Unravelling the role of the mandatory use of face covering masks for the control of SARS-CoV-2 in schools: a quasi-experimental study nested in a population-based cohort in Catalonia (Spain)

Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

More than 767 million coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 6.9 million deaths with COVID-19 have been recorded as of August 2023. Several public health and social measures were implemented in schools to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and prevent onward transmission. We built upon methods from a previous Cochrane review to capture current empirical evidence relating to the effectiveness of school measures to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an updated assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to keep schools open safely during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Educational Resources Information Center, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program COVID-19 Evidence Reviews on 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies focused on measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, among students (aged 4 to 18 years) or individuals relating to the school, or both. We categorized studies that reported quantitative measures of intervention effectiveness, and studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures as either 'main' or 'supporting' studies based on design and approach to handling key confounders. We were interested in transmission-related outcomes and intended or unintended consequences.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts. We extracted minimal data for supporting studies. For main studies, one review author extracted comprehensive data and assessed risk of bias, which a second author checked. We narratively synthesized findings for each intervention-comparator-outcome category (body of evidence). Two review authors assessed certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The 15 main studies consisted of measures to reduce contacts (4 studies), make contacts safer (7 studies), surveillance and response measures (6 studies; 1 assessed transmission outcomes, 5 assessed performance of surveillance measures), and multicomponent measures (1 study). These main studies assessed outcomes in the school population (12), general population (2), and adults living with a school-attending child (1). Settings included K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12; 9 studies), secondary (3 studies), and K-8 (kindergarten to grade 8; 1 study) schools. Two studies did not clearly report settings. Studies measured transmission-related outcomes (10), performance of surveillance measures (5), and intended and unintended consequences (4). The 15 main studies were based in the WHO Regions of the Americas (12), and the WHO European Region (3). Comparators were more versus less intense measures, single versus multicomponent measures, and measures versus no measures. We organized results into relevant bodies of evidence, or groups of studies relating to the same 'intervention-comparator-outcome' categories. Across all bodies of evidence, certainty of evidence ratings limit our confidence in findings. Where we describe an effect as 'beneficial', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention; a 'harmful' effect does not favour the intervention and 'null' shows no effect either way. Measures to reduce contact (4 studies) We grouped studies into 21 bodies of evidence: moderate- (10 bodies), low- (3 bodies), or very low-certainty evidence (8 bodies). The evidence was very low to moderate certainty for beneficial effects of remote versus in-person or hybrid teaching on transmission in the general population. For students and staff, mostly harmful effects were observed when more students participated in remote teaching. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that in the general population there was probably no effect on deaths and a beneficial effect on hospitalizations for remote versus in-person teaching, but no effect for remote versus hybrid teaching. The effects of hybrid teaching, a combination of in-person and remote teaching, were mixed. Very low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a harmful effect on risk of infection among adults living with a school student for closing playgrounds and cafeterias, a null effect for keeping the same teacher, and a beneficial effect for cancelling extracurricular activities, keeping the same students together and restricting entry for parents and caregivers. Measures to make contact safer (7 studies) We grouped studies into eight bodies of evidence: moderate- (5 bodies), and low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a beneficial effect of mask mandates on transmission-related outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence showed full mandates were probably more beneficial than partial or no mandates. Evidence of a beneficial effect of physical distancing on risk of infection among staff and students was mixed. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that ventilation measures probably reduce cases among staff and students. One study (very low-certainty evidence) found that there may be a beneficial effect of not sharing supplies and increasing desk space on risk of infection for adults living with a school student, but showed there may be a harmful effect of desk shields. Surveillance and response measures (6 studies) We grouped studies into seven bodies of evidence: moderate- (3 bodies), low- (1 body), and very low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Daily testing strategies to replace or reduce quarantine probably helped to reduce missed school days and decrease the proportion of asymptomatic school contacts testing positive (moderate-certainty evidence). For studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures, the proportion of cases detected by rapid antigen detection testing ranged from 28.6% to 95.8%, positive predictive value ranged from 24.0% to 100.0% (very low-certainty evidence). There was probably no onward transmission from contacts of a positive case (moderate-certainty evidence) and replacing or shortening quarantine with testing may have reduced missed school days (low-certainty evidence). Multicomponent measures (1 study) Combining multiple measures may have led to a reduction in risk of infection among adults living with a student (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A range of measures can have a beneficial effect on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilization and school attendance. We rated the current findings at a higher level of certainty than the original review. Further high-quality research into school measures to control SARS-CoV-2 in a wider variety of contexts is needed to develop a more evidence-based understanding of how to keep schools open safely during COVID-19 or a similar public health emergency.

What is the specific role of schools and daycares in COVID-19 transmission? A final report from a living rapid review

Due to rapidly evolving conditions, the question of how to safely operate schools and daycares remained a top priority throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to growing and changing evidence, the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools in Canada maintained a living rapid review on the role of schools and daycares in COVID-19 transmission to guide evidence-informed decision making. This Review presents the final iteration of this living rapid review. 31 sources were searched until Oct 17, 2022. In the final version, eligible studies reported data from Jan 1, 2021 onward on transmission of COVID-19 in school or daycare settings, the effect of infection prevention and control measures on transmission, or the effect of operating schools or daycares on community-level COVID-19 rates. As a rapid review, titles and abstracts were screened by a single reviewer with artificial intelligence integrated into later versions. Full-text screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal were completed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. The Johanna Briggs Institute tools were used for critical appraisal. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and results were synthesised narratively. Three citizen partners provided input for the final interpretation. This final update includes 73 primary studies. Secondary attack rates were low within school settings when infection prevention and control measures were in place (moderate certainty). Masks might reduce transmission, test-to-stay policies might not increase transmission risk compared with mandatory quarantine, cohorting and hybrid learning might make little to no difference in transmission (low certainty), and the effect of surveillance testing within schools remained inconclusive (very low certainty). Findings indicate that school settings do not substantially contribute to community incidence, hospitalisations, or mortality (low certainty). This living review provides a synthesis of global evidence for the role of schools and daycares during COVID-19, which might be helpful in future pandemics.

The Ethical Obligation for Research During Public Health Emergencies: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic

In times of crises, public health leaders may claim that trials of public health interventions are unethical. One reason for this claim can be that equipoise-i.e. a situation of uncertainty and/or disagreement among experts about the evidence regarding an intervention-has been disturbed by a change of collective expert views. Some might claim that equipoise is disturbed if the majority of experts believe that emergency public health interventions are likely to be more beneficial than harmful. However, such beliefs are not always justified: where high quality research has not been conducted, there is often considerable residual uncertainty about whether interventions offer net benefits. In this essay we argue that high-quality research, namely by means of well-designed randomized trials, is ethically obligatory before, during, and after implementing policies in public health emergencies (PHEs). We contend that this standard applies to both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions, and we elaborate an account of equipoise that captures key features of debates in the recent pandemic. We build our case by analyzing research strategies employed during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding drugs, vaccines, and non-pharmaceutical interventions; and by providing responses to possible objections. Finally, we propose a public health policy reform: whenever a policy implemented during a PHE is not grounded in high-quality evidence that expected benefits outweigh harms, there should be a planned approach to generate high-quality evidence, with review of emerging data at preset time points. These preset timepoints guarantee that policymakers pause to review emerging evidence and consider ceasing ineffective or even harmful policies, thereby improving transparency and accountability, as well as permitting the redirection of resources to more effective or beneficial interventions.

Does equipoise exist for masking children for COVID-19?

Clinical equipoise is characterized by genuine uncertainty within the medical community about the effectiveness of a medical intervention. Its existence is often deemed necessary for clinical trials and signals a need for higher quality evidence, most often with randomized controlled trials, before the intervention can be considered effective. A leading official of the United States' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director, when testifying before Congress in February of 2023, indicated there was no need for randomized controlled trials of masking because, owing to overwhelming evidence of benefit, there was no longer equipoise about masking children for COVID-19. We disagree with this statement and outline the reasons why in this piece. We review the concept of clinical equipoise specifically using the example of child masking. We list reasons equipoise still exists for masking children, including a lack of consensus among experts, contradictory medical evidence and recent and ongoing randomized efforts. Finally, we differentiate between clinical equipoise and ethical appropriateness. Despite ongoing equipoise about masking children, we outline why, owing to lack of evidence of net benefit, recommending this intervention does not currently appear to be medically ethical.

Long COVID as a functional somatic symptom disorder caused by abnormally precise prior expectations during Bayesian perceptual processing: A new hypothesis and implications for pandemic response

This review proposes a model of Long-COVID where the constellation of symptoms are in fact genuinely experienced persistent physical symptoms that are usually functional in nature and therefore potentially reversible, that is, Long-COVID is a somatic symptom disorder. First, we describe what is currently known about Long-COVID in children and adults. Second, we examine reported "Long-Pandemic" effects that create a risk for similar somatic symptoms to develop in non-COVID-19 patients. Third, we describe what was known about somatization and somatic symptom disorder before the COVID-19 pandemic, and suggest that by analogy, Long-COVID may best be conceptualized as one of these disorders, with similar symptoms and predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors. Fourth, we review the phenomenon of mass sociogenic (functional) illness, and the concept of nocebo effects, and suggest that by analogy, Long-COVID is compatible with these descriptions. Fifth, we describe the current theoretical model of the mechanism underlying functional disorders, the Bayesian predictive coding model for perception. This model accounts for moderators that can make symptom inferences functionally inaccurate and therefore can explain how to understand common predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors. Finally, we discuss the implications of this framework for improved public health messaging during a pandemic, with recommendations for the management of Long-COVID symptoms in healthcare systems. We argue that the current public health approach has induced fear of Long-COVID in the population, including from constant messaging about disabling symptoms of Long-COVID and theorizing irreversible tissue damage as the cause of Long-COVID. This has created a self-fulfilling prophecy by inducing the very predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors for the syndrome. Finally, we introduce the term "Pandemic-Response Syndrome" to describe what previously was labeled Long-COVID. This alternative perspective aims to stimulate research and serve as a lesson learned to avoid a repeat performance in the future.

Revisiting the rationale of mandatory masking

In this perspective, we review the evidence for the efficacy of face masks to reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses, specifically severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and consider the value of mandating universal mask wearing against the widespread negative impacts that have been associated with such measures. Before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, it was considered that there was little to no benefit in healthy people wearing masks as prophylaxis against becoming infected or as unwitting vectors of viral transmission. This accepted policy was hastily reversed early on in the pandemic, when districts and countries throughout the world imposed stringent masking mandates. Now, more than three years since the start of the pandemic, the amassed studies that have investigated the use of masks to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (or other pathogens) have led to conclusions that are largely inconsistent and contradictory. There is no statistically significant or unambiguous scientific evidence to justify mandatory masking for general, healthy populations with the intention of lessening the viral spread. Even if mask wearing could potentially reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in individual cases, this needs to be balanced against the physical, psychological and social harms associated with forced mask wearing, not to mention the negative impact of innumerable disposed masks entering our fragile environment. Given the lack of unequivocal scientific proof that masks have any effect on reducing transmission, together with the evident harms to people and the environment through the use of masks, it is our opinion that the mandatory use of face masks in the general population is unjustifiable and must be abandoned in future pandemic countermeasures policies.

Policies on children and schools during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Western Europe

During the pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), mitigation policies for children have been a topic of considerable uncertainty and debate. Although some children have co-morbidities which increase their risk for severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome and long COVID, most children only get mild COVID-19. On the other hand, consistent evidence shows that mass mitigation measures had enormous adverse impacts on children. A central question can thus be posed: What amount of mitigation should children bear, in response to a disease that is disproportionally affecting older people? In this review, we analyze the distinct child versus adult epidemiology, policies, mitigation trade-offs and outcomes in children in Western Europe. The highly heterogenous European policies applied to children compared to adults did not lead to significant measurable differences in outcomes. Remarkably, the relative epidemiological importance of transmission from school-age children to other age groups remains uncertain, with current evidence suggesting that schools often follow, rather than lead, community transmission. Important learning points for future pandemics are summarized.

Face mask recommendations in schools did not impact COVID-19 incidence among 10-12-year-olds in Finland - joinpoint regression analysis

BACKGROUND

In autumn 2021 in Finland, a recommendation to use face masks was implemented nationwide in schools for pupils ages 12 years and above. While national guidelines were in form of recommendations, cities implemented mandatory masking in schools. Some cities extended this mandate for younger pupils as well. Our aim was to compare COVID-19 incidence among 10-12-year-olds between cities with different recommendations on the use of face masks in schools.

METHODS

COVID-19 case numbers, defined as positive laboratory verified SARS-CoV-2 test results, were obtained from the National Infectious Disease Registry (NIDR) of the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. Helsinki, Turku and Tampere were selected for comparison since the baseline COVID-19 incidence in the cities had been similar in August and September 2021. Helsinki and Tampere implemented the national recommendation on face mask use at schools, while Turku extended this to include those 10 years old and above, starting from the beginning of semester in early August. Age groups of 7-9-year-olds, 10-12-year-olds and 30-49-year-olds were included in the statistical analysis and moving averages of 14-day incidences per 100 000 inhabitants were used as a dependent variable. Joinpoint regression was used to estimate average percent changes (APC) and average daily percent changes (ADPC) in the 14-day incidences. Differences in the ADPC values between the cities were compared in one-month periods. We also calculated cumulative incidences from the beginning of August to the end of November in the cities by age group.

RESULTS

In August, the ADPC was highest in Turku (3.9) and lowest in Tampere (2.0), while in September, the ADPC was highest in Turku (-0.3) and lowest in Helsinki (-3.2) among 10-12-year-olds. In October, the ADPC was highest in Helsinki (2.1) and lowest in Turku (-0.2) and in November, the ADPC was highest in Turku (4.1) and lowest in Tampere (-0.5) among 10-12-year-olds. We also calculated cumulative incidences from the beginning of August to the end of November in the cities by age groups of 7-9 years, 10-12 years, and 30-49 years. The cumulative incidence was highest in Turku in all age groups and lowest in Tampere.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our analysis, no additional effect was gained from mandating face masks, based on comparisons between the cities and between the age groups of the unvaccinated children (10-12 years versus 7-9 years).

Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks—Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation

Background

As face masks became mandatory in most countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, adverse effects require substantiated investigation.

Methods

A systematic review of 2,168 studies on adverse medical mask effects yielded 54 publications for synthesis and 37 studies for meta-analysis (on n = 8,641, m = 2,482, f = 6,159, age = 34.8 ± 12.5). The median trial duration was only 18 min (IQR = 50) for our comprehensive evaluation of mask induced physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes.

Results

We found significant effects in both medical surgical and N95 masks, with a greater impact of the second. These effects included decreased SpO2 (overall Standard Mean Difference, SMD = −0.24, 95% CI = −0.38 to −0.11, p < 0.001) and minute ventilation (SMD = −0.72, 95% CI = −0.99 to −0.46, p < 0.001), simultaneous increased in blood-CO2 (SMD = +0.64, 95% CI = 0.31–0.96, p < 0.001), heart rate (N95: SMD = +0.22, 95% CI = 0.03–0.41, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure (surgical: SMD = +0.21, 95% CI = 0.03–0.39, p = 0.02), skin temperature (overall SMD = +0.80 95% CI = 0.23–1.38, p = 0.006) and humidity (SMD +2.24, 95% CI = 1.32–3.17, p < 0.001). Effects on exertion (overall SMD = +0.9, surgical = +0.63, N95 = +1.19), discomfort (SMD = +1.16), dyspnoea (SMD = +1.46), heat (SMD = +0.70), and humidity (SMD = +0.9) were significant in n = 373 with a robust relationship to mask wearing (p < 0.006 to p < 0.001). Pooled symptom prevalence (n = 8,128) was significant for: headache (62%, p < 0.001), acne (38%, p < 0.001), skin irritation (36%, p < 0.001), dyspnoea (33%, p < 0.001), heat (26%, p < 0.001), itching (26%, p < 0.001), voice disorder (23%, p < 0.03), and dizziness (5%, p = 0.01).

Discussion

Masks interfered with O2-uptake and CO2-release and compromised respiratory compensation. Though evaluated wearing durations are shorter than daily/prolonged use, outcomes independently validate mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions. MIES can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups. So far, several mask related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms. In any case, the possible MIES contrasts with the WHO definition of health.

Conclusion

Face mask side-effects must be assessed (risk-benefit) against the available evidence of their effectiveness against viral transmissions. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021256694, identifier: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021256694.

Possible toxicity of chronic carbon dioxide exposure associated with face mask use, particularly in pregnant women, children and adolescents - A scoping review

Introduction

During the SARS-CoV-2-pandemic, face masks have become one of the most important ubiquitous factors affecting human breathing. It increases the resistance and dead space volume leading to a re-breathing of CO2. So far, this phenomenon and possible implications on early life has not been evaluated in depth.

Method

As part of a scoping review, literature was systematically reviewed regarding CO2 exposure and facemask use.

Results

Fresh air has around 0.04% CO2, while wearing masks more than 5 min bears a possible chronic exposure to carbon dioxide of 1.41% to 3.2% of the inhaled air. Although the buildup is usually within the short-term exposure limits, long-term exceedances and consequences must be considered due to experimental data. US Navy toxicity experts set the exposure limits for submarines carrying a female crew to 0.8% CO2 based on animal studies which indicated an increased risk for stillbirths. Additionally, mammals who were chronically exposed to 0.3% CO2 the experimental data demonstrate a teratogenicity with irreversible neuron damage in the offspring, reduced spatial learning caused by brainstem neuron apoptosis and reduced circulating levels of the insulin-like growth factor-1. With significant impact on three readout parameters (morphological, functional, marker) this chronic 0.3% CO2 exposure has to be defined as being toxic. Additional data exists on the exposure of chronic 0.3% CO2 in adolescent mammals causing neuron destruction, which includes less activity, increased anxiety and impaired learning and memory. There is also data indicating testicular toxicity in adolescents at CO2 inhalation concentrations above 0.5%.

Discussion

There is a possible negative impact risk by imposing extended mask mandates especially for vulnerable subgroups. Circumstantial evidence exists that extended mask use may be related to current observations of stillbirths and to reduced verbal motor and overall cognitive performance in children born during the pandemic. A need exists to reconsider mask mandates.

Lack of correlation between school mask mandates and paediatric Covid-19 cases in a large cohort

Objectives

To expand upon an observational study published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) showing an association between school mask mandates and lower pediatric COVID-19 cases. We examine whether this association persists in a larger, nationally representative dataset over a longer period.

Method

We replicated the CDC study and extended it to more districts and a longer period, employing seven times as much data. We examined the relationship between mask mandates and per-capita pediatric cases, using multiple regression to control for observed differences.

Results

We successfully replicated the original result using 565 counties; non-masking counties had around 30 additional daily cases per 100,000 children after two weeks of schools reopening. However, after nine weeks, cases per 100,000 were 18.3 in counties with mandates compared to 15.8 in those without them (p = 0.12). In a larger sample of 1832 counties, between weeks 2 and 9, cases per 100,000 fell by 38.2 and 37.9 in counties with and without mask requirements, respectively (p = 0.93).

Conclusions

The association between school mask mandates and cases did not persist in the extended sample. Observational studies of interventions are prone to multiple biases and provide insufficient evidence for recommending mask mandates.