Sanctuaries and Science: The Role of Religiosity in Shaping Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Implications for Policymaking

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic was one of the most disruptive and deadly events in modern history, and its rapid spread stymied efforts to successfully prepare for and counter it. As policies such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates were created, lay and academic literature often focused on a lack of adherence within religious communities. To explore the relationship between religious beliefs and health-protective policies during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used a literature review, mixed-method case study involving a statewide survey of New York residents, and a policy review. The literature review generated four themes related to the association between religion and the COVID-19 pandemic: 1) theological imperatives; 2) White Christian Resistance; 3) shared health responsibility and historical persecution; and 4) sacred spaces and health. However, there are many important gaps in the literature examining the association between religiosity and beliefs about COVID-19 policies and practices, which prevent the development of evidence-based policies related to religion. This thesis addressed several of these gaps by carefully examining the relationship between religion and religiosity and views about the effectiveness of health-protective policies and adherence to health-protective practices during the pandemic. The case study of 1330 adults within the State of New York, a religiously diverse pandemic hotspot, showed that religious affiliation as a modifier of religiosity was significantly correlated with adherence to policy in multivariate models. Religious importance and affiliation also modified the relationship between views and adherence to policies. Many respondents were angry at religion, while others viewed it as a necessary lifeline, providing resilience during the pandemic. These data challenged conclusions in the literature, including that people who viewed the pandemic as a test of faith did not believe in the power of government health-protective policies and that Whiteness was associated with perceptions of religious discrimination. The policy analysis demonstrated that building trust between health officials and religious groups and creating interventions collaboratively are vital to encouraging adherence to health-protective policies, using literature from Singapore, Australia, and Canada. An interview with an official in the Bureau of Immunization of the New York City Department of Health shed light on policies; while this department sometimes worked with religious groups, its employees were inundated with the pressure and speed of COVID-19 waves and rarely considered proactive responses targeting religious groups. In conclusion, governments should work outside of partisan channels, engage with religious groups respectfully, and build and communicate policies in a culturally-appropriate manner, using the insights of religious group members and leaders to create unique solutions, empower these groups to implement their own innovative solutions, and gather more data to fully understand how these religious communities relate to health-protective and other policies during health emergencies. Governments should not just implement these actions during health emergencies, but importantly must lay the groundwork for these actions before public health emergencies ever take place.