Data_Sheet_1_Lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from a polarized scenario in Brazil.docx

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic led many countries to adopt strict measures aimed at reducing circulation of the virus and mitigating the burden on health services. Among these, the lockdown (social distancing/confinement) was probably the most controversial and most widely debated, since it affected the population’s daily life abruptly, with consequences for people’s emotional state and the operational logic of various economic sectors.ObjectiveAnalyze the relationship been Brazilians’ opinions on lockdown during the pandemic and individual, sociodemographic, and belief characteristics.MethodsWe conducted an online survey to evaluate Brazilians’ opinions on the lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic. We prepared a questionnaire with questions on sociodemographic aspects and individuals’ points of view toward the lockdown. We sent a link for the survey through social media and encouraged participants to also share the link in their respective social networks, as a snowball sample. Cluster analysis was performed to identify different opinion profiles. Cluster Analysis is a multivariate approach that aims to segment a set of data into distinct groups, using some classification criteria.ResultsFrom April to May 2021, the link received 33,796 free participations via social networks from all over Brazil. We analyzed data from 33,363 participants. Pro-lockdown opinions predominated in most of the sociodemographic strata. Cluster analysis identified two groups: pro-lockdown, aligned with the scientific recommendations, and anti-lockdown, characterized by economic insecurity and denialism. Anti-lockdown participants downplayed the pandemic’s seriousness and believed in unproven measures to fight SARS-CoV-2. However, these same participants were afraid of losing their jobs and of being unable to pay their bills. In general, participants did not believe in the feasibility of a lockdown in Brazil or in the efficacy of the prevailing government administration’s measures.ConclusionThe study identified a lack of consensus among participants concerning lockdown as a practice. Issues such as disbelief in the pandemic’s seriousness, denialism, and economic insecurity were important in the determination of the profiles identified in the study. Denialism is believed to have been a subjective defense against the economic problems resulting from social control measures and the lack of adequate social policies to deal with the pandemic. It was also highlighted that political polarization and the lack of central coordination during social distancing are crucial aspects. The variation in results in different locations highlights the diversity of the Brazilian scenario. By analyzing Brazilians’ opinions about the lockdown, considering individual characteristics, the study seeks insights to face the pandemic and prepare for future crises, contributing to more effective public health strategies.</p

Clarity perceived about vaccine information between hesitant and non-hesitant (N = 172,314).

Clarity perceived about vaccine information between hesitant and non-hesitant (N = 172,314).</p

Brazilians perceived trustworthiness of sources of information about the vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 according to vaccine hesitancy (n = 173,178, with 18,250 hesitant and 154,928 non-hesitant).

Some participants did not report trustworthiness in some information sources.</p

Strategies indicated to increase the percentage of vaccine adherence to prevent COVID-19 according to the intention to vaccinate.

Strategies indicated to increase the percentage of vaccine adherence to prevent COVID-19 according to the intention to vaccinate.</p

Multivariate logistic regression to assess factors associated with trust in the information source.

Multivariate logistic regression to assess factors associated with trust in the information source.</p

Number of participants who gave their opinion on the understanding of vaccine efficacy data according to vaccine hesitancy.

(N = 172,366 respondents, with 154,237 not hesitant and 18,129 hesitant).</p