Comparative policy analysis of face mask mandates during COVID 19 pandemic on rate of mask use in the United States

As COVID 19 continues to spread throughout the United States, there has been a search for policies to both prevent individual infections, to slow the spread of the virus in general, and to mitigate the economic impact of the pandemic. Masks have proven to be a cost-effective measure in all regards, and as such some state governments have begun to mandate their use. However, while the efficacy of masks has been demonstrated, the efficacy of public policies which mandate the use of masks has not been demonstrated. This paper compares the rates of mask use in counties as defined by state policy. It is found that state mandates are strongly correlated with higher rates of mask use, and that mandating use by all individuals in public spaces is more effective than a less comprehensive mandate for mask use by all public facing employees.


INTRODUCTION
At the time of writing, the COVID 19 pandemic has killed over 175,000 people in the United States alone 1 . It has drastically impacted economic activity, producing an annualized US GDP contraction of ~30%, the largest economic contraction since the great depression 2 . One tool that can be used to reduce the impact of COVID 19 is wearing a face mask in public. Face masks are a cost-effective tool in contending with respiratory infections 3 . Face mask use reduces the airborne inoculum of COVID 19 4 5 6 7 , and there is some empirical evidence that mask use reduces the spread of COVID 19 8 9 10 11 . The evidence for state policies' impacts on the use of face masks by the public is more limited 12 . To explore the relationship between state policy and public use of face masks, a previously reported survey of mask use was analyzed and compared between three distinct populations based upon their state-level policies in the United States 13 . This retrospective cohort study was performed to assess the equality of the three populations for reported face mask usage.

M. Maloney
METHODS A comparative analysis of state level mask policy on public face mask use in the United States was undertaken. Data for mask use was from a previously reported survey 13 . The three groups for comparison were defined by their state level mask policy. The first, states with no state level mask mandate (None). The second, those with state level mandated mask use for public facing employees (Public). The third, those with a state level mandate for all Individuals in public spaces (All). States with a mandate for both public facing Employees and all individuals in public spaces were treated as belonging to the more restrictive All group.
Survey results were calculated for the 3,142 Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) counties 14 in the United States and the District of Columbia from 7/2/2020 until 7/14/2020. The original data on mask usage is from the New York Times and Dynata online survey of 250,000 individuals from the 74,134 US census tracts 13 . The survey data was weighted by age and gender, and survey respondents' locations were approximated from their ZIP codes to transform raw survey responses into county-level estimates. Then mask-wearing estimates were made for each census tract by taking a weighted average of the 200 nearest responses, with closer responses getting more weight in the average. The county-level estimates were assigned to one of three groups defined by their state mask policy. The comparison is a retrospective cohort study which uses the state level mask mandate as of 7/2/2020, reported in the COVID-19 US state policy database (CUSP) 15 , defining the three groups.
The original survey asked: "How often do you wear a mask in public when you expect to be within six feet of another person?" With responses: "NEVER", "RARELY", "SOMETIMES", "FREQUENTLY" or "ALWAYS" reported as a percentage of responses for each county.
Additionally, a county Mask Score was calculated as a weighted score for each county.
Mask Score = (%NEVER*0) + (%RARELY*1) + (%SOMETIMES*2) + (%FREQUENTLY*3) + (%ALWAYS*4) The three comparison groups were defined by their state policy of face mask use as described above: . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has (which was not certified by peer review) copyright holder for this preprint Each group of the three comparison groups were examined for normality with the Shapiro-Francia test for normality, intended for samples of up to 5,000 observations 16 . To visualize the degree of skewness between the three populations a skewness test for normality was determined 17 18 . Analysis of equality-of-populations test was performed using the Kruskal -Wallis test 19 20 Statistical analysis was done with Stata 16.1 21 .
Potential bias rests principally in the original survey. Respondents were surveyed online and may be representative of subjects more concerned about COVID 19. Additionally, as with any selfreport, social desirability impacts reporting. The strength of the study lies in its large sample size and in its geographic reach.

RESULTS
The Shapiro-Francia test for normal data show that responses in the group None was normally distributed (p=0.067) but that the responses in the groups Public and All were not normally distributed (p ≤ 0.001). The equality of populations test was therefore determined by the Kruskal-Willis test. The populations were statistically significantly different from each other (p ≤ 0.001).
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has (which was not certified by peer review) copyright holder for this preprint

M. Maloney
All differences between groups are statistically significant with p ≤ 0.0001 All differences between groups are statistically significant with p ≤ 0.0001. Mask Score for each of the 3124 counties studied was determined by the weighted sum of responses such that MASK

None Public Facing Employees All Individuals
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has (which was not certified by peer review) copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has (which was not certified by peer review) copyright holder for this preprint The this version posted October 6, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.03.20206326 doi: medRxiv preprint on COVID 19 spread they are suggestive that governmental policies related to mask use may help limit COVID 19 spread. These results further suggest that mask policies may help reduce the health and economic impact of COVID 19 pandemic. Moreover, these empirical results have clear implications for public policy and support the utility of a national face mask mandate for all individuals in public.