I don't think this is a good data metric.
There's a difference between how people will spend money in a crisis where they have bills and an unexpected loss of income, verses how people will spend regular excess income in normal times when they are able to predict their inflows and outflows of cash.
Spending will be quite different I'd imagine. It's well established that in times of economic difficulty spending on luxury items tends to decrease. Not to mention, many means of luxury spending are currently shut down.
Take a look in the UK. They are subsidising employer payments to employees, for 80% of the employee's salary. Also upping state welfare, reducing the approval time to a week, and don't require check-ins: effectively a UBI.
I've heard Spain is implementing UBI in the regular sense.
I live in the UK. These are again, temporary schemes with highly variable payments which the vast majority of the working age population is not entitled to. Subsidising employers based on their employees' wage levels and [in]ability to work is actually considerably less like a UBI than most of the decades-old elements of the UK's welfare state.
There are already too many "social programs".