Despite the economic, social, and humanitarian costs of border closures, more than 1000 new international border closures were introduced in response to the 2020–2021 pandemic by nearly every country in the world. The objective of this study was to examine whether these border closures reduced the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Prior to 2020, the impacts of border closures on disease spread were largely unknown, and their use as a pandemic policy was advised against by international organizations. We tested whether they were helpful in reducing spread by using matching techniques on our hand-coded COVID Border Accountability Project (COBAP) Team database of international closures, converted to a time-series cross-sectional data format. We controlled for national-level internal movement restrictions (domestic lockdowns) using the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) time-series data. We found no evidence in favor of international border closures, whereas we found a strong association between national-level lockdowns and a reduced spread of SARS-CoV-2 cases. More research must be done to evaluate the byproduct effects of closures versus lockdowns as well as the efficacy of other preventative measures introduced at international borders.

Quantifying the timing and content of policy changes affecting international travel and immigration is key to ongoing research on the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the socioeconomic impacts of border closures. The COVID Border Accountability Project (COBAP) provides a hand-coded dataset of >1000 policies systematized to reflect a complete timeline of country-level restrictions on movement across international borders during 2020. Trained research assistants used pre-set definitions to source, categorize and verify for each new border policy: start and end dates, whether the closure is “complete” or “partial”, which exceptions are made, which countries are banned, and which air/land/sea borders were closed. COBAP verified the database through internal and external audits from public health experts. For purposes of further verification and future data mining efforts of pandemic research, the full text of each policy was archived. The structure of the COBAP dataset is designed for use by social and biomedical scientists. For broad accessibility to policymakers and the public, our website depicts the data in an interactive, user-friendly, time-based map.

The incongruence between Bourdieu's historical sociology and the ahistorical structuralist theories of Levi‐Strauss’ students has often contributed to a complete disregard for the historical significance of cultural meaning on the one hand and the role of structural dichotomies (i.e. us vs them) and the phenomenon of the myth on the other. The crisis events of the 2020 Global Covid‐19 Pandemic offer a unique opportunity for anthropologists to reconcile historicism with theories of ahistorical (or exceptional) phenomenon. In particular, the linguistic coding of the pandemic as a “crisis” reveals a two‐fold, cultural understanding of the term. Crises entail some repetitive structural element (such that we recognize a given event or state as a crisis) but the structure repeated is, in fact, a sudden, novel change in the field of practice experienced as an “unprecedented time.” Comparingcontemporary circumstances to other events coded as crises in the United States, I argue that the (perceived) catalyst of the ongoing rupture in social and economic order is best understood through Douglas’ lens of pollution: an external threat to the structural dichotomies and myths that define the boundaries of the social body. What emerges from considering repetition and rupture at once is a new understanding of crisis as a reoccurring phenomenon characterized by an incongruence between doxa and habitus—a state of liminality wherein the previously accepted myths, symbols, and dichotomies at the foundation of citizens’ habitus and society's structures are suspended. This incongruence is resolvable by two mechanisms: either crisis‐era praxis is integrated into habitus (providing the practical basis for anewsetofmyths, structures, anddoxa), or the suspended schemata are reintegrated in a way that account for the expansion of what is considered possible according to pre‐crisis doxa. In this way, a symbolic purification of the social body is enacted by the application of new or extant myths to changes within a field during the crisis‐era. Bourdieu's historicism can thus be applied to the anthropology of crisis alongside structuralist theories by treating crisis as a kind of transitional state of social doxa, not via inductive reasoning or extrapolation from historical phenomenon.