Back

Mask mandates can limit COVID spread: Quantitative assessment of month-over-month effectiveness of governmental policies in reducing the number of new COVID-19 cases in 37 US States and the District of Columbia

Maloney, M. J.; Rhodes, N. J.; Yarnold, P. R.

2020-10-08 epidemiology
10.1101/2020.10.06.20208033 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionSARS-CoV-2 is the beta-coronavirus responsible for COVID-19. Facemask use has been qualitatively associated with reduced COVID-19 cases, but no study has quantitatively assessed the impact of government mask mandates (MM) on new COVID-19 cases across multiple US States. Data and MethodsWe utilized a non-parametric machine-learning algorithm to test the a priori hypothesis that MM were associated with reductions in new COVID-19 cases. Publicly available data were used to analyze new COVID-19 cases from 37 States and the District of Columbia (i.e., "38 States"). We conducted confirmatory All-States and State-Wise analyses, validity analyses [e.g., leave-one-out (LOO) and bootstrap resampling], and covariate analyses. ResultsNo statistically significant difference in the daily number of new COVID-19 infections was discernable in the All-States analysis. In State-Wise LOO validity analysis, 11 States exhibited reductions in new COVID-19 and the reductions in four of these States (AK, MA, MN, VA) were significant in bootstrap resampling. Only the Social Capital Index predicted MM success (training p<0.028 and LOO p<0.013). ConclusionResults obtained when studying the impact of MM on COVID-19 cases varies as a function of the heterogeneity of the sample being considered, providing clear evidence of Simpsons Paradox and thus of confounded findings. As such, studies of MM effectiveness should be conducted on disaggregated data. Since transmissions occur at the individual rather than at the collective level, additional work is needed to identify optimal social, psychological, environmental, and educational factors which will reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and facilitate MM effectiveness across diverse settings.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.