Abstract
Background There is wide variation between countries in per-capita mortality from COVID-19 (caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus). Determinants of this variation are not fully understood.
Methods Potential predictors of per-capita coronavirus-related mortality in 198 countries were examined, including age, sex ratio, obesity prevalence, temperature, urbanization, smoking, duration of infection, lockdowns, viral testing, contact tracing policies, and public mask-wearing norms and policies. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed.
Results In univariate analyses, the prevalence of smoking, per-capita gross domestic product, urbanization, and colder average country temperature were positively associated with coronavirus-related mortality. In a multivariable analysis of 194 countries, the duration of infection in the country, and the proportion of the population 60 years of age or older were positively associated with per-capita mortality, while duration of mask-wearing by the public was negatively associated with mortality (all p<0.001). The prevalence of obesity was independently associated with mortality in models which controlled for testing levels or policy. International travel restrictions were independently associated with lower per-capita mortality, but other containment measures and viral testing and tracing policies were not. In countries with cultural norms or government policies supporting public mask-wearing, per-capita coronavirus mortality increased on average by just 7.2% each week, as compared with 55.0% each week in remaining countries. On multivariable analysis, lockdowns tended to be associated with less mortality (p=0.41), and increased per-capita testing with higher reported mortality (p=0.55), though neither association was statistically significant.
Conclusions Societal norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public, as well as international travel controls, are independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19.
Introduction
The COVID-19 global pandemic caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has presented a major public health challenge. For reasons that are not completely understood, the per-capita mortality from COVID-19 varies by several orders of magnitude between countries.1 Numerous sources of heterogeneity have been hypothesized. Higher mortality has been observed in older populations and in men.2,3 Patient-level behaviors, such as smoking, might also have an impact.3 Other potentially relevant factors include economic activity, and environmental variation, such as temperature.4 More urban settings and increased population density would be expected to enhance viral transmission.5
In addition, public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic may influence per-capita mortality. Various strategies have been implemented, ranging from robust testing programs to lockdown or stay-at-home orders, to mandates regarding social distancing and face mask usage. Practices with theoretical benefit, such as social distancing, stay-at-home orders, and implementation of mandates regarding use of masks in public spaces, must be assessed quickly, as implementation has the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality.
Mask usage by the public is postulated to decrease infection by blocking the spread of respiratory droplets,1 and was successfully implemented during other coronavirus outbreaks (i.e. SARS and MERS).6 In the context of the ongoing pandemic, we assessed the impact of masks on per-capita COVID-19-related mortality, controlling for the aforementioned factors. We hypothesized that in countries where mask use was either an accepted cultural norm or favored by government policies on a national level, the per-capita mortality might be reduced, as compared with countries which did not advocate masks.
Methods
Data acquisition
Country-wide coronavirus mortality data was retrieved from the publicly available Worldometers Database on May 9, 2020.7 Countries were included if either: 1) coronavirus testing data were available by May 9, 2020,7 or if: 2) testing and lockdown policies had been graded by the University of Oxford Coronavirus Government Response Tracker.8-9
Oxford University defined and scored several composite government response indices. The stringency index was defined in terms of containment policy and public information.8 The government response index incorporated containment, economic measures, public information, and testing and tracing policies.8 The containment and health index was defined in terms of containment measures, public information, and testing and tracing policies.8
Archived viral testing data for April 2020 were also downloaded.10 The date of the country’s first reported infection and first death were obtained from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (which did tabulate worldwide data).11
Mean temperature in each country during the pandemic was estimated using the average monthly temperature in the country’s largest city from public sources.12,13
Online news reports and government statements, including those cited by a previous review14 and a public database,15 were searched to identify countries in which the public wore masks early in the outbreak based on tradition, as well as countries in which the national government mandated or recommended mask-wearing by the public before April 16, 2020.
For each country, the population,16 fraction of the population age 60 years and over, and age 14 and under, male: female ratio per country,17 surface area,16,17 gross domestic product per capita,18 percent urbanization,16,19 adult smoking prevalence20-23 and prevalence of adult obesity24-43 were tabulated. Whether a nation was an isolated political entity on an island was also recorded.
Statistical analysis
The prevalence of an infectious process undergoing exponential growth (or decay) appears linear over time when graphed on a logarithmic scale.1 Therefore, we postulated that the logarithm of the country-wide infection prevalence would be linearly related with the duration of the infection in each country. In addition, our analysis postulated that deaths from coronavirus would follow infections with some delay.
On average, the time from infection with the coronavirus to onset of symptoms is 5.1 days,44 and the time from symptom onset to death is on average 17.8 days.45 Therefore, the time from infection to death is expected to be 23 days.1,46 These incubation and mortality times were prespecified.1,46 Therefore, the date of each country’s initial infection was estimated as the earlier of: 5 days before the first reported infection, or 23 days before the first death.10,11,47 Deaths by May 9, 2020 would typically reflect infections beginning 23 days previously (by April 16). Therefore, we recorded the time from the first infection in a country until April 16. We also recorded the period of the outbreak: 1) from the mandating of activity restrictions until April 16, and 2) from when public mask-wearing was recommended until April 16. In addition, we calculated the mean time-weighted score for each lockdown and testing policy as graded by the University of Oxford for the duration of the country’s outbreak, from beginning through April 16.8 For instance, if the school closure score was 1 for half the outbreak and 2 for the other half, then the mean score was 1.5.
Per-capita mortality can be analyzed as a binary outcome (low or high), or as a continuous variable. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses.
Analysis of a binary outcome is not unduly influenced by outliers. Countries with extremely low or high mortality are included in the appropriate group, but the exact mortality value does not change the results. Moreover, analysis of a binary outcome facilities clear communication, because one can describe the characteristics of low and high mortality countries.
On the other hand, per-capita mortality is in fact a continuous variable, and the separation of countries just below or just above a threshold value is somewhat arbitrary, or susceptible to chance variation. Analysis of mortality as a continuous variable uses all the information available, and can appropriately model the exponential growth of an infection. We view the binary and continuous analyses as complementary. When one sees that a univariate association is found with both types of analysis, one gains confidence that the association is not an artifact of the analytic method selected. Therefore, we used both methods for initial univariate selection of variables.
In univariate analysis, characteristics of countries with above-median per-capita mortality were compared with the remaining (lower mortality) countries by the two-sample t-test using groups. The odds ratio for being in the high-mortality group was calculated by logistic regression. In addition, logarithm (base 10) of per-capita coronavirus-related mortality was predicted by linear regression.
Significant predictors of per-capita coronavirus mortality in the univariate analysis were analyzed by stepwise backwards multivariable linear regression analysis. The dependent variable was the logarithm (base 10) of per-capita coronavirus-related mortality. Because of the importance relative to public health, the weeks the country spent in lockdown and using masks, and per-capita testing levels, were retained in the model. In addition, because of their biological plausibility and presumed importance, urbanization, prevalence of obesity, and average ambient temperature were retained in most of the multivariable models presented below. Statistical analysis was performed with xlstat 2020.1 (Addinsoft, New York). An alpha (p value) of 0.05 was deemed to be statistically significant. The study was approved by the Virginia Commonwealth University Office of Research Subjects Protection.
Results
We studied coronavirus mortality in 198 countries, of which 183 had testing data,7 161 had government policies scored by Oxford University,8 and 146 fell into both categories.
The 99 lower-mortality countries had 1.0 deaths per million population, in contrast with an average of 94.2 deaths per million population in the 99 higher-mortality countries (p<0.001, Table 1, Appendix Table A1). The median value was 3.7 deaths per million population. The same independent variables were found to be statistically significant on univariate analysis regardless of whether per-capita mortality was considered a binary or continuous variable, as outlined below (Table 1, Appendix Table A2).
We assumed that island nations might find it less challenging to isolate and protect their populations. However, 20 of 99 low-mortality countries were isolated on islands, compared with 27 of 99 high-mortality countries (p=0.32). Country surface area and population were not associated with coronavirus mortality (Table 1).
Population characteristics
Countries with older populations suffered higher coronavirus mortality. Countries with low mortality had on average 8.9% of their population over age 60, as compared with 18.9% in the high-mortality countries (Table 1). The proportion of the population which was male was not associated with country-wide mortality (p=0.98, Table 1). Smoking prevalence was on average 13.8% in low mortality countries and 18.5% in high-mortality countries (p<0.001, Table 1). The prevalence of obesity was on average 14.7% in low-mortality countries and 24.0% in high-mortality countries (p<0.001, Table 1).
Temperature
Colder countries were associated with higher coronavirus mortality in univariate analysis. The mean temperature was 22.3 C (SD 7.6 C) in the low-mortality countries, and 14.0 C (SD 9.1 C) in the high-mortality countries (p<0.001, Table 1).
Economics
Urbanization was associated with coronavirus mortality in univariate analysis. In low-mortality countries, on average 53% of the population was urban, as compared with 71% of the population in the high-mortality countries (p<0.001, Table 1). Richer countries suffered a higher coronavirus related mortality. The mean GDP per capita was $9,350 in the low-mortality countries, and was $27,380 in the high-mortality countries (Table 1, p<0.001).
Masks: Early Adoption
The World Health Organization initially advised against widespread mask wearing by the public, as did the United States CDC.1,48 The WHO reversed course and recommended masks in public on June 5, 2020.49
Despite these initial recommendations, a number of countries did favor mask wear by the public early in their outbreak, and such countries experienced low coronavirus-related mortality (Table 2, Figure 1).50-132 It is likely that in Mongolia50 and Laos,52 both of which reported no coronavirus-related mortality by May 9, the public began wearing masks before any cases were confirmed in their countries (Table 2). We identified 20 countries with recommendations or cultural norms favoring mask-wearing by the public within 21 days of the estimated onset of the country’s outbreak:1 including (beginning with those favoring masks earliest in the course of their outbreak): Japan,53,54 Venezuela, the Philippines,62 Macau,63 Hong Kong,53,64,65 Sierra Leone, Cambodia,71,72 Vietnam,74 Malaysia,77 Bhutan,79 Taiwan,82 Slovakia, South Korea,53,89 Grenada, Mozambique, Uzbekistan, Thailand,98 and Malawi (Table 2). The average mortality by May 9 for the 20 early mask-wearing countries was 1.5 per million (SD 2.1). Sixteen of the 20 were lower-mortality countries (p=0.008).
Countries in which masks were widely used by the public or recommended by the government within 31 days of the estimated local onset of the outbreak, by timeliness of mask-wearing.
Per-capita mortality by May 9 versus duration of infection according to whether early masking was adopted. Data grouped by whether country did not recommend masks by April 16, 2020 or recommended them more than 60 days after outbreak onset (red line); recommended masks 16 to 30 days after onset of the country’s outbreak (orange line); or recommended masks (or traditionally used masks) within 15 days of the outbreak onset (blue line close to the x-axis). Country mortality was averaged for the following country groups of infection duration: 0-15 days, 16-30 days, 31-45 days, 46-60 days, 61-75 days, 76-90 days, 91-105 days. For instance, per-capita mortality for all non-mask or late-masking countries with infection duration between 61 and 75 days was averaged, and graphed at the x-value 68 days. Data for graph derived from 198 countries.
An additional 9 countries had recommended that the public wear masks by 31 days into their outbreak: Czechia, Zambia, Benin, Sudan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bosnia, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, and El Salvador (Table 2). The average mortality by May 9 for this group was 10.4 per million (SD 14.2).
Masks in Asia
Throughout much of East, South, and Southeast Asia, masks were worn by the public as a preventive measure, rather than a policy implemented after evidence emerged of health system overload (Table 2). The public sometimes implemented masks before government recommendations were issued.
As the country where the pandemic started, China is a noteworthy case of a nation which traditionally has favored mask-wearing by the public for respiratory illnesses, but which did not deploy masks immediately. The first cases in China had begun by December 1, 2019.133 By the time human-to-human transmission was confirmed on Jan. 20, 2020, many in Beijing were already wearing masks.134 The government required masks in public in Wuhan on Jan. 22.135 From Jan. 23-25, thirty regions in China mandated masks in public.85,136 Masks were ordered throughout China when around others in public on Jan. 31.137 China suffered a very significant outbreak in Wuhan, but appears not to have experienced the same level of infection in other regions. Surveys indicate that the prevalence of public mask wear in China remained between 82% and 89% between February 24 and April 20.58 Another survey confirmed mask wear from 80-90% from March 12 to April 14.57 The reported country-wide per-capita mortality by May 9, 2020 was 3.2 per million population.
For several countries in South or Southeast Asia with mortality lower than in the West, we did not score the country as mask-wearing in the primary analysis until their governments issued recommendations to do so. Nonetheless, there is evidence of significant mask wear by the public before the recommendations: Nepal, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka.
In Nepal, facemasks are commonly seen in urban centers due to air pollution.138 The first case of COVID-19 in the country was reported on January 13, in a student returning from Wuhan for winter break.139 However, no subsequent cases were reported in Nepal until the second week of March.139 By January 29, all students at some schools were wearing masks.140 By February 3, pharmacies were selling out of masks due to increased demand.141 With the outbreak, tailors began sewing cloth masks.107 By February 8, 2020, “a majority” of the public was wearing masks.142 The recommendation to wear masks in public became more formalized on March 25.143 The Ministry of Health distributed masks to children and elderly in shelters by March 25.144A survey in Nepal at the end of March found that 83% of respondents agreed that asymptomatic people should wear masks to prevent COVID-19 infection.139 As of May 9, Nepal reported no coronavirus-related mortality. We used the March 25 recommendation as the date in the mask analysis, but earlier mask use might have forestalled the epidemic in Nepal.
In Indonesia, the public scrambled to buy face masks in February before any cases had been identified in the country.145 The first cases of coronavirus in Indonesia were announced on March 2,146 and the first death occurred on March 3.147 A poll reported that the proportion of Indonesian adults wearing a mask in public was 54% on Feb. 24, 2020, 47% on March 29, 71% on March 30, and 79% on April 13.58 In Indonesia, masks were mandated in public on April 5.148 By May 9, the per-capita mortality was 3.5 per million.
In India, the first case of coronavirus was diagnosed on January 30.149 The Health Ministry recommended homemade face masks on April 4, 2020.150 However, mask wear was high both before and after the recommendation. According to one poll, masks were worn by 60% of the public from March 12-14, 67% from March 19-21, and then from 73% to 76% between March 26 through April 12.57 According to another poll, masks were worn by 43% of the public on March 16, 46% on March 20, 65% on March 27, 71% on April 3, 79% on April 10, and 84% on April 17.58 By May 9, the per-capita mortality was 1.5 per million.
In Sri Lanka, the public immediatedly bought masks at the end of January when the first cases were identified.151 Masks were mandated in public on April 11.152 The per-capita mortality by May 9 was 0.4 per million.
In Myanmar, the first cases of COVID-19 were reported on March 23,153 and the first death on March 31.154 A study from March 3-20, 2020 found that 72% of adults reported that they were confident they would wear a surgical mask whenever visiting a crowded area.155 This study concluded just 12 days after the likely onset of the outbreak. By May 9, the per-capita mortality in Myanmar was 0.1 per million.
In Bangladesh, from March 11-19, 2020, when students age 17 to 28 were asked if they were wearing a surgical face mask in public, 53.8% responded “yes” and 6.6% responded “occasionally”.156 A survey from March 29 to April 29 found that 98.7% reported wearing a face mask in crowded places.157 By May 9, the per-capita mortality was 1.3 per million.
Singapore was slower than its Asian neighbors to embrace masks, but when the government shifted course, the public was ready to respond. On March 27, only 27% of respondents indicated that they wore a mask.58 On April 3, when the government announced that they would no longer discourage mask-wearing by the public, and would instead distribute masks,158-160 37% indicated that they wore a mask.58 By April 10, just one week later, 73% of the public wore a mask.58
Early in the pandemic, masks were noted to be “somewhat common” in Afghanistan.161 By March 29, 2020, the Taliban had begun distributing masks to the public in areas under their control.162
In March 2020, 78% of Pakistanis in Sargodha were in favor of wearing a mask to prevent coronavirus.163 Another survey conducted from April 1-12 indicated that 80% of Pakistanis believed the government should mandate mask wearing for adults outside the home.164
Masks in the Middle East
In parts of the Middle East, masks were embraced by the public even before government requirements. In the United Arab Emirates, the first cases were reported on January 29.165 By February 29, mask usage had become “more prominent”, but the Ministry of Health and Community Protection advised that N95 masks should be reserved for medical personnel treating coronavirus patients, and could cause “respiratory illness” if worn by the public.166 Despite this warning, a poll of UAE residents found that masks were worn by 39% of the public on March 18, and 44% on March 25.58 On March 27, the government followed the people’s lead, and mandated masks when indoors.167 Subsequently, masks were worn by 63% on April 1 and 79% on April 14.58 By May 9, the per-capita mortality was 18.7 per million.
In Saudi Arabia, the first case was announced on March 2.168 A poll of Saudi residents found that 35% wore a mask on March 18, 54% on April 1, and 59% on April 14,58 despite the lack of any official guidance to do so. By May 9, the per-capita mortality was 6.9 per million.
In Lebanon, the first case was reported on February 21.169 Masks were popular among the public from mid-March to early April.170,171 By May 9, the per-capita mortality was 3.8 per million.
In March 2020 in Egypt, 76.4% of adults expressed an understanding of the value of wearing a mask in public, but only 36.4% agreed that they actually did so.172 At this time, the government was not mandating masks, but by March 20, prices of masks had soared, and volunteer organizations were advocating public masking in Egypt.173
In Iran, no infections were announced until February 19, when two deaths were reported.174 By March 12, satellite imagery demonstrated the digging of mass graves in Qom.175 In accord with WHO guidelines, the guidance of the Iranian Health Ministry available on March 24, 2020 advised that the public wear a mask only if symptomatic or caring for the sick.14 However, a new guidance which recommended universal masking in gyms, parks, and public transit was issued by the Ministry by March 29,14 an estimated 62 days after the start of the outbreak (assuming the reported deaths were really the first). A survey conducted from February 25 to April 25 found that 64% of the public reported wearing a mask and gloves in crowded places.176 By May 9, the reported per-capita mortality in Iran was 78.4 per million, though many, even those within the Iranian government, have questioned the official figures.177-179
In Yemen, 90% of women wear the niqab, which local doctors believe might reduce transmission of the virus by functioning as a mask.180 By May 9, the per-capita mortality in Yemen was 0.2 per million.
Government mandates or recommendations for mask wearing by the public were issued in Kuwait for gatherings on March 23,177 in Israel on April 1,181 and in Bahrain on April 9.182
Masks in Africa
As noted above, eight African countries recommended masks within 31 days of the onset of their outbreak: Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia, Benin, Sudan, Côte d’Ivoire, and Kenya (Table 2). The public widely sought masks to wear early in the outbreak in Gambia.183,184
In Ethiopia, 75.7% of chronic disease patients surveyed from March 2-April 10, 2020 agreed that it was important to wear a mask outside the home to prevent infection with coronavirus.185 A survey from March 20-24 found that 87% of the public believed wearing a mask could prevent spread of the virus, but only 14% had done so in the few days before the survey.186 Masks were mandated in public on April 11.187 In a survey in that country from April 15-22, 84% believed a mask could provide protection from coronavirus, 137 people (40%) had gone to a crowded place after the onset of the pandemic, and 82 people (24%) had worn a mask outside the home.188 By May 9, Ethiopia had reported no deaths from coronavirus.
In Cameroon, the first cases of coronavirus were identified on March 6.189 From March 10-18, a study found that 93.5% of the public viewed the wearing of face masks as protective, and 21.7% had already purchased them.189 A study in Northern Cameroon conducted from March 1-28 found that only 13% wore a mask outside the home.190 A survey in Cameroon conducted from April 1 to 25 found that 83.6% reported wearing a mask at gatherings.191 Masks were mandated in public in Cameroon on April 13.192 By May 9, the per-capita mortality was 4.1 per million.
In a city in the Democratic Republic of the Congo not yet affected by the pandemic at the time of a survey conducted from April 17 to May 11, 61% of respondents were aware of the value of wearing a face mask, 27% reported wearing a face mask since the pandemic began, and 65% felt that wearing a face mask was difficult.193
In Ghana, a study from March 27 to 29 of 43 public transport stations found that masks were worn by many people at one station, worn by a few people at 27 stations, and not worn at the remainder.194 Ghana required masks to be worn in public on April 25.195
Masks were required in public in Nigeria on April 14.196,197 A study in Nigeria from May 7 to 18 found that 65% of respondents had worn a mask outside the home in recent days.198
In South Africa from April 8-24, 2020, 85.6% of the public agreed that wearing a mask could help to prevent coronavirus infection.199 South African health officials recommended mask wear in public on April 10.200
In addition, government mandates or recommendations for mask wearing by the public were issued in: Mauritius on March 31;200 Tunisia202 and Morocco203 on April 6; Gabon on April 10;204 Equatorial Guinea on April 14;205 and Libya on April 16.206
Masks in Europe
Most countries in Europe and North America failed to embrace masks early in their outbreaks, and only adopted mask policies after signs of health system overload became apparent. Only two countries in Europe appear to have had government recommendations for the public to wear masks within 31 days of the onset of their outbreak: Slovakia and Czechia (Table 2).
The first country in Europe to be strongly affected by the outbreak was Italy, which reported its first cases on January 31, among a family who arrived from China on January 23.207 By March 10, doctors in Lombardy indicated that all intensive care beds were taken, and the system did not have enough respirators for the affected.208 A poll found that only 26% of Italians wore a mask in public on March 11, but, with the rising health system overload, 59% did so on March 1958—at least 60 days from the local onset of the outbreak. Another poll confirms that the prevalence of mask wear exceeded 50% for the first time from March 19-21.57 Lombardy (April 5) and Tuscany (April 6) required the public to wear masks in early April.209 A poll found that 85% of Italians wore a mask in public on April 16.58 By May 9, the per-capita mortality in Italy was 502.7 per million.
The next country to suffer was Spain, which reported its first case on January 31,210 and experienced its first death from the virus on February 13.211 The prevalence of mask wear among the Spanish public was 5% on March 12, 25% on March 19, 42% on March 25, and 56% on April 858—potentially 72 days after the entry of the virus into the country. Masks were mandated when in transit beginning April 11.212 Mask wearing in public had climbed to 65% by April 16.58 According to another survey, the prevalence of mask wear was 50% by March 21, 53% by April 4, and 61% by April 12.57 The per-capita mortality by May 9 was 566.3 per million.
In France, the first case of coronavirus was reported on January 24,213 and the first death on February 14, of a man who arrived from China on January 16.214 A poll found on March 10 that only 5% of those in France wore a mask in public.58 This number increased to 22% on March 27 and 25% on April 3,58 the day that the Académie Nationale de Médecine announced that masks should be compulsory in public215—at least 72 days into their outbreak. Polls indicated that mask wear among the public climbed to 38% on April 10, and 43% on April 17.58 Mask wear below 50% in early April was confirmed in another survey.57 By May 9, the per-capita mortality in the country was 403.1 per million.
In Germany, the first case of COVID-19 was reported on January 27. The patient had contact with a colleague visiting from China beginning January 19.216 By March 30, only 7% of the public reported wearing a mask in public.58 On March 31, the city of Jena mandated use of masks by the public.217 The Robert Koch Institute recommended that the public wear masks on April 1218—at least 70 days from the onset of the outbreak. Masks were worn by 14% of the public on April 6, 17% on April 13, and 24% on April 20.58 Another survey confirms mask wear at or below 20% in March and early April.59 By May 9, the per-capita mortality was 90.1 per million.
In the United Kingdom, the first cases of coronavirus were reported on January 31.219 Here, 2% of the population wore a mask by March 20, and 11% by April 17.58 Another survey confirms mask wear below 20% from March 12 to April 12.59 By May 9, the per-capita mortality was 465.3 per million.
In the Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, polls repeatedly showed masks to be worn by 10% or less of the population from March 16 through April 19.58 Finland began recommending that the public wear masks on April 14,220 and therefore was scored as falling under a mask recommendation for just 3 days in this study (April 14 to 16).
In Poland, the health minister announced on April 9 that a public mask mandate would go into effect on April 16, and mask vending machines began to be installed.221 In Poland, from April 12-14, 2020, 60.4% of Polish students age 18 to 27 wore a face mask in the previous 7 days.222 By May 9, the per-capita mortality was 20.7 per million.
The first cases of coronavirus in Russia were reported on January 31, 2020.223 In Russia, the prevalence of mask wear among the public was 11% by March 14, 19% by March 21, 36% by March 28, and 57% by April 457—69 days after the estimated start of the outbreak. Mask wearing prevalence had increased to 59% by April 12.57 By May 9, the per-capita mortality was 12.5 per million.
In Serbia, in April 2020, 60% of the public agreed they were willing to wear a mask during a pandemic, and respondents on average answered 3.25 (SD 1.6) on a 1 to 5 scale when asked if they wore masks, where 4 represented “agree” and 5 represented “strongly agree”.224
Some additional Western governments mandated or recommended mask-wearing in public in March 2020. By March 29, masks were mandated in indoor public spaces in Slovenia.225 In Austria, a mandate to wear masks in shops was announced on March 30, with the expectation that masks would be available by April 1.226 In addition, the requirement to wear masks on public transit was announced there on April 6.227 Masks were recommended for the public in Bulgaria on March 30.228 Government mandates or recommendations for mask wearing by the public were issued by April 16 in: Turkey,229 Cyprus,230 and Ukraine231 on April 3; and Estonia on April 5.232 In Lithuania, masks were recommended for the public on March 26,233 and mandated on April 8.234
Masks in the United States and Canada
The earliest case of COVID-19 in the United States was a 35-year-old man who returned from China to Washington state on January 15, 2020, and presented at an urgent care clinic on January 19.235 In the United States, the prevalence of mask wear in public was 7% on March 2, 5% on March 17, and 17% on March 30. The U.S. C.D.C. began recommending that asymptomatic people wear a mask in public on the evening of April 3236—at least 79 days after the virus had entered the country. Subsequently, the prevalence of mask wear was 29% on April 6, 49% on April 13, and 58% on April 20.58 Another survey found that the prevalence of mask wear was 32% from April 2-4, and 50% from April 9-12.57 According to another survey, from April 14-20, 36% of U.S. adults always wore a mask outside the home, 32% did so sometimes, and 31% never did.237 By May 9, the per-capita coronavirus-related mortality was 241.8 per million.
In Canada, the prevalence of mask wear was 6% on March 17, and 18% on April 6,58 when the government announced that masks were now recommended in public.238 Uptake was slow, with mask wearing still just 16% on April 13, and 31% on April 20.58 Another survey confirms mask wear below 30% in March and early April.57 By May 9, the per-capita coronavirus-related mortality was 124.3 per million.
Masks in Australia
In Australia, surveys of the public indicated that 10% wore a mask by March 15, which gradually increased to 27% by April 19.58 Another survey confirms mask wear below 25% in March and early April.57
Masks in Latin America and the Caribbean
Masks were an accepted preventive measure in some parts of Latin America and the Caribbean (though not all). Four countries in the region recommended masks by 31 days into their outbreak: Venezuela, Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, and El Salvador (Table 2).
Government mandates or recommendations for mask wearing by the public were issued by April 16 in multiple countries, including: Cuba239 on April 2; Peru on April 3;240 Honduras on April 6;241 Paraguay242 and Panama243 on April 7; Guatemala on April 9;244 Sint Maarten on April 14;245 and the Dominican Republic on April 16.246
In Trinidad and Tobago, masks were recommended early in the outbreak by the Health Minister and Chief Medical Officer.247 The recommendation was made official on April 5.248 Compliance was almost immediate, as many people were already wearing masks, and shops would not provide service without them (Vijay Naraynsingh, personal communication, June 30, 2020).
On April 3, a reporter in Bogotá noted that 90% of the people on the street were wearing face masks.249 On April 4, the government of Colombia mandated masks on public transport and shops.132,250-251
On April 6, the Minister of Health in Chile announced that masks would be mandatory on public transport starting April 8.252 Due to the shortage of medical masks, the public was invited to make their own out of cloth.252
Surveys indicate that in Mexico, the prevalence of public mask wear increased steadily from 17% on March 17 to 37% on April 6, 46% on April 13, and 60% on April 20.58 According to another survey, the prevalence was 31% by March 14, 36% by March 21, 46% by April 4, and 58% by April 9.57 By May 9, the per-capita mortality was 26.0 per million.
Ecuador did not require masks early in their outbreak. The first case of COVID-19 in Ecuador was reported on February 29 in a woman who had arrived from Spain on February 14.253 The first death was reported on March 13.254 By April 3, it was noted in Guayaquil that mortuary facilities were overwhelmed, and bodies were being left on the streets.255 On April 7, the Interior Minister of Ecuador announced that face masks were mandatory in public256—at least 48 days (and possibly 53 days) after the local onset of the outbreak. By May 9, the reported mortality was 97.3 per million.
The first case of COVID-19 in Brazil was reported on February 26.257 In Brazil, the prevalence of mask wear in public was 25% by March 14, 28% by March 21, 39% by April 4, and 56% by April 1257—50 days after the virus is estimated to have arrived in the country. By May 9, the per-capita mortality was 50.1 per million.
Graphical Analysis of Mask Effect
Before the formal statistical analysis, we graphically illustrate the effect of mask wear (Figures 1, 2). The first figure demonstrates the effect of early mask usage (Figure 1). In the countries not using masks by April 16, the per-capita mortality by May 9 rises dramatically if the infection has persisted in the country over 60 days (Figure 1, red line). On the other hand, countries in which a mask was used from 16 to 30 days after infection onset had per-capita mortality several orders of magnitude less by May 9 (Figure 1, orange line). When countries recommended masks within 15 days of the onset of the outbreak, the mortality was so low that the curve is difficult to distinguish from the x-axis (Figure 1, blue line).
Per-capita mortality by May 9 as a function of the period of the country’s outbreak without mask recommendations or norms. Data grouped by whether country recommended (or traditionally used) masks by April 16 (blue line), or not (red line). Data for graph derived from 198 countries.
For instance, for the early mask-wearing countries in which the infection had arrived by January (Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Macau, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, the Philippines), the virus was present in the country by 80 or more days by April 16 (Table 2). If masks had no effect, we might have expected these countries to have a mortality well over 200 deaths per million (Figures 1, 2). Instead, the mortality for these 10 regions was 2.1 per million (SD 2.5, Table 2)— approximately a 100-fold reduction.
On the other hand, the mortality curves for mask and non-mask countries look reasonably similar if they are compared based on the period of their outbreaks without masks (Figure 2). The red line in the figure displays the mean per-capita mortality as a function of the duration of infection in the countries which did not recommend masks by April 16 (Figure 2). Countries are averaged in two-week (14-day) groups. For instance, the per-capita mortality data from all countries with an outbreak which had lasted between 1 and 14 days by April 16 are averaged and displayed together. Not surprisingly, the longer the outbreak lasts in the country, the higher the mortality. Beyond 8 weeks (56 days), the per-capita mortality sharply increases. Data from countries which recommended masks before Apr. 16 are displayed with the thick blue line (Figure 2). Here, the x-axis is not the total time of the infection, but rather the period of the infection before masks were recommended. Of note, the curves demonstrate the same general behavior. The mortality in the mask countries by 11 weeks is lower by a factor of two, but not by a factor of 100. Thus, when compared on their mask-free periods, mask and non-mask countries appear reasonably similar. In order to provide some graphical idea of the scatter of the data when exponential growth is assumed, we graphed per-capita mortality by May 9 on a logarithmic scale as a function of the duration of the country’s outbreak not using masks in all 198 countries (Figure 3). This simple model explained 28.0% of the variation in per-capita mortality.
Scatter-plot of per-capita mortality by May 9, 2020 as a function of the period of the country’s outbreak without mask recommendations or norms. The dotted line represents the best fit using least-squares linear regression. Data for graph derived from 198 countries. Start of outbreak defined as 5 days before first case reported, or 23 days before the first death (whichever was earlier).
Initial multivariable analyses
An initial multivariable analysis was conducted including all 198 countries. By multivariable linear regression, significant predictors of the logarithm of each country’s per-capita coronavirus mortality included: duration of infection in the country, duration of wearing masks (p<0.001), percentage of the population over age 60, and urbanization (all p≤0.009, Appendix Table A3). The model explained 47.2% of the variation in percapita mortality (Table A3).
We wanted to determine whether the association of mask use with lower mortality was simply an artifact of the definition of the start of the outbreak as 5 days before the first case or 23 days before the first death (whichever was earlier). Therefore, we ran the multivariable model for all 198 countries with the outbreak start defined simply as the first case date (Appendix Table A4). In this model, each week of the outbreak without masks was associated with a 38.5% increase in per-capita mortality. On the other hand, each week a country wore masks was associated with a reduction in mortality of 4.6% because 1.3847(0.6887) = 0.954 (Table A4). The model explained 43.8% of the variation in per-capita mortality—i.e. slightly less than with the original definition of outbreak start.
We also prepared a multivariable model to predict the logarithm of per-capita coronavirus mortality in the 194 countries with obesity data. In this model, lockdown, obesity, temperature, and urbanization were retained due to their plausibility as important factors (Table 3).
Predictors of (log) Country-wide Per-capita Coronavirus Mortality by May 9 by Multivariable Linear Regression in 194 Countries.
By multivariable linear regression, significant predictors of the logarithm of each country’s per-capita coronavirus mortality included: duration of infection in the country, duration of wearing masks, and percentage of the population over age 60 (all p<0.001, Table 3). The association of obesity with increased mortality approached statistical significance (p=0.07, Table 3). When controlling for the duration of infection in the country, there appeared to be a negative association between time in lockdown and per-capita mortality, but this association was not statistically significant (p=0.41) (Table 3). The model explained 50.3% of the variation in per-capita mortality.
In countries not recommending masks, the per-capita mortality tended to increase each week by a factor of 1.550, or 55.0%. In contrast, in countries recommending masks, the per-capita mortality tended to increase each week by a factor of 1.5499 * 0.6917 = 1.072, or just 7.2%. Under lockdown (without masks), the per-capita mortality increased each week by (1.5499)(0.9376) = 1.453, or 45.3%, i.e. slightly less than the baseline condition (Table 3).
A country with 10% more of its population living in an urban environment than another country tended to suffer a mortality 13.6% higher (100.0552 = 1.136, Table 3). A country in which the percentage of the population age 60 or over is 10% higher than in another country tended to suffer mortality 195% higher (100.47 = 2.95, Table 3). A country with a prevalence of obesity 10% higher tended to suffer mortality 45% higher (100.16 = 1.45, Table 3).
Survey-modified Model
Surveys of mask wearing by the public during the exposure period were available for 41 countries (see above). To determine the influence that actual mask-wear, as opposed to mask policies, might have on the model, we scored countries as mask-wearing if at least 50% of the public wore a mask, and non-mask wearing if less than 50% of the population did so.
Based on surveys, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, and Malawi were not considered mask-wearing countries at any time during the exposure period (ending April 16). In contrast, Indonesia was scored as mask-wearing beginning February 24, Bangladesh beginning March 11, Italy beginning March 19,58 Myanmar beginning March 20, Spain58 and India beginning March 21,57 Saudi Arabia beginning April 1,58 Russia beginning April 4, Singapore beginning April 10,58 and the United States, Brazil and Mexico beginning April 12.57,58
In this survey-modified model in 198 countries, duration of the outbreak, duration of mask wear, proportion of the population age 60 or over, and urbanization were all significant predictors of per-capita mortality (all p<=0.01, Appendix Table A5). Each week that the infection persisted in the country without masks was associated with a 50.6% increase in per-capita mortality. On the other hand, when masks were worn, the per-capita mortality only increased by 3.1% weekly, (1.5056)(0.6845) = 1.031, (Appendix Table A5). The model explained 45.9% of the variance in mortality.
Numbers of Viral Tests
Among the 183 countries with viral (PCR) testing data by May 9, per-capita testing performed at all 3 time points was positively associated with per-capita mortality in univariate analysis (all p<0.001, Table 1). By May 9, 2020, low-mortality countries had performed 1 test for every 575 members of the population, while high-mortality countries had performed 1 test for every 81 members of the population (p<0.001, Table 1).
To the multivariable model (Table 3), we added testing by May 9, using data from 179 countries with both testing and obesity data. Duration of infection in the country, the duration that masks were recommended, and age at least 60 years continued to be significant predictors of per-capita mortality (all p≤0.001, Appendix Table A6). The model explained 52.1% of the variation in per-capita mortality. Each week the infection persisted in a country without masks was associated with a 56.7% increase in percapita mortality (Table A6). In contrast, in countries where masks were recommended, the per-capita mortality tended to increase each week by 10.7% (because (1.5673)(0.7060) = 1.107, Table A6). In this model, the prevalence of obesity was significantly associated with country-wide per-capita mortality (p=0.04). If the prevalence of obesity increased by 10% (e.g. from 10% to 20% of a population), the per-capita mortality tended to increase by 58% (Appendix Table A6)
In this model, a 10-fold increase (i.e. one logarithm) in per-capita testing tended to be associated with a 17.0% increase in reported per-capita mortality, though the trend was not close to reaching statistical significance (p=0.55, Appendix Table A6).
Duration of the infection in the country, time during the outbreak in which masks were recommended, and the fraction of the population over age 60 were all still significant predictors of mortality (all p≤0.001, Appendix Table A3).
If early testing lowers mortality, one might expect negative regression coefficients. Testing on both April 16 and May 9 were added to the multivariable model of Table 3, using data from the 158 countries with both obesity and testing data by these dates. Per-capita testing (log) by April 16 was not negatively associated with percapita mortality (log) by May 9 (coefficient 0.330, 95% CI −0.254 to 0.915, p=0.27).
Likewise, testing on both April 4 (the earliest archived data) and May 9 were added to the multivariable model of Table 3, using data from the 131 countries with both obesity and testing data by these dates. Per-capita testing (log) by April 4 was not significantly associated with per-capita mortality (log) by May 9 (coefficient −0.022, 95% CI −0.343 to 0.299, p=0.89). Given the coefficient, a 10-fold (one log) increase in early testing would be associated with a (non-significant) decrease in per-capita mortality of 5.0%.
Only 5 countries had performed over 1 test for every 10 people in the country by May 9, 2020 (in order of most testing to least): the Faeroe Islands, Iceland, the Falkland Islands, the UAE, and Bahrain. The Faeroe and Falkland Islands reported no coronavirus-related deaths. The remaining 3 countries had per-capita mortality above the median value. The highest per-capita mortality among this group was 29.0 per million population (or 1 in 34,480 people), seen in Iceland.
Containment and Testing Policies
For 161 countries, containment, testing, and health policies were scored by Oxford University.8 The following countries with mask policies by April 16 were included in this analysis, but not in the previous multivariable model, for lack of data on numbers of tests performed: China, Macau, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, and Sudan. In univariate analysis, scores for school closing, cancelling public events, restrictions on gatherings, and international travel controls were significantly associated with lower per-capita mortality (all p<=0.03, Table 4). Policies regarding workplace closing, closing public transport, stay at home requirements, internal movement restrictions, public information campaigns, testing, and contact tracing were not significant predictors of mortality (all p>0.05, Table 4). Likewise, overall indices of stringency, government response, and containment and health were not associated with mortality (all p>0.05, Table 4).
A multivariable model in 161 countries found that duration of the infection, duration masks were recommended, prevalence of age at least 60 years, obesity, and international travel restrictions were independently predictive of per-capita mortality (Table 5). The model explained 67.3% of the variation in per-capita mortality. At baseline, each week of the infection in a country was associated with an increase in per-capita mortality of 29.5% (Table 5). In contrast, for each week that masks were worn, the per-capita mortality was associated with a decrease of 2.0% each week (given that 1.2952(0.7567) = 0.980, Table 5).
Predictors of (log) Country-wide Per-capita Coronavirus Mortality by May 9 by Multivariable Linear Regression in 161 Countries
International travel restrictions were scored by Oxford as: (0) no measures, (1) screening, (2) quarantine arrivals from high-risk regions; and ban on arrivals from some (3) or all (4) regions. The regression analysis suggested that as compared with no border controls, a complete ban on entries from abroad was associated with a change in mortality of 104*(−0.213) = 0.14, meaning an 86% reduction in per-capita mortality (Table 5). The international travel restrictions were scored as 4 in Greenland, 3.8 in Bermuda, 3.6 in Israel, 3.5 in Czechia and New Zealand, 3.1 in Taiwan, and 2.9 in Australia, and at the other extreme, were scored as 1.1 in Sweden, and as 0 in Iran, Luxembourg, and the UK.
Per-capita mortality was not significantly associated with policies regarding either testing policy (p=0.55), or contact tracing (p=0.14, Table 5). Testing policy was scored as: no policy (0), symptomatic with exposure, travel history, hospitalization, or key occupation (1), all symptomatic (2), or open to anyone (3). Testing policy tended to be positively associated with mortality. Contact tracing was scored as: none (0), some cases (1), or all cases (2), and tended to be inversely related with per-capita mortality (though not significantly). These countervailing associations meant that as compared with a country with no testing or tracing policy, a country which opened testing to the entire public with comprehensive contact tracing might be associated with a reported change in mortality of 10(3*0.0645+2*(−0.143)) = 0.808, i.e. a 19.2% reduction in per-capita mortality (though statistical significance was not demonstrated). Thus, testing and tracing seem unlikely to account for the almost 100-fold variation in per-capita mortality between low and high mortality countries.
Discussion
These results confirm that over 4 months since the appearance of COVID-19 in late 2019, there is marked variation between countries in related mortality. Countries in the lower half of mortality have experienced an average COVID-19-related per-capita mortality of 1.1 deaths per million population, in contrast with an average of 94.2 deaths per million in the remaining countries. Depending on the model and dataset evaluated, statistically significant independent predictors of per-capita mortality included urbanization, fraction of the population age 60 years or over, prevalence of obesity, duration of the outbreak in the country, international travel restrictions, and the period of the outbreak subject to cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing by the public.
These results support the universal wearing of masks by the public to suppress the spread of the coronavirus.1 Given the low levels of coronavirus mortality seen in the Asian countries which adopted widespread public mask usage early in the outbreak, it seems highly unlikely that masks are harmful.
Our key finding that the logarithm of per-capita coronavirus mortality is linearly and positively associated with the duration of the outbreak without mask norms or mandates was recently confirmed by Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius.258 The Goldman Sachs team saw our online preprint dated June 15, and had reached out to us to discuss our model. The regression analysis performed by Goldman Sachs confirms that, for prediction of both infection prevalence and mortality, the significance of the duration of mask mandates or norms in the model persists after controlling for age of the population, obesity, population density, and testing policy.258
One major limitation is that evidence concerning the actual prevalence of mask-wearing by the public is unavailable for most countries. Our survey of the literature is one of the more complete evaluations of the question to date. Available scholarship and surveys do corroborate reports in the news media that mask wear was common in public in many Asian countries, including Japan, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, China, Indonesia, India, Myanmar and Bangladesh (Table 2). Mask wear was widespread in some low-mortality countries even before, or in the absence of, a formal government recommendation.
In addition, it is likely that the policies favoring mask-wearing in parts of the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean were markers of a general cultural acceptance of masks that helped to limit spread of the virus. Had there been adequate survey data to fully reflect the early wearing of masks in these regions, it is possible that the association of masks with lower mortality would be even stronger.
Conversely, in Western countries which had no tradition of mask-wearing, and which only recommended (rather than mandated) mask-wearing by the public, such as the United States, the practice has been steadily increasing, but change has not been immediate.
Much of the randomized controlled data on the effect of mask-wearing on the spread of respiratory viruses relates to influenza. One recent meta-analysis of 10 trials in families, students, or religious pilgrims found that the relative risk for influenza with the use of face masks was 0.78, a 22% reduction, though the findings were not statistically significant.259 Combining all the trials, there were 29 cases in groups assigned to wear masks, compared with 51 cases in control groups.259 The direct applicability of these results to mask-wearing at the population level is uncertain. For instance, there was some heterogeneity in methods of the component trials, with one trial assigning mask wearing to the person with a respiratory illness, another to his close contacts, and the remainder to both the ill and their contacts.259 Mask-wearing was inconsistent. The groups living together could not wear a mask when bathing, sleeping, eating, or brushing teeth.260-262 In one of the studies reviewed, parents wore a mask during the day, but not at night when sleeping next to their sick child.262 In a different trial, students were asked to wear a mask in their residence hall for at least 6 hours daily (rather than all the time).260 The bottom line is that it is nearly impossible for people to constantly maintain mask wear around the people with whom they live. In contrast, wearing a mask when on public transit or shopping is quite feasible. In addition, as an infection propagates through multiple generations in the population, the benefits multiply exponentially. Even if one accepts that masks would only reduce transmissions by 22%, then after 10 cycles of the infection, mask-wearing would reduce the level of infection in the population by 91.7%, as compared with a non-mask wearing population, at least during the period of exponential growth (because 0.7810 = 0.083). It is highly unlikely that entire countries or populations will ever be randomized to either wear, or not wear, masks. Public policies can only be formulated based on the best evidence available.
Some countries which used masks were better able to maintain or resume normal business and educational activities. For instance, in Taiwan, schools reopened on February 21, 2020, with parents directed to purchase 4 to 5 masks per week for each child.82
Limits on international travel were significantly associated with lower per-capita mortality from coronavirus. As compared with no restrictions, complete shutdown of the border throughout the outbreak was independently associated with 86% lower percapita mortality.
Nationwide policies to ban large gatherings and to close schools or businesses, tended to be associated with lower mortality, though not in a statistically significant fashion. However, businesses, schools, and individuals made decisions to limit contact, independent of any government policies. The adoption of numerous public health policies at the same time can make it difficult to tease out the relative importance of each.
Colder average monthly temperature was associated with higher levels of COVID-19 mortality in univariate analysis, but not when accounting for other independent variables. One reason that outdoor temperature might have limited association with the spread of the virus is that most viral transmission occurs indoors.263 We acknowledge that using the average temperature in the country’s largest city during the outbreak does not model the outbreak as precisely as modelling mortality and temperature separately in each of the thousands of cities around the world. However, to a first approximation, our method did serve to control for whether the country’s climate was tropical, temperate, or polar, and whether the outbreak began in late Winter (Northern hemisphere) or late Summer (Southern hemisphere). Environmental factors which could influence either human behavior or the stability and spread of virus particles are worthy of further study.
Presumably, high levels of testing might identify essentially all coronavirus-related deaths, and still higher levels of testing, combined with contact tracing, might lower mortality. However, statistical support for the benefit of testing and tracing on mortality could not be demonstrated. Policies on testing and tracing were not significantly associated with mortality. In addition, per-capita testing both early (April 4, 16) and later (May 9) were positively associated with reported coronavirus-related mortality. It seems likely that countries which test at a low level are missing many cases. We previously identified just 3 countries (Iceland, the Faeroe Islands, and the UAE) which had performed over 75,000 tests per million population by April 16, and all 3 had mortality below 1 in 46,000 at that point.264 By May 9, we could add to this “high-testing” group, the Falkland Islands and Bahrain, as all 5 countries had tested over one tenth of their population. All 5 countries had a mortality of 29 per million (1 in 34,480 people) or less. The degree to which these results would apply to larger, less isolated, or less wealthy countries is unknown. Statistical support for benefit of high levels of testing might be demonstrated if additional and more diverse countries are able to test at this level.
One limitation of our study is that the ultimate source of mortality data is often from governments which may not have the resources to provide a full accounting of their public health crises, or an interest in doing so. It should be noted that the benefit of wearing masks persisted in a model which excluded data from China (because no testing data were available, Appendix Table A3). We also acknowledge that country-wide analyses are subject to the ecologic fallacy.
The source for mortality and testing data we selected is publicly available,7 has been repeatedly archived,10 contains links to the source government reports for each country, and agrees with other coronavirus aggregator sites.265 In the interest of transparency, we presented the per-capita mortality data in Appendix Table A1. One might question whether any of these data sites or governments provide a complete and accurate picture of coronavirus mortality. But we must remember that this information does not exist in a vacuum. Independent sources confirm when mortality has been high. Social media alerted the world to the outbreaks in Wuhan, Iran, Italy, and New York. News reports have used aerial photography to confirm the digging of graves in Iran, New York, and Brazil. Long lines were seen to retrieve remains at crematoria in Wuhan. Mortuary facilities were inadequate to meet the demand in New York, and Guayaquil.255 Conversely, signs of health system overload have been noted to be absent in the countries reporting low mortality. The health systems in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are believed to be transparent. Reporters in Vietnam have even called hospitals and funeral homes to confirm the absence of unusual levels of activity.266 Therefore, while no data source is perfect, we believe that the data used in the paper are consistent with observations from nongovernmental sources, and are comparable in reliability to those in other scholarly works.
It is not the case that countries which reported no deaths due to coronavirus simply were not exposed to the virus. All 198 countries analyzed did report COVID-19 cases. Several countries which traditionally use masks and sustained low mortality (or none) are close to and have strong travel links to China. Some of these countries reported cases early in the global pandemic (Table 2). Community transmission has been described in Vietnam.267
In summary, older age of the population, urbanization, obesity, and longer duration of the outbreak in a country were independently associated with higher country-wide per-capita coronavirus mortality. International travel restrictions were associated with lower per-capita mortality. However, other containment measures, testing and tracing polices, and the amount of viral testing were not statistically significant predictors of country-wide coronavirus mortality, after controlling for other predictors. In contrast, societal norms and government policies supporting mask-wearing by the public were independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19. The use of masks in public is an important and readily modifiable public health measure.
Funding
None.
Disclosures
The authors have no conflicts of interest.
Appendix
Supplemental Tables
Per-capita COVID-19 Mortality by May 9 and Date of Mask Recommendation or Widespread Use Based on Cultural Norms.
Predictors of (log) Country-wide Per-capita Coronavirus Mortality by May 9 by Univariate Linear Regression in 198 Countries.
Predictors of (log) Country-wide Per-capita Coronavirus Mortality by May 9 by Multivariable Linear Regression in 198 Countries.
Predictors of (log) Country-wide Per-capita Coronavirus Mortality by May 9 by Multivariable Linear Regression in 198 Countries, with Outbreak Start Defined by Date of First Case.
Predictors of (log) Country-wide Per-capita Coronavirus Mortality by May 9 by Multivariable Linear Regression in 198 Countries, with Mask Wear Determined by Recommendations and Surveys (When Available).
Predictors of (log) Country-wide Per-capita Coronavirus Mortality by May 9 by Multivariable Linear Regression in 179 Countries.
Footnotes
None of the authors has any conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
- 1.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.↵
- 4.↵
- 5.↵
- 6.↵
- 7.↵
- 8.↵
- 9.↵
- 10.↵
- 11.↵
- 12.↵
- 13.↵
- 14.↵
- 15.↵
- 16.↵
- 17.↵
- 18.↵
- 19.↵
- 20.↵
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.↵
- 24.↵
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.↵
- 44.↵
- 45.↵
- 46.↵
- 47.↵
- 48.↵
- 49.↵
- 50.↵
- 51.
- 52.↵
- 53.↵
- 54.↵
- 55.
- 56.
- 57.↵
- 58.↵
- 59.↵
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.↵
- 63.↵
- 64.↵
- 65.↵
- 66.
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
- 70.
- 71.↵
- 72.↵
- 73.
- 74.↵
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.↵
- 78.
- 79.↵
- 80.
- 81.
- 82.↵
- 83.
- 84.
- 85.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
- 89.↵
- 90.
- 91.
- 92.
- 93.
- 94.
- 95.
- 96.
- 97.
- 98.↵
- 99.
- 100.
- 101.
- 102.
- 103.
- 104.
- 105.
- 106.
- 107.↵
- 108.
- 109.
- 110.
- 111.
- 112.
- 113.
- 114.
- 115.
- 116.
- 117.
- 118.
- 119.
- 120.
- 121.
- 122.
- 123.
- 124.
- 125.
- 126.
- 127.
- 128.
- 129.
- 130.
- 131.
- 132.↵
- 133.↵
- 134.↵
- 135.↵
- 136.↵
- 137.↵
- 138.↵
- 139.↵
- 140.↵
- 141.↵
- 142.↵
- 143.↵
- 144.↵
- 145.↵
- 146.↵
- 147.↵
- 148.↵
- 149.↵
- 150.↵
- 151.↵
- 152.↵
- 153.↵
- 154.↵
- 155.↵
- 156.↵
- 157.↵
- 158.↵
- 159.
- 160.↵
- 161.↵
- 162.↵
- 163.↵
- 164.↵
- 165.↵
- 166.↵
- 167.↵
- 168.↵
- 169.↵
- 170.↵
- 171.↵
- 172.↵
- 173.↵
- 174.↵
- 175.↵
- 176.↵
- 177.↵
- 178.
- 179.↵
- 180.↵
- 181.↵
- 182.↵
- 183.↵
- 184.↵
- 185.↵
- 186.↵
- 187.↵
- 188.↵
- 189.↵
- 190.↵
- 191.↵
- 192.↵
- 193.↵
- 194.↵
- 195.↵
- 196.↵
- 197.↵
- 198.↵
- 199.↵
- 200.↵
- 201.
- 202.↵
- 203.↵
- 204.↵
- 205.↵
- 206.↵
- 207.↵
- 208.↵
- 209.↵
- 210.↵
- 211.↵
- 212.↵
- 213.↵
- 214.↵
- 215.↵
- 216.↵
- 217.↵
- 218.↵
- 219.↵
- 220.↵
- 221.↵
- 222.↵
- 223.↵
- 224.↵
- 225.↵
- 226.↵
- 227.↵
- 228.↵
- 229.↵
- 230.↵
- 231.↵
- 232.↵
- 233.↵
- 234.↵
- 235.↵
- 236.↵
- 237.↵
- 238.↵
- 239.↵
- 240.↵
- 241.↵
- 242.↵
- 243.↵
- 244.↵
- 245.↵
- 246.↵
- 247.↵
- 248.↵
- 249.↵
- 250.
- 251.
- 252.↵
- 253.↵
- 254.↵
- 255.↵
- 256.↵
- 257.↵
- 258.↵
- 259.↵
- 260.↵
- 261.
- 262.↵
- 263.↵
- 264.↵
- 265.↵
- 266.↵
- 267.↵
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
14
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
62
Blogs/Media
Author Videos