Voters Support Aggressive Action to Combat the Coronavirus
By Ethan Winter
About a week in, President Trump is growing tired of social distancing. The Washington Post captured this message in a story published two days ago, where Trump is quoted as saying: “America will again—and soon—be open for business . . . Very soon, a lot sooner than three or four months that somebody was suggesting. A lot sooner. We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself.”
Such a choice would run counter to the best advice of public officials, including officials in Trump’s own government. Dr. Anthony Fauci, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, has emerged as one of the few people in the Trump administration who knows what they’re doing, and he is reported as having “told administration officials and Republican lawmakers that prematurely scaling back social-distancing measures would hamper efforts to mitigate the virus and would devastate hospitals.”
And yet. Trump’s anti-scientific position is fast becoming orthodoxy within the Republican Party. The Lieutenant Governor of Texas, Republican Dan Patrick, recently declared: “Let's get back to living . . . And those of us that are seventy-plus, we'll take care of ourselves”—remarks he subsequently doubled down on. And this sentiment has been echoing around Republican circles in the days since.
To ground these discussions of how the government should respond to the coronavirus, it helps to look at attitudes among registered voters. Therefore, in a March 2020 survey, Data for Progress devised three hypothetical governmental responses to the outbreak. The first hypothetical response would be to implement a massive regime of testing and targeted isolation; in addition, schools would be (or remain) closed, and most public gatherings would be canceled. The second hypothetical response is centered on population, with considerable limitations placed on people’s freedom of movement, as the government seeks to limit the rate of transmission. The third and final response is to allow the pandemic to largely “run its course,” allowing infections to bloom and for the population to develop a “herd immunity” as people develop antibodies to the virus; theoretically, this would slow the rate of the transmission.
In our survey, we posed voters with the following hypothetical responses. The order of items was randomized, and voters were asked about their support/opposition to the scenario on a five-point scale: “strongly support,” “somewhat support,” “strongly oppose,” “somewhat oppose,” or “didn’t know.”
Some countries are attempting to control the spread of the coronavirus through a massive testing regime at drive-through clinics, mobile testing centers, and home visits. This is a policy tailored to identify and then isolate individuals who have been infected. All individuals who have come into contact with suspected carriers are tested, not just those who show symptoms. The government will also pursue and then test suspected carriers with the goal of preventing further possible transmission. For the vast majority of the population, these tests are free or come at a reduced and affordable cost. For the sake of transparency, the countries who have adopted this approach are also transparent, regularly releasing figures of tests administered, the number of infected, and mortality rate. Beyond testing, countries that have adopted this approach are also regularly communicating with people, calling them if there is an outbreak near where they live. All government-run schools have been closed and the government has called for the canceling of all mass gatherings. Do you support or oppose this approach to combating the coronavirus?
Some countries are attempting to control the spread of the coronavirus by imposing public-health measures intend to reduce the rate of transmission, such that each person who gets infected ends up infecting less that one person on average. This is being done through a population-centric approach. In the hardest affected areas, cities are being placed on total lockdown, with people barred from leaving their homes unless granted permission by the government. New hospitals are also being constructed to meet rising demand as people become infected. Elsewhere, aggressive social-distancing measures are being put into place with all major events being canceled, schools and businesses closed, and masks required if one leaves their home. People who are suspected or become infected are removed from their homes and placed in "coronavirus hotels" until their tests either come back negative or they recover, a measure aimed at limiting transmission within family units. This policy sharply curtails public life and entails the shutting down of this country's economy. Do you support or oppose this approach to combating the coronavirus?
Some countries are fighting the coronavirus by allowing it to run its course. Advocates for this approach argue that we should allow somewhere between 40 to 70 percent of the population to become infected so that they develop antibodies. This will decrease the transmission rate of the virus as it is unable to find new hosts. The result is that the epidemic will ebb naturally as the herd immunity of the population increases. Under this scheme, no policy of social distancing is implemented, though the government is issuing reminders to wash hands and do not touch one's face. If people exhibit mild symptoms such as fever or cough the government is advising, but not stipulating, that they stay home from work. The government is not testing people who develop mild symptoms and is instructing them not to go to a hospital, pharmacy, or surgical center. Do you support or oppose this approach to combating the coronavirus?
Overall, we found that voters overwhelmingly prefer the aggressive-testing option (i.e., option A above), backing it by a 66-percentage-point margin (75 percent support, 9 percent oppose). The second-most popular was the population-centric option (i.e., option B), with voters backing it by a 32-point margin (57 percent support, 25 percent oppose). Far and away, the least popular was the herd-immunity option (i.e., option C), which a plurality of voters opposed (38 percent support, 43 percent oppose).
In this next chart, we examine the demographic and partisan breakouts for the aggressive-testing option. The option is popular across the board. Support is roughly even among both men and women, and it’s slightly more popular with those over the age of forty-five than those under that age. White voters are the most supportive of this approach, but support remains high across all measured racial groups. Support is also consistent across partisan lines. Those who self-identify as Democrats back this approach by 74 points (80 percent support, 6 percent oppose), and those who self-identify as Republicans support it by 64 points (76 percent support, 12 percent oppose).
In this next chart, we look at demographic and partisan breakouts to the population-centric approach. Overall, this hypothetical response enjoys a 32-point margin of support (57 percent support, 25 percent oppose). This option is supported by a majority of every measured demographic group. And support remained largely stable regardless of partisanship, suggesting that both Republicans and Democrats are willing to embrace a fairly stringent regime of social distancing to fight the spread of the virus.
The third and final option—i.e., the herd-immunity option—is the least popular with voters. On net, voters oppose it by 5 points (38 percent support, 43 percent oppose). Women are strongly opposed to the option, opposing it by 18 points (31 percent support, 49 percent oppose). Opposition is also stiff among those over the age of forty-five (32 percent support, 49 percent oppose), and among those without college degrees (35 percent support, 42 percent oppose). Breaking out responses by partisanship, those self-identifying as Democrats oppose this course of action by 9 points (39 percent support, 48 percent oppose), a margin which may be attributable to some segment of voters under 45 being open to the herd immunity approach. Those who self-identifying as Republicans, meanwhile, support the herd immunity approach by a 4 point margin (44 percent support, 40 percent oppose).
At a certain point, one should be candid about the limitations of opinion surveys, especially in a situation as volatile and unprecedented as our current moment. We presented survey respondents with necessarily limited descriptions, and then provided them with five set responses. Given how novel this pandemic is, it is safe to assume that public opinion of responses to it could shift swiftly and dramatically. For instance, we could have noted that the population-centric response would likely rely on coercion and that—absent state intervention—the economic consequences of halting production would likely be brutal. Additional context—both positive and negative—could be added to any of the three options, and we feel that this issue is unfolding and opinions can and likely will change further.
Nonetheless, we can speak with some confidence about patterns observed thus far. Voters are profoundly concerned about the coronavirus and appear willing to undertake extraordinary measures to combat it. Recently published analysis by Yusra Murad at Morning Consult corroborates, showing that 74 percent of voters support “a national quarantine, limiting activity except essential trips such as to the grocery store and the pharmacy.” Voters are taking the coronavirus seriously, and they wanted their elected officials to as well.
Authorship & Methodology
Ethan Winter (@EthanBWinter) is an analyst for Data for Progress. You can email him at ethan@dataforprogress.org
Edited by Andrew Mangan, Senior Editor, Data for Progress.
This survey was fielded from March 18, 2020. It was a survey of 2444 likely voters and weighted to represent the likely electorate.
For rounding purposes, all results conveyed in the charts sum to 100 percentage points and thus may deviate slightly from crosstab data.