While we’ve been waiting for a vaccine for COVID-19, something happened. Keep in mind that Pfizer’s announcement that their vaccine has been over 90% effective, is better than anybody could have hoped. Russia has claimed that their Sputnik vaccine has shown 92% effectiveness, Moderna announced that its vaccine was 94.5% effective and Eli Lilly’s neutralizing antibody bamlanivimab (LY-CoV555) received FDA emergency use authorization for the treatment of recently diagnosed COVID-19. But, while Operation Warp Speed has been doing amazing things in vaccine development, recent reports indicate that there is a simple and safe method for reducing the spread of COVID-19 by about 70%, is completely safe, stable at room temperature and easily distributed. The only problem is, this method appears to depend on the cooperation of one man, who may be unwilling to co-operate – President Donald John Trump.
Recent reports indicate that an increase in mask wearing on the order of an additional 15% of the population might reduce the spread of the virus by as much as 70%. While masks were initially recommended for the protection of the people that the wearer encountered, new reports indicate that the masks protect the wearer as well. These reports are essentially anecdotal, but there are enough of them to be convincing.
The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a scientific brief: “Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2.” In the background information section of the CDC, they state, “Masks are primarily intended to reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets (“source control”), which is especially relevant for asymptomatic or presymptomatic infected wearers who feel well and may be unaware of their infectiousness to others, and who are estimated to account for more than 50% of transmissions. Masks also help reduce inhalation of these droplets by the wearer (“filtration for personal protection”). The community benefit of masking for SARS-CoV-2 control is due to the combination of these effects; individual prevention benefit increases with increasing numbers of people using masks consistently and correctly.”
Because infected people start spreading the virus for several days before symptoms appear, it is important that masks be worn even in the absence of symptoms. In a study of the mortality rates in 200 countries, among nations which adopted early mask wearing, the average mortality of 24 early mask-adopting countries was 1.5 per million. For nations that delayed imposing a mask mandate, the average mortality of 17 countries was 8.5 per million. [US data varies by states and, in many cases, by cities within a state.]
The 70% figure is hardly accurate since international studies found so many variables, mask type, compliance rates, that the range ran from 6% to 80% in reductions. Still the CDC report concluded “Adopting universal masking policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as social distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation.” Further, an exemplary review by Goldman Sachs concluded, “… the upshot of our analysis is that a national face mask mandate could potentially substitute for renewed lockdowns that would otherwise subtract nearly 5% from GDP.” The Los Angeles Times editorialized, “Mask up or lock down.”
Donna Ginther, a professor of economics at the University of Kansas, said in an interview, “One of the things about masks is that it keeps you safe when you’re in public. If we want to open up the economy and teach kids in school and get closer to a normal lifestyle before we get a vaccine, our best option is to wear a mask. Especially now that things are moving indoors.” The reduction in COVID-19 infections in Kansas counties with a mask mandate was about 50% lower than in counties without a mandate.
The Goldman Sachs review concludes, “So will the US adopt a national face mask mandate? This is uncertain, partly because masks have become such a politically and culturally charged issue. However, even in the absence of a national mandate, state and local authorities might well broaden mandates in ways that ultimately mimic the impact of a national mandate. Either way, our analysis suggests that the economy could benefit significantly from such moves, especially when compared with the alternative of a return to broader lockdowns.”
But why have masks become culturally charged? During the election, masks became a symbol of Biden supporters, while refusal to wear a mask was a sign of Trump supporters. That’s 47.4% of voters, and they seem unwilling to give up. Our best hope to encourage a major increase in mask wearing might be for President Trump to appeal to his followers to wear masks whenever they go out in public. He could say that he gave up the presidency to lead the fight against the pandemic that threatened America. It wouldn’t hurt to ask.
Sam Uretsky is a writer and pharmacist living in Louisville, Ky. Email sdu01@outlook.com.
From The Progressive Populist, December 15, 2020
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652