This study conducts both theoretical and empirical analyses of how non-legally-binding COVID-19 policies affect people's going-out behavior. The theoretical analysis assumes that under a declared state of emergency, the individual going out suffers psychological costs arising from both the risk of infection and the stigma of going out. Our hypothesis states that under a declared state of emergency people refrain from going out because it entails a strong psychological cost. Then, this study estimates a model using regional mobility data and emergency declarations data to analyze self-restraint behavior under a non-legally binding emergency declaration. The results show that, compared with before the declaration of the state of emergency, going-out behavior was suppressed under the state of emergency and after it was lifted even when going out did not result in penalties, which is consistent with the theoretical analysis.
Keyphrases
- public health
- emergency department
- healthcare
- coronavirus disease
- sars cov
- electronic health record
- mental health
- emergency medical
- big data
- social support
- depressive symptoms
- machine learning
- physical activity
- data analysis
- binding protein
- human immunodeficiency virus
- sleep quality
- respiratory syndrome coronavirus
- hiv infected