Nick Scott1,2, Allan Saul1, Tim Spelman1, Mark Stoove1,2, Alisa Pedrana1,2, Alexander Saeri3, Emily Grundy3, Liam Smith3, Michael Toole1, Chandini Raina McIntyre4, Brendan S Crabb1,5,6, Margaret Hellard1,2,6,7. 1. The Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 3. BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Biosecurity Program, The Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 5. Department of Immunology and Pathology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Doherty Institute and School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. 7. Department of Infectious Diseases, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whilst evidence of use of face masks in reducing COVID-19 cases is increasing, the impact of mandatory use across a large population has been difficult to assess. Introduction of mandatory mask use on July 22, 2020 during a resurgence of COVID-19 in Melbourne, Australia created a situation that facilitated an assessment of the impact of the policy on the epidemic growth rate as its introduction occurred in the absence of other changes to restrictions. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Exponential epidemic growth or decay rates in daily COVID-19 diagnoses were estimated using a non-weighted linear regression of the natural logarithm of the daily cases against time, using a linear spline model with one knot (lspline package in R v 3.6.3). The model's two linear segments pivot around the hinge day, on which the mask policy began to take effect, 8 days following the introduction of the policy. We used two forms of data to assess change in mask usage: images of people wearing masks in public places obtained from a major media outlet and population-based survey data. Potential confounding factors (including daily COVID-19 tests, number of COVID-19 cases among population subsets affected differentially by the mask policy-e.g., healthcare workers) were examined for their impact on the results. Daily cases fitted an exponential growth in the first log-linear segment (k = +0.042, s.e. = 0.007), and fitted an exponential decay in the second (k = -0.023, s.e. = 0.017) log-linear segment. Over a range of reported serial intervals for SARS-CoV-2 infection, these growth rates correspond to a 22-33% reduction in an effective reproduction ratio before and after mandatory mask use. Analysis of images of people in public spaces showed mask usage rose from approximately 43% to 97%. Analysis of survey data found that on the third day before policy introduction, 44% of participants reported "often" or "always" wearing a mask; on the fourth day after, 100% reported "always" doing so. No potentially confounding factors were associated with the observed change in growth rates. CONCLUSIONS: The mandatory mask use policy substantially increased public use of masks and was associated with a significant decline in new COVID-19 cases after introduction of the policy. This study strongly supports the use of masks for controlling epidemics in the broader community.
BACKGROUND: Whilst evidence of use of face masks in reducing COVID-19 cases is increasing, the impact of mandatory use across a large population has been difficult to assess. Introduction of mandatory mask use on July 22, 2020 during a resurgence of COVID-19 in Melbourne, Australia created a situation that facilitated an assessment of the impact of the policy on the epidemic growth rate as its introduction occurred in the absence of other changes to restrictions. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Exponential epidemic growth or decay rates in daily COVID-19 diagnoses were estimated using a non-weighted linear regression of the natural logarithm of the daily cases against time, using a linear spline model with one knot (lspline package in R v 3.6.3). The model's two linear segments pivot around the hinge day, on which the mask policy began to take effect, 8 days following the introduction of the policy. We used two forms of data to assess change in mask usage: images of people wearing masks in public places obtained from a major media outlet and population-based survey data. Potential confounding factors (including daily COVID-19 tests, number of COVID-19 cases among population subsets affected differentially by the mask policy-e.g., healthcare workers) were examined for their impact on the results. Daily cases fitted an exponential growth in the first log-linear segment (k = +0.042, s.e. = 0.007), and fitted an exponential decay in the second (k = -0.023, s.e. = 0.017) log-linear segment. Over a range of reported serial intervals for SARS-CoV-2 infection, these growth rates correspond to a 22-33% reduction in an effective reproduction ratio before and after mandatory mask use. Analysis of images of people in public spaces showed mask usage rose from approximately 43% to 97%. Analysis of survey data found that on the third day before policy introduction, 44% of participants reported "often" or "always" wearing a mask; on the fourth day after, 100% reported "always" doing so. No potentially confounding factors were associated with the observed change in growth rates. CONCLUSIONS: The mandatory mask use policy substantially increased public use of masks and was associated with a significant decline in new COVID-19 cases after introduction of the policy. This study strongly supports the use of masks for controlling epidemics in the broader community.
Authors: M Shayne Gallaway; Jessica Rigler; Susan Robinson; Kristen Herrick; Eugene Livar; Kenneth K Komatsu; Shane Brady; Jennifer Cunico; Cara M Christ Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Allan Saul; Nick Scott; Brendan S Crabb; Suman S Majumdar; Benjamin Coghlan; Margaret E Hellard Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Jan M Brauner; Sören Mindermann; Mrinank Sharma; Leonid Chindelevitch; Yarin Gal; Jan Kulveit; David Johnston; John Salvatier; Tomáš Gavenčiak; Anna B Stephenson; Gavin Leech; George Altman; Vladimir Mikulik; Alexander John Norman; Joshua Teperowski Monrad; Tamay Besiroglu; Hong Ge; Meghan A Hartwick; Yee Whye Teh Journal: Science Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Christopher T Leffler; Edsel Ing; Joseph D Lykins; Matthew C Hogan; Craig A McKeown; Andrzej Grzybowski Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 3.707
Authors: Julian W Tang; Miguela A Caniza; Mike Dinn; Dominic E Dwyer; Jean-Michel Heraud; Lance C Jennings; Jen Kok; Kin On Kwok; Yuguo Li; Tze Ping Loh; Linsey C Marr; Eva Megumi Nara; Nelun Perera; Reiko Saito; Carlos Santillan-Salas; Sheena Sullivan; Matt Warner; Aripuanã Watanabe; Sabeen Khurshid Zaidi Journal: Interface Focus Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.906
Authors: Konstantinos Giannakou; Maria Kyprianidou; Margarita Christofi; Anastasios Kalatzis; Georgia Fakonti Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-05-11
Authors: Vivian Isaac; Teresa Cheng; Louise Townsin; Hassan Assareh; Amy Li; Craig S McLachlan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Joanne Enticott; Jaskirath Singh Gill; Simon L Bacon; Kim L Lavoie; Daniel S Epstein; Shrinkhala Dawadi; Helena J Teede; Jacqueline Boyle Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 2.692