Assessing effective mask use by the public in two countries: an observational study

Please wear a mask: a systematic case for mask wearing mandates

This paper combines considerations from ethics, medicine and public health policy to articulate and defend a systematic case for mask wearing mandates (MWM). The paper argues for two main claims of general interest in favour of MWM. First, MWM provide a more effective, just and fair way to tackle the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic than policy alternatives such as laissez-faire approaches, mask wearing recommendations and physical distancing measures. And second, the proffered objections against MWM may justify some exemptions for specific categories of individuals, but do not cast doubt on the justifiability of these mandates. Hence, unless some novel decisive objections are put forward against MWM, governments should adopt MWM.

Effect of face-covering use on adherence to other COVID-19 protective behaviours: A systematic review

During the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns were raised that face covering use may elicit risk compensation; a false sense of security resulting in reduced adherence to other protective behaviours such as physical distancing. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effect of face covering use on adherence to other COVID-19 related protective behaviours. Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, EmCare, medRxiv preprints, Research Square and WHO COVID-19 Research Database were searched for all primary research studies published from 1st January 2020 to 17th May 2022 that investigated the effect of face covering use on adherence to other protective behaviours in public settings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Papers were selected and screened in accordance with the PRISMA framework. Backwards and forwards citation searches of included papers were also conducted on 16th September 2022, with eligible papers published between 1st January 2020 and that date being included. A quality appraisal including risk of bias was assessed using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' Quality Criteria Checklist. This review is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42022331961. 47 papers were included, with quality ranging from low to high. These papers investigated the effects of face covering use and face covering policies on adherence to six categories of behaviour: physical distancing; mobility; face-touching; hand hygiene; close contacts; and generalised protective behaviour. Results reveal no consistent evidence for or against risk compensation, with findings varying according to behaviour and across study types, and therefore confident conclusions cannot be made. Any policy decisions related to face coverings must consider the inconsistencies and caveats in this evidence base.

Observed face mask use outside retail chain stores during the COVID-19 pandemic in two cities in the state of Idaho, USA

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health authorities have encouraged the use of face masks to minimize transmission within the community. To assess mask wear during a COVID-19 surge and guide public health response efforts, including public messaging on mask recommendations, we compared observed mask use in the largest city in each of Idaho's 2 most populous counties, both without a current mask mandate. We recorded mask usage by every third person exiting stores of 5 retail chains in Boise and Nampa during November 8-December 5, 2021. Observations were conducted during three time periods (morning, afternoon, and evening) on weekday and weekend days. A multivariable model with city, retail chain, and city-chain interaction was used to assess mask wear differences by city for each chain. Of 3021 observed persons, 22.0% wore masks. In Boise, 31.3% (430/1376) of observed persons wore masks; in Nampa, 14.3% (236/1645) wore masks. Among all persons wearing masks, > 94% wore masks correctly; cloth and surgical masks were most common. By retail chain, observed individuals at Boise locations were 2.3-5.7 times as likely to wear masks than persons at respective Nampa locations. This study provided a rapid, nonconfrontational assessment of public use of mitigation measures in 2 Idaho cities during a COVID-19 surge.