Next Article in Journal
The 2020 Italian Spring Lockdown: A Multidisciplinary Analysis over the Milan Urban Area
Previous Article in Journal
‘Environmental Impact Assessment’ in Drylands: Late Knowledge Penetration or a Deliberate Ignorance for Megaprojects?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
World
Volume 2
Issue 3
10.3390/world2030024
world-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Studying Satisfaction with the Restriction Measures Implemented in Greece during the First COVID-19 Pandemic Wave

by
Dimitris Zavras
Department of Public Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of West Attica, 11521 Athens, Greece
World 2021, 2(3), 379-390; https://doi.org/10.3390/world2030024
Submission received: 7 June 2021 / Revised: 2 July 2021 / Accepted: 6 July 2021 / Published: 19 July 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
There is an ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of policy responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As satisfaction with such measures is a function of their effectiveness, the main objective of this study was to identify the factors driving satisfaction with the measures implemented in Greece during the first pandemic wave. The study used data from the first round of the “Public Opinion in the European Union (EU) in Time of Coronavirus Crisis” survey. The sample consisted of 1050 individuals aged between 16 and 54 years. The results of the analysis, which was based on an adjacent category logistic model, indicate that materially deprived individuals were less likely to be satisfied with the restriction measures, while those considering that the health benefits were greater than the economic damage, those concerned for their own health and those concerned for the health of their family and friends were more likely to be satisfied with the restriction measures. The results confirm the existence of uncertainty regarding the effectiveness and impacts of the restriction measures.

1. Introduction

The containment of virus spread and reduction in public health impacts requires adaptive behavioral and policy responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic [1]. In general, governments around the world have adopted a “mix” of tools in a variety of policy areas, i.e., health, medical, economic and social, rather than a single tool [2]. However, the extent to which such responses are appropriate or not has become a subject of debate [3]. For instance, there is major debate on whether these measures are effective [4]. On the other hand, one debate regarding the appropriate economic policy response to a pandemic such as COVID-19 questions how aggressively economic activity should be restricted in order to limit the virus spread and how quickly these restrictions should be lifted as the epidemiologic picture improves [5]. For example, although quarantine has been characterized as an effective strategy to mitigate the spread of the virus, its cost-effectiveness is questionable, as it results in heavy economic losses [6]. The same is also true for lockdowns and social distancing, which result in productivity loss and decline in demand for goods and services, leading to a collapse in economic activity [7]. In addition, lockdowns and social distancing measures are likely to have negative effects on physical and mental health and health inequalities; such effects have numerous mechanisms, including economic, social and health-related behaviors and disruptions to services and education [8,9].
Thus, according to Appleby (2020) [10], the characteristics of the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that we should not base any decisions about doing something versus doing nothing on the results of inevitably imperfect and premature analysis of the costs and benefits.
In addition, the dichotomy between the economic costs of the COVID-19 crisis and the health impacts is not a valid distinction. As the health-risk losses associated with the pandemic can be monetized to be in the same units as the cost of disruptions to the economy, the COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality rates imply real and considerable economic losses [11]. Furthermore, it should be highlighted that, although the economic recession has been framed as a dipole of the form “the economy versus saving lives from COVID-19”, such a dichotomy is also false; the economic recession, through austerity in government expenditure on the social determinants of health, can be translated to a far greater loss in lives and well-being over the long term than COVID-19 can [12].
What is mentioned above becomes even more complicated if one takes into consideration the existence of uncertainty in several aspects of the COVID-19 crisis. That is, in parallel with health-related uncertainties—namely, uncertainties in infectiousness, viral lethality [13], mutations [14] and prevention and treatment [15]—the pandemic has created considerable uncertainty regarding both personal finances [16] and the overall state of the economy [17]. In addition, there is substantial uncertainty regarding the effectiveness [18], economic impacts [19] and the duration of containment measures [20]. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic affects the economy not only through supply and demand disruption, but also through uncertainty [21].
According to the limited literature regarding satisfaction with policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is evident that the results of such responses, i.e., the number of COVID-19-related cases and deaths per million population, are those that individuals pay attention to [22]. In addition, satisfaction with both the information dissemination during the pandemic and the delivery of daily necessities and protection materials decreases significantly as the number of confirmed cases increases [23]. Thus, because satisfaction with policy responses is a function of the responses’ effectiveness, it is not surprising that opinions regarding the costs and benefits of the restriction measures are also a predictor of satisfaction with such measures [24].
In Greece, the first COVID-19 case was diagnosed on 26 February 2020, and the first death was reported on 12 March 2020. As of 6 June 2021, 408,789 confirmed cases and 12,253 deaths have been reported in Greece [25].
Greece was the country with the earliest adoption of a lockdown in response to the COVID-19 outbreak [26]. The business and workplace suspensions implemented in Greece between 10 March and 18 March 2020, i.e., during the first wave of the pandemic on which this study focused, included the following: (a) closure of schools and universities on 10 March; (b) closure of movie theaters, courtrooms and gyms on 12 March; (c) closure of malls, cafés, restaurants, bars, museums, archaeological sites and beauty parlors on 13 March; (d) closure of all organized beaches and ski resorts on 14 March; (e) closure of all stores, with the exception of supermarkets and pharmacies, on 18 March. In addition, a nationwide restriction of movement was imposed on 23 March; 3 May was the last day of the lockdown [27].
However, although one may argue that the timely application of preventive measures and strict compliance to guidelines limited the spread of COVID-19 in Greece during the first wave [28], such measures were expected to negatively affect almost all sectors of economic activity [29].
Based on the previous points, the objective of this study was to investigate the debate regarding the costs and benefits of the restriction measures implemented in Greece during the first pandemic wave, but also to identify the factors driving satisfaction with such measures.

2. Material and Methods

For the purpose of this study, data from the first round of the “Public Opinion in the EU in Time of Coronavirus Crisis” [30] survey were used. The survey was conducted using Kantar’s online access panel between 23 April and 1 May 2020, with among 21,804 respondents in 21 EU Member States. The survey was limited to respondents aged between 16 and 64 years. In some countries, including Greece, the sample was limited to respondents aged between 16 and 54 years. Representativeness at the national level was ensured by quotas concerning gender, age and region. The sample size was n = 1050 in Greece. The data collection took place between 23 April and 27 April 2020.
The respondents were asked the question, “How satisfied or not are you with the measures your government has taken so far against the coronavirus pandemic?” The potential answers were as follows: 1—very satisfied, 2—fairly satisfied, 3—not very satisfied, 4—not at all satisfied, 5—don’t know/not applicable. As the response was ordinal, an adjacent category logistic model was used. As potential predictors in the analysis, the following variables were considered: (a) region (1: Attica; 2: Macedonia and Thrace; 3: Epirus and Western Macedonia; 4: Thessaly and Central Greece; 5: Peloponnese, West Greece and Ionian Islands; 6: Aegean Islands and Crete), (b) gender (0: female, 1: male); (c) age, (d) marital status (1: married/living with partner, 2: never married (single), 3: divorced/widowed, 4: living with parents, 5: domestic partner/living with other adults), (e) presence of children (0: no, 1: yes), (f) social class (1: low-/semi-skilled or unskilled manual workers, students, retired and living on state pension only, unemployed (for over six months) or not working due to long-term sickness; 2: middle-skilled manual workers, supervisory or clerical/junior managerial/professional/administrator; 3: high–intermediate managerial/professional/administrative, higher managerial/professional/administrative—this variable was based on the occupation of the main earner of the household), (g) experiencing loss of income since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (0: no, 1: yes), (h) experiencing unemployment or partial unemployment since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (0: no, 1: yes), (i) experiencing difficulties paying rent/bills/bank loans since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (0: no, 1: yes), (j) experiencing use of personal savings sooner than planned since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (0: no, 1: yes), (k) experiencing asking for financial help from family or friends since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (0: no, 1: yes), (l) experiencing difficulties having proper and decent quality meals since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (0: no, 1: yes), (m) experiencing bankruptcy (0: no, 1: yes), (n) experiencing other financial issues (0: no, 1: yes), (o) current employment status (1: employed (full-time), 2: employed (part-time), 3: self-employed, 4: retired/unable to work/disabled, 5: still at school, 6: in full-time higher education, 7: unemployed and seeking work, 8: not working and not seeking work, 9: prefer not to say), (p) COVID-19-related concern for own health (1: very concerned, 2: fairly concerned, 3: not very concerned, 4: not at all concerned, 5: don’t know/not applicable), (q) COVID-19-related concern for the health of family and friends (1: very concerned, 2: fairly concerned, 3: not very concerned, 4: not at all concerned, 5: don’t know/not applicable), (r) opinion regarding the costs and benefits of restriction measures (1: the health benefits are greater than the economic damage; 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: the economic damage is greater than the health benefits and 7: don’t know/not applicable).
When respondents answered “don’t know/not applicable” or “prefer not to say” in certain questions, their answer was recoded as missing due to the lack of information on the specific item. More specifically, the response category “don’t know/not applicable” was recoded as missing in the following variables: (a) satisfaction with restriction measures, (b) COVID-19-related concern for one’s own health, (c) COVID-19-related concern for the health of one’s family and friends and (d) opinion regarding the costs and benefits of the restriction measures; the frequencies of missing values were found to be equal to n = 10, n = 10, n = 15 and n = 27, respectively. In addition, the response category “prefer not to say” was recoded as missing in the current employment status variable; the frequency of missing values was found to be equal to n = 21.
Helmert coding was applied to the following ordinal variables: (a) social class, (b) COVID-19-related concern for one’s own health, (c) COVID-19-related concern for the health of one’s family and friends health and (d) opinion regarding the costs and benefits of the restriction measures. The Helmert contrast measure compares each category of an ordinal variable (except the last) with the mean of the subsequent levels. Indicator coding was applied to the following nominal variables: (a) region, (b) marital status and (c) current employment status. Indicator contrast was used to compare the reference category of a nominal variable with the remaining categories. The binary variables expressing whether each financial issue had been experienced since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, gender and presence of children were treated as such.
The model’s goodness of fit was tested using the test of Lipsitz et al. (1996) [31]. In addition, the model was tested for specification error using the link test.
Furthermore, to measure the consensus in both satisfaction with policy responses and public opinion regarding the costs and benefits of such responses, the Cns measure of consensus of Tastle and Wierman (2007) [32] was calculated.
The Cns is given as follows:
C n s = 1 + ∑ 1 n p i l o g 2 ( 1 − Y i − μ Y d Y )
where p i is the probability of outcome Y i , Y is the variable under study, μ Y is the mean of variable Y and d Y = Y m a x − Y m i n , where Y m a x and Y m i n are the maximum and minimum values of Y , respectively. Cns values lie between 0 and 1. A value of 0 indicates a complete lack of consensus, while a value of 1 indicates a complete consensus.
The STATA 17 statistical software package was used for the analysis. Specifically, the commands desmat [33], adjcatlogit [34], linktest, ologitgof [35], and cns [36] were used.

3. Results

Regarding gender, 50% of the respondents were female and 50% were male. The mean age of the respondents was 37.14 years (±10.47), while 17.05% of the respondents were aged between 16 and 24 years, 22.29% were between 25 and 34 years, 29.90% were between 35 and 44 years and 30.76% were between 45 and 54 years. The respondents’ characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Regarding the satisfaction with the restriction measures, 30.19% of the respondents were very satisfied, while only 6.06% of the respondents were not at all satisfied (Table 2, Figure 1).
The Cns measure regarding satisfaction with the restriction measures was found to be equal to 0.627, indicating a weak consensus.
The percentage of those considering that the health benefits were greater than the economic damage (21.60%) was more than three times higher than the percentage of those considering that the economic damage was greater than the health benefits (6.55%). In addition, the percentage of category 2 (25.90%) was more than two times higher than the percentage of category 5 (11.93%). Finally, the percentages of categories 3 and 4 slightly differed (17.50% and 16.52%, respectively) (Table 3, Figure 2).
The Cns measure regarding the costs and benefits of the restriction measures was found to be equal to 0.528, indicating neither a complete lack of consensus nor a complete consensus.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that only 11.35% of the respondents were very concerned for their own health, while 23.29% of the respondents were very concerned for the health of their family and friends (Table 4, Figure 3 and Figure 4).
According to the adjacent category logistic model, satisfaction with the restriction measures depends on whether the respondents experienced difficulties in having proper and decent quality meals, on whether the respondents experienced other financial issues, on respondents’ opinion regarding the costs and benefits of the restriction measures, on the concern for respondents’ own health and on the concern for the health of the respondents’ family and friends.
Specifically, the probability of lower satisfaction was higher for those experiencing difficulties in having proper and decent quality meals (OR = 1.674, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.268–2.211) and for those experiencing other financial issues (OR = 1.432, 95% CI: 1.163–1.764). However, the probability of lower satisfaction was lower for those considering to a higher degree that the health benefits of the restriction measures were greater than the economic damage (OR = 0.560, 95% CI: 0.446–0.702; OR = 0.487, 95% CI: 0.391–0.607; OR = 0.655, 95% CI: 0.513–0.837; OR = 0.548, 95% CI: 0.416–0.720; OR = 0.525, 95% CI: 0.360–0.765). In addition, the probability of lower satisfaction was lower for individuals with higher levels of concern for their own health (OR = 0.647, 95% CI: 0.466–0.899). Finally, the probability of lower satisfaction was lower for individuals with higher levels of concern for the health of their family and friends (OR = 0.696, 95% CI: 0.532–0.910; OR = 0.741, 95% CI: 0.580–0.948; OR = 0.636, 95% CI: 0.448–0.904) (Table 5).
The test of Lipsitz et al. (1996) [31] indicated good fit (p = 0.077). In addition, according to the link test, the model did not suffer from specification error (Table 6).

4. Conclusions

As mentioned in the Introduction, a few weeks after the first cases of COVID-19, strict containment measures came into effect in Greece, including closures of schools, universities, non-essential shops, cafes, restaurants and public spaces, as well as movement restrictions, including a ban on gatherings and travel [37].
The descriptive measures of the study, i.e., the higher percentage of respondents that were satisfied with the restriction measures, may be explained by the relatively low number of COVID-19-related cases and deaths during the first pandemic wave. That is, as of 27 April 2020, i.e., the last day of data collection, 2534 confirmed cases and 136 deaths had been reported in Greece [38]. Thus, the results reflect the fact that the perceived severity of the COVID-19-related situation is positively associated with satisfaction with measures [39]. Afterall, according to Fouda et al. (2020) [40], the strict early policies implemented in Greece may be correlated to the relatively low number of positive cases and deceased cases at the early stage of COVID-19 pandemic.
However, although, to a large degree, the respondents declared that they were satisfied with the restriction measures, the consensus measure Cns was equal to 0.627, indicating a weak consensus. In addition, the Cns regarding the costs and benefits of the restriction measures was equal to 0.528, indicating neither a complete lack of consensus nor a complete consensus. Thus, the results of the study confirm the findings in the literature but also the existence of a considerable uncertainty regarding (a) the effectiveness and impacts of the restriction measures [41,42] and (b) the nature of the disease and the dynamics of transmission [43]. In other terms, the findings of the study captured the existence of a public debate about whether or not the restriction measures are appropriate—i.e., a debate regarding the relative benefits of various measures aimed to control the spread of COVID-19 [44], but also a debate regarding the economic consequences of such measures [45]. The debate regarding lockdowns has focused on the potential inefficiency of such a policy, and also on the estimation of a reasonable trade-off between protecting individuals’ health and avoiding damage to the economy [46]. The debate regarding restrictions such as physical distancing, community containment measures for reducing public transport use and public gatherings, school closures and working from home where possible concerns the type and magnitude of such measures that could be appropriate for controlling the COVID-19 outbreak. The optimal balance between the potential positive effects of such restrictions on public health and the adverse effects on freedom of movement, the economy and society is unclear [47]; however, it should be noted that the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an economic crisis [48], which has yielded adverse effects for the global economy [49]. In addition, the lack of complete consensus in satisfaction with measures may also be explained by the pandemic management at the level of daily information, since it is evident that news regarding the virus spread increases uncertainty about the health risk and the economy [50]. That is, the high degree of multidimensional uncertainty makes it difficult to interpret COVID-19-related news and official recommendations [51].
On the other hand, according to the adjacent category logistic model, materially deprived individuals were less likely to be satisfied with the restriction measures, while those considering that the health benefits were greater than the economic damage, those concerned for their own health and those concerned for the health of family and friends were more likely to be satisfied with the restriction measures. The influence of the above-mentioned variables, and the respective sign of their association with satisfaction with measures, reflects what is evident: (a) that perceived economic risks are negatively associated with acceptance of the measures, (b) that people who consider that the economic and social aspects of the prevention measures are not sufficiently taken into consideration are expected to report lower acceptance of such measures and (c) that perceived health risks are positively associated with acceptance of the measures [52]. These results indicate the existence of the public debate highlighted above.
From an economic perspective, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Greece is facing a new economic crisis [53] that has caused severe negative effects on the demand and supply of goods and services, employment and disposable income [54,55].
From an epidemiologic perspective, as of mid-September 2020, Greece was not defined as a country with a trend of concern according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) criteria, but had observed a strong increasing trend in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. However, the ECDC model also highlighted Greece as having the potential for a large resurgence [56].
To summarize, the results of this study confirmed the existence of considerable uncertainty regarding the effectiveness and impact of the restriction measures [57]. On the one hand, the Greek economy has been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic [58], but on the other hand, the number of COVID-19-related cases and deaths was relatively low as of late April [59]. Thus, the existence of a public debate regarding the measures implemented is not surprising.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The survey was conducted for the European Parliament by Kantar.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available by the Public Opinion Monitoring Unit. Directorate General for Communication. European Parliament.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lam, M.E. United by the Global COVID-19 Pandemic: Divided by Our Values and Viral Identities. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2021, 8, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Capano, G.; Howlett, M.; Jarvis, D.S.L.; Ramesh, M.; Goyal, N. Mobilizing Policy (In)Capacity to Fight COVID-19: Understanding Variations in State Responses. Policy Soc. 2020, 39, 285–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sabat, I.; Neuman-Böhme, S.; Varghese, N.E.; Barros, P.P.; Brouwer, W.; van Exel, J.; Schreyögg, J.; Stargardt, T. United but Divided: Policy Responses and People’s Perceptions in the EU during the COVID-19 Outbreak. Health Policy 2020, 124, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cristea, I.A.; Naudet, F.; Ioannidis, J.P.A. Preserving Equipoise and Performing Randomised Trials for COVID-19 Social Distancing Interventions. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 2020, 29, e184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Glover, A.; Heathcote, J.; Krueger, D.; Ríos-Rull, J.-V. Health versus Wealth: On the Distributional Effects of Controlling a Pandemic. Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. 2020. Available online: http://www.nber.org/papers/w27046 (accessed on 7 April 2021).
  6. Ashkenazi, I.; Rapaport, C. Saving Lives Versus Saving Dollars: The Acceptable Loss for Coronavirus Disease 2019*. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 48, 1243–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chaudhary, M.; Sodani, P.R.; Das, S. Effect of COVID-19 on Economy in India: Some Reflections for Policy and Programme. J. Health Manag. 2020, 22, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Douglas, M.; Katikireddi, S.V.; Taulbut, M.; McKee, M.; McCartney, G. Mitigating the Wider Health Effects of Covid-19 Pandemic Response. BMJ 2020, 369, m1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lytras, T.; Tsiodras, S. Lockdowns and the COVID-19 Pandemic: What Is the Endgame? Scand. J. Public Health 2021, 49, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Appleby, J. Tackling COVID-19: Are the Costs Worth the Benefits? BMJ 2020, 369, m1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Viscusi, W.K. Pricing the Global Health Risks of the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Risk Uncertain. 2020, 61, 101–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Joffe, A.R. COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 625778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Altig, D.; Baker, S.; Barrero, J.M.; Bloom, N.; Bunn, P.; Chen, S.; Davis, S.J.; Leather, J.; Meyer, B.; Mihaylov, E.; et al. Economic uncertainty before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Public Econ. 2020, 191, 104274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Santos-Pinto, L.; Mata, J. Strategies for COVID-19: The Option Value of Waiting. VoxEU CERP, 2020. Available online: https://voxeu.org (accessed on 24 January 2021).
  15. Sun, N. Applying Siracusa: A Call for a General Comment on Public Health Emergencies. Health Hum. Rights J. 2020, 22, 387–390. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hansel, T.C.; Saltzman, L.Y.; Bordnick, P.S. Behavioral Health and Response for COVID-19. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2020, 14, 670–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Godinic, D.; Obrenovic, B.; Khudaykulov, A. Effects of Economic Uncertainty on Mental Health in the COVID-19 Pandemic Context: Social Identity Disturbance, Job Uncertainty and Psychological Well-Being Model. Int. J. Innov. Econ. Dev. 2020, 6, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Aquino, E.M.L.; Silveira, I.H.; Pescarini, J.M.; Aquino, R.; de Souza-Filho, J.A.; dos Santos Rocha, A.; Ferreira, A.; Victor, A.; Teixeira, C.; Machado, D.B.; et al. Medidas de Distanciamento Social No Controle Da Pandemia de COVID-19: Potenciais Impactos e Desafios No Brasil. Ciênc. Saúde Coletiva 2020, 25, 2423–2446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Baker, S.R.; Bloom, N.; Davis, S.J.; Terry, S.J. COVID-Induced Economic Uncertainty. Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. 2020. Available online: http://www.nber.org/papers/w26983 (accessed on 12 September 2020).
  20. Glowacz, F.; Schmits, E. Psychological Distress during the COVID-19 Lockdown: The Young Adults Most at Risk. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 293, 113486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Boone, L. Tackling the Fallout from COVID-19. In Economics in the Time of COVID-19; Baldwin, R.E., di Mauro, B.W., Eds.; Centre for Economic Policy Research: London, UK, 2020; pp. 37–44. ISBN 978-1-912179-28-2. [Google Scholar]
  22. Chen, C.W.S.; Lee, S.; Dong, M.C.; Taniguchi, M. What Factors Drive the Satisfaction of Citizens with Governments’ Responses to COVID-19? Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 102, 327–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wu, C.; Shi, Z.; Wilkes, R.; Wu, J.; Gong, Z.; He, N.; Xiao, Z.; Zhang, X.; Lai, W.; Zhou, D.; et al. Chinese Citizen Satisfaction with Government Performance during COVID-19. J. Contemp. China 2021, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Martín, J.C.; Román, C. COVID-19 Is Examining the EU and the Member States: The Role of Attitudes and Sociodemographic Factors on Citizens’ Support towards National Policies. Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard. 2020. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/ (accessed on 6 June 2021).
  26. Moris, D.; Schizas, D. Lockdown during COVID-19: The Greek Success. In Vivo 2020, 34, 1695–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. National Public Health Organization. Current State of Covid-19 Outbreak in Greece and Timeline of Key Containment Events. 2020. Available online: https://eody.gov.gr/en/current-state-of-covid-19-outbreak-in-greece-and-timeline-of-key-containmentevents/ (accessed on 19 April 2021).
  28. Bamias, G.; Lagou, S.; Gizis, M.; Karampekos, G.; Kyriakoulis, K.G.; Pontas, C.; Mantzaris, G.J. The Greek Response to COVID-19: A True Success Story from an IBD Perspective. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2020, 26, 1144–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Petrakis, P.E.; Kostis, P.C. The Requirements for a Pro-growth Long-Term View. In The Evolution of the Greek Economy.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 233–256. ISBN 978-3-030-47209-2. [Google Scholar]
  30. European Parliament. Public Opinion in the EU in Time of Coronavirus Crisis. 2020. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/eurobarometer/public-opinion-in-the-eu-in-time-of-coronavirus-crisis (accessed on 18 September 2020).
  31. Lipsitz, S.R.; Fitzmaurice, G.M.; Molenberghs, G. Goodness-of-Fit Tests for Ordinal Response Regression Models. Appl. Stat. 1996, 45, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tastle, W.J.; Wierman, M.J. Consensus and Dissention: A Measure of Ordinal Dispersion. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2007, 45, 531–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Hendrickx, J. Using Categorical Variables in Stata. Stata Tech. Bull. 1999, STB-52, 2–8. [Google Scholar]
  34. Fagerland, M.W. Adjcatlogit, ccrlogit, and ucrlogit: Fitting Ordinal Logistic Regression Models. Stata J. 2014, 14, 947–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Fagerland, M.W.; Hosmer, D.W. How to Test for Goodness of Fit in Ordinal Logistic Regression Models. Stata J. 2017, 17, 668–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Openshaw, M. CNS: Stata Module to Compute Consensus Measure for Ordinal Scales. 2010. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457130.html (accessed on 15 May 2021).
  37. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Policy Responses to the COVID-19 Crisis. 2020. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/social/Covid-19-Employment-and-Social-Policy-Responses-by-Country.xlsx (accessed on 19 April 2021).
  38. National Public Health Organization. Daily Reports on COVID-19. 2020. Available online: https://eody.gov.gr/ (accessed on 15 December 2020). (In Greek)
  39. Fragkaki, I.; Maciejewski, D.F.; Weijman, E.L.; Feltes, J.; Cima, M. Human Responses to Covid-19: The Role of Optimism Bias, Perceived Severity, and Anxiety. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 176, 110781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fouda, A.; Mahmoudi, N.; Moy, N.; Paolucci, F. The COVID-19 Pandemic in Greece, Iceland, New Zealand, and Singapore: Health Policies and Lessons Learned. Health Policy Technol. 2020, 9, 510–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Li, Y.; Zhang, R.; Zhao, J.; Molina, M.J. Understanding Transmission and Intervention for the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 748, 141560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Njindan Iyke, B. Economic Policy Uncertainty in Times of COVID-19 Pandemic. Asian Econ. Lett. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Manski, C.F. Forming COVID-19 Policy Under Uncertainty. J. Benefit Cost Anal. 2020, 11, 341–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chang, S.L.; Harding, N.; Zachreson, C.; Cliff, O.M.; Prokopenko, M. Modelling Transmission and Control of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 5710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Gapen, M.; Millar, J.; Blerina, U.; Sriram, P. Assessing the Effectiveness of Alternative Measures to Slow the Spread of COVID-19 in the United States; Covid Economics, Centre for Economic Policy Research Press: London, UK, 2020; pp. 46–75. Available online: https://cepr.org/content/covid-economics-vetted-and-real-time-papers-0 (accessed on 16 May 2021).
  46. Alfano, V.; Ercolano, S. The Efficacy of Lockdown Against COVID-19: A Cross-Country Panel Analysis. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2020, 18, 509–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhou, Y.; Xu, R.; Hu, D.; Yue, Y.; Li, Q.; Xia, J. Effects of Human Mobility Restrictions on the Spread of COVID-19 in Shenzhen, China: A Modelling Study Using Mobile Phone Data. Lancet Digit. Health 2020, 2, e417–e424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Susskind, D.; Vines, D. The Economics of the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Assessment. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2020, 36, S1–S13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gössling, S.; Scott, D.; Hall, C.M. Pandemics, Tourism and Global Change: A Rapid Assessment of COVID-19. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vasileiou, E.; Samitas, A.; Karagiannaki, M.; Dandu, J. Health Risk and the Efficient Market Hypothesis in the Time of COVID-19. Int. Rev. Appl. Econ. 2021, 35, 210–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abel, T.; McQueen, D. Critical health literacy and the COVID-19 crisis. Health Promot. Int. 2020, 35, 1612–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Siegrist, M.; Luchsinger, L.; Bearth, A. The Impact of Trust and Risk Perception on the Acceptance of Measures to Reduce COVID-19 Cases. Risk Anal. 2021, 41, 787–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Drosos, D.; Skordoulis, M.; Tsotsolas, N.; Kyriakopoulos, G.L.; Gkika, E.C.; Komisopoulos, F. Retail Customers’ Satisfaction with Banks in Greece: A Multicriteria Analysis of a Dataset. Data Brief. 2021, 35, 106915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Petrakis, P.E. The Greek Economy in the World. In The New Political Economy of Greece up to 2030; The Political Economy of Greek Growth up to 2030; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 95–112. ISBN 978-3-030-47074-6. [Google Scholar]
  55. Hazakis, K.J. Is There a Way out of the Crisis? Macroeconomic Challenges for Greece after the Covid-19 Pandemic. Eur. Politics Soc. 2021, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Rapid Risk Assessment. Increased Transmission of COVID-19 in the EU/EEA and the UK-Twelfth Update 2020. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-risk-assessment-increased-transmission-12th-update-september-2020.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2021).
  57. Ashraf, B.N. Economic Impact of Government Interventions during the COVID-19 Pandemic: International Evidence from Financial Markets. J. Behav. Exp. Financ. 2020, 27, 100371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Papanikos, G.T. The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Greek Tourism. AJT 2020, 7, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Politis, I.; Georgiadis, G.; Nikolaidou, A.; Kopsacheilis, A.; Fyrogenis, I.; Sdoukopoulos, A.; Verani, E.; Papadopoulos, E. Mapping Travel Behavior Changes during the COVID-19 Lock-down: A Socioeconomic Analysis in Greece. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2021, 13, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
World 02 00024 g001 550
Figure 1. Satisfaction with restriction measures.
Figure 1. Satisfaction with restriction measures.
World 02 00024 g001
World 02 00024 g002 550
Figure 2. Opinion regarding the costs and benefits of the restriction measures.
Figure 2. Opinion regarding the costs and benefits of the restriction measures.
World 02 00024 g002
World 02 00024 g003 550
Figure 3. Concern for own health.
Figure 3. Concern for own health.
World 02 00024 g003
World 02 00024 g004 550
Figure 4. Concern for family’s and friends’ health.
Figure 4. Concern for family’s and friends’ health.
World 02 00024 g004
Table
Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics.
Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics.
AgeGender % (n)
MaleFemale
16–248.57 (90)8.48 (89)
25–3411.05 (116)11.24 (118)
35–4414.95 (157)14.95 (157)
45–5415.43 (162)15.33 (161)
Table
Table 2. Satisfaction with restriction measures.
Table 2. Satisfaction with restriction measures.
Category% (n)
Very satisfied30.19 (314)
Fairly satisfied47.12 (490)
Not very satisfied16.63 (173)
Not at all satisfied6.06 (63)
Table
Table 3. Opinion regarding the costs and benefits of the restriction measures.
Table 3. Opinion regarding the costs and benefits of the restriction measures.
Category% (n)
The health benefits are greater than the economic damage21.60 (221)
225.90 (265)
317.50 (179)
416.52 (169)
511.93 (122)
The economic damage is greater than the health benefits6.55 (67)
Table
Table 4. Concern for health.
Table 4. Concern for health.
CategoryConcern for Own Health % (n)Concern for Family’s and Friends’ Health % (n)
Very concerned11.35 (118)23.29 (241)
Fairly concerned35.29 (367)47.44 (491)
Not very concerned37.98 (395)21.74 (225)
Not at all concerned15.38 (160)7.54 (78)
Table
Table 5. Adjacent category logistic model.
Table 5. Adjacent category logistic model.
VariableORp95% CI
Experiencing difficulties to have proper and decent quality meals since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic1.674<0.0011.2682.211
Experiencing other financial issues since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic1.4320.0011.1631.764
Public opinion regarding the costs and benefits of the restriction measures <0.001
The health benefits are greater than the economic damage0.560<0.0010.4460.702
20.487<0.0010.3910.607
30.6550.0010.5130.837
40.548<0.0010.4160.720
50.5250.0010.3600.765
COVID-19-related concern for own health 0.025
Very concerned vs. subsequent levels0.6470.0090.4660.899
Fairly concerned vs. subsequent levels0.8120.0650.6511.013
Not very concerned vs. not at all concerned0.7950.0970.6071.043
COVID-19-related concern for health of family and friends 0.011
Very concerned vs. subsequent levels0.6960.0080.5320.910
Fairly concerned vs. subsequent levels0.7410.0170.5800.948
Not very concerned vs. not at all concerned0.6360.0120.4480.904
Cons12.097<0.0011.7482.515
Cons20.353<0.0010.2860.436
Cons30.240<0.0010.1770.324
Table
Table 6. Link test.
Table 6. Link test.
VariableCoefficientp95% CI
h1.020<0.0010.8431.197
h2−0.0450.586−0.2060.116
Cons10.760<0.0010.5850.935
Cons2−1.031<0.001−1.185−0.877
Cons2−1.403<0.001−1.692−1.115
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zavras, D. Studying Satisfaction with the Restriction Measures Implemented in Greece during the First COVID-19 Pandemic Wave. World 2021, 2, 379-390. https://doi.org/10.3390/world2030024

AMA Style

Zavras D. Studying Satisfaction with the Restriction Measures Implemented in Greece during the First COVID-19 Pandemic Wave. World. 2021; 2(3):379-390. https://doi.org/10.3390/world2030024

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zavras, Dimitris. 2021. "Studying Satisfaction with the Restriction Measures Implemented in Greece during the First COVID-19 Pandemic Wave" World 2, no. 3: 379-390. https://doi.org/10.3390/world2030024

APA Style

Zavras, D. (2021). Studying Satisfaction with the Restriction Measures Implemented in Greece during the First COVID-19 Pandemic Wave. World, 2(3), 379-390. https://doi.org/10.3390/world2030024

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop