IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v104y2023i3p258-264.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Paradox of precaution: Infection and precautionary action during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Wesley Shrum
  • Paige Miller

Abstract

Objective We consider the primary sources of COVID‐19 infection, the main precautionary actions taken, and common understandings of their difficulty and necessity in order to understand why it has been difficult to control the pandemic. Methods Online data collected in all 50 states during the Delta wave of the pandemic (n = 10,022) are used to examine how infection occurs and evaluate 32 precautionary actions. Results The most common source of respondent infection was at home, from someone they lived with. While most precautions were widely practiced, avoiding close contact with cohabitants was uncommon. This precaution was considered to be the most difficult and least necessary by a wide margin. Conclusion During the first 2 years of the pandemic, there was a mismatch between actions taken to avoid infection and the main way that people became infected. Many precautions caused people to stay at home, which may have increased their likelihood of infection. The identification of this “paradox of precaution” contributes to an understanding of why the pandemic could not be controlled in spite of the extensive and well‐intended precautions that were taken.

Suggested Citation

  • Wesley Shrum & Paige Miller, 2023. "Paradox of precaution: Infection and precautionary action during the COVID‐19 pandemic," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(3), pages 258-264, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:104:y:2023:i:3:p:258-264
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13246
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13246?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:104:y:2023:i:3:p:258-264. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.