Causal Impact of Masks, Policies, Behavior on Early Covid-19 Pandemic in the U.S

2.1. The Causal Model and Its Structural Equation Form

We introduce our approach through the Wright-style causal diagram shown in Figure 4. The diagram describes how policies, behavior, and information interact together:

• The forward health outcome, Y_i,t+e, is determined last, after all other variables have been determined;

• The adopted policies, P_it, affect health outcome Y_i,t+e either directly, or indirectly by altering human behavior B_it;

• Information variables, I_it, such as lagged values of outcomes can affect human behavior and policies, as well as outcomes;

• The confounding factors W_it, which vary across states and time, affect all other variables.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. S. & P. Wright type causal path diagram for our model.

The index i denotes observational unit, the state, and t and t + ℓ denotes the time, where ℓ represents the time lag between infection and case confirmation or death.

Our main outcomes of interest are the growth rates in Covid-19 cases and deaths, behavioral variables include proportion of time spent in transit or shopping and others, policy variables include stay-at-home orders and school and business closures, and the information variables include lagged values of outcome. We provide a detailed description of these variables and their timing in the next section.

The causal structure allows for the effect of the policy to be either direct or indirect – through-behavior or through dynamics; and all of these effects are not mutually exclusive. The structure also allows for changes in behavior to be brought by change in policies and information. These are all realistic properties that we expect from the contextual knowledge of the problem. Policies such as closures of schools, non-essential business, and restaurants, alter and constrain behavior in strong ways. In contrast, policies such as mandating employees to wear masks can potentially affect the Covid-19 transmission directly. The information variables, such as recent growth in the number of cases, can cause people to spend more time at home, regardless of adopted state policies; these changes in behavior in turn affect the transmission of Covid-19.

The causal ordering induced by this directed acyclical graph is determined by the following timing sequence:

• information and confounders get determined at t,

• policies are set in place, given information and confounders at t;

• behavior is realized, given policies, information, and confounders at t;

• outcomes get realized at t+ ℓ given policies, behavior, information, and confounders.

The model also allows for direct dynamic effects of information variables on the outcome through autoregressive structures that capture persistence in growth patterns. As highlighted below, realized outcomes may become new information for future periods, inducing dynamics over multiple periods.

Our quantitative model for causal structure in Figure 4 is given by the following econometric structural equation model: which is a collection of functional relations with stochastic shocks, decomposed into observable part δ′W and unobservable part ε. The terms and are the centered stochastic shocks that obey the orthogonality restrictions posed below.

The policies can be modeled via a linear form as well, although linearity is not critical.⁹

The orthogonality restrictions on the stochastic components are as follows: where we say that V ⊥ U if EV U = 0. This is a standard way of representing restrictions on errors in structural equation modeling.^10,11

The observed variables are generated by setting ι = I_it and propagating the system from the last equation to the first:

The system above together with orthogonality restrictions (O) implies the following collection of stochastic equations for realized variables: and

These equations form the basis of our empirical analysis.

As discussed below, the information variable includes case growth. Therefore, an orthogonality restriction holds if the government does not have knowledge on future case growth beyond what is predicted by today’s case growth, policies, behavior, and confounders; even when the government has some knowledge on , the orthogonality restriction may hold if there is a time lag for the government to implement its policies based on .

The orthogonality condition in (PI→Y) is weaker than the orthogonality conditions in (BPI→Y)-(PI→B) in that the former is implied by the latter but not vice versa. The system over-identifies the regression coefficients because (α′β′ + π′) and (α′γ′ + µ′) in (PI→Y) can be also identified from α′, π′, µ′, β′, and γ′ in (BPI→Y)-(PI→B). Comparing the estimates of (α′β′ + π′) and (α′γ′ + µ′) from (PI→Y) with those implied by the estimates of α′, π′, µ′, β′, and γ′ from (BPI→Y)-(PI→B) provides a useful specification test.

2.2. Information Structures and Induced Dynamics

We consider three examples of information structures: Information variable is a function of time:

Information variable is lagged value of outcome: and finally:

(I) Information variables include time, lagged and integrated values of outcome: with the convention that Y_it = 0 for t ≤ 0.

The first information structure captures the basic idea that, as individuals discover more information about covid over time, they adapt to safer modes of behavior (stay-at-home, wear masks, wash hands). Under this structure, information is common across states and exogenously evolves over time, independent of the number of cases. The second structure arises from considering autoregressive components and captures people’s behavioral response to information on cases in the state they reside. Specifically, we model persistence in growth rates, Y_i,t+e, through an AR(1) model, which leads to I_it = Y_it. This provides useful local, state-specific, information about the forward growth rate and people may adjust their behavior to safer modes when they see a high value. We model this adjustment via the term γ′I_t in the behavior equation. The third information structure is the combination of the first two structures plus an additional term representing the log of the total number of new cases in the state. We use this information structure in our empirical specification. In this structure, people respond to both global information, captured by a function of time such as month dummies, and local information sources, captured by the local growth rate and the total number of cases. The last element of the information set can be thought of as a local stochastic trend in cases.

All of these examples fold into a specification of the form: with the initialization I_i0 = 0 and Y_i0 = 0.¹⁴

With any structure of this form, realized outcomes may become new information for future periods, inducing a dynamical system over multiple periods. We show the resulting dynamical system in a causal diagram of Figure 5. Specification of this system is useful for studying delayed effects of policies and behaviors and in considering the counterfactual policy analysis.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5. Dynamic System Induced by Information Structure and SEM

2.3. Outcome and Key Confounders via SIR model

Letting C_it denote the cumulative number of confirmed cases in state i at time t, our outcome approximates the weekly growth rate in new cases from t − 7 to t.¹⁵ Here Δ denotes the differencing operator over 7 days from t to t − 7, so that ΔC_it := C_it − C_i,t−7 is the number of new confirmed cases in the past 7 days.

We chose this metric as this is the key metric for policy makers deciding when to relax Covid mitigation policies. The U.S. government’s guidelines for state reopening recommend that states display a “downward trajectory of documented cases within a 14-day period” (White House, 2020). A negative value of Y_it is an indication of meeting this criteria for reopening. By focusing on weekly cases rather than daily cases, we smooth idiosyncratic daily fluctuations as well as periodic fluctuations associated with days of the week.

Our measurement equation for estimating equations (BPI → Y) and (PI → Y) will take the form: where i is state, t is day, C_it is cumulative confirmed cases, T_it is the number of tests over 7 days, Δ is a 7-days differencing operator, ϵ_it is an unobserved error term. X_i,t−14 collects other behavioral, policy, and confounding variables, depending on whether we estimate (BPI →Y) or (PI → Y), where the lag of 14 days captures the time lag between infection and confirmed case (see the Appendix A.6). Here is the key confounding variable, derived from considering the SIR model below. We describe other confounders in the empirical section.

Our main estimating equation (M-C) is motivated by a variant of SIR model, where we add confirmed cases and infection detection via testing. Let S, ℐ, R, and D denote the number of susceptible, infected, recovered, and dead individuals in a given state. Each of these variables are a function of time. We model them as evolving as where N is the population, β(t) is the rate of infection spread, γ is the rate of recovery or death, and κ is the probability of death conditional on infection.

Confirmed cases, C(t), evolve as where τ (t) is the rate that infections are detected.

Our goal is to examine how the rate of infection β(t) varies with observed policies and measures of social distancing behavior. A key challenge is that we only observed C(t) and D(t), but not ℐ(t). The unobserved ℐ(t) can be eliminated by differentiating (8) and using as

We consider a discrete-time analogue of equation (9) to motivate our empirical specification by relating the detection rate τ (t) to the number of tests T_it while specifying as a linear function of variables X_i,t−14. This results in which is equation (M-C), where X_i,t−14 captures a vector of variables related to β(t).

Structural Interpretation. Early in the pandemic, when the number of susceptibles is approximately the same as the entire population, i.e. S_it/N_it δ 1, the component is the projection of infection rate β_i(t) on X_i,t−14 (policy, behavioral, information, and confounders other than testing rate), provided the stochastic component ϵ_it is orthogonal to X_i,t−14 and the testing variables:

2.4. Growth Rate in Deaths as Outcome

By differentiating (7) and (8) with respect to t and using (9), we obtain

Our measurement equation for the growth rate of deaths is based on equation (10) but account for a 21 day lag between infection and death as where approximates the weekly growth rate in deaths from t − 7 to t in state i.

3.1. Total Change Decomposition

Given the SEM formulation above, we can carry out the following decomposition analysis, after removing the effects of confounders. For example, we can decompose the total change in the expected outcome, measured at two different time points t + ℓ and o into the sum of three components: where the first two components capture the immediate effect and the third represents the delayed or dynamic effect.

In the three examples of information structure given earlier, we have the following forms for the dynamic effect: for the trend model, and for the lag model, interpreting t/ℓ as lt/ℓJ. For the general model we use, the dynamic effect is

The effects can be decomposed into (a) delayed policy effects via behavior by summing terms containing PEB, (b) delayed policy effects via direct impact by summing terms containing DPE, (c) pure behavior effects, and (d) pure dynamic feedback effects.

3.2. Counterfactuals

We also consider simple counterfactual exercises, where we examine the effects of setting a sequence of counterfactual policies for each state:

We assume that the SEM remains invariant, except of course for the policy equation.¹⁶ Given the policies, we propagate the dynamic equations: with the initialization . In stating this counterfactual system of equations, we make the following invariance assumption

Invariance Assumption. The equations of (CF-SEM) remain exactly of the same form as in the (SEM) and (I). That is, under the policy intervention , parameters and stochastic shocks in (SEM) and (I) remain the same as under the original policy intervention {P_it}.

Let and ƿY_i,t+e denote the predicted values produced by working with the counterfactual system (CEF-SEM) and the factual system (SEM):

In generating these predictions, we make the assumption of invariance stated above.

Then we can write the difference into the sum of three components:

Similarly to what we had before, the counterfactual dynamic effects take the form: interpreting t/ℓ as ⌊t/ℓ⌋. The effects can be decomposed into (a) delayed policy effects via behavior by summing terms containing PEB, (b) delayed policy effects via direct impact by summing terms containing DPE, (c) pure behavior effects, and (d) pure dynamic feedback effects.

4.1. Data

Our baseline measures for daily Covid-19 cases and deaths are from The New York Times (NYT). When there are missing values in NYT, we use reported cases and deaths from JHU CSSE, and then the Covid Tracking Project. The number of tests for each state is from Covid Tracking Project. As shown in Figure 21 in the appendix, there was a rapid increase in testing in the second half of March and then the number of tests increased very slowly in each state in April.

We use the database on US state policies created by Raifman et al. (2020). In our analysis, we focus on 6 policies: stay-at-home, closed nonessential businesses, closed K-12 schools, closed restaurants except takeout, closed movie theaters, and mandate face mask by employees in public facing businesses. We believe that the first four of these policies are the most widespread and important. Closed movie theaters is included because it captures common bans on gatherings of more than a handful of people. We also include mandatory face mask use by employees because its effectiveness on slowing down Covid-19 spread is a controversial policy issue (Howard et al., 2020; Greenhalgh et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020b). Table 1 provides summary statistics, where N is the number of states that have ever implemented the policy. We also obtain information on state-level covariates from Raifman et al. (2020), which include population size, total area, unemployment rate, poverty rate, and a percentage of people who are subject to illness.These confounders are motivated by Wheaton and Thompson (2020) who finds that case growth is associated with residential density and per capita income.

We obtain social distancing behavior measures from”Google COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports” (LLC, 2020). The dataset provides six measures of “mobility trends” that report a percentage change in visits and length of stay at different places relative to a baseline computed by their median values of the same day of the week from January 3 to February 6, 2020. Our analysis focuses on the following four measures: “Grocery & pharmacy,” “Transit stations,” “Retail & recreation,” and “Workplaces.”¹⁷

Figure 6 shows the evolution of “Transit stations” and “Workplaces,” where thin lines are the value in each state and date while thicker colored lines are quantiles conditional on date. The figures illustrate a sharp decline in people’s movements starting from mid-March as well as differences in their evolutions across states. They also reveal periodic fluctuations associated with days of the week, which motivates our use of weekly measures.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6. The Evolution of Google Mobility Measures: Transit stations and Workplaces

This figure shows the evolution of “Transit stations” and “Workplaces” of Google Mobility Reports. Thin gray lines are the value in each state and date. Thicker colored lines are quantiles of the variables conditional on date.

In our empirical analysis, we use weekly measures for cases, deaths, and tests by summing up their daily measures from day t to t − 6. We focus on weekly cases and deaths because daily new cases and deaths are affected by the timing of reporting and testing, and are quite volatile as shown in Figure 17 in the appendix. Aggregating to weekly new cases/deaths/tests smooths out idiosyncratic daily noises as well as periodic fluctuations associated with days of the week. We also construct weekly policy and behavior variables by taking 7 day moving averages from day t − 14 to t − 21 for case growth, where the delay reflects the time lag between infection and case confirmation. The four weekly behavior variables are referred as “Transit Intensity,” “Workplace Intensity,” “Retail Intensity,” and “Grocery Intensity.” Consequently, our empirical analysis uses 7 day moving averages of all variables recorded at daily frequencies. Our sample period is from March 7, 2020 to June 3, 2020.

Table 2 reports that weekly policy and behavior variables are highly correlated with each other, except for the”masks for employees” policy. High correlations may cause multicolinearity problems and could limit our ability to separately identify the effect of each policy or behavior variable on case growth, but this does not prevent us from identifying the aggregate effect of all policies and behavior variables on case or death growth.

Figure 7 shows the portion of states that have each policy in place at each date. For most policies, there is considerable variation across states in the time in which the policies are active. The one exception is K-12 school closures. About 80% of states closed schools within a day or two of March 15th, and all states closed schools by early April. This makes the effect of school closings difficult to separate from aggregate time series variation.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 7. Portion of states with each policy

4.2. The Effect of Policies and Information on Behavior

We first examine how policies and information affect social distancing behaviors by estimating a version of (PI→B): where represents behavior variable j in state i at time t. P_it collects the Covid related policies in state i at t. Confounders, W_it, include state-level covariates, month indicators, and their interactions. I_it is a set of information variables that affect people’s behaviors at t. As information, we include each state’s growth of cases (in panel 3a) or deaths (in panel 3b), and log cases or deaths. Additionally, in columns (5)-(8) of each panel, we include national growth and log of cases or deaths.

Table 3 reports the estimates with standard errors clustered at the state level. Across different specifications, our results imply that policies have large effects on behavior. Comparing columns (1)-(4) with columns (5)-(8), the magnitude of policy effects are sensitive to whether national cases or deaths are included as information. The coefficient on school closures is particularly sensitive to the inclusion of national information variables. As shown in Figure 7, there is little variation across states in the timing of school closures. Consequently, it is difficult to separate the effect of school closures from a behavioral response to the national trend in cases and deaths.

The other policy coefficients are less sensitive to the inclusion of national case/death variables. After school closures, stay-at-home orders and restaurant closures have the next largest effect. Somewhat surprisingly, closure of nonessential businesses appears to have a modest effect on behavior. Closing movie theaters has a similar, small effect on behavior. The effect of masks for employees is also small. The comparison of effects across policies should be interpreted with caution. Differences between policy effects are often statistically insignificant; except for masks for employees, the policies are highly correlated and it is difficult to separate their effects.

The row “∑_j Policy_j “reports the sum of the estimated effect of all policies, which is substantial and can account for a large fraction of the observed declines in behavior variables. For example, in Figure 6, transit intensity for a median state was approximately -50% at its lowest point in early April. The estimated policy coefficients in columns imply that imposing all six policies would lead to roughly 85% (in columns 1-4) or roughly 50% (in columns 5-8) of the observed decline. The large impact of policies on transit intensity suggests that the policies may have reduced the Covid-19 infection by reducing people’s use of public transportation.¹⁸

In panel 3b, estimated coefficients of deaths and death growth are generally negative. This suggests that the higher number of deaths reduces social interactions measured by Google Mobility Reports perhaps because people are increasingly aware of prevalence of Covid-19 (Maloney and Taskin, 2020). The coefficients on log cases and case growth in panel 3a are more mixed. In columns (5)-(8) of both panels, we see that national case/death variables have large, negative coefficients. This suggests that behavior responded to national conditions although it is also likely that national case/death variables capture unobserved aggregate time effects beyond information (e.g., latent policy variables and time-varying confounders that are common across states) which are not fully controlled by month dummies.

4.3. The Direct Effect of Policies and Behavior on Case and Death Growth

We now analyze how behavior and policies together influence case and death growth rates. We begin with some simple graphical evidence of the effect of policies on case and death growth. Figure 8 shows average case and death growth conditional on date and whether masks are mandatory for employees. ¹⁹ The left panel of the figure shows that states with a mask mandate consistently have 0-0.2 lower case growth than states without. The right panel also illustrates that states with a mask mandate tend to have lower average death growth than states without a mask mandate.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 8. Case and death growth conditional on mask mandates

In these figures, red points are the case or death growth rate in states without a mask mandate. Blue points are states with a mask mandate 14 (21 for deaths) days prior. The red line is the average across states without a mask mandate 14 (21 for deaths) days earlier. The blue line is the average across states with a mask mandate 14 (21 for deaths) earlier.

Similar plots are shown for other policies in Figures 23 and 24 in the appendix. The figures for stay-at-home orders and closure of nonessential businesses are qualitatively similar to that for masks. States with these two policies appear to have about 0.1 percentage point lower case growth than states without. The effects of school closures, movie theater closures, and restaurant closures are not clearly visible in these figures. These figures are merely suggestive; the patterns observed in them may be driven by confounders.

We more formally analyze the effect of policies by estimating regressions. We first look at the direct effect of policies on case and death growth conditional on behavior by estimating equation (BPI→Y): where the outcome variable, Y_i,t+e, is either case growth or death growth.

For case growth as the outcome, we choose a lag length of ℓ = 14 days for behavior, policy, and information variables to reflect the delay between infection and confirmation of case.²⁰ is a vector of four behavior variables in state i. P_it includes the Covid-related policies in state i that directly affect the spread of Covid-19 after controlling for behavior variables (e.g., masks for employees). We include information variables, I_it, that include the past cases and case growths because the past cases may be correlated with (latent) government policies or people’s behaviors that are not fully captured by our observed policy and behavior variables. We also consider a specification that includes the past cases and case growth at the national level as additional information variables. W_it is a set of confounders that include month dummies, state-level covariates, and the interaction terms between month dummies and state-level covariates.²¹ For case growth, W_it also includes the test rate growth Δ log(T)_it to capture the effect of changing test rates on confirmed cases. Equation (14) corresponds to (M-C) derived from the SIR model.

For death growth as the outcome, we take a lag length of ℓ = 21 days. The information variables I_it include past deaths and death growth rates; W_it is the same as that of the case growth equation except that the growth rate of test rates is excluded from W_it as implied by equation (M-D).

Table 4 shows the results of estimating (14) for case and death growth rates. Column (1) represents our baseline specification while column (2) allows the effect of masks to be different before and after May 1st. Columns (3) and (4) include past cases/deaths and growth rates at national level as additional regressors.

The estimates indicate that mandatory face masks for employees reduce the growth rate of infections and deaths by 8-15 percent, while holding behavior constant. This suggests that requiring masks for employees in public-facing businesses may be an effective preventive measure.²² The estimated effect of masks on death growth is larger than the effect on case growth, but this difference between the two estimated effects is not statistically significant.

Except for mask requirements, policies appear to have little direct effect on case or death growth when behavior is held constant. The one exception is that closing schools has a large and statistically significant coefficient in the death growth regressions. As discussed above, there is little cross-state variation in the timing of school closures, making estimates of its effect less reliable.

The row “∑_k w_kBehavior_k” reports the sum of estimated coefficients weighted by the average of the behavioral variables from April 1st-10th. The estimates of −0.76 and −0.87 for “∑_k w_kBehavior_k” in column (1) imply that a reduction in mobility measures relative to the baseline in January and February have induced a decrease in case and death growth rates by 76 and 83 percent, respectively, suggesting an importance of social distancing for reducing the spread of Covid-19. When including national cases and deaths in information, as shown in columns (3) and (4), the estimated aggregate impact of behavior is substantially smaller, but remains large and statistically significant.

A useful practical implication of these results are that Google Mobility Reports and similar data might be useful as a leading indicator of potential case or death growth. This should be done with caution, however, because other changes in the environment might alter the relationship between behavior and infections. Preventative measures, including mandatory face masks, and changes in habit that are not captured in our data might alter the future relationship between Google Mobility Reports and case/death growth.

The negative coefficients of past cases or deaths in Table 4 is consistent with a hypothesis that higher reported cases and deaths change people’s behavior to reduce transmission risks. Such behavioral changes in response to new information are partly captured by Google mobility measures, but the negative estimated coefficient of past cases or deaths imply that other latent behavioral changes that are not fully captured by Google mobility measures (e.g., frequent hand-washing, wearing masks, and keeping 6ft/2m distancing) are also important for reducing future cases and deaths.

If policies are enacted and behavior changes, then future cases/deaths and information will change, which will induce further behavior changes. However, since the model includes lags of cases/deaths as well as their growth rates, computing a long-run effect is not completely straightforward. We investigate dynamic effects that incorporate feedback through information in section 5.

4.4. The Total Effect of Policies on Case Growth

In this section, we focus our analysis on policy effects when we hold information constant. The estimated effect of policy on behavior in Table 3 and those of policies and behavior on case/death growth in Table 4 can be combined to calculate the total effect of policy as well as its decomposition into direct and indirect effects.

The first three columns of Table 6 show the direct (holding behavior constant) and indirect (through behavior changes) effects of policy under a specification that excludes national information variables. These are computed from the specification with national cases or deaths included as information (columns (1)-(4) of Table 3 and column (1) of Table 4). The estimates imply that all policies combined would reduce the growth rate of cases and deaths by 0.70 and 0.98, respectively, out of which about two-third to three-fourth is attributable to the indirect effect through their impact on behavior. The estimate also indicates that the effect of mandatory masks for employees is mostly direct.

We can also examine the total effect of policies and information on case or death growth, by estimating (PI → Y). The coefficients on policy in this regression combine both the direct and indirect effects.

Table 5 shows the full set of coefficient estimates for (PI → Y). The results are broadly consistent with what we found above. As in Table 3, the effect of school closures is sensitive to the inclusion of national information variables. Also as above, mask mandates have a significant negative effect on growth rates.

In columns (2) and (4) of Table 5, we find that the estimated effect of mask mandates in April is larger than that in May for both case and death regressions. This may reflect a wider voluntary adoption of masks in May than in April — if more people wear masks even without mandatory mask policy, the policy effect of mandating masks for employees becomes weaker.

Table 7 presents the estimates for the specification with past national case/death variables. The effects of school closures and the sum of policies are estimated substantially smaller in Table 7 when national case/death variables are included than in Table 6. This sensitivity reflects the difficulty in identifying the aggregate time effect—which is largely captured by national cases/deaths—given little cross-sectional variation in the timing of school closures across states. On the other hand, the estimated effects of policies other than school closures are similar between Table 6 and Table 7; the effect of other policies are well-identified from cross-sectional variations.

Column “Difference” in Tables 6 and 7 show the difference between the estimate of (PI → Y) in column “PI → Y Coefficient” and the implied estimate from (BPI → Y)-(PI → B) in column “Total.” Differences are generally small and statistically insignificant, broadly supporting the validity of extra orthogonality condition in (BPI →Y). The difference for school closures as well as the sum of all policies in Table 6 is significantly different from zero, which may be due to the aforementioned difficulty in identifying the effect of school closures. There is substantial external epidemiological evidence that suggests that schooling closures may have substantial effects on the spread of the virus: studies like Jones et al. (2020) and Davies et al. (2020) establish that children carry substantial amounts of viral loads and can contribute to the transmission (due to higher contact rate than other age groups).²³ The US data does not allow us to pint down the effect of closing schools reliably due to their approximate collinearity with trends in national cases.

Column “Average” of Tables 6 and 7 reports the average of “Total” and “PI → Y Coefficient” columns. The average is an appealing and simple way to combine the two estimates of the total effect: one relying on the causal structure and another inferred from a direct estimation of equation (PI → Y).²⁴ We shall be using the average estimate in generating the counterfactuals in the next section. Turning to the results, the estimates of Tables 6 and 7 imply that all policies combined would reduce Δ log ΔD by 0.97 and 0.40, respectively. For comparison, the median of Δ log ΔD_it reached its peak in mid-March of about 1.3 (see Figure 20 in the appendix). Since then it has declined to near 0. Therefore, -0.97 and -0.40 imply that policy changes can account for roughly one-third to two-third of the observed decrease in death growth. The remainder of the decline is likely due to changes in behavior from information.

5.1. Business Mask Mandate

We first consider the impact of a nationwide mask man-date for employees beginning on April 1st. As discussed earlier, we find that mask mandates reduce case and death growth even when holding behavior constant. In other words, mask mandates may reduce infections with relatively little economic disruption. This makes mask mandates a particularly attractive policy instrument. In this section we examine what would have happened to the number of cases if all states had imposed a mask mandate on April 1st.²⁵

For illustrative purpose, we begin by focusing on Washington State. The left column of Figure 9 shows the observed, estimated average, and counterfactual average of Δ log ΔC (top panel) and Δ log ΔD (bottom panel). To compute the estimated and counterfactual paths, we use the estimate in column “Average” of Table 6. We set initial Δ log ΔC and log ΔC to their values first observed in the state we are simulating. We hold all other regressors at their observed values. Error terms are drawn with replacement from the residuals. We do this many times and report the average over draws of the residuals. The shaded region is a point-wise 90% confidence interval. The left column shows that the fit of the estimated and observed growth rate is quite good.

The middle column of Figure 9 shows the change in growth rate from mandating masks on April 1st. The shaded region is a 90% pointwise confidence interval. As shown, mandating masks on April 1st lowers the growth of cases or deaths 14 or 21 days later by 0.1 to 0.15. This effect then gradually declines due to information feedback. Mandatory masks reduce past cases or deaths, which leads to less cautious behavior, attenuating the impact of the policy. The reversal of the decrease in growth in late April is due to our comparison of a mask mandate on April 1st with Washington’s actual mask mandate in early May. By late April, the counterfactual mask effect has decayed through information feedback, and we are comparing it the undecayed impact of Washington’s actual, later mask mandate.

The right column of Figure 9 shows how the changes in case and death growth translate into changes in cases and deaths. The estimates imply that mandating masks on April 1st would have led to 500 fewer cases and 250 fewer deaths in Washington by the start of June.

The results for other states are similar to those for Washington. In the appendix, Figures 25 and 26 display similar results for Massachusetts and Illinois. Figure 10 shows the average change in cases and deaths across states, where the top panel shows the effect on cases and the bottom panel shows the effect on deaths. The point estimates indicate that mandating masks on April 1st could have led to 25% fewer cumulative cases and 37% fewer cumulative deaths by the end of May with their 90 percent intervals given by [10, 47]% and [18, 55]%, respectively. The result roughly translates into 18 to 55 thousand saved lives.

5.2. Non-essential Business Closures

A particularly controversial policy is the closure of non-essential businesses. We now examine a counterfactual where non-essential businesses are never closed. Figure 11 shows the effect of leaving non-essential businesses open in Washington. The point estimate implies that the closure of non-essential businesses reduced cases and deaths by a small amount. However, this estimate is relatively imprecise; 90% confidence intervals for the change in cases and deaths from leaving non-essential businesses open by the end of May are [-250,700] and [-100,1200], respectively.

Figure 12 shows the national effect of leaving non essential businesses open on cases and deaths. For cases, the estimates imply that with non-essential businesses open, cases would be about -15 to 60% higher in late May. The results for deaths are similar but less precise.

5.3. Stay-at-home orders

We next examine a counterfactual where stay-at-home orders had been never issued. Figure 13 shows the average effect of no stay-at-home orders. On average, without stay-at-home orders, case growth rate would have been nearly 0.1 higher in late April. This translates to 80% [25%,170%] more cases by the start of June. The results for deaths are similar, but slightly less precise, with no increase included in a 90 percent confidence interval.