaning media outlets .

In the month since the first COVID-19 case was diagnosed – in Washington state – most states have enacted some social distancing restrictions, such as closing schools and businesses, limiting or banning gatherings of people, and advising or ordering residents to shelter in place. Mandates to stay at home are now in effect in 28 states.

The varying restrictions, and the timing of those restrictions, prompted UW researchers to take a closer look.

“We wanted to understand why some American states have been slow to introduce social distancing measures,” said lead author , an associate professor of political science at the UW. “You might expect states to delay if they have fewer confirmed cases — though even that would arguably be a mistake — but we were worried by the appearance of a partisan pattern in responses, both at the state level and in public opinion.”

Update Nov. 19:��The paper was originally posted on the preprint server��but has now been peer reviewed and published in the .��This release has been edited to reflect that change.

Adolph and his team analyzed the measures that states enacted with other data, such as the number of COVID-19 cases in each state, how neighboring states were responding, each governor’s political party and each state’s voter turnout for Trump in 2016.

The team found that partisanship – especially when a state has a Republican governor, as well as the share of the statewide vote for Trump — led to delays in enacting social distancing. That��“combined partisan effect” coincided with a delay of 2.7 days, the team found.��Partisanship had a greater effect than other variables, including the number of confirmed cases in each state, researchers said. The number of confirmed cases, for example, influenced state action by less than half a day.

“ now document that Republican voters in March showed less concern on average about the coronavirus, and were less likely to adopt prudent behavior to reduce their risk of becoming infected,” Adolph said. “If Republican leaders were also systematically slower to act, their reluctance would end up hurting all Americans, but especially their own constituents.”

Under normal political circumstances, governors often make decisions to appease their party and voters, Adolph said. The UW research team wanted to explore how governors adapted to what was essentially an unprecedented threat that emerged at once, nationwide.

The paper is not trying to assign blame, Adolph added. Enacting social distancing measures is difficult for any elected official, because closing schools and businesses has significant economic and personal consequences for a population. But based on public health guidance, until a vaccine is available for widespread use, aggressive social distancing can stem the exponential spread of disease and limit the total number of deaths.

“Fighting COVID-19 shouldn’t be a partisan issue: The virus doesn’t care what party you belong to, and everyone is at risk. There’s still a chance to change this and save lives,” Adolph said.��“The sooner all governors mandate and enforce strict social distancing, and the more they listen to public health experts instead of partisan cues, the more lives we will save, and the sooner we can all recover from this crisis.��Every day matters.”

The paper has been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Co-authors are , professor and chair of the political science department at the UW; , a doctoral student in the UW Department of Health Metrics Sciences; and political science doctoral students and .

For more information, contact Adolph at cadolph@uw.edu.