RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 MASK MANDATES REDUCE COVID-19 MORTALITY: Analysis of 37 States and the District of Columbia, with a further analysis of the impact of demographic and medical factors on efficacy
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.05.09.21256922
DO 10.1101/2021.05.09.21256922
A1 Michael J. Maloney
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/12/2021.05.09.21256922.abstract
AB As the number of COVID-19 deaths in the US increased, various policies were enacted to slow the spread of the pandemic. While the situation has improved in recent months, determining how best to combat the current pandemic is still essential. Failure to do so invites both further resurgences of the current pandemic, and more pandemics in the years to come. As a result of the widespread failure to contain the spread of COVID-19, enough deaths have occurred that the impact of policy on mortality may be statistically evaluated. This paper uses Optimal Discriminant Analysis (ODA) to evaluate the hypothesized ability of limited mask mandates (MM) to reduce the daily number of COVID-19 deaths in the states analyzed. The mandates were found to reduce mortality in half the states analyzed and did not result in increased mortality in any states. A full range of cofactors were analyzed to determine which, if any, influenced the efficacy of the mandates in the states in which mandates had an effect. Institutional Health Subindex of the Social Capital Index, state health score, population density, portion of the population with nongroup health insurance, state GDP, and the rate of pregnancy related diabetes were all correlated with increased mandate efficacy. In contrast, incarceration rate, overcrowded housing, severely overcrowded housing, portion of the population with military provided insurance, portion of the population uninsured, the portion of the population unable to see a doctor due to cost, and the portion of the population who were American Indian/Native Alaskan were all correlated with reduced mandate efficacy.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNoneAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study analyzed publically available data and thus was exempt from Institutional ReviewAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe New York Times (2020). Coronavirus (Covid-19) data in the United States. https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data