  I study the co-evolution between public opinion and party policy in
situations of crises by investigating a policy U-turn of a major Austrian
right-wing party (FPOE) during the Covid-19 pandemic. My analysis suggests the
existence of both i) a "Downsian" effect, which causes voters to adapt their
party preferences based on policy congruence and ii) a "party identification"
effect, which causes partisans to realign their policy preferences based on
"their" party's platform. Specifically, I use individual-level panel data to
show that i) "corona skeptical" voters who did not vote for the FPOE in the
pre-Covid-19 elections of 2019 were more likely to vote for the party after it
embraced "corona populism", and ii) beliefs of respondents who declared that
they voted for the FPOE in 2019 diverged from the rest of the population in
three out of four health-dimensions only after the turn, causing them to
underestimate the threat posed by Covid-19 compared to the rest of the
population. Using aggregate-level panel data, I study whether the turn has
produced significant behavioral differences which could be observed in terms of
reported cases and deaths per capita. Paradoxically, after the turn the FPOE
vote share is significantly positively correlated with deaths per capita, but
not with the reported number of infections. I hypothesize that this due to a
self-selection bias in testing, which causes a correlation between the number
of "corona skeptics" and the share of unreported cases after the turn. I find
empirical support for this hypothesis in individual-level data from a Covid-19
prevalence study that involves information about participants' true vs.
reported infection status. I finally study a simple heterogeneous mixing
epidemiological model and show that a testing bias can indeed explain the
apparent paradox of an increase in deaths without an increase in reported
cases.
