The value of masks in places where nearly everyone is vaccinated is clearly lower. Caution is necessary since, in many parts of the world, the vaccines being used have lower efficacy than in the US, meaning that masks likely have value on top of vaccines.
Additionally, masks may prevent breakthrough cases which may eventually spread to unvaccinated people. However, I haven't seen a quantitative calculation of the magnitude of this benefit -- it may be small.
Even in places where few people are dying but cases are rising, masks are very likely part of a suite of policies that should be employed to get R < 1.
In places where cases are low but few people are vaccinated, there is probably a case for mask-wearing, but again, it would be nice to see some modeling and more detailed calculations to ascertain the benefits.
A ballpark figure I keep in mind is that given the average death rate in the US over the last 18 months (or the last month...), wearing a mask for a year generates ~$10,000 in reduced mortality risk.
This is a rough estimate ignoring many factors (like morbidity), but it gives a sense of magnitudes -- if mortality risk is 1/100th the average, these are places where the value of mask-wearing is low.
Of course, setting matters too. If you're indoors in a poorly ventilated area with many strangers, the case is likely strong even if many are vax'ed. If you're in a car with a vaccinated friend you see several times a week in a region with few deaths, the case is much weaker.
Masks are generally one of the lower cost controls available (relative to quarantines or distancing). However, in (the few) places with near universal vaccination, it is not clear that any controls pass a cost-benefit test when the benefits may be negligible.
The goal of anti-COVID policy should be to get most of the people in the world to a place where public mask-wearing is either never necessary or needed only during rare outbreaks. In most places, masking today can complement vaccines in getting us there.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
An intuitive way to grasp the effectiveness of masks: extrapolating from our results, every 600 people who wear masks for a year in public areas prevents 1 person from dying of COVID given status quo death rates in the US.
Note that this is *taking into account current vaccination rates in the US*. Despite the availability of vaccines in the US, the weekly death rate is higher than at any point prior to November 2020.
Here is how I arrived at this number. Our study shows that inducing a 30 pp increase in mask-use prevented 35% of COVID cases among the elderly.
The idea that we should patiently educate the aggressively ignorant sounds laudable, but it practically means disengagement. How many who liked the above post consistently attempt to do this? They might try once, but they'll give up because it's too time-consuming.
For those keeping track at home, this is definitely not what a confidence interval is. A 95% CI is a function of the data such that, given the data generating process with an unknown true parameter, the CI constructed in this way will contain the true parameter 95% of the time.
The idea that all values in a 95% CI are equally likely is preposterous. If one were instead constructing Bayesian credibility intervals, you do not need a gaussian prior to rule this out.
In the Bayesian problem, this would represent an absurd corner case where the data was completely uninformative about the underlying parameter within a specified range. I can't imagine how this would be a reasonable model of the situation at hand.
Firstly, our study does not say that masks can only prevent 11% of COVID. Our study says that our intervention -- which raised surgical mask-wearing from 13% to 43% -- prevented 11% of COVID cases, and 35% among age 60+.
To put the point on your own terms -- if you vaccinated 30% of the population, would you prevent 35% of cases age 60+?
I do agree that vaccines are probably even more effective than masks but there are three very important subtleties here that make the 11% way too conservative @ProfEmilyOster.
First, the 11% comes from a 30% increase in mask-use. The IV estimate (naively scaling things linearly) would thus be more like a 37% reduction in COVID from going from zero to universal masking.
Second, we find much larger effects among the elderly (a 35% reduction among 60+ without the above scaling). This suggests that the total reduction in morbidity and mortality from universal masking may be considerably larger than even the 37% number, perhaps more than 50%.
1) We only studied adults, but for both surgical and cloth masks, we find impacts on COVID symptoms at all ages tested
The fact that we do not find an effect blood tests of age<50 is likely due to the fact that we collected blood only from a subset of symptomatic people and so our estimates on blood-test confirmed COVID are less precise.