LIFE UNDER LOCKDOWN HAWAI‘I RESIDENT ASSESSMENT OF COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS John M. Knox, PhD President, John M. Knox & Associates, Inc Colin Moore, PhD Director, University of Hawai‘i Public Policy Center Sherilyn Hayashida, PhD Assistant Specialist, University of Hawai‘i Public Policy Center JULY 14, 2020 PUBLIC POLICY CENTER Knox, Moore, Hayashida i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the spring of 2020, Hawai‘i – like almost all U.S. states – imposed restrictions unprecedented in the lifetimes of most of its citizens to battle the spread of the “novel Coronavirus” COVID-19. These restrictions affected everyday resident behavior and great numbers of businesses. Tourism, the state’s largest economic sector, was mostly shut down, along with many other businesses. Schools were closed. Other than designated “essential workers,” residents were asked to stay at home if possible and wear masks when they did go out. This “lockdown” of the economy and of normal life was – when this project was first conceived in May 2020 – apparently successful in containing the virus, as Hawai‘i had one of the nation’s lowest morbidity and mortality rates. However, it also resulted in one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates, as well as great disruption for individuals and families. Furthermore, as the survey questionnaire was finalized in early June, new cases again began to increase as the local economy re-opened. The primary purpose of the resident survey described here was to learn about citizen responses to these restrictions and to get a point-in-time sense of whether they would be willing to do the same things again if (a) a clear and definite “second wave” materializes this summer/fall; or (b) yet another type of pandemic occurs in the near future. A secondary purpose of the survey was to get some preliminary sense of resident attitudes toward the re-opening of tourism, the State’s single largest economic sector. The tourism questions were designed, and all survey responses were received, prior to Governor David Ige’s June 24 announcement of changes to the current quarantine that would allow more overseas visitors to vacation in Hawai‘i again as of August 1. Knox, Moore, Hayashida ii Below are some of the more critical survey findings: A 54% majority still felt “A Little” or “Very” Unsafe going out to places with many other people. However, 61% “Somewhat” trusted (and another 10% “Strongly” trusted) State and local governments to keep everyone safe. The great majority (88%) thought various public health restrictions were “Mostly Reasonable” steps to protect public health, and only 7% found them “Mostly Unreasonable” violations of individual rights. Given a list of 20 specific restrictions, majorities thought all of them proved worthwhile for the March-to-May period, but some items garnered relatively larger minorities who said they were “Not Worth It” – particularly restrictions affecting non-COVID medical visits and restrictions on public beaches, followed by closing shopping centers/businesses and the 14-day inter-island quarantine. Asked to state in their own words what Hawai‘i did “right” in addressing the pandemic, respondents most often mentioned the overseas tourism shutdown/quarantine, cited by more than half of Hawai‘i residents. As for what Hawaii might “have done better,” answers were more scattered, but two of the top ones (at about 17% each) also involved tourism – a desire for even more restrictions on tourism and more effective tourist quarantine enforcement. If there is another wave (which 67% thought probable), majorities would be willing to repeat most of the same 20 restrictions. However, there was significant reluctance to repeat the same restrictions noted above – with majorities not wanting the same approaches to medical visits and public beaches, and strong pluralities against the same approaches to closing shopping centers/businesses and the inter-island quarantine. Some people simply said, “Don’t Do It Again,” but some said, “Do It in a Different Way” – and the survey gathered suggestions from sub-samples about how these more problematic restrictions could be done differently. Knox, Moore, Hayashida The survey explored selected household impacts of the virus and its economic effects. Two-thirds of households with children who had stayed home during the pandemic thought at least one child had been negatively affected in terms of personal development or education. Though the majority of respondents themselves (90%) handled the restrictions well on an emotional level, about one in five households were reported as having someone with “serious personal emotional problems” during the lockdown. And more than one-third said a “possibly important medical issue” had been put off. On the economic front, just 7% said someone in the household had permanently lost their job, but 34% said a household member had been temporarily laid off and 28% had worries about someone being laid off or fired soon. About 37% of households had someone who had filed for Unemployment Insurance benefits, with 31% having someone already receiving them. iii Some 81% of residents agreed they do not want “tourists coming to visit my community right now,” and just 15% disagreed. There is moderate trust (roughly one-third) in government and the travel industry working together to re-open tourism safely, while there is less trust in the industry itself. About one-third of residents do not trust either the state or travel industry to re-open tourism safely. If forced to choose between “Just getting tourism going for now” versus “Making big changes to the nature of tourism first,” 69% opted for big changes, 19% for getting tourism going again right away, with the rest undecided. Demographic and other group differences depended on the specific question. A general pattern was that lower-income and other marginalized groups were simultaneously the most negatively affected people, the most willing to repeat all the same restrictions, and the least willing to see tourism resume in its current form. Knox, Moore, Hayashida iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank John M. Knox & Associates for providing survey research support. We are grateful to Becki Ward and Ward Research for partnering with us to execute the survey, data collection, and computerized analysis. We also thank Sharon Moriwaki for her 2018 financial gift to the UH Public Policy Center to support the development of a survey research program. The time-sensitive nature of this survey meant that we were only able to consult a small number of stakeholders about its design. We are grateful to the following people for reviewing early questionnaire drafts and their helpful suggestions during this rapidly changing time: Jeanne Schultz Afuvai, Carl Bonham, Jennifer Chun, Makena Coffman, Philip Garboden, and Sumner LaCroix. We also acknowledge other surveys conducted that might benefit researchers and policymakers trying to gather relevant information on public opinion and/or reported impacts: • Bank of Hawai‘i: https://www.boh.com/siteassets/files/bohf_covid-19-in-hawaii_final-report_070120.pdf • Civil Beat/Hawai‘i News Now: https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/05/civil-beat-hnn-poll-stop-virus-even-if-economy-crumbles/ • National Disaster Preparedness Training Center and Pacific Urban Resilience Lab: https://manoahawaiiss.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9oUXdWn2YHRu27H • SMS Research: https://www.smshawaii.com/posts/2020/05/14/sms-community-pulse-community-views-on-covid-19 https://www.smshawaii.com/posts/2020/06/25/sms-community-pulse-community-views-on-hawai-i-g overnment-s-management-of-the-covid-19 • State of Hawai‘i, Department of Health: https://health.hawaii.gov/news/files/2020/05/20-046-DOH-COVID-Survey-Results.pdf • University of Hawai‘i Economic Research Organization: https://uhero.hawaii.edu/covid-19s-uneven-impact-on-businesses-and-workers-results-from-a-uhero-c hamber-of-commerce-hawaii-survey/ Knox, Moore, Hayashida P1 CONTENTS 1. Introduction P4-6 1.1 Purpose P5 1.2 Survey Methods P5-6 2. Perceived General Safety and Trust Levels P7-9 2.1 Overall Sense of Safety as of Mid-June 2020 P7-8 2.2 Trust in Government to Keep People Safe P8-9 3. Assessment of Overall Hawai‘i Safety Levels P10-12 3.1 Beliefs about How Hawai‘i Health Outcomes Compare to Other States P10 3.2 What Hawai‘i Did Right ... and What We Could Have Done Better P11-12 4. Assessment of Specific Hawai‘i Restrictions (March to May) P13-20 4.1 If Restrictions Generally “Reasonable” or Not P13-14 4.2 Reactions to Specific Restrictions P14-17 4.3 Overall Emotional Reaction to Restrictions P18 4.4 Restrictions People Found Particularly Hard P19-20 5. If There was Another Wave... P21-33 5.1 Likelihood of Another Wave P21-22 5.2 When Restrictions Should Again Be Imposed P22-23 5.3 Specific Restrictions That Should Be Done Again or Done Differently P24-26 5.4 How to Do Certain Things Differently Next Time P27-33 6. Household Impacts From Virus Or Restrictions P34-41 6.1 If Significant Household Financial Impact P34-35 6.2 Stay-at-Home Patterns and Changes P36 6.3 Children at Home and Any Negative Impacts P37 6.4 Selected Other Specific Household Impacts: Overall Results P38-39 6.5 Selected Other Specific Household Impacts: Demographic Differences P40-41 7. Overseas Tourism Re-Opening P42-49 7.1 If Visitors Welcome in Community P42-43 7.2 Requirements for Tourism Re-Opening P44-45 7.3 Trust in State and/or Travel Industry to Re-Open Safely P45-46 7.4 If Tourism Needs “Big Changes” or Not P47 7.5 Effect of Personal Economic Involvement on Tourism Opinions P48-49 8. Discussion and Conclusions P50-53 9. End Notes P54-55 P56-66 10. APPENDIX: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Knox, Moore, Hayashida P2 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1.1: Table on Key Demos, Representatives P6 TABLE 2.1: Selected Group Differences – Perceived Safety in Public P8 TABLE 2.2: Selected Group Differences – Low Trust in Govt. to Ensure Safety P9 TABLE 3.1: Most Common Answer Categories, “What We Did Right” P11 TABLE 3.2: Most Common Answer Categories, “What We Could Have Done Better” P12 TABLE 4.1: Selected Group Differences – Restrictions Seen as “Unreasonable” P14 TABLE 4.2: Selected Group Differences – Restrictions Seen as “Not Worth It” P16 TABLE 4.3: Selected Group Differences – Emotional Handling of Lockdown P18 TABLE 4.4: Restrictions Judged Hardest by Residents P19-20 TABEL 5.1: Suggested “Other Clear Signs” for Re-Imposing Restrictions P23 TABLE 5.2: Selected Group Differences – “Don’t Do Again” or “Do Differently” P26 TABLE 5.3: Top Things to Do Differently, and How Each of These Should Be Done Differently P28-29 TABLE 6.1: Selected Group Differences – Heavy Household Financial Impact P35 TABLE 6.2: Selected Group Differences – Not Staying Home During Lockdown P36 TABLE 6.3: Selected Group Differences – Various Household Impacts P40-41 TABLE 7.1: Selected Group Differences – Strongly Against Tourists Now P43 TABLE 7.2: Most Common Answer Categories, “More Requirements” Desired P45 TABLE 7.3: Selected Group Differences – Trust Neither State Nor Industry P46 TABLE 7.4: Selected Group Differences – Tourism Needs “Big Changes” First P47 TABLE 7.5: Tourism Opinions by Work Dependence on Tourists/Tourism P49 Knox, Moore, Hayashida P3 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1: Timeline of New Hawai‘i Cases, Including Survey Dates P4 FIGURE 2.1: Perceived Safety Going Out in Public as of Mid-June 2020 P6 FIGURE 2.2: Trust in State/Local Governments to Keep Public Safe P9 FIGURE 3.1: Beliefs About Hawai‘i Virus Rates Compared to Other States P10 FIGURE 4.1: Whether Restrictions Seen as Mostly Reasonable/Unreasonable P13 FIGURE 4.2: Restrictions Seen as Worth or Not Worth Doing in the March-to-May Period P17 FIGURE 4.3: How Well Respondents Were Handling Restrictions Emotionally P18 FIGURE 5.1: Beliefs About Whether Another Wave Is Likely P22 FIGURE 5.2: Best Indication That Restrictions Should Be Re-Imposed P22 FIGURE 5.3: Restrictions That Should Be Done, Not Done, or Done Differently “Next Time P25 FIGURE 6.1: If Household Thus Far Is Experiencing Significant Financial Distress P34 FIGURE 6.2: Percentages Staying Home (and Whether That Was Change) P36 FIGURE 6.3: If Children Stayed Home (and If Were Negatively Affected) P37 FIGURE 6.4: Selected Household Impacts from Virus or Restrictions P39 FIGURE 7.1: If Residents Do or Don’t Want Tourists in Communities Now P42 FIGURE 7.2: Whether Inter-Island Travel Rules Should Apply to Overseas Arrivals P44 FIGURE 7.3: Trust in State and Industry to Re-Open Tourism Safely P46 FIGURE 7.4: If Tourism Should Just Get Going or Make Big Changes First P47 Knox, Moore, Hayashida P4 1. INTRODUCTION This statewide survey of 609 Hawai‘i residents was designed in late May and early June 2020. It was then conducted from June 15 to June 22, 2020. As the survey questionnaire approached its final form, Hawai‘i was opening up its local economy and most of its parks, had just announced lifting its interisland quarantine (on June 16), but had not yet relaxed its 14-day quarantine for passengers arriving from overseas. Beaches were crowded on weekends (especially on Memorial Day in late May), with little attention to social distancing. Other states also were re-opening and seeing Memorial Day crowds. By mid-June, new cases were in fact escalating again, though not yet to the previous peak levels experienced in late March and early April. State Deptartment of Health officials were frequently quoted as saying such increases were to be expected due to relaxation of restrictions, and many of the new cases were clustered in particular families, nursing homes, or social groups (e.g., churches). The number of new cases in June through the end of data collection period exceeded the total number for all of May. SURVEY DESIGN NEW CASES 60 50 40 30 20 DATA COLLECTION FIG 1.1 TIMELINE OF NEW HAWAI‘I CASES, INCLUDING SURVEY DATES 10 0 March 1 April 1 May 1 June 1 July 1 By June 30, when this report was largely finalized, many other states were also seeing new surges – attributed both to economic “opening up” and also to Memorial Day parties – and some Mainland states were re-imposing various restrictions. Hawai‘i newspapers were warning that the upcoming July 4 weekend could mean further surges here if residents were not careful about social distancing and wearing masks. As this report went to press on July 8, Hawai‘i experienced 41 new cases, the largest yet for a single day. The country as a whole also recorded new daily highs. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P5 1.1 PURPOSE The primary purpose of the survey was to explore Hawai‘i residents’ reactions to the various “lockdown” restrictions imposed from March to May. We particularly wanted to learn which ones would be generally acceptable or unacceptable to repeat if this virus or something similar should again soon require emergency measures. Most chapters in this report have to do with that purpose. Additionally, the survey may reveal some public misunderstandings meriting corrective educational actions by government officials. A secondary purpose was to get some preliminary sense about opinions regarding the upcoming (but at that point still unscheduled) re-opening of the overseas tourism economy. How this could occur safely was still being explored, with new information almost daily about the legality, practicality, or effectiveness of testing air passengers to Hawai‘i. Therefore, we asked fewer questions about this topic, and results are in a single section (Chapter 7). One thread common to both survey purposes involves the level of public trust – trust in the need for restrictions, in the safety that they did or did not assure, in government generally, and to some extent in the visitor industry specifically. A few key survey questions attempt to measure how much trust people currently feel. We anticipate the survey’s greatest potential value to policymakers lies in resident assessment of specific restrictions based on their March-to-May experiences. If there is a “next time” – very soon, later in the year, or perhaps even in a few years due to some different pandemic – it seems unlikely that the full spectrum of lockdown restrictions will be repeated due to their severe economic consequences. Decisions about what to do in such a case will surely depend on more factors than public opinion. However, this survey will hopefully provide some appropriate level of guidance if and as policymakers must settle upon a more surgical approach – one that perhaps repeats some but not all of the initial restrictions. 1.2 SURVEY METHODS The survey was administered using Hawai‘i Panel, an online survey panel developed and maintained by Ward Research. Panelists are awarded points for participating in surveys and can redeem their points for PayPal payment or store gift cards. Those participating in this survey were awarded points equal to $4.50. Panel-based research is a long-accepted practice in survey research, with online panels increasing in usage due to the challenges associated with telephone interviewing. The Hawai‘i Panel generally matches Hawai‘i’s population relative to key demographics, with the acknowledgment that it does require online access. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P6 The University of Hawai‘i Public Policy Center developed the survey instrument, which Ward Research reviewed, programmed and administered. The statewide survey was administered between June 15 to June 22, 2020. The mean number of minutes for survey completion was 18 minutes, with evidence that respondents invested time and thought in answering open-ended questions. Quotas were set by county, for a total of 609 respondents statewide. Data were weighted by age, gender, and ethnicity to reflect the statewide adult (18+) population demographic composition. Table 1.1 shows the county, age, ethnicity, and gender weights used to weight the online panel. The final sample has a margin of error of +/- 4 percent with a 95 percent confidence interval. Data processing was accomplished using SPSS and banner tables were created using Wincross, which incorporated tests of statistical significance on subsample differences. Hawai‘i Adult Population (%)* Unweighted Survey Data (%) Weighted Survey Data (%) County Hawai‘i Island Kauai Maui O‘ahu 15 5 12 68 15 4 12 68 12 4 10 74 Age 18-29 30-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older 21 26 16 17 20 7 29 16 22 26 21 26 16 18 19 Ethnicity Filipino Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian Japanese White or Caucasian Mixed/Other/Refused 13 22 21 23 22 5 16 26 27 26 13 23 23 20 23 Gender TABLE 1.1 TABLE ON KEY DEMOGRAPHICS, REPRESENTATIVENESS Male Female 50 50 44 55 50 50 *Based on 2018 U.S. Census (American Community Survey 5-Year) Estimates, the 2018 State of Hawai‘i Data Book, the 2010 Census, and the 2010 Hawai‘i Health Survey Knox, Moore, Hayashida P7 2. PERCEIVED GENERAL SAFETY AND TRUST LEVELS 2.1 OVERALL SENSE OF SAFETY AS OF MID-JUNE 2020 The first opinion question was: Hawai‘i is starting to re-open. Right now, how safe do you feel going out to places with many other people? Figure 2.1 shows 46% felt “Very” or “Fairly” Safe, while a 54% majority felt “A Little” or “Very” Unsafe. Most answers were a bit hedged – i.e., residents were more likely to give a qualified “Fairly Safe” or “A Little Unsafe,” rather than “Very” Safe or Unsafe. This suggests most people are nervous about their safety, rather than feeling either definitely threatened or definitely confident. FIGURE 2.1: PERCEIVED SAFETY GOING OUT IN PUBLIC AS OF MID-JUNE 2020 10% 36% Very Safe Fairly Safe 0.3% Don’t Know/ No Answer For all charts in this report, unless otherwise stated, N (wtd) = 609. Percentages may not add exactly to 100% due to rounding error. 38% 15% A Little Unsafe Very Unsafe Knox, Moore, Hayashida P8 There were few substantial differences among the various demographic or other groups for which cross-tabulations were done.1 The only key demographic group for which a slight majority felt “Safe” was that of young people aged 18-29, and even this difference from the average percentage response was small. A later question dealt with whether respondents expect another virus wave (Section 5.1), and the small minority that did not expect another wave was, logically, much more likely to feel safe right now. TABLE 2.1: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – PERCEIVED SAFETY IN PUBLIC Pct. “Very” or “Fairly” Safe Total 46% Age 18-29 52% Don’t Expect Another Wave 84% 2.2 TRUST IN GOVERNMENT TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE Immediately following was: As the re-opening continues, how much do you trust State and local governments to keep everyone safe? Figure 2.2 indicates a 61% majority just “Somewhat” trusted Hawai‘i governments, with another 10% saying they “Strongly” trusted and 28% feeling little or no trust. Though most residents did not yet feel safe going out, a majority felt at least partial trust in local government to keep everyone safe. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P9 FIGURE 2.2: TRUST IN STATE/LOCAL GOVERMENTS TO KEEP PUBLIC SAFE 2% 10% 28% Little or No Trust Somewhat Trust Strongly Trust 61% Don't Know/ No Answer Virtually all the groups we analyzed showed the same general pattern of partial trust in government – i.e., majorities saying “Somewhat Trust,” followed by “Little or No Trust” and only small percentages saying “Strongly Trust.” The greatest levels of explicit distrust were among Native Hawaiians, larger households, and people who answered later question about emotional distress from restrictions “Poorly” (Section 4.3). TABLE 2.2: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – LOW TRUST IN GOVT. TO ENSURE SAFETY Pct. “Little or No Trust” Total 28% Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian 40% Household Size: 4 People 37% Household Size: 5+ 42% Handled Restriction “Somewhat/Very Poorly” 44% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P10 3. ASSESSMENT OF OVERALL HAWAI‘I SAFETY LEVELS 3.1 BELIEFS ABOUT HOW HAWAI‘I HEALTH OUTCOMES COMPARE TO OTHER STATES Hawai‘i’s rate of cases and deaths from COVID-19 were much lower than other U.S. states. As of June 30, 2020, both total cases per 1 million residents (576) and also virus deaths per 1 million residents (12) were lower than for any other U.S. state.2 To determine level of awareness, we asked: To the best of your knowledge, has Hawai‘i had higher rates of Coronavirus cases than most U.S. states, about the same as most states, or lower rates of cases than most states? Figure 3.1 shows the great majority of residents (94%) correctly answered “Lower Rate,” but 4% thought we had “About the Same” or “Higher Rates,” with 2% unsure. FIGURE 3.1: BELIEFS ABOUT HAWAI‘I VIRUS RATES COMPARED TO OTHER STATES Higher Rates 4% Lower Rates 2% 0.4% 94% About Same Don’t Know/ No Answer Demographic or other group differences for this belief were very small, with roughly 90% or more of every group correctly saying “Lower Rates.” Knox, Moore, Hayashida P11 3.2 WHAT HAWAI‘I DID RIGHT... AND WHAT WE COULD HAVE DONE BETTER We then asked respondents to write in their own answers to two open-ended questions: What did we do right in addressing the Coronavirus pandemic? What could we have done better in addressing the Coronavirus pandemic? Answers were coded into general categories.3 Table 3.1 and Table 3.2, respectively, show the most frequent types of answers to each question. What We Did Right: Table 3.1 makes it clear that discouraging overseas tourists and imposing quarantines was by far the most frequent general type of answer. Cross-tabulations showed it was the top response category for virtually every group. Stay-at-home restrictions came in second overall, at 35%. One group less likely to say this were lower-income households ($35,000 or under, just 16%), which may often have consisted of people with service jobs or other occupations that could not be done from home. Shutting down (including beaches, parks, and parties) was next at 24%, followed closely by masks at 22%. Masks were more often cited by the 65+ kūpuna generation (34%, vs. about 20% for all under 55) and by those who had not held a job as of February (35%). The last type of answer with responses above the 10% level involved social distancing at 14%, again even more important to the senior 65+ age group (28%) than others. TABLE 3.1: MOST COMMON ANSWER CATEGORIES, “WHAT WE DID RIGHT” Type of Response Percentage* Restricting travel/Shutting down tourism/14-day quarantine for tourists/Enforcement of quarantine breakers 52% Stay at home/Work from home/Lockdown/Curfew 35% Shutting down/Closing business, schools, parks, beaches/ Cancelling events, gathering 24% Masks/Requirements to wear masks 22% Social Distancing 14% *Percentages are based on entire sample (609). Because respondents could give more than one answer, percentages for all coded categories could exceed 100%. The average respondent gave 1.9 answers before coding. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P12 Less frequently mentioned were the State’s quick response, having protocols for opening in place, good communications from government, sanitizing and hand-washing, the start of testing and contact tracing, praise for particular leaders, good data gathering, efforts to secure personal protective equipment (PPE) to keep hospitals from overwhelm, and unemployment relief and food drives. Only 2% said Hawai‘i had done “nothing right” or had “messed up the economy” with too many restrictions. What We Could Have Done Better: Residents gave fewer and more diverse answers to this question, with no single answer category above 17%. Two out of the top three answer categories again involved a focus on tourism (even more tourism restrictions and more effective tourist quarantine enforcement for those who did come), with the other one involving desire for speedier overall restrictions.4 The desire for more effective tourist quarantine enforcement was relatively strongest among households with 2019 incomes above $150,000 (27%) and/or seniors 65+ (24%). Desire for more testing was next at 14% overall, again with even greater support from seniors (21%). This was followed by quicker local economy re-opening (10% overall, increasing to 27% among those who said they don’t expect another wave of the virus). TABLE 3.2: MOST COMMON ANSWER CATEGORIES, “WHAT WE COULD HAVE DONE BETTER” Type of Response Percentage* Should have been quicker/Timeliness, took too long to respond or make decisions/Started faster 17% Reduce travel further/Shut down airport 17% More effective quarantine enforcement/Track visitors 17% More testing/Test better, quicker/ Mandatory state-wide testing/Antibody tests 14% Open up the economy more quickly/Closed too long/ Give businesses guidelines earlier 10% *Because respondents could give more than one answer, percentages for all coded categories could exceed 100%. The average respondent gave 1.4 answers before coding. A wide range of other answer categories each garnered less than 10%. These included but were not limited to better enforcement of social distance and mask requirements, better data and/or communication, more coordinated action between State and counties, better delivery of Unemployment Insurance benefits or other financial assistance, and need to delay re-opening even longer. About 10% said they could think of nothing we could have done better and/or “we’re doing as well as can be expected.” Knox, Moore, Hayashida P13 4. ASSESSMENT OF SPECIFIC HAWAI‘I RESTRICTIONS (MARCH TO MAY) Some questions specified restrictions that were in effect from “March to May” because many of these were in the process of being lifted during the June timeframe in which the survey was taken. 4.1 IF RESTRICTIONS GENERALLY “REASONABLE” OR NOT An initial broad question was: In general, were the actions taken in response to the Coronavirus by State and county governments mostly reasonable steps to protect public health, or mostly unreasonable violations of individual rights and liberties? While we recognized that some people might have nuanced opinions, the response categories (shown in Figure 4.1) deliberately forced a clear choice between “Mostly Reasonable” and “Mostly Unreasonable.” Figure 4.1 shows the great majority of residents (88%) thought the restrictions were generally reasonable, with just 7% saying they were unreasonable violations of rights and liberties and 5% unsure or unwilling to express an opinion. FIGURE 4.1: WHETHER RESTRICTIONS SEEN AS MOSTLY REASONABLE/UNREASONABLE 88% Mostly Reasonable Steps to Protect Public Health Don’t Know/No Answer 5% 7% Mostly Unreasonable Violations of Individual Rights and Liberties Knox, Moore, Hayashida P14 No demographic group had percentages “Mostly Unreasonable” any higher than 15%. However, those who said their households had been significantly impacted financially (big dent in savings or had to borrow money) did reach that 15% level, followed by a few ethnic groups. Some opinions and attitudes were more strongly associated, though the direction of causality is not clear. People who said they don’t expect another virus wave or who said they struggled emotionally with the restrictions had larger minorities saying the restrictions were “Mostly Unreasonable.” TABLE 4.1: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – RESTRICTIONS SEEN AS “UNREASONABLE” Pct. “Mostly Unreasonable” Total 7% Heavy Household Financial Impact 15% Handled Restrictions “Somewhat/Very Poorly” 33% Caucasian 12% “Other” Ethnicity 14% Don’t Expect Another Wave 21% 4.2 REACTIONS TO SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS During the March-to-May “lockdown,” residents faced many restrictions and changes, and we could not list all of them. For example, there were periods of curfews on some islands, but these varied by county. However, we did test a substantial number of the known constraints on normal behavior during the initial 2020 lockdown. Figure 4.2 shows these 20 specific restrictions – ordered by the percentages by which respondents expressed retrospective approval – following the general question: Here is a list of some things local governments did, or asked people here in Hawai‘i to do, to fight the Coronavirus from March to May. For each of these, please indicate whether you think it was worth doing or not worth doing. Each of these 20 items was found to be have been a worthwhile policy by majorities of respondents – although, as will be seen in the following Chapter 5, that does not necessarily mean that everyone would be happy to repeat each restriction if there is a “next time.” Knox, Moore, Hayashida P15 The items with the largest minorities complaining these restrictions had not been “worth it” were: Sharply restricting use of public beaches, 31% Discouraging medical visits other than for the Coronavirus, 30% Closing all shopping centers and many businesses, 20% Requiring 14-day quarantine for inter-island air trips, 19% Most of these involved impacts to personal life rather than to the economy. (Even closures of shopping centers and businesses cause personal inconvenience, as well as economic damage.) All four of these restrictions emerge again in the following chapter as top actions that many or most residents would prefer government not repeat, or at least do differently, if another strong surge of the virus occurs in the foreseeable future. Demographic differences for these four relatively objectionable restrictions were again not vast, though the usual attitudinal relationships with emotional responses and expectations of another wave were somewhat more pronounced. Gender differences comprised the most consistent demographic factor, and were perhaps larger than Table 4.2 below might at first suggest – for example, for inter-island quarantine, the 28% Male “Not Worth It” is twice as large as the 13% Female figure. Still, both remain fairly small percentages. The restrictions most often judged “not worth it” were largely about personal rather than economic impacts. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P16 FIGURE 4.2: RESTRICTIONS SEEN AS WORTH OR NOT WORTH DOING IN THE MARCH-TO-MAY PERIOD Worth it Don’t Know/Didn’t Answer Closing theaters, gyms, indoor sports events Telling people to stay 6 feet apart in public 90% 3% 7% 89% 5% 6% 95% 1% 4% Telling people always to stay home if possible 90% 3% 7% Send tourists home if caught leaving rooms 93% 3% 5% Returning residents must do 14-day quarantine 91% 3% 7% Shutting down vacation rentals 81% 7% 12% 79% 7% 14% 5% 12% Closing public schools/childcare 84% Requiring non-essential workers to stay home 83% 5% 12% 5% 12% Not allowing sit-in dining at restaurants 83% Requiring 14-day qurantine inter-island trips 5% 8% Tell tourists don’t come or do 14-day quarantine 91% 3% 6% Closing all bars 77% 5% 19% Closing shopping centers, many businesses 75% 5% 20% Sharply restricting use of public beaches 3% 9% No visitors in senior (kūpuna) living centers 90% 6% 7% Stopping outdoor team sports Encouraging people to work from home 88% 88% Discouraging parties w/ family, friends Requiring use of masks in public 87% Not Worth It 65% 4% 31% Discourage medical visits except for virus 5% 6% 58% 12% Some item wording slightly shortened/revised for reasons of space; see exact original words in Appendix questionnaire. 30% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P17 TABLE 4.2: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – RESTRICTIONS SEEN AS “NOT WORTH IT” Pct. “Not Worth,” Beaches Total 31% Male Caucasian “Other” Ethnicity 37% 37% 37% Don’t Expect Another Wave 53% Handled 56% Restrictions “Poorly” Pct. “Not Worth,” Closing Shops/Businesses Total 20% Male 26% Heavy Household Financial Impact 25% Don’t Expect Another Wave 40% Handled Restriction “Poorly” 35% Pct. “Not Worth,” Medical Visits Total 30% Male 38% Household Size 5+ 41% Don’t Expect Another Wave 43% Handled 40% Restriction “Poorly” Pct. “Not Worth,” Inter-Island Quarantine Male 28% Chinese 27% 24% Total Caucasian Don’t Expect 36% Another Wave 19% Handled 37% Restrictions “Poorly” Demographic differences for the remaining 16 items shown in Figure 4.2 were usually even less than those shown above. The tendency for males and, sometimes, Caucasians to be a little more likely to say “Not Worth It” popped up for other items as well, but again all these “Not Worth It” percentages were quite small – some just a little smaller or larger than others. The attitude relationships (i.e., expectation of no new virus wave, poor emotional handling of restrictions) were usually apparent, but these groups generally just had larger minorities saying “Not Worth It,” not actual majorities. The only time these two attitudinal groups had majorities saying “Not Worth It” was, as per Table 4.2, in regard to restrictions on public beaches. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P18 4.3 OVERALL EMOTIONAL REACTION TO RESTRICTIONS The next question was: Overall, on an emotional level, how well did you handle living with the coronavirus restrictions? As shown in Figure 4.3, only 7% acknowledged they were handling the lockdown “Somewhat” or “Very” Poorly, though 48% gave the qualified answer “Somewhat” Well. Meanwhile, just 45% contended they were doing “Very” Well. FIGURE 4.3: HOW WELL RESPONDENTS WERE HANDLING RESTRICTIONS EMOTIONALLY Somewhat Well 45% Somewhat Poorly 48% Very Well 5% 1% 2% Don’t Know/ No Answer Very Poorly In Table 4.3 below we focus on showing groups particularly high or low in just the “Very Well” percentages. Filipinos, people who were undergoing household financial stress, and young adults were the groups least likely to say “Very Well.” There was a clear age pattern, with every age cohort a little more likely than the younger one before to say “Very Well,” up to the majority 55% level for seniors. TABLE 4.3: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – EMOTIONAL HANDLING OF LOCKDOWN Pct. “Very Well” Total 45% Filipino (low percentage) Heavy Household Financial Impact (low percentage) 26% Age 18-29 (low percentage) 36% Age 65+ (high percentage) 55% Male (high percentage) 51% 33% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P19 4.4 RESTRICTIONS PEOPLE FOUND PARTICULARLY HARD We asked people to write in answers, in their own words, to the question: Of all the things people here were asked to do to fight the Coronavirus, what were the most important restrictions/rules that you or your household found really hard to follow? Respondents were asked to list up to three problematic rules, or to answer “None” if that was actually the case. The stated intention here was to identify restrictions that people found “hard to follow” (and, implicitly, might be rules they actually broke). However, many people seemed to answer more in terms of what they just found “hard” – i.e., things they particularly disliked. For example, some cited “Inter-island travel bans/quarantine,” but that was a situation they disliked, not a rule they might realistically have broken. Some answer categories were unclear or mixed – e.g., exercise includes “no gyms” (all closed, and nobody could have gone) but also “no hiking” (which some people might have done nevertheless). Therefore, Table 4.4 shows the most frequent answer categories (after coding5) for each of three general clusters: (a) those that appeared plausible to interpret as “Hard to Follow,” (b) those that appeared usually to be restrictions that were just hard to like (“Particularly Disliked”), and (c) a few categories that were Mixed or Unclear. Even these distinctions are approximate and subjective, so the safer interpretation of these results is simply that these were the “hardest” restrictions for residents. TABLE 4.4: TOP RESTRICTIONS JUDGED HARDEST BY RESIDENTS Type of Response Hard to Follow Percentage* None/Nothing hard to follow 41% Not able to visit family, friends/Not able to have visitors/No parties, gatherings 20% Staying home/confinement/curfew 19% Having to wear mask/hard to breathe with mask 18% Closed beaches/Closed parks 13% Social distancing 9% Continued on next page Knox, Moore, Hayashida P20 TABLE 4.4: TOP RESTRICTIONS JUDGED HARDEST BY RESIDENTS (CONTINUED) Type of Response Particularly Disliked Mixed/ Unclear Percentage* Travel ban/Inter-island quarantine/ flying restrictions 9% No eating out/Not able to dine in/ Go to bars 6% Quantity limits on essential items/ Only shopping for essential items/Hoarding 6% Not working/Economy shutdown/ Working from home 5% No gym/Hiking/Running/Play sports/ Golf/Exercise, etc 4% *Because respondents could give more than one answer, percentages for all coded categories could exceed 100%. The average respondent gave 1.2 answers before coding. Perhaps remarkably, more than four in ten respondents said they found nothing hard to follow. However, there was again a clear age pattern, with much more accepting equanimity among seniors aged 65+ (53%) and people in the 45-54 or 55-64 age brackets (about 47% each), and much less in the young adult 18-29 category (just 25%). Neighbor Islanders were more likely to find nothing hard to follow (49%) than were O‘ahu residents (40%). As expected, the group least likely to say nothing had been hard involved people who said they were handling the lockdown “poorly,” with just 12%. For those who did say some restrictions were hard to follow, the top responses both involved social isolation – inability to see family/friends and also confinement to homes, each about 20%. These were followed by issues with masks (18%) and closed beaches/parks (13%). Young adults 18-29 found it particularly hard to follow restrictions against socializing with family and friends (30%) and closed beaches/ parks (23%). People who said they were dealing with the lockdown “poorly” were much more likely to cite three of these particular restrictions: confinement to homes (42%), masks (37%), and closed beaches/parks (28%). However, they did not stand out as being more likely than others to say that inability to see family/friends was a hard restriction to follow. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P21 5. IF THERE IS ANOTHER WAVE... This chapter includes some of the most potentially critical survey results. Will people be willing to comply with all the same restrictions if caseloads spike again to previous or greater levels? It should be noted that we did not ask about possible large general changes in the way society could respond if there is a next wave. The restrictions imposed from March to May 2020 might be viewed as specific “tactics” that were part of a broader “strategy” of locking down most normal social and economic functions to minimize virus transmission. There could be different future overall strategies – e.g., deciding to keep far more economic activity going while making it the responsibility of older or other vulnerable people alone to protect themselves by not working, self-isolating, etc. We did not ask for opinions about such large strategic shifts because they have not been systematically aired or explored in public meetings or news media. We assume substantial public uncertainty over such possible strategic changes. In fact, the State currently has a plan for assessing various risk levels and gradually changing different restrictions depending on changes in caseloads and hospital capacity. This system seemed too complex to present directly in a survey to test public awareness and comfort levels. 5.1 LIKELIHOOD OF ANOTHER WAVE The initial question for this section was: Do you think Hawai‘i will probably get another serious wave of the Coronavirus? As shown in Figure 5.1, 67% said “Yes,” another serious wave was likely; 15% said “No;” and 18% were unsure or did not want to answer. Thus, about two out of three are expecting that the worst is not yet over, and only one out of six feels confident that Hawai‘i is now out of the woods in regard to the virus. Most residents expect another wave. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P22 FIGURE 5.1: BELIEFS ABOUT WHETHER ANOTHER WAVE IS LIKELY 18% Yes No 15% 67% Don't Know/ No Answer Demographic and other group differences for this item were very small. People who said they handled the lockdown “poorly” were a little less likely to expect another wave (just 56% “Yes”), but that difference was not statistically significant. 5.2 WHEN RESTRICTIONS SHOULD AGAIN BE IMPOSED The follow-up question was: If there is an increase in Coronavirus cases again, when should the State consider resuming some of the same restrictions? Possible response categories and results are shown in Figure 5.2. A clear majority of 62% said the best indicator is simply rising caseloads for several weeks in a row. Just 8% wanted to have restrictions never again. Only 12% focused on hospital capacity (generally considered by public health experts to be the most important metric). A similar 13% said they would rely on “Other Clear Signs” besides those offered as optional answers, and their explanations of what these are discussed shortly below. FIGURE 5.2: BEST INDICATION THAT RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE RE-IMPOSED 8% When cases go up several weeks in a row 6% Wait to see if hospitals fill up 13% 12% 62% Wait for other clear signs we need them again Never want same restrictions again Don't Know/No Answer Knox, Moore, Hayashida P23 Again, demographic and other group differences were small and not particularly informative. Almost all groups had majorities choosing “When Cases Go Up Several Weeks in a Row,” with remaining percentages scattered among “Wait for Other Clear Signs,” “Hospitals Fill Up,” and “Never Again” (People who handled the lockdown “poorly” or who did not expect another wave were a little more likely to say “Never Again”, but even these groups just had about 20% each resistant to all restrictions.) Only those respondents who said the State should await “Other Clear Signs” were then asked to describe in their own words: What other types of clear signs do you feel should be used as the basis for resuming public restrictions? Replies were coded into general categories, and Table 5.1 shows the most frequent types of answers6, with community spread as the dominant suggestion. TABLE 5.1: SUGGESTED “OTHER CLEAR SIGNS” FOR RE-IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS Type of Response Percentage* Cases among local residents/Community spread/ Beyond small clusters 35% Watch what’s happening elsewhere & impose restrictions beforehand/CDC recommendations 12% Should continue shutdown/Too early to remove restrictions 11% Increase in inappropriate activities/large gatherings/ not following COVID-prevention 9% N (wtd) for this question was 79. *Because respondents could give more than one answer, percentages for all coded categories could exceed 100%. The average respondent gave 1.04 answers before coding. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P24 5.3 SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS THAT SHOULD BE DONE AGAIN OR DONE DIFFERENTLY The same list of 20 different specific restrictions which respondents had previously retrospectively evaluated (Section 4.2) was repeated as part of a prospective question: If the Coronavirus does come back later, do you think Hawai‘i should do each of these things again, not do them again, or do them but in some different way? Figure 5.3 presents results, ordered by percentage willing to “Do Again.” Note that other answers included both “Don’t Do Again” and also “Do in Different Way.” Majorities were willing to do almost all the same restrictions again if necessary, but residents were clearly more reluctant about certain ones. And a few did in fact have majorities saying either “Don’t Do” or “Different Way,” while others had large pluralities for the combined total of these two possible answers: Discouraging medical visits other than for the Coronavirus, 24% (“Don’t Do”) plus 32% (“Do Differently”) = total 55%; Sharply restricting use of public beaches, 25% (“Don’t Do”) plus 27% (“Do Differently”)= total 52%; Closing all shopping centers and many businesses, 14% (“Don’t Do”) plus 34% (“Do Differently”) = total 48%; Requiring 14-day quarantine for inter-island air trips, 20% (“Don’t Do”) plus 23% (“Do Differently”) = total 43%. These four items are identical to the ones that large minorities identified as “Not Worth It” in the earlier (Section 4.2) retrospective assessment of the value of different controls and constraints. However, the various percentages not wanting to repeat these objectionable restrictions became much higher when people were asked about doing them again in the future. Majorities or large pluralities do not want to repeat the March-to-May restrictions on medical visits, beach use, local economic shutdown, and inter-island quarantines in the same way next time, even though they earlier said these things were worth doing first time around. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P25 Again, most of these particularly problematic restrictions have more to do with personal than economic impacts. However, the one arguably “economic” impact item (Closing Shopping Centers/Businesses) did stand out as having the highest percentage of residents who thought this should be handled in a “Different Way” (34%) in the future. FIGURE 5.3: RESTRICTIONS THAT SHOULD BE DONE, NOT DONE, OR DONE DIFFERENTLY “NEXT TIME” Do Again Don’t Know/Didn’t Answer Telling people to stay 6 feet apart in public 1% 90% 3% Don’t Do Again Different Way Closing theaters, gyms, indoor sports events 6% 17%7% 1% 6% 6% 77% Discouraging parties w/ family, friends Requiring use of masks in public 4% 5% 6% 89% Encouraging people to work from home 2% 88% 3% 69% 12% 7% 18% 2% Stopping outdoor team sports 7% 69% 14% 9% 7% 21% 2% Telling people always to stay home if possible 1% 82% 13% 4% Closing public schools/childcare Send tourists home if caught leaving rooms Requiring non-essential workers to stay home 82% 1% 4% 14% Returning residents must do 14-day quarantine 81% 1% 5% 1% 4% 61% 2% 56% 5% 28% 12% 10% 20% 5% 2% 23% Closing shopping centers, many businesses 17% 51% 2% 14% 5% 20% 34% Sharply restricting use of public beaches 2% 6% 14% 2% 4% 1% 47% 25%4% 27% 31% Discourage medical visits except for virus No visitors in senior (kūpuna) living centers 78% 5% 25% 11% Not allowing sit-in dining at restaurants 8% 10% 2% Closing all bars 79% 1% 5% 22% Requiring 14-day qurantine inter-island trips Tell tourists don’t come or do 14-day quarantine 79% 10% 2% 63% 14% Shutting down vacation rentals 80% 66% 16% 43% 2% 24% Some item wording slightly shortened/revised for reasons of space; see exact original words in Appendix questionnaire. 32% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P26 In terms of demographic differences, the most important finding is probably the relative lack of them. However, those listed in Table 5.2 show the usual Male tendency to be somewhat more critical than Females. We also found a tendency in the results for many items for lower-income groups to be more willing to repeat restrictions. For example, for the inter-island air quarantine, only 34% with 2019 household incomes under $35,000 said either “Don’t Do” Or “Different Way.” This rose to 39% for those with $35,000 - $75,000 incomes, 46% for $75,0000 - $150,000, and 53% for those with household incomes above $150,000. TABLE 5.2: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – “DON’T DO AGAIN” OR “DO DIFFERENTLY” Combined Pct. “Don’t” or “Differently,” Beaches Total 52% Male 59% Caucasian 61% Don’t Expect Another Wave 74% Handled 70% Restrictions “Poorly” Pct. “Don’t” or “Differently,” Closing Shops, etc. Pct. “Don’t” or “Differently,” Medical Visits Total 55% 48% Caucasian 56% Don’t Expect Another Wave 71% Handled Restriction “Poorly” 70% 78% Male 59% Don’t Expect Another Wave 63% Handled Restriction “Poorly” 68% Pct. “Don’t” or “Differently,” Island Quarantine Chinese (note: small sample) 60% Total Chinese (note: small sample) Total 43% Chinese (note: small sample) 53% Male 52% Don’t Expect Another Wave 63% Handled Restriction “Poorly” 63% Table 5.2 also shows that people who handled the lockdown “poorly” or who don’t expect another wave were more likely to say “Don’t Do Again” or “Do in Different Way.” This greater reluctance was true for almost all of the 20 items listed. Other items in Figure 5.3 with roughly 30% - 40% combined “Don’t Do” and “Do Differently” percentages include: the ban on sit-in restaurant dining; requiring non-essential workers to stay home; closing schools/childcare; discouraging parties; and stopping outdoor sports. All of these were even more strongly resisted by those who said they were handling the lockdown “poorly” and/or those not expecting another virus wave. Finally, we note that for almost all of these items, Neighbor Islanders were a little more likely to say “Do Again,” though differences with O‘ahu results were typically small and/or shy of statistical significance. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P27 5.4 HOW TO DO CERTAIN THINGS DIFFERENTLY NEXT TIME For those specific restrictions that respondents thought should be done in a “Different Way” if there is a next wave, we wanted to capture their ideas about what that “Different Way” should be. We reminded them of which items for which they had given this answer, and then asked: Which of these do you feel most strongly about? Please choose ONE item only.7 Respondents were then asked to describe in their own words: How should we do this differently next time? Answers were coded into general categories. We should again note that the original verbatim comments were often carefully thought out, particularly for this question, and worth reading. We reproduce a few of them below but encourage review of all.8 Table 5.3 shows both the five most frequently named things chosen as most important to be done differently, as well as the most common answers for each of those things that at least some people strongly felt should be done differently. These include: (1) Telling tourists not to come or stay in rooms 14 days; (2) Closing all shopping centers and many businesses; (3) Discouraging medical visits other than for the Coronavirus; (4) Closing public schools and childcare facilities; and (5) Sharply restricting use of public beaches. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P28 TABLE 5.3: TOP THINGS TO DO DIFFERENTLY, AND HOW EACH OF THESE SHOULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY Thing That Should Be Done Differently Telling tourists not to come or stay in rooms 14 days (Wtd N = 49, Avg. Answers/Respondent = 1.4) How This Thing Should Be Done Differently Test people before they come/When they first arrive in Hawai‘i 60% Better tracking/Stricter enforcement for violators/Fines & jail time 48% Do not allow tourist to come to Hawai‘i/Enforce a central quarantine/Restrict flights 30% 3% Don't know/Refused Closing all shopping centers and many businesses (Wtd N = 46, Avg. Answers/Respondent = 1.3) Discouraging medical visits other than for the Coronavirus (Wtd N = 48, Avg. Answers/Respondent = 1.1) Closing public schools and childcare facilities (Wtd N = 44, Avg. Answers/ Respondent = 1.6) Percentage* Allow business/activities with precautions like masks/social distancing/sanitary procedures 52% Allow businesses to do business by appointment/ Customers can reserve a time/Online or curbside pickup/Limit hours, customer entry 37% Make masks a requirement/enforce masks 24% Other (includes “Let non-essentials go back to work earlier,” “Do more testing”) 12% Don't know/Refused 5% Easier to visit doctor/E-Visits/Better medical care for non-Covid conditions 83% Sterile visiting centers/Procedures for visiting elderly, vulnerable 7% Other (includes “Allow medical centers to see patients by appointment only”) 13% Don't know/Refused 5% Stagger classes/alternate in-school attendance with distance learning/smaller classes 29% Allow kids to go back to school/childcare with Covid precautions taken 28% Open schools but screen for sick children/No sick children to 23% attend/Check temperatures Open schools but with social distancing 22% Remote learning is inadequate/Needs to be improved Only close schools that have cases of Covid-19 General complaints that working parents need childcare/schools to be available Other (incl. “Make masks a requirement”) Don't know/Refused 18% 12% 10% 20% 4% Continued on next page Knox, Moore, Hayashida P29 TABLE 5.3: TOP THINGS TO DO DIFFERENTLY, AND HOW EACH OF THESE SHOULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY Thing That Should Be Done Differently Sharply restricting use of public beaches (Wtd N = 28, Avg. Answers/Respondent = 1.3) How This Thing Should Be Done Differently Percentage* Allow the use of beaches with social distancing/Allow but no gatherings 75% Only apply restrictions to crowded beaches/busy beaches 22% Have patrols to enforce Covid-19 rules so people can continue to use the beaches 15% Allow exercise/walking/fitness activities on the beaches 12% Allow business/activities with precautions likes masks/social distancing/sanitary procedures 4% Other (includes “Allow fitness activities with social distancing”) 4% * Percentages are for various categories of “How This Should Be Done Differently” within each category of “Thing That Should Be Done Differently.” Because respondents could give more than one answer, percentages for all coded categories could exceed 100%. These “Top 5” items included three that were most likely to have been identified as “Not Worth It” in Section 4.2 and also as things that majorities did not want to do again in the preceding Section 5.3 – i.e., postponing many non-virus medical visits, closing shopping centers/businesses, and closing public beaches. (The fourth item that generated complaints in the earlier sections, the inter-island quarantine for residents, was not heavily mentioned here.) However, two other items rose to the top for people who wanted them done differently – quarantines for overseas tourists and closing schools/childcare facilities. Thus, the issues are a mix of economic and more social (personal and family convenience) concerns. Below we present some of the open-ended comments for these Top 5 things to do differently. People who said they wanted certain things done differently “next time” were somewhat more likely to focus on economic as well as social restrictions. Opening Overseas Tourism/Ending Quarantine Safely: As shown in Table 5.3, most people focused on safety conditions for arriving passengers – particularly testing and tracking/enforcement of conditions. Many of the original comments seem more concerned with protecting Hawai‘i residents than with re-opening the tourism economy, but there were also a number that focused on balancing health and economy. The idea of establishing some sort of quarantine facility for infected visitors or those pending tests ran through such comments. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P30 “ We should test the tourists before they come. Yes, some will be false negatives but we will always be living with the disease. Tourism is the biggest part of our economy and the Governor hasn’t shared any plan to reopen. Other option is creating quarantine hotels where guests must stay for 14 days before leaving the property. We are going to pay the price for years by shutting down tourism this long, let alone shutting it down twice. I think tourists can be allowed to come, subject to providing a Certified test negative for Covid result taken 72 hours prior to arriving in Hawai‘i or such result immediately upon arrival in Hawai‘i. They must stay in designated areas in the Airport until they can provide a negative test result. If the testing process takes longer than several hours, the tourists can be housed in designated hotels for pending Covid test visitors only. No visitors or leaving the hotel until proof of a negative Covid test. Make sure tourists know that enforcement is strict. Let them know about the stiff penalties and have them place a refundable “deposit” of $2,000 per adult with the state. If they complete their 14 days , they will be refunded. Hotels will be in charge of checking on the tourists and the hotel will notify state via a “hotline” messaging/call center of tourists leaving rooms. This practice will help hotels get business as the vacation rentals (which should not be operating) that tourists have been staying at will not be an issue. Prior to departing, airlines reservations staff will be tasked with confirming hotel reservations of their passengers at time of flight booking. Passengers can upload a hotel reservation confirmation to the airline. If the tourist cancels hotel reservation, the hotel will report to state. Another option would be to have tourists prepay their hotel room for 14 days (non refundable). Package tours are sold this way so it’s not a new concept. ” However, a substantial number of comments were more about the perceived threat from large-scale tourism opening, and reluctance to see many visitors coming again soon: “ Shutting down all visitors, make Hawai‘i a NO FLY zone for visitors. Keeping them in their hotel room does not work, as we've already experienced. A designated area for quarantine if needed. We encountered military families in Waimānalo [that] have large gatherings during our restriction who didn't care about that our state was in quarantine. They said call the police, they came last week and didn't do a thing. That's the mentality of most visitors, we don't need them. ” Keeping the Local Economy More Open: The results and recommendations summarized in Table 5.3 at a general level mostly involve keeping more businesses open with various calibrated safety precautions – masks, social distancing, and limited hours or business by appointment to reduce crowd size. Several people emphasized that smaller or less “essential” businesses deserve attention and protection in any future re-imposition of restrictions. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P31 “ I think they should rotate stores maybe and having limited hours for different shops so people who need to buy from that store can do so and then you minimize how many people are at the mall because only select stores are open. I think with requiring masks, social distancing and restricting the number of people in stores, as is now done in grocery stores, many businesses could remain open. This may not include stores like hairstylists or others that require long lengths in intimate distance to someone else. Observe social distancing and masking and limits on max capacity like doing now. It is a tremendous economic cost to close everything down. It was smart the first time, but maybe next time strict protections will allow business to continue and keep people employed. Let them stay open. Encourage curbside pickup, lower the amount allowed in the store, install plexi glass. Keep mom and pop stores open. ” Support small businesses to remain open safely (masks, curbside pickup, good airflow etc.). I think it is absurd that outdoor farmers markets were shut down while big box stores remained open. Better Access to Medical Non-COVID Medical Services: The great majority of suggestions here simply involved ensuring that medical facilities make some kind of provision for visits with purposes other than the virus. (It is to be remembered that Hawai‘i residents were spared the experiences of places such as New York City, where intensive care units and hospitals in general were overwhelmed by virus patients. Few if any of the comments in this survey seemed to envision that possibility for Hawai‘i.) “ Encourage e-visits to access whether or not an in-person treatment is required or if medication can be prescribed. If in-person treatment is required, a controlled setting should be in place for doctors to access patients safely (i.e. using proper virus-prevention procedure). I believe it is very important for people to received proper medical care. During the pandemic, I was ill and experienced many COVID symptoms. However, due to my lack of fever, I was dismissed multiple times and was not given proper treatment. I was not able to visit my PCP, and was instead referred to a separate clinic. I felt the overall treatment I received was not satisfactory. Hospitals were also discouraging people from visiting the ER unless they had COVID or a life-or-death emergency. It felt very difficult to receive proper care. ” People need to receive medical care always. Medical offices should be allowed to serve their patients in person, but follow the rule of social distancing, masks, and sanitize entering and leaving facility. Knox, Moore, Hayashida “ P32 Allow medical visits for other ailments. E.g. I received a brain scan in January and had my medical appointments postponed 3 times, this time till late July. Now that people are more familiar with tele-health/tele-medicine, encourage people to use this format from the outset. For those who need to have labs done, keep those open (like at Kaiser) so patients can drop off urine samples and get blood drawn. Taking temps before entering is quick and easy and I have appreciated that once our healthcare system began encouraging folks to start returning for regular appointments. ” Making Schools and Childcare Facilities More Accessible: Many of the suggestions in Table 5.3 parallel those made for local businesses – i.e., keep them open, but with various possible safety precautions such as masks, social distancing, and adjustments to class size or schedules. Whether all of these would be logistically practical for schools or childcare operators is, obviously, another question. A number of comments emphasized that online learning only is a less satisfactory educational technique for children, as well as something preventing parents from going to work. “ Morning & afternoon check on children's temperature. Must wear masks. Distancing desks, play area, wipe down every hour. We can close temporarily and do a comprehensive cleaning and then distance the desks, implement mask wearing, teach some classes outdoors, break up recesses to smaller groups, have lunch outdoors rather than packed in a cafeteria. Maybe even shorten the day and split distance learning with in-person learning. Alternating days for students. Have students help with cleaning their area at the end of the day so that it isn't all on the maintenance department. Reinforcing good hygiene as we already do...hand washing, coughing in your elbow or a tissue and washing hands after sneezing, etc. I think childcare facilities are really important especially for parents of essential workers. A possible solution could be to accept childcare facilities on a first come first serve basis. Only accepting the maximum capacity to keep with social distancing regulations. But also giving priority to essential workers. NOT have only remote learning. There needs to be a level of in person instruction at the DOE level. Having both full-time working parents essentially home school ” Better Access to Public Beaches: The great majority of suggestions again involved the idea of keeping them open subject to safety precautions (particularly density), with a minority recommendation to close only the crowded beaches. There were also a few who seemed to accept closure for mainstream family and social gathering but who thought more solitary walking and individual exercising should be allowed. The issue of enforcement of “open but limited use” was not often explicitly addressed, though it is an obvious question if beaches are to be left open but crowding is somehow to be reduced. A number of comments simply emphasized the centrality of beaches to the quality of life in the Islands. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P33 “ I feel folks need some relief. And going to the beach is therapeutic. Believe we can enforce the social distancing requirement....folks would probably follow the rules if they knew they may lose this privilege. Have beach patrols to encourage social distancing and limit access if beach reaches maximum capacity. Allowing fishing/swimming (practicing social distance); allowing exercise/walking the beaches, parks, walking your dog. We need social distancing, but you cannot pick and choose activity allowed and not allowed. Such as sunbathing vs swimming vs exercise. Also opening beaches and cutting off parking stupid. No sitting in a park but you can walk through it to get to the beach stupid. I know no one was ready for this but at times it was a political pissing contest vs really helping the people. ” Restrict specific beaches that have high crowds, like Waikiki. Maui has many beaches and none are that crowded, the restriction of beach use was not necessary. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P34 6. HOUSEHOLD IMPACTS FROM VIRUS OR RESTRICTIONS 6.1 FINANCIAL IMPACT This cluster of survey questions began with the query: Has your household experienced either a significant loss of savings or a need to borrow money because of the Coronavirus situation? Figure 6.1 shows that 31% said “Yes;” 65% said “No;” and the remaining 4% were unsure or declined to answer. It should be noted that the percentages experiencing significant financial distress could well climb in coming months as various unemployment benefits, federal subsidies, and renter protections may expire. More than 30% of Hawai‘i households said they were undergoing financial distress FIGURE 6.1: IF HOUSEHOLD THUS FAR IS EXPERIENCING SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL DISTRESS 4% 31% Yes No 65% Don't Know/ No Answer Knox, Moore, Hayashida P35 Demographic or other group differences were generally more pronounced for the impacts discussed in this chapter than for the opinions discussed previously. As might be expected, the burden of financial sacrifice disproportionately affects lower-income households (a demographic that expressed relatively more willingness to repeat restrictions if necessary – see discussion in Section 5.3). As shown in Table 6.1, 46% of those with 2019 household incomes under $35,000 reported heavy financial impacts. This fell to 32% for those with incomes $35,000 - $75,000; 20% for incomes $75,000 $150,000; and 17% for incomes of $150,000 or more. TABLE 6.1: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – HEAVY HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL IMPACT Pct. “Yes,” Significant Loss of Savings or Need to Borrow Total 31% Household Income Under $35K 46% Renters 44% Filipino 39% Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian 35% Age 18-44 37% Household Size: 5+ 39% Householdswith 2+ Children 39% Working in Private Sector as of February 36% Handled Restrictions “Poorly” 40% Most of the other factors shown in Table 6.1 relate in some way to likelihood of having lower incomes. However, it might be further noted that private-sector workers were significantly more likely to say they were heavily financially impacted (36%) than were people who had been working for government or non-profits (20%) or who had not been working in February (18%). This difference will likely have impacts on reactions to public worker pay raises and/or efforts to retain rather than lay off workers in the public sector. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P36 6.2 STAY-AT-HOME PATTERNS AND CHANGES Two inter-linked following questions were: Did you stay home most of the day when all the restrictions were in place? Only those who answered “Yes” to the above were also asked, Before the Coronavirus, did you usually stay home most of the day? Figure 6.2 shows overall percentage results for the combined questions. This indicates that 62% actually changed their normal daily routines to “shelter in place” during the March-to-May period. Just 15% of the sample said they did not stay home most of the day during the lockdown timeframe.9 FIGURE 6.2: PERCENTAGES STAYING HOME (AND WHETHER THAT WAS CHANGE) Don’t Know/No Answer 62% 22% Stayed Home (Not Usual) Stayed Home (As Usual) 15% 0.2% Did Not Stay Home This chart combines the results of two questions, so that indicated results are based on full sample N (wtd) = 609 Table 6.2 shows a few demographic groups with relatively higher percentages saying they did not stay home, as well as several with particularly low percentages (i.e., groups more likely to say they had stayed home, whether or not this was a change in normal schedule). No clear patterns were found by household income, so it is possible that the few groups relatively more likely to admit being away-from-home were those in crowded households or had similar motivations. TABLE 6.2: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – NOT STAYING HOME DURING LOCKDOWN Pct. Did Not Stay Home During Lockdown Total 15% Filipino 29% Household Size: 5+ 23% Not Working as of Feb. (low percentage) 4% Age 65+ (low) 9% Japanese (low) 9% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P37 6.3 CHILDREN AT HOME AND ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS The next two questions were also inter-linked, and in a similar way: Did one or more children under 18 in this household mostly stay home all day when all the restrictions were in place? Only those who answered “Yes” to the above were also asked, Do you feel the education or personal development of the child/children has been negatively affected? If even one child was negatively affected, please answer Yes. Figure 6.3 shows basic results for each question. Seven out of eight households with children said one or more of the children usually stayed home all day. And the proportion of households with children who stayed home – and who reported a child’s education or personal development had been negatively affected was 66%. Two-thirds of the households with children at home said at least one child had been negatively affected in their educations or personal developments. FIGURE 6.3: IF CHILDREN STAYED HOME (AND IF WERE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED) Mostly Stayed Home 0.3% Don't Know/ No Answer 35% 60% No Children in Household No 5% N (Wtd) = 609 If At Least One Child Negatively Affected 6% Don't Know/ No Answer 27% No 66% Yes N (Wtd) = 211 (Households with Children at Home) Yes, Affected Knox, Moore, Hayashida P38 Some demographic groups were of course more likely to have children at home – people in their 30s through early 50s, Filipinos and Hawaiians, renters, larger households, and respondents who worked (as non-workers could include retirees). The more critical issue is whether some groups with children who stayed home were more or less likely to say there had been negative effects. The banner cross-tabulations suggested a few groups – e.g., the more affluent or older respondents – were a bit more likely to say “Yes,” children had been negatively affected, but most differences were fairly minor (and not statistically significant due to small sub-sample sizes).10 6.4 SELECTED OTHER SPECIFIC HOUSEHOLD IMPACTS: OVERALL RESULTS Many types of specific impacts were possible to imagine, and some of them might have been positive (e.g., more family closeness, better appreciation for everyday blessings, chance to resume long-delayed personal projects, etc.). However, for reasons of time, we selected just nine primarily negative impacts to explore in response to the question: Did any of the following things happen to you or other immediate household members during March to May due to the Coronavirus or the restrictions? If Yes, please indicate if this was yourself, another household member, or both you and other household member. Figure 6.4 shows results for these nine items. The most common impact was that someone – the respondent, another household member, or both – temporarily switched to working at home (56% total). The least frequently reported impact, though arguably one of the most important, was permanent job loss (7%, albeit with another 6% declining to answer). However, 34% of households had someone temporarily laid off, and 28% reported worry about either lay off or permanent job loss soon. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P39 FIGURE 6.4: SELECTED HOUSEHOLD IMPACTS FROM VIRUS OR RESTRICTIONS No Don’t Know/Didn’t Answer Permanently lost job Yes, Self 3% 3% 88% 6% 1% Serious personal emotional issues 70% 7% 9% 6% 7% Yes, Other HH Member Put off some possibly important medical issue 63% 2% 21% 7% 7% Big loss of income 62% 3% 14% 9% 13% Switched to working at home Worried may be laid off or lose job soon 66% Yes, Both 6% 13% 4% 11% 40% 5% 27% 12% 17% Temporarily laid off from job 63% 3% 14% 5% 15% Receiving Unemployment Insurance Benefits Filed for Unemployment Insurance Benefits 60% 3% 16% 4% 17% 65% 4% 14% 3% 15% Some item wording slightly shortened/revised for reasons of space; see exact original words in Appendix questionnaire. Although only 7% had previously said they were handling the lockdown either “Somewhat” or “Very” Poorly on an emotional basis (Section 4.3), by this point in the questionnaire process, more than one out of five respondents (22%) said they or someone else in the household had “serious personal emotional problems.” At least 37% of households reported at least one person filing for Unemployment Insurance Benefits, and about 31% actually receiving Unemployment Insurance Benefits. These numbers suggest that roughly one out of six who have filed were not yet receiving Unemployment payments as of mid-June. Finally, about 35% said they or another household member had “Put off some possibly important medical issue.” It may be recalled that delaying non-COVID medical consultations was one of the most problematic restrictions identified earlier in Section 4.2 and again in Section 5.3. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P40 6.5 SELECTED OTHER SPECIFIC HOUSEHOLD IMPACTS: DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES Demographic or other group differences were substantial for most of these items and merit their own brief section. TABLE 6.3 SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – VARIOUS HOUSEHOLD IMPACTS (All Pcts. Combined “Yes” for Self and/or Other Household Members) Switched to Work at Home Total 56% Big Loss of Income Income $150K 67% Income $75K-$150K 61% Japanese 61% Govt/Non-Proft Worker as of Feb. 79% Put off Medical Issue Total 35% 28% 35% 48% Income <$35K 47% Renters 45% Handle “Poorly” 53% Household Size 5+ 45% Temporarily Laid Off Heavy Financial 45% “Other” Ethnic 43% Handle “Poorly” 56% 2+ Seniors in Home 43% Worry Laid Off or Job Loss Total Total Filipino Total 34% Heavy Financial 58% Chinese 42% Handle “Poorly” 49% Govt/Non-Profit 40% Serious Emotional Problems Heavy Financial 52% Filipino 42% Handle “Poorly” 49% Children in Home 34% Total 23% Heavy Financial 45% Income <$35K 35% Income $35K-$75K 29% Handle “Poorly” 72% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P41 Permanently Lost Job Total 7% Heavily Financial 19% Income <$35K 12% Handle “Poorly” 13% Filed for Unemployment Benefits Heavy Financial Age 18-29 Total Renters Income <$35K Private Sector/ Self-Employed Handle “Poorly” 37% 63% 48% 47% 42% 45% 53% Receiving Unemployment Benefits Heavy Financial 46% Age 18-29 41% Total Filipino 39% Renters 38% Private Sector/ 37% Self-Employed Handle “Poorly” 45% 31% Table 6.3 suggests the following conclusions: Government workers and the relatively affluent were best able to switch jobs to work at home, while more marginalized groups – the lower-income, the young adults, the renters – have borne disproportionately more of the economic impacts (along with associated anxieties and emotional issues). The Filipino ethnic group, which has a strong presence in the tourism and service sectors, has also been disproportionately affected. Those who previously said their households had experienced heavy financial impacts (Section 6.1) feature prominently in these statistics, along with those who say they’ve reacted “poorly” to the lockdown. That is to be expected with the economic impacts – one would assume that households with job loss would also result in significant household financial issues. However, note there are also strong relationships between reporting a heavy financial impact and both serious emotional problems and putting off possibly important medical issues. These are the sorts of negative synergies that make it more difficult to emerge from what might otherwise be temporary economic difficulties. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P42 7. OVERSEAS TOURISM RE-OPENING As noted in the Preface, opinions about overseas tourism re-opening comprised a critical COVID-19-related issue at the time the survey questionnaire was drafted. However, it was an issue for which new information had constantly been emerging and perhaps not yet totally absorbed by the public. The end of the 14-day quarantine on non-essential inter-island travelers occurred in mid-June, as this survey was going into the field, with final effects not yet evaluated. Then on June 24, following completion of all surveys, news media reported a new State government plan for re-opening, with target date August 1: “ ” All incoming trans-Pacific travelers who wish to opt out of Hawaii’s 14-day quarantine will need to show proof that they had a negative molecular-based COVID-19 test result within 72 hours of their travel, Gov. David Ige announced at a press conference Wednesday at the Daniel K. Inouye Airport. 11 Both because of the different and perhaps confusing variety of safety proposals, and also because it seemed possible that such executive actions could be forthcoming, we asked only a limited number of preliminary questions about tourism re-opening in this survey. Some of these questions may now seem outdated following the announcement above, but they reflect public opinion at the time the survey was done. 7.1 IF VISITORS WELCOME IN COMMUNITY The first question related to tourism was: How much do you agree/disagree with this statement: “I do not want tourists coming to visit my community right now.” Figure 7.1 indicates that 81% Agreed (most of them “Strongly”),” and just 15% “Disagreed” (only a few of them “Strongly”). The remaining 4% were uncertain or preferred not to answer. FIGURE 7.1: IF RESIDENTS DO OR DON’T WANT TOURISTS IN COMMUNITIES NOW Agreement means do not want tourists in community now. Percentages may not add exactly to 100% due to rounding error Don’t Know/ No Answer 55% 27% Strongly Agree Agree 4% Strongly Disagree 12% Disagree 4% Knox, Moore, Hayashida The question wording was taken from a series of national surveys of American leisure travelers by the travel market research firm Destination Analysts. The company asked this question several different times and found gradually increasing – but still very limited – willingness to see tourists in American communities generally. As of this writing, the national question was last asked over the week ending June 22, at which time just 15.5% said they wanted visitors; 56.8% said they did not; and the remaining 27.7% were uncertain.12 P43 Hawai‘i residents as of mid-June were more likely to oppose visitors in their communities (81%) than were residents nationally (57%). Thus, the small proportion of Hawai‘i residents willing to welcome tourists now is very similar to the national figure, but Hawai‘i residents are more likely than people nationally to oppose having visitors in their communities, and less likely to express uncertainty. The types of residents most likely to say they “Strongly Agree” now is not the time for visitors in their communities included the relatively young, Native Hawaiians, middle-low income households, and households with several children at home. TABLE 7.1: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – STRONGLY AGAINST TOURISTS NOW Pct. “Strongly Agree” Tourists Not Wanted in Community Now Total 55% Age 18-44 66% Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian 62% Household Income $13K - $75K 62% 2+ Children in Household 62% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P44 7.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR TOURISM RE-OPENING Many different specific safety requirements have been proposed for re-opening overseas tourism. Rather than try to list them all, we used the State’s description of new requirements for inter-island travel to ask if they would be enough to re-open overseas tourism as well: As of mid-June, 14-day quarantines on inter-island airline travel are being ended, but with some new safety checks and procedures. These are described in the box below. In order to end the 14-day quarantines on people coming from overseas (out of state), do you feel there should be fewer requirements than below, the same requirements, or more requirements than for inter-island travel? New Requirements for Inter-Island Travel: Boarding passengers are given thermal check for fevers. People with fevers of 100.4ᵒ or more cannot fly. Boarding passengers must complete TSA forms about health, home address, address on destination island in Hawai‘i. Anyone reporting symptoms must have additional screening and/or testing. The information may also be used by the Dept. of Health if health experts need to follow up or contact a traveler. Figure 7.2 shows very few residents would like to see an overseas tourism re-opening with “Fewer Requirements” than the new inter-island travel rules. Rather, 30% want even more requirements for overseas arrival; 33% would apply the same inter-island safety protocols to overseas arrivals; and another 33% want to see how well those inter-island procedures actually work before deciding about more tourism re-opening. FIGURE 7.2: WHETHER INTER-ISLAND TRAVEL RULES SHOULD APPLY TO OVERSEAS ARRIVALS 4% Don’t Know/ No Answer More Requirements Fewer Requirements 33% Same Requirements 30% 33% 0.5% See How Inter-Island Requirements Work Before Deciding Demographic or other group differences for this opinion item were fairly muted, although lower-income and/or Japanese respondents were relatively more likely (about 44% each) to say they wanted “More Requirements.” Only those who said they wanted travelers from overseas to have “More Requirements” than inter-island travelers were then asked to say in their own words: What additional travel safety requirements would you consider enough to lift the quarantine for tourists? Results were coded and the main types of answers are shown in Table 7.2.13 Knox, Moore, Hayashida P45 TABLE 7.2: MOST COMMON ANSWER CATEGORIES, “MORE REQUIREMENTS” DESIRED Type of Response Percentage* Require negative test/Proof of immunity 36% Test before they travel to Hawai'i 28% Enforce quarantine/Verify information/ Provide a designated quarantine area 13% No tourists till a vaccine is available/No leisure travel 13% Mandatory testing for all travelers; Rapid testing at airports 12% *Because respondents could give more than one answer, percentages for all coded categories could exceed 100%. The average respondent gave 1.5 answers before coding. N (wtd) for this question was 181. The dominant theme here clearly involved various types of virus testing protocols, though a small percentage wanted to keep banning all leisure travel until a vaccine is in place. Demographic or other differences should be treated cautiously due to small sub-sample sizes, but groups with larger percentages wanting a continued travel ban included renters (26%), Hawaiian or “Other” ethnicities (23%), households with children (21%), and those who were emotionally handling restrictions “poorly” (38%). 7.3 TRUST IN STATE AND/OR TRAVEL INDUSTRY TO RE-OPEN SAFELY Public trust is a critical element of both public-sector and also private-sector responses to pandemics and their economic aftermaths. We asked: Which of these statements comes closest to your opinion regarding the State and the travel industry working together to re-open tourism in a way that gives Hawai‘i residents the best practical level of safety from the Coronavirus? The statements that were listed, and percentage results for each, are shown in Figure 7.3. While a substantial 32% trusted neither the State nor the travel industry, a slight majority (53%) trusted the State either along with or separate from the industry, and 40% trusted the industry either along with or separate from the State. (The 40% figure includes just 6% trusting the travel industry but not the State.) There is relatively more public trust in State government than in the travel industry to re-open tourism safely Knox, Moore, Hayashida P46 FIGURE 7.3: TRUST IN STATE AND INDUSTRY TO RE-OPEN TOURISM SAFELY Trust State and Travel Industry Working Together 34% Don’t Know/ No Answer Trust Travel Industry, Not So Much the State 19% 6% Trust the State, Not So much the Travel Industry 32% 10% Don’t Trust Either of Them Percentages may not add exactly to 100% due to rounding error. Relatively greater trust appeared to be a function of increasing age and higher incomes, while distrust was concomitantly highest among younger people, lower income to some extent, certain ethnicities, larger households, and those reporting “poor” emotional response to the lockdown: TABLE 7.3: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – TRUST NEITHER STATE NOR INDUSTRY Pct. “Trusting Neither State nor Industry to Re-Open Safely” Total 32% Age 18-29 Age 30-44 Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian “Other” Ethnic Household Income $35 - $75K Household Size 5+ 2+ Children in Household Handle Restrictions “Poorly” 41% 39% 40% 41% 37% 42% 40% 51% There is a high correlation between the earlier question about trust in government to re-open the overall economy safely (Section 2.2) with this question about trust to re-open tourism safely. Of those who “Strongly Trust” government on the overall re-opening, 90% trusted the State (with or without the travel industry) to re-open tourism safely as well. Of those who had “Little or No Trust” in government on overall re-opening, 73% either trusted just the travel industry or else trusted neither the State nor the industry on tourism re-opening. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P47 7.4 IF TOURISM NEEDS “BIG CHANGES” OR NOT The final tourism question was: Some people believe we need to make or plan big changes to the nature of tourism here – such as how many visitors and what types we attract – before we lift the quarantine. Other people believe it’s more important to get tourism going again and worry about changes later. What do you think – make big changes first or just get tourism going again? It’s likely that many people believe both should be done – i.e., get tourism going on what will likely be a small scale at first, and simultaneously try to make some changes. However, in order to get a “gut” response, respondents were deliberately forced to choose between “Big Changes First” and “Just Get Tourism Going.” Figure 7.4 shows 69% favored “Big Changes First;” 19% wanted to “Just Get Tourism Going;” and the remaining 11% did not know or preferred not to answer. It is possible that some of these 11% felt the answer should be “Both,” but the fact remains that more than two out of three respondents wanted to see fundamental changes in the nature of tourism before it opens up again. (Again, note these opinions were collected prior to the Governor’s announcement of a preliminary August 1 tourism re-opening.) FIGURE 7.4: IF TOURISM SHOULD JUST GET GOING OR MAKE BIG CHANGES FIRST Percentages may not add exactly to 100% due to rounding error. 11% Don't Know/ No Answer 19% Just Get Tourism Going Again for Now 69% Make/Plan Big Changes to Nature of Tourism First In all groups, the percentages saying there should be “big changes” before tourism opening was much higher than percentages saying we should “just get tourism going for now.” But the majorities were larger among Native Hawaiians, lower-income residents, and to some extent renters TABLE 7.4: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – TOURISM NEEDS “BIG CHANGES” FIRST Pct. Wanting “Big Changes” in Tourism Nature Before Re-Opening Total 69% Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian 81% Income <$35K 81% Renters 74% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P48 7.5 EFFECT OF PERSONAL ECONOMIC INVOLVEMENT ON TOURISM OPINIONS It may seem intuitive to some that people whose livelihoods depend on tourism would have more positive responses to the foregoing questions. We checked that possibility. The survey’s closing demographic questions allowed us to allocate residents among these work status categories as of February 2020: (1) self-employed or private-sector workers whose work “depends mostly on tourists or the tourism industry;” (2) those whose work “depends mostly on local customers or local businesses;” (3) those whose work depends about the same on both; (4) government/non-profit workers; and (5) non-workers (unemployed, students, homemakers, retirees, etc.). Table 7.5 suggests the travel industry has a trust issue even for people whose livelihoods depend primarily on tourists/tourism (or as much on tourism as on local business). Tourism-involved workers answered much as did everyone else in terms of not wanting visitors in their communities now, limited trust in the industry to re-open safely, strong majorities preferring “big changes” to tourism before re-opening, and wanting even more requirements for overseas arrivals than for inter-island travelers. Sub-sample sizes become quite small for the follow-up question on what types of additional requirements are desired, but those tourism workers who wanted “More Requirements” were even more focused on virus screening tests for arriving overseas travelers than were other groups. This suggests that concerns about personal safety among tourism workers may presently outweigh or strongly temper their desire to return to work. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P49 TABLE 7.5: TOURISM OPINIONS BY WORK DEPENDENCE ON TOURISTS/TOURISM Total Sample Work Depends Mostly on Tourists/ Tourism Work Depends Equally on Tourists/ Tourism and Local Biz 81% 77% 65% 80% 80% 85% 34% 19% 6% 32% 27% 11% 9% 36% 29% 20% 14% 25% 33% 21% 6% 32% 36% 18% 7% 31% 33% 23% 4% 32% 69% 19% 62% 22% 71% 22% 61% 26% 71% 16% 65% 20% 33% 30% 609 31% 33% 45 35% 25% 51 44% 28% 144 32% 39% 184 34% 30% 153 36% 63% 31% 35% 37% 33% 28% 44% 46% 35% 24% 37% Enforce quarantine/Verify information/Provide a designated quarantine area 13% 13% 0% 10% 23% 7% No tourists till a vaccine is available/No leisure travel 13% 13% 15% 10% 14% 11% Mandatory testing for all travelers; Rapid testing at airports 12% 6% 15% 13% 17% 11% Sample Ns This Question: 181 16 13 40 71 46 Work Depends Not Work for Working Mostly on Govt. or Local as of Non-Profit Business/ February Customers Don't Want Tourists Now "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" Trust State, Travel Industry, or Both to Re-Open Safely? Trust Both Working Together Trust State, not Travel Industry Trust Travel Industry, not State Don't Trust Either of Them Big Changes to Tourism Before Re-Opening or Just Get It Going for Now? Big Changes First Just Get It Going for Now If Same Safety Requirements for Overseas as for Inter-Island Travel Same Requirements More Requirements Sample Ns for Above If Same Safety Requirements for Overseas as for Inter-Island Travel Require negative test/Proof of immunity Test before they travel to Hawai'i Column for “Don’t Know/Prefer Not to Answer” excluded for reasons of space. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P50 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS During the months of March, April, and May 2020, Hawai‘i State and county governments requested most members of the public to self-quarantine to protect themselves and others from the spread of COVID-19. Restrictions were also imposed on institutions such as businesses and schools. This survey has reviewed the dramatic effects these policies had on the incomes, behaviors, and attitudes of Hawai‘i households, mainly to provide insight into the State’s and counties’ approach if another round of restrictions is deemed necessary. Public opinion is not the only factor that policymakers need to consider when making decisions about complex issues, but it should inform their approach. Survey results like these can also educate experts and decision makers about the need for better communication about their preferred policies. The main findings are recapped below. Slightly over half (54%) of residents did not yet feel safe going out. Residents mostly have some trust in government to keep everyone safe (61% “somewhat” and 10% “strongly”). The majority of residents (88%) felt that the restrictions that were put in place between March to May were mostly reasonable steps taken to protect public health. Out of a list of 20 restrictions, the vast majority of residents felt they were all worthwhile (at least 80% of residents felt 16 out of the 20 were “worth it”). The restrictions that were less likely to be thought of as “worth it” (though still at 58% – 78%) included non-COVID medical visits and restrictions on public beaches, followed by closing shopping centers/businesses and the 14-day inter-island quarantine. Residents most often (more than 50%) in their own words wrote that the overseas tourism shutdown/quarantine, was what Hawaii “did right” in addressing COVID-19. The second most common response was staying at/working from home/lockdown/curfew (35%). When it came to what Hawaii “could have done better”, responses were more dispersed, but the two rose to the top related to tourism. At about 17% each, respondents noted the need for even more restrictions on tourism and more effective tourist quarantine enforcement. Knox, Moore, Hayashida Most residents (67%) believe that Hawaii will experience another wave of COVID-19. The majority of residents (62%) said that the best indicator for resuming restrictions is rising caseloads for several weeks in a row. The majority of residents would be willing to repeat the same 20 restrictions, though support levels to repeat the restrictions were generally lower than when asked whether the restrictions were “worth it.” There was significant reluctance to repeat restrictions that were considered the least worthwhile as noted above. Majorities either did not want or would approach restrictions differently for medical visit deferrals and the use of public beaches. There were similarly high responses to the closing shopping centers/businesses and the inter-island quarantine. The survey gathered suggestions from sub-samples about how such restrictions could be done differently. Some 81% of residents agreed they do not want “tourists coming to visit my community right now.” And 69% think that big changes need to be made the nature of tourism first before lifting the overseas quarantine, while 19% prefer to just get tourism going again right away, and the rest undecided. P51 Two-thirds of households with children who had stayed home during the pandemic thought at least one child had been negatively affected in terms of personal development or education. Though the majority of respondents themselves (90%) handled the restrictions well on an emotional level, about one in five households were reported as having someone with “serious personal emotional problems” during the lockdown. More than one-third said a “possibly important medical issue” had been put off. In terms of financial challenges, 7% said someone in the household had permanently lost their job, while 34% said a household member had been temporarily laid off and 28% was concerned about someone being laid off or fired soon. Roughly 37% of households had someone who had filed for Unemployment Insurance benefits, with 31% having someone already receiving them. Demographic and other group differences varied by question. In general, lower-income and other marginalized groups were both the most negatively affected and the most willing to repeat the same restrictions. These groups were also the least willing to see tourism resume in its current form. Young people were the least likely to say they’re doing “Very Well.” Knox, Moore, Hayashida P52 CLOSING THOUGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A central finding of this survey is that many members of the public have sophisticated, carefully considered views of the State’s polices during lockdown. Respondents were largely supportive of the State’s efforts, and most residents reported that they handled the lockdown restrictions well on an emotional level. However, the feeling that children had been negatively impacted by the lockdown was particularly strong and many noted that they would be unable to work if their children could not return to child care or school. Most residents demonstrate a willingness to continue these sacrifices. In particular, we note with admiration the selflessness of many lower-income households that were more willing to repeat restrictions despite the fact that they have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Respondents have serious concerns when it comes to tourism. There is limited trust in the State and industry working together and even less trust in the travel industry to re-open tourism safely. Based on the survey results, we provide five suggestions that we hope will inform the State’s efforts as the fight against COVID-19 continues. Provide clear and transparent communication about when – and why – lockdown restrictions will be re-established. Now that the State has made a commitment to re-open the local economy and a tentative commitment to welcome visitors again, it should provide a clear idea of what conditions would trigger another shutdown of businesses and tourism. We also suggest that policymakers communicate clearly with the public about COVID-19 testing policies for visitors and returning residents. The public is paying careful attention to these policies, and State officials should make every effort to explain why certain policies are being implemented. This may improve compliance and general acceptance of new and continuing restrictions. Continue to provide robust financial support to the unemployed and to Hawai‘i’s poorest residents. The ability to earn money while in lockdown may make public compliance of self-quarantine efforts more likely. If the extra $600 in federal unemployment insurance benefits ends in July, the State should find ways to provide immediate financial relief as the current budget bill proposes.14 However, the level of relief must also be balanced with discouraging unemployed workers from job seeking and returning to work. A recent U.S. study15 found that as a result of federal relief efforts, two-thirds of unemployed workers are collecting benefits that are greater than their lost earnings, and one-fifth are collecting at least double their former wages. Knox, Moore, Hayashida Re-open school and daycare facilities in some capacity. One possible solution might be to split classes, so only a small number of students are working with their teacher at any one time, and to hire new employees to supervise children in other rooms when they are not attending classes.16 Allow for public consultation and input whenever possible. We encourage State officials to provide opportunities for the public to give feedback about COVID-19 restrictions. Too often experts think of public participation as a useful, but inefficient, way to make policy. But the public’s experiences under lockdown provide a valuable source of local knowledge. In many cases, when given an opportunity to suggest changes to lockdown policies, respondents provided sensible advice about how the State might make some restrictions easier to follow. P53 Avoid a large-scale shutdown of businesses. Rather than implementing large-scale shutdowns of local businesses, the State may consider setting up an incentive system so businesses find it in their best interest to limit crowds, enforce the use of masks and social distancing, and follow proper safety and sanitation measures. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P54 9. ENDNOTES ¹ Notes about cross-tabulations: Ward Research generated two “banners” of cross-tabulations, in which most item results in this report are compared across differences in 14 key demographic (e.g., age, ethnicity) or opinion groups (e.g., whether respondents expect another virus wave). Readers may examine the banner cross-tabulations at publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. The banners show statistically significant differences for individual response categories such as “Very Safe,” but not for combined categories such as “Very or Fairly Safe.” Also, to facilitate calculation of statistical significance, the banners show weighted totals but unweighted demographic percentages, and the percentages for different groups repeated in this report reflect these unweighted numbers. Group differences selected for highlighting in this Table 2.1 – and in all subsequent report tables about demographics – are based on our judgment about which differences are relatively largest and/or most informative. We sometimes show results that may not be statistically significant or omit differences that technically may be statistically significant but are still small or not particularly meaningful. ² https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/. Accessed July 4, 2020 ³ Original verbatim responses to all “open-ended” questions (where respondents replied in their own words) were compiled by Ward Research and may be reviewed at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. Additionally, percentages for less frequent answer categories than shown in Table 3.1 or Table 3.2 can be found in the banner cross-tabulations also available at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. ⁴ Residents’ heavy focus on tourists/tourism in answering both these questions is understandable, given that travel clearly was a prime factor in spreading the virus around the world. However, in the early stages of the virus spreading in Hawai‘i, it was actually more often a result of residents returning from elsewhere, rather than visitors, who comprised our initial cases. ⁵ A complete listing of all verbatim answers as originally recorded, prior to coding into categories, is available in an online appendix at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. Additionally, other answer categories with lower frequencies are listed in the banner cross-tabulations also available at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. ⁶ Table 5.3 shows most frequent response categories after coding. Less frequently stated coded categories can be found in the banner cross-tabulations available at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. Also, original verbatim comments are also available at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. ⁷ Note that this procedure necessarily results in smaller sub-sample sizes and potentially different top objections, because it excludes “Don’t Do It Again” answers and categories. The purpose of this procedure was not to gain statistically accurate information, but rather to get a moderately large number of people offering ideas about how to do some of the more objectionable things differently next time 8 All verbatim comments are available at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. Additionally, Table 5.3 shows the most frequent answer categories for the initial question specifying which things should be done differently. Less frequent general answer categories are listed in the banner cross-tabulations also available at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. The banners do not include results for the second question (how things should be done differently) because of small numbers and because these second answers are specific to the first ones. 9 We chose not to ask these people if they were “essential workers” or just did not want to stay home. As people were actually told to stay home if at all possible, it is possible this 16% was an undercount due to reluctance to admit actual daily schedules. ¹⁰ There was a small sub-sample (N=14) of people with children at home during the lockdown who also said they felt they were handling the lockdown “poorly” on an emotional basis. All of these people, 100%, felt at least one of their children was negatively affected. ¹¹ E. Gill. June 24, 2020. “Ige: Hawaii’s Quarantine Will Be Lifted For Those Who Show Proof Of Negative COVID-19 Test.” Honolulu Civil Beat. https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/06/ige-hawaiis-quarantine-will-be-lifted-for-those-who-show-proof-of-negative-covid-19-test/ Knox, Moore, Hayashida P55 ¹² Destination Analysts, “Local Community Behaviors & The Openness to Tourism: A Profile (as of June 2020).” https://www.destinationanalysts.com/covid-19-insights/covid-19-shareable-media/#profile. Accessed June 22, 2020. ¹³ The coded answers boil down what were originally often quite extensive and thoughtful replies. These verbatim comments can be reviewed https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. Additionally, coded answer categories with small overall percentages are part of the banner cross-tabulations in https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. ¹⁴ SB126 SD1 HD1 CD1. https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=126&year=2020 15 Ganong, P., Noel, P., and Vara, J. (2020). US Unemployment Insurance Replacement Rates During the Pandemic. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper. https://www.nber.org/papers/w27216.pdf 16 Emily Oster, “Here’s How to Reopen School This Fall,” Slate. July 2, 2020. https://slate.com/technology/2020/07/how-to-reopen-schools-covid-this-fall.html Accessed July 6, 2020. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P56 10. APPENDIX: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE This appendix includes a paper version of the full questionnaire as seen by the panel of respondents. We added the final weighted percentage results for all “closed-ended” items (i.e., questions where answers were chosen from the list of possible replies). For the “open-ended” items (i.e., where respondents wrote in answers in their own words), we show percentages for the most frequent general categories of answers, following coding of original verbatim responses by Ward Research. Ward Research also generated longer appendices available online at publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. “Banner” cross-tabulations of most survey questions by selected demographics (age, ethnicity, etc.) and by a few opinion/attitudinal issues (e.g., whether respondents expect another virus wave or how well they feel they’ve handled the lockdown on an emotional basis). Detailed verbatim replies by respondents to the “open-ended” survey questions – the ones to which they wrote in their own answers rather than choosing among options in the questionnaire itself. The people who completed the survey often took great time and care in these answers. Knox, Moore, Hayashida P57 CORONAVIRUS SURVEY Aloha, Hawai'i Panel member! The University of Hawai‘i Public Policy Center is conducting a 15-minute public opinion survey on how government and the people are dealing with the Coronavirus (COVID-19). Participation is voluntary and responses will be kept confidential. As always, all of your responses will be completely anonymous and will be reported only in combination with the responses of others. *If you have any questions about the research, please contact the Principal Investigator of the project, Dr. Colin Moore, 956-4237 or the research oversight office UH Committee on Human Studies, 956-5007. Unless otherwise stated, all %s based on statewide weighted total N of 609. The %s may not add perfectly to 100% due to rounding to nearest decimal. An * mark means more than 0 but less than ½ of 1%. 1. What is your zip code? 2. On which island do you live? Hawai‘i Island Kaua‘i Lāna‘i Maui Moloka‘i O‘ahu 12% 4% 0% 10% *% 74% 3. Which of these categories includes your age? 18-29 30-44 45-54 55-64 65 or Older Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 21% 26% 16% 18% 20% 0% 4. Please indicate your gender? Male Female Other/Non-Binary Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 50% 50% *% 0% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P58 5. Hawai‘i is starting to re-open. Right now, how safe do you feel going out to places with many other people? Very Safe Fairly Safe A Little Safe Very Unsafe Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 10% 36% 38% 15% *% 6. As the re-opening continues, how much do you trust State and local governments to keep everyone safe? Strongly Trust Somewhat Trust Little or No Trust Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 10% 61% 28% 2% 7. To the best of your knowledge, has Hawai‘i had higher rates of Coronavirus cases than most U.S. states, about the same as most states, or lower rates of cases than most states? Higher Rates About Same Lower Rates Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer *% 4% 94% 2% 8. What did we do right in addressing the Coronavirus pandemic? (Top Response Categories – More Than One Answer Per Respondent Possible) Restricting travel/Shutting down tourism/14-day quarantine for tourists/Enforcement of quarantine breakers Stay at home/Work from Home/Lockdown/Curfew 52% 35% Shutting down/Closing business, schools, parks, beaches/Cancelling events, gatherings Masks/Requirements to wear masks Social distancing 24% 22% 14% 9. What could we have done better in addressing the Coronavirus pandemic? (Top Response Categories – More Than One Answer Per Respondent Possible) Should have been quicker/Timeliness, took too long to respond or make decisions/Started faster Reduce travel further/Shut down airport More effective quarantine enforcement/Track visitors More testing/Test better, quicker/Mandatory state-widetesting/Antibody tests Open up the economy more quickly/Closed too long/ Give businesses guidelines earlier 17% 17% 17% 14% 10% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P59 10. In general, were the actions taken in response to the Coronavirus by State and county governments mostly reasonable steps to protect public health, or mostly unreasonable violations of individual rights and liberties? 88% Mostly Reasonable Steps to Protect Public Health Mostly Unreasonable Violations of Individual Rights and Liberties Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 7% 5% 11. Here is a list of some things local governments did, or asked people here in Hawai‘i to do, to fight the Coronavirus from March to May. For each of these, please indicate whether you think it was worth doing or not worth doing. Worth It Not Worth It 84% 12% 5% b. Telling tourists not to come or stay in rooms 14 days c. Telling Hawai‘i residents returning from the mainland or elsewhere overseas to stay home 14 days 91% 6% 3% 91% 7% 3% d. Sending tourists home if caught leaving rooms 93% 5% 3% e. Requiring the use of masks in public 89% 6% 5% f. Closing all shopping centers and many businesses 75% 20% 5% g. Sharply restricting use of public beaches 65% 31% 4% h. Telling people to stay 6 feet apart in public 90% 7% 3% i. Closing theaters, gyms, and indoor sports events 88% 7% 6% j. Stopping outdoor team sports 79% 14% 7% k. Encouraging people to work from home 95% 4% 1% l. Discouraging parties with family or friends 81% 12% 7% m. Not allowing any sit-in dining at restaurants 83% 12% 5% n. Requiring non-essential workers to stay home 83% 12% 5% o. Closing all bars 88% 9% 3% p. Telling people to always stay home if possible 90% 7% 3% q. Requiring 14-day quarantine for interisland air trips r. Discouraging medical visits other than for the Coronavirus s. Not allowing visitors into senior (kūpuna) living centers 77% 19% 5% 58% 30% 12% 90% 87% 6% 8% 5% 5% a. Closing public schools and childcare facilities t. Shutting down vacation rentals DK/NA Knox, Moore, Hayashida P60 12. Overall, on an emotional level, how well did you handle living with the coronavirus restrictions? Very Well Somewhat Well Somewhat Poorly Very Poorly Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 45% 48% 5% 1% 1% 13. Of all the things people here were asked to do to fight the Coronavirus, whatwere the most important restrictions/rules that you or your household found really hard to follow? Please write up to three answers, one rule per answer. (If you thought none were hard to follow, write None on the first line.) (Top Response Categories – More Than One Answer Per Respondent Possible) None/Nothing hard to follow Not able to visit family, friends/Not able to have visitors/ No parties, gatherings Staying home/confinement/curfew Having to wear mask/hard to breath with mask Closed beaches/Closed parks 41% 20% 19% 18% 13% 14. Do you think Hawai‘i will probably get another serious wave of the Coronavirus? Yes No Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 67% 15% 18% 15. If there is an increase in Coronavirus cases again, when should the State consider resuming some of the same restrictions? When Cases Go Up for Several Weeks in a Row Wait to See If Hospitals Fill Up Wait for Other Clear Signs We Need Restrictions Again I Never Want the Same Restrictions Again Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 62% 12% 13% 8% 6% 15A. What other types of clear signs do you feel should be used as the basis for N (Wtd) = 79 resuming public restrictions? Cases among local residents/Community spread/ Beyond small clusters 13% Watch what’s happening elsewhere & impose restrictions 12% beforehand/CDC recommendations Should continue shutdown/Too early to remove restrictions 11% Increase in inappropriate activities/large gatherings/ 9% not following COVID-prevention Knox, Moore, Hayashida P61 16. If the Coronavirus does come back later, do you think Hawai‘i should do each of these things again, not do them again, or do them but in some different way? Do Again Don’t Do Again Different Way Other DK/NA a. Closing public schools and childcare facilities 66% 10% 22% 2% b. Telling tourists not to come or stay in rooms 14 days c. Telling Hawai‘i residents returning from the mainland or elsewhere overseas to stay home 14 days 79% 4% 17% 1% 81% 5% 14% 1% d. Sending tourists home if caught leaving rooms 82% 4% 14% 1% e. Requiring the use of masks in public 89% 4% 6% *% f. Closing all shopping centers and many businesses 51% 14% 34% 2% g. Sharply restricting use of public beaches 47% 25% 27% 1% h. Telling people to stay 6 feet apart in public 90% 3% 6% 1% i. Closing theaters, gyms, and indoor sports events 77% 6% 17% 1% j. Stopping outdoor team sports 69% 9% 21% 2% k. Encouraging people to work from home 88% 3% 7% 2% l. Discouraging parties with family or friends 69% 12% 18% 2% m. Not allowing any sit-in dining at restaurants 61% 10% 28% 2% n. Requiring non-essential workers to stay home 63% 11% 25% 1% o. Closing all bars 79% 6% 14% 2% p. Telling people to always stay home if possible 82% 4% 13% 1% q. Requiring 14-day quarantine for interisland air trips r. Discouraging medical visits other than for the Coronavirus s. Not allowing visitors into senior (kūpuna) living centers 56% 20% 23% 2% 43% 24% 32% 2% 78% 80% 4% 8% 16% 10% 2% 2% t. Shutting down vacation rentals 16A. Here is a list of the items that you indicated we should do differently, if there’s another serious Coronavirus outbreak. Which of these do you feel most strongly about? Please choose ONE item only. Main Choices (Ns of 25 or more): Telling tourists not to come or stay in rooms 14 days Discouraging medical visits other than for the Coronavirus Closing all shopping centers and many businesses Closing public schools and childcare facilities Sharply restricting use of public beaches 16B. How should we do this differently next time? Answers inappropriate to summarize here because they are specific to above “Main Choices.” Knox, Moore, Hayashida P62 17. How much do you agree/disagree with this statement: “I do not want tourists coming to visit my community right now.” Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 55% 27% 12% 4% 4% 18. As of mid-June, 14-day quarantines on inter-island airline travel are being ended, but with some new safety checks and procedures. These are described in the box below. In order to end the 14-day quarantines on people coming from overseas (out of state), do you feel there should be fewer requirements than below, the same requirements, or more requirements than for inter-island travel? ” New Requirements for Inter-Island Travel: Boarding passengers are given thermal check for fevers. People with fevers of 100.4o or more cannot fly. Boarding passengers must complete TSA forms about health, home address, address on destination island in Hawai‘i. Anyone reporting symptoms must have additional screening and/or testing. The information may also be used by the Dept. of Health if health experts need to follow up or contact a traveler. Fewer Requirements Same Requirements More Requirements See How Well Inter-Island Requirements Work Before Deciding Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 4% 33% 30% 33% 1% 18A. What additional travel safety requirements would you consider enough to lift the quarantine for tourists? N (Wtd) = 181 Require negative test/Proof of immunity Test before they travel to Hawai'i Enforce quarantine/Verify information/ Provide a designated quarantine area No tourists till a vaccine is available/No leisure travel Mandatory testing for all travelers; Rapid testing at airports 36% 28% 13% 13% 12% 1% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P63 19. Which of these statements comes closest to your opinion regarding the State and the travel industry working together to re-open tourism in a way that gives Hawai‘i residents the best practical level of safety from the Coronavirus? I Trust Both the State and Travel Industry Working Together I Trust the State, Not So Much the Travel Industry I Trust the Travel Industry, Not So Much the State I Don’t Trust Either of Them Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 34% 19% 6% 32% 10% 1% 20. Some people believe we need to make or plan big changes to the nature of tourism here – such as how many visitors and what types we attract – before we lift the quarantine. Other people believe it’s more important to get tourism going again and worry about changes later. What do you think – make big changes first or just get tourism going again? 69% Make/Plan Big Changes to Nature of Tourism First Just Get Tourism Going for Now Don’t Know/Refused/Depends/Other Answer 19% 11% The next few questions are about the impacts of the Coronavirus epidemic on your household. 21. Has your household experienced either a significant loss of savings or a need to borrow money because of the Coronavirus situation? Yes No Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 31% 65% 4% 22. Did you stay home most of the day when all the restrictions were in place? Yes No Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 23. Before the Coronavirus, did you usually stay home most of the day? Yes No Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 84% 16% *% N (Wtd) = 514 26% 74% 0% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P64 24. Did one or more children under 18 in this household mostly stay home all day when all the restrictions were in place 35% 5% 60% *% Yes No There Are No Children in This Household Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 25. Do you feel the education or personal development of the child/children has been negatively affected? If even one child was negatively affected, N (Wtd) = 398 please answer Yes. Yes 66% No 27% Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 6% 26. Did any of the following things happen to you or other immediate household members during March to May due to the Coronavirus or the restrictions? If Yes, please indicate if this was yourself, another household member, or both you and other household member. a. Switched to working at home b. Big loss of income c. Serious personal emotional problems d. Put off some possibly important medical issue e. Temporarily laid off from job f. Permanently lost job g. Worried may be laid off or permanently lose job soon h. Filed for Unemployment Insurance benefits i. Receiving Unemployment Insurance benefits No Yes, Self Yes, Other Household Member Yes, Both DK/NA 40% 62% 70% 27% 14% 9% 17% 13% 7% 17% 13% 7% 5% 3% 7% 63% 21% 7% 7% 2% 63% 14% 15% 15% 3% 88% 3% 3% 3% 6% 66% 13% 13% 11% 6% 60% 16% 16% 7% 3% 65% 13% 13% 152% 4% The next few questions are about the impacts of the Coronavirus epidemic on your household. 27. Including yourself, what is the total number of people living in your immediate household right now? 1: 12% 2: 27% 3: 21% 4: 17% 5+: 11% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P65 28. How many people living in your immediate household are under 18? N (Wtd) = 242 HH’s w/ Children 1: 52% 2: 29% 3: 15% 4+: 4% 2: 17% 3: 1% 29. How many are seniors (kūpuna) 65 or older? 0: 57% 1: 25% 30. As of February, were you: Self-Employed (Working for Yourself) Employed by Private Business Employed by Nonprofit Employed by County, State, or Federal Government Not Working and Looking for Work Not Working and NOT Looking for Work (includes retired, students, all others) Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 12% 33% 9% 24% 2% 18% 2% 31. As of February, did the business you worked for or ran yourself: N (Wtd) = 334 Depend Mostly on Tourists or the Tourism Industry Depend Mostly on Local Customers or Local Businesses Depend about the Same on Both Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 19% 56% 17% 9% 32. Which ONE of the following best describes your ethnic background? Chinese Filipino Hawaiian or Part-Hawaiian Japanese White or Caucasian Black/African American Other or Mixed Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 6% 13% 23% 23% 20% *% 14% 2% Knox, Moore, Hayashida P66 33. Does this household own or rent the place where you live? Own Rent Some Other Arrangement Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 34. What was the combined total 2019 before-tax income for all members of your immediate household? $0 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or More Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 64% 31% 3% 1% 6% 6% 10% 18% 16% 18% 10% 6% 11% That was the last question. Thank you very much for your time and thought!