Side-Effects of Public Health Policies Against Covid-19: The Story of an Over-Reaction

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.

Exploring the Process of Policy Overreaction: The COVID-19 Lockdown Decisions

Policy overreaction is a common phenomenon, especially in complex and emergency situations where politicians are led to make decisions fast. In these emergency decisions, emotions run generally high and cognitive processes are often impaired. The conditions of policy overreaction are in place as emotions overwhelm decision makers' rational processes. Drawing on the response patterns of three countries to the COVID-19 pandemic, we develop a process model of policy overreaction which describes the effects of negative emotions and institutional isomorphism on policy decision-making. Our model highlights four critical stages: negative emotions buildup, propagation of fear, isomorphic decision-making, and leading to an intractable crisis. This article shows precisely how the cascading effect of negative emotions, particularly fear, is contagious and spreads to generate crowd effects, which bend considerably policy makers' ability to make rational decisions. Our theory provides a better understanding of the process by which policy overreaction takes place.

Medical/Surgical, Cloth and FFP/(K)N95 Masks: Unmasking Preference, SARS-CoV-2 Transmissibility and Respiratory Side Effects

Background: Social distancing and mask-wearing were recommended and mandatory for people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A web-based questionnaire was disseminated through social media assessing mask type preference and COVID-19 history amongst tertiary sector services and the rates of the triad of respiratory symptoms in each mask type, along with other respiratory-related parameters. Results: Amongst 4107 participants, 63.4% of the responders, mainly women, preferred medical/surgical masks; 20.5%, mainly men, preferred cotton cloth masks; and 13.8% preferred FFP/(K)N95 masks. COVID-19 history was less common in FFP/(K)N95 compared to medical/surgical (9.2% vs. 15.6%, p < 0.001) or cloth masks (9.2% vs. 14.4%, p = 0.006). Compared to the control group (rare mask-wearing, nonsmokers and without lung conditions), those wearing one medical mask were more likely to report frequent sputum production (4.4% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.026) and frequent cough (4.4% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.013), and those wearing FFP/(K)N95 masks were more likely to report frequent cough (4.1% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.048). Compared to the control group, those preferring cotton cloth masks were more likely to report a frequent cough (7.3% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.0002), sputum production (6.3% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.003) and dyspnea (8% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.00001). Conclusions: Safe mask-wearing should be in parallel with a more personalized and social interaction approach.