ABSTRACT
Introduction SARS-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 Methods We 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.
Results No 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).
Conclusion Results 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 Simpson’s 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not human subjects research. Analysis of publicly available data.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding Information: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Data Availability
All data are fully available without restriction and referenced as publicly available data.
