MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385335051 · doi:10.1101/2023.07.26.23293155

Impact of Community Masking on SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Ontario after Adjustment for Differential Testing by Age and Sex

2023· preprint· en· W4385335051 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amy Peng, Savana Bosco, Alison E. Simmons, Ashleigh R. Tuite, David N. Fisman

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMasking (illustration)MedicineDemographyPandemicRegression analysisRespiratorTransmission (telecommunications)Test (biology)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health careSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)StatisticsComputer scienceDiseaseEconomicsMathematicsTelecommunicationsInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Use of masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infectious disease transmission is not new, but has proven controversial, and even politically polarizing during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In the Canadian province of Ontario, mask mandates were introduced by the 34 regional health authorities in an irregular fashion from June to September 2020, creating a quasi-experiment that can be used to evaluate impact of community mask mandates. Ontario SARS-CoV-2 case counts were strongly biased by testing focussed on long-term care facilities and healthcare workers. We developed a simple regression-based test-adjustment method that allowed us to adjust cases for undertesting by age and gender. We used this test- adjusted time series to evaluate mask mandate effectiveness. Methods We evaluated the effect of masking using count-based regression models that allowed adjustment for age, sex, public health region and time trends with either reported (unadjusted) cases, or testing-adjusted case counts, as dependent variables. Mask mandates were assumed to take effect in the week after their introduction. Model based estimates of effectiveness were used to estimate the fraction of SARS- CoV-2 cases, severe outcomes, and costs, averted by mask mandates. Results Models that used unadjusted cases as dependent variable identified protective effects of masking (effectiveness 15-42%), though effectiveness was variably statistically significant, depending on model choice. Mask effectiveness in models predicting test-adjusted case counts was substantially higher, ranging from 49% (44- 53%) to 73% (48-86%) depending on model choice. Effectiveness was greater in women than men (P = 0.016), and in urban health units as compared to rural units (P < 0.001). The prevented fraction associated with mask mandates was 46% (41-51%), averting approximately 290,000 clinical cases, averting 3008 deaths and loss of 29,038 QALY. Costs averted represented $CDN 610 million in economic wealth. Conclusions Lack of adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 undertesting in younger individuals and males generated biased estimates of infection risk and obscures the impact of public health preventive measures. After adjustment for under-testing, the effectiveness of mask mandates emerges as substantial, and robust regardless of model choice. Mask mandates saved substantial numbers of lives, and prevented economic costs, during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207