Results

Data below are based on Social Contours and COVID-19 study; as of March 2, 2021, this includes n=8,790 (where otherwise indicated), results are age-gender-location of residence weighted (Census 2016, Saskatchewan adult population) and data are 4-week moving averages when time trends are presented.

Visiting friend's house, last 7 days (weighted and 4-week moving averages)

This trend chart shows that in the week leading up to March 2, more than one in 5 respondents indicated that they had visited other households indoors, in the last 7 days.  

Visits to restaurant or bar/pub/nightclub, last 7 days

This chart shows in the weeks leading up to March 2, more than one in four (more than 25%) respondents had visited a restaurant or bar in the last 7 days. This is an increase from the previously observed 15% who visited restaurant and bars, throughout the month of December and January.

Percentage who reported that they have visited a place to receive personal or health care services in the last 7 days

This chart shows about 1 in 5 respondents indicated that they have visited a place where they had received personal or health care services in weeks leading up to March 2.

Contact intensity (number of people seen X for how long), last 7 days.

This chart shows percentage of those deemed high risk for exposure due to contact intensity with people outside your household in the last 7 days. Over the months, the trend line has held steady around 35%. In February, the high-risk percentage shows a noticeable jump to around 40%.

Contact intensity by age

Respondents younger than 50, compared to those who are older than 65 years are twice as likely to report high contact intensity (more people seen for longer duration) in the last 7 days in the month of February 2021.

Percentage who reported their risk exposure at work was ‘high’

This graph shows those who self-reported their chances of being exposed to the virus at workplace as ‘high’. This percentage has held steady since last December.

_______

Data based on Social Contours and COVID-19 longitudinal panel study; as of Jan 2, 2021 n=7015, age-gender-location of residence weighted (Census 2016) and data are 4-week moving averages.

OVERALL MITIGATION
based on a cumulative score of 6 variables—percent 'high' mitigation

_____

Data below are based on Social Contours and COVID-19 study, Round 8 (February 2021), n=1,099. Results are age-gender-location of residence weighted (Census 2016, Saskatchewan adult population).

Respondents' Perceptions

Not enough people follow public health orders

By Age	By Gender	By Place of Residence

Public health orders have not been enforced

By Age	By Gender	By Place of Residence

People are confused about public health orders

By Age	By Gender	By Place of Residence

People are tired of restrictions

By Age	By Gender	By Place of Residence

➤For respondents' perceptions of how good a job the federal and provincial governments have been doing with respect to vaccination, see the Vaccines drop-down (below).

TRENDS: Perceptions have changed over time
May 26, 2020 to January 2, 2021

How good a job do you think the provincial government has been doing in getting people vaccinated? (Jan 1-Feb 2, 2021 wave, n=737)

1. The Government is taking the right steps at this time to control the pandemic.

In mid-December, we are seeing the lowest percentage of people agreeing that the provincial government is taking the steps needed to stop the spread of the virus—only 34%.
Similar percentages were seen in early Aug, this was a time that the province was dealing with the series of outbreaks in Hutterite colonies.

This trend graph shows Saskatchewan respondents who said that the provincial government is taking the steps needed to stop the spread of the virus.

2. 67% of Saskatchewan respondents say restrictions don’t go far enough.

In round 6 of the Social Contours and COVID-19 survey (November 23, 2020 to January 2, 2021), we asked: “Overall, thinking about restrictions that have been put in place in your area to prevent the coronavirus from spreading, do you think these restrictions go too far, don't go far enough, or are about right?” 1544 responded in this round and here are the results:

By Age	By Gender	By Place of Residence
Pearson chi-squared p=0.016	Pearson Chi-squared p<0.001	Pearson Chi-squared p<0.001

_____________

Data below are based on Social Contours and COVID-19 study; as of May 2, 2021; this includes 10,627 all respondents to date (unless otherwise indicated). Results are age-gender-location of residence weighted (Census 2016, Saskatchewan adult population) and data are 4-week moving averages when time trends are presented. In this brief, some notable findings in the latest iteration of the Social Contours and COVID-19 study are reported (April 2021, n=1,280)

Vaccine intention amongst adults in Saskatchewan

In the April 2021, vaccine acceptance experienced an all-time peak of 87.2% the second week of April, followed by a slight decrease to 84% for the remainder of the month. Vaccine hesitancy continues to trend downward from the September 2020 peak, plateauing at roughly 4.7% throughout April 2021. As of May 2, 2021, vaccine refusal had increased to 11.2%, up from 6.5% at the end of March 2021.

Respondents who will get a vaccine if one is available, by region.

In agreement with earlier trends, vaccines acceptance continued to be lower in rural (83%) and mid-size cities/towns (79%) compared to Regina (90%) and Saskatoon (90%) in April 2021.

How good a job do you think the provincial government has been doing in getting people vaccinated?

From mid-April to early May 2021, 53% of repsondents said that the provincial government had done either a very good or good job in getting people vaccinated, compared to 47% of repsondents who believed that their effort was fair or poor (n=1,280).

Thinking about the overall immunization plan (phase 1 and phase 2), will this help us come out of the pandemic sooner than later?

The majority of respondents (55%) believe the immunization plan will help us come out of the pandemic sooner, but 45% of those respondents were not sure or had doubts that it will (n=1,280).

______________________________________________________

Previous Results

How good a job do you think the federal government has been doing in getting vaccines and distributing them to provinces?
(Jan 1-Feb 2, 2021 wave, n=737)

Thirty-seven percent of respondents in January 2021 said that the federal government is doing a good or very good job in distributing vaccines to provinces. At the other end, 24% said that the federal government is doing a poor job. Those in 50-64 age bracket, from rural Saskatchewan, or male respondents were more likely to say the federal government was doing a poor job.  

COVID-19 vaccines: who is ready, refusing, or sitting on the fence?

Key Take-aways
-Results from Social Contours and COVID-19 study conducted in Saskatchewan, May 4, 2020 to January 2, 2021

1. Vaccine Readiness
2. Vaccine Hesitancy and Refusal (jump to Part 2)

Part 1 - Vaccine Readiness

Part 1a. Vaccine readiness for COVID-19 over time in Saskatchewan, May to January 2, 2020

• Among the 6998 Saskatchewanians who responded to the Social Contours longitudinal panel survey, the proportion indicating they would get a vaccine for COVID-19 when one is available (“vaccine-ready”) changed over time—likely related to a host of factors, including the context of vaccine development, outbreak intensity in the province, and the stage of the pandemic in the province. In May, 87% respondents indicated that they were vaccine ready. The most notable drop in vaccine readiness occurred in September, hitting a low of 61% at the end of September. In the third week in November with the news of vaccine available imminently, those who said they were vaccine-ready climbed by almost 20 percentage points. In the beginning of January 2021, 8 out of 10 survey respondents said they were vaccine-ready.  
• The trend lines for men and women showed some differences—the trend line dipping more, lower than 60%, for men in September whereas it stayed above 60% for women. Notably, for most of December including into early January, proportion of men indicating vaccine-ready was holding at in mid-70s, whereas for women it was climbing past 80%.
• The age group less than 50 years, and those in the older age group, 65 years and older, show the highest vaccine-readiness with generally 8 out of 10 indicating they are vaccine-ready particularly at the end of December.
• Place of residence is associated with notable differences in vaccine-readiness over time. In December 8 out of 10 respondents (low 80s) from Regina, and in the mid-80s from Saskatoon, indicating they were vaccine-ready. In December, 7 out of 10 from rural areas and 6 out of 10 from mid-size cities and towns indicated that they were vaccine-ready.

Part 1b. Vaccine readiness by SHA Health Network zones and for Regina and Saskatoon by neighbourhoods, all data, May to January 2, 2020

• As Figure 1 shows, those who said that they were vaccine-ready were predominant in central west and south east (notable exception: south east 4) and far north east. In Saskatoon and Regina, neighbourhoods with a high proportion of vaccine-ready were adjacent to the University of Saskatchewan, and south of the Ring Road, respectively.
• Low proportions of vaccine-ready were from Health Network zones, South East 4, Central East 2, Far North West 1 and Far North West 2, South West 1, South West 2, North Central, North Central 3, North West 4.

 Part 1c. Reasons for vaccine refusal or vaccine hesitancy, November-January 2, 2020

• In Nov-Dec (Nov 23-Jan 2), 1,544 Social Contours participants were asked if they would get a vaccine, if one were available. 78% said yes, 14% don’t know yet, and 8.4% no. Of those who said no to vaccine, 56% gave as the reason ‘not enough testing has been done’ (4 times more men compared to women stating this, as well as rural respondents) , 46% ‘I don’t trust the vaccine approval process’ (7% men vs 2% women, and rural respondents), 29% ‘I don’t think COVID is a threat’ (9.5% men vs 0.5% women), 11% ‘I don’t believe in vaccines’; 9% gave medical reasons for their refusal.
• Of those who said “I don’t know yet”, 72% said ‘I want to see more clinical trials’ (women stating this 2:1 compared to men), 9% who wrote in their reasons that could be described as ‘misconceptions, safety reasons, or religious reasons’. A small proportion (less 7%) said they have medical reasons or that ‘I not sure I need one’.

Figure 1. Vaccine-ready (percent) by SHA Health Network zones and for Saskatoon and Regina by neighbourhoods (n=6,767)

Figure 2. Trend for vaccine-readiness, Social Contours study, overall sample (n=6,998), Saskatchewan, May to Jan 2, 2020. (This and all other figures below: 4-week moving averages, weighted by age, gender and region.)

Figure 3a. Vaccine-readiness – Men, Saskatchewan  

Figure 3b. Vaccine-readiness – Women, Saskatchewan

Figure 4a. Vaccine readiness – 49 years and younger, Saskatchewan   

Figure 4b. Vaccine readiness – 50-64 years, Saskatchewan

Figure 4c. Vaccine readiness – 65 years and older, Saskatchewan (the trend is not statistically significant)

Figure 5a. Vaccine readiness – Rural, Saskatchewan (the trend is not statistically significant)        

Figure 5b. Vaccine readiness – Mid-size cities/towns, Saskatchewan

Figure 5c. Vaccine readiness – Regina

Figure 5d. Vaccine readiness – Saskatoon (trend not stat significant)

Part 2.

Who is refusing a vaccine or hesitant to get vaccines?

Vaccine refusal

Those who say they wouldn’t get a vaccine tend to be:

• Female, financially less secure and with less education (high school completion or completion of technical/vocational training).
• Newcomer, who have settled within last 20 years, or Indigenous.
• Not wearing masks consistently. This is a consistent pattern throughout the six months data were collected. And don’t consistently practice social distancing.
• Hardly concerned or only somewhat concerned (vs very concerned) about spreading the virus in the community.

They are less likely to:

• Be from Saskatoon (vs mid-size city).
• Report a high degree of risk of exposure to the virus at their workplace (vs low).
• Believe they would get very sick from COVID or die if they became infected (vs ‘will not get sick’).
• Believe the new coronavirus is a big threat to the community (vs small). This was a robust and consistent finding throughout the six months.
• Believe that people are not following government/public health orders.

Vaccine hesitancy

Those who say they don’t know whether they will get a vaccine tend to be:

•  
• Have completed less education (high school completion or some college/university or completion of technical/vocational training vs professional training or university degree).
• Newcomer, who have settled within last 20 years, or Indigenous.
• Report having visited places in the last 7 days that may be deemed high or moderate risk for exposure (vs low).

They are less likely to:

• Report that their health is generally excellent or very good (vs fair or poor).
• Believe they would get a mild/moderate or very sick from COVID if they became infected (vs ‘will not get sick’).
• Believe the new coronavirus is a ‘big’ threat to the community (vs small). This has been a consistent finding over the last four months.

The Forest Plot below displays the statistically significant attributes of those who said they will not get a vaccine (vaccine refusals) or were not sure about getting a vaccine (vaccine hesitancy). The data come from the Social Contours study, omnibus sample (n=3219), Saskatchewan, collected from June to December 2020, and is based on a multinomial logistic regression analysis, i.e. two or more outcomes compared to reference outcome.

Note about how to understand the Forest Plot: Two sets of results are presented, refusals (compared to ‘vaccine-ready’) on the right panel and hesitants (compared to vaccine-ready) on the left. In the middle panel are attributes that are statistically significant for either set of results, classified by sociodemographic, risk, mitigation and community perceptions. The estimates are visually shown in the colour-coded lines, red indicating it favours the vaccine refusals or hesitant outcome, green indicating that it favours the opposite, i.e. vaccine-ready. The actual estimates, RRR for relative risk ratios, are displayed in numbers as well with their 95% confidence intervals.    

Citation:
Nazeem Muhajarine and Social Contours study team. Social Contours and COVID-19: Using metrics and data to guide pandemic response. Saskatchewan Population Health and Evaluation Research Unit (SPHERU). January 9, 2021.

_______________________________

Data below are based on Social Contours and COVID-19 study; as of March 2, 2021, this includes n=8,790 (where otherwise indicated), results are age-gender-location of residence weighted (Census 2016, Saskatchewan adult population) and data are 4-week moving averages when time trends are presented.

Risk Map of Saskatchewan

Figure 1. Behavioural Risk Score by Saskatchewan Zones and Sub-Zones, Social Contours and COVID-19 study, Rounds 1-8, n=8790.

Contact intensity by neighbourhoods in Regina

This ‘neighbourhood’ map of Regina shows areas of high risk for contact intensity—the darker the colour, higher the risk.

Previously Reported Results

1. Risk Exposure and Behaviours
2. Risk Mitigation
3. Perceptions: Pandemic Response and Risk
4. Vaccines
5. Mapping Risk in Saskatchewan
6. Masks
7. School and Parenting
8. Results by Round (1-3)

1. Risk Exposure and Behaviours

Visiting a public park or outdoor/nature, last 7 days (May 26, 2020 to January 2, 2021)

TRENDS
Risk Behaviour - Shopping for food (May 4-September 2020)

3-week moving averages, weighted data, Regression of p=high/[high+low&moderate] on week: Slope = 0.00774, std. error = 0.00112, Z = 6.904

OVERALL RISK EXPOSURE
May 26, 2020 to January 2, 2021
based on a cumulative score of 10 variables—percent ‘high” risk for exposure  

Data based on Social Contours and COVID-19 longitudinal panel study; as of Jan 2, 2021 n=7015, age-gender-location of residence weighted (Census 2016) and data are 4-week moving averages.

(back to previously reported results menu)

2. Risk Mitigation

Previous Results (May-September 2020)

How have mitigation behaviours changed over time?

Trends: Overall Mitigation
6 MITIGATION BEHAVIOURS

(1) mitigation if suspected infection (2) handwashing frequency (3) social distancing
(4) not touching face (5) wearing a mask (6) personal protective equipment

3-week moving averages, weighted data, Regression of p=high/[high+low&moderate] on week: Slope = -0.00751 std. error = 0.0013 Z = 5.782

Trends: Mitigation
SOCIAL DISTANCING

3-week moving averages, weighted data, Regression of p=high/[high+low&moderate] on week: Slope = -0.00563, std. error = 0.00144, Z= 3.897

Trends: Mitigation
FACE-MASKING

3-week moving averages, weighted data, Regression of p=high/[high+low&moderate] on week: Slope = 0.01829 std. error = 0.0017Z = 10.647

(back to previously reported results menu)

3. Perceptions: Pandemic Response and Risk

TRENDS: Perceptions of risk changed over time (May-September 2020)

PERCEPTION OF RISK
those who say likely to 'get very sick or die' if infected

3-week moving average, weighted data, Regression of p=high/[high+low&moderate] on week: Slope = 0.00669, std. error = 0.00116, Z = 5.750

PERCEPTION OF RISK
those who say very concerned about spreading the virus 

3-week moving average, weighted data, Regression of p=high/[high+low&moderate] on week: Slope = -0.00295 std. error = 0.00143, Z = 2.062

PERCEPTION OF RISK
those who say Coronavirus is a ‘big threat’ to the health of community 

3-week moving average, weighted data, Regression of p=high/[high+low&moderate] on week: Slope = 0.00441, std. error = 0.0017, Z = 2.600

PERCEPTION OF RISK
those who say people are taking precautions 

3-week moving average, weighted data, Regression of p=high/[high+low&moderate] on week: Slope = -0.01737, std. error = 0.00131, Z = 13.293

PERCEPTION OF RISK
those who say government is handling the pandemic well  

3-week moving average, weighted data, Regression of p=high/[high+low&moderate] on week: Slope = -0.01885, std. error = 0.00132, Z = 14.299

At this stage of the pandemic, my government is taking the steps needed to stop the spread of the virus. 
Round 5 - September 2020

PERCEPTION OF RISK
those who say government is handling the pandemic well, by gender

(back to previously reported results menu)

4. Vaccines

-see the Vaccine tab for most recent results

(back to previously reported results menu)

5. Mapping Risk

Net Behavioural Risk by Zones

Behavioural Risk Score by Saskatchewan Zones and Sub-Zones

Social Contours and COVID-19 Survey
Rounds 1-5, May 4 - September 30, 2020

Behavioural Risk Score by Saskatchewan Public School Division Zones

High, moderate, and low behavioural risk by location

Saskatchewan COVID-19 reporting zones
Rounds 1-5, May 4 - September 30, 2020

Behavioural risk hot spot analysis by location

Saskatchewan -September 2020 (Round 5)

(back to previously reported results menu)

6. Masks

Behaviours (among mask wearers)
June 2020 | n=1033

• 91% maintain physical distancing all or most of the time (v. 70% didn’t wear)
• 98% always/most times wash their hands after being away from their home (v 85%)
• 89% always/most times try to avoid touching their face when out in public (v 74%)

Risk-Perception
June 2020 | n=1033

• 68% wore mask all/most time who said they will get "very sick" or die if infected (v 30%)
• 65% wore mask who said COVID-19 is a "very big threat" to the health of their community (v 14%)
• 49% wore mask among who were very concerned about spreading the virus to others (v 23%)

Mandatory Face Mask-Wearing
July 1-16 2020 |  n=669

In the same Social contours and COVID-19 survey in Saskatchewan, we asked: “when should wearing a face mask be mandatory?” In July:

• 62%, a clear majority, said face masks should be mandatory inside a building at any time;
• 15% any outdoor public space; and
• 14% anytime when outside your property.

Only 11% responded that face masks should ‘never’ be mandatory. One in five (21%) indicated that they didn’t know or weren’t sure.

Those who indicated that mask wearing should be mandatory presented a similar profile to those who wore a mask frequently: older respondents, women, and those who perceived they would get very sick or die if they were to get the virus, were concerned about spreading to others, and felt COVID-19 was a big threat to their community.

• Older respondents (65 or older, at 93%), women (89%) more likely to respond masks should be mandatory when in public or inside a building (compared to ‘never’).
• Peoples’ perception of personal risk or spreading it to others or level of threat in the community is strongly correlated with likelihood to indicate mandatory mask wearing.
• Only 27% of those who said they will not get a vaccine if one were to available indicated mandating mask wearing, compared to 94% who said they will get a vaccine.

Masks: Saskatoon Sub-sample

Subsample Analysis, June (Round 2) and July (Round 3)
Posted Aug 26, 2020 

Since the beginning of June, we have been asking Saskatchewan respondents to Social Contours and Covid-19 survey:

In the last 7 days, when you were inside a building (other than your home) where it was hard to maintain social distancing, how often did you wear a face mask?

The results below are based on the subsample of 1269 Saskatoon respondents in June (Round 2) and July (Round 3):

484 (38%) said they wore a mask all or most of the time when they couldn’t physically distance

• 103 (8%) said some of the time
• 259 (20%) little or none of the time
• 423 (33%) said they did not leave home or did not answer the question

For those whom this question was relevant (i.e. 846), 69% said they wore a mask all, most, or some of the time when they couldn’t physically distance inside a building. Those who are older (65+ years), women, and those with professional or advanced level education are more likely to indicate they wore masks all/most or some of the time. 

Perception of personal risk was related to mask wearing among Saskatoon respondents. Those who said if they get COVID they will get very sick or die, are more likely to wear mask all/most/some of the time vs those who said they will not get very sick at all (77% vs 55%).

Saskatoon respondents concerned about spreading the virus to others or felt that COVID-19 was a “very big threat” to our community were more likely to wear mask:

• Those very concerned they would spread the virus to others were 2x as likely to wear masks frequently, compared to those who were slightly or hardly concerned (55% vs 46%).
• 88% of those who said COVID is a ‘very big’ threat to the health of their community wore masks frequently, versus only 27% who said that COVID is a “very small” threat—more than 3-fold difference. 

We also found that those who wear masks frequently are more likely to also report other practices that are known to prevent the spread of the virus (i.e. risk mitigation):

• when out in public, almost all frequent mask wearers (80%) maintain physical distancing all or most of the time;
• most (74%) always wash their hands after being away from their home; and
• just over half (76%) always try to avoid touching their face when out in public. 

Summary: Our timely survey shows that more than half of Saskatoon residents have adopted the new practice of wearing a face mask all or most of the time. Those concerned about spreading the virus to others and those who see the virus as a bigger threat to their community are frequent mask wearers. Mask wearing does not make people less concerned about other healthy practices; on the contrary, Saskatoon respondents who wear masks frequently are also very likely to follow public health recommendations regarding physical distancing, hand washing, and not touching their face. 

_______ 

Nazeem Muhajarine and Social contours study team. Social contours and COVID-19: Using metrics and data to guide the reopening and reintegration process in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Population Health and Evaluation Research Unit (SPHERU). 20 August 2020.

(back to previously reported results menu)

7. School and Parenting

PERCEPTIONS: Parents/Caregivers of School-Aged Children

How comfortable are you with children returning to full-time, face-to-face classroom education in September?
July 16-Aug 21 (n=449); H30

As this chart shows, the majority of respondents, about 80%, indicated they were uncomfortable with children returning to school in September. 

What is your current plan for schooling your children in September? 
July 16-Aug 21 (n=357); H31

Level of Comfort with children returning to classroom education by current plan for schooling in September
Crosstab: H31 and H31; Fisher’s Exact Test p-value<0.001

How comfortable are you with children returning to full-time, face-to-face classroom education in September?
by grade(s) of school-aged child(ren)
July 16-Aug 21 (n=449)

As this chart shows, across all grade levels, K to 12, the majority of respondents, three out of four, indicated they were uncomfortable with children returning to school in September. 

How comfortable are you with children returning to full-time, face-to-face classroom education in September?
by grade(s) of school-aged child(ren) -  stratified by “current plan for schooling” their child(ren)
July 16-Aug 21 (n=449)

When we breakdown respondents’ comfort level and grades by current plan for schooling in September, a clear difference is seen: respondents who indicated they will be home/online schooling were clearly uncomfortable with their children returning to school; the younger the child, the more uncomfortable. 

(back to previously reported results menu)

8. Results by Round

- prior to Round 4 (August), we posted montly results.

• Round 1 - May 2020
• Round 2 - June 2020
• Round 3 - July 2020

(back to previously reported results menu)