To inhibit the spread of COVID-19 Public health officials stress, and governments often require, restrictions on social interaction ( "social distancing "). While the medical benefits are clear, important questions remain about these measures' downsides: How bitter is this medicine? Ten large non-probability internet-based surveys between April and November 2020, weighted statistically to reflect the US population in age, education, and religious background and excluding respondents who even occasionally role-played rather than giving their own true views; N = 6,223. Pre-epidemic data from 2017-2019, N = 4,032. Reliable multiple-item scales including subjective wellbeing (2 European Quality of Life Survey items, Cronbach's alpha = .85); distancing attitudes (5 items, alpha = .87); distancing behavior e.g., standing 6' apart in public (5 items, alpha = .80); emotional cost of distancing and restrictions on social interaction (8-12 items, alpha = .94); and an extensive suite of controls (19 variables). Descriptive statistics, OLS regression, structural equation models. Subjective wellbeing is greater for those who approve of distancing, for those who practice distancing, and particularly for those whose distancing attitudes and behavior are congruent, either both in favor or both opposed (multiplicative interaction). The emotional cost of distancing is strongly tied to wellbeing and is heterogeneous, with some disliking distancing much more than others. An SEM model suggests causality: that emotional costs strongly reduce wellbeing but not vice-versa. During the epidemic, COVID issues constitute two of the top 5 influences on wellbeing, behind only subjective health and religious belief and tied with income. All this is net of family background, religious origins, age, ethnicity, race, gender, rural residence, education, occupational status, marriage, unemployment, income, health, religion, and political party.
