In 2020 and 2021, two hazards have dominated public attention: the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. The pandemic has transformed life for millions, disproportionately harming racially and economically marginalized communities. A punishing heat wave and massive wildfires in western North America have been followed by catastrophic floods in Europe, China, and the United States. Both hazards have major ramifications for New York State (NYS). At the onset of the pandemic, NYS was the front line of the first debilitating surge. As of August 2021, there had been over 2 million people infected and over 54,000 deaths statewide. NYS also faces major climate exposures, with flooding the state’s primary natural hazard.1 The combination of sea-level rise with more intense and frequent storms has increased flood risk up the Hudson River beyond Albany.2 How do different people respond to contrasting risks? Risk researchers have shown how, for example, the invisible and potentially massive effects of nuclear radiation can create a sense of dread among the general population, contrasting with greater confidence among experts.3 Such perceptions can motivate action, but taking protective measures may require resources and a belief that these actions will be effective.4 Experience also affects response decisions. People who have experienced a hazard tend to have a stronger sense of its material and emotional impacts, leading to greater concern and propensity to take protective measures.5 Partisan polarization can disrupt these connections, however. People who identify as conservative and consume conservative media are less likely to worry about coronavirus, wear masks, or abide by physical distancing guidelines.6 The inverse holds for liberals. Likewise, views on climate change are highly polarized, though differences depend on how the issue is framed. In the past decade, conservative framings have shifted from questioning the existence of climate change to acknowledging change exists but denying it is due to human actions. Personal experience of hazards can offset partisanship. Recent experience of climaterelated hazards like floods reduces partisan gaps in support for climate change mitigation policies.7 We examine how patterns of risk perception and protective action around COVID-19 and flooding differ. Do the same people worry about both hazards? Do partisan beliefs and past experiences have consistent effects for flooding and for COVID-19? Do patterns differ between concern and protective action? In collaboration with the Hudson River Estuary Program of the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, we surveyed residents in two Hudson River cities to address these questions.