By SHARON BEGLEY @sxbegle JULY 14, 2020
The two
hair stylists in Springfield, Mo., broke the cardinal rule of infection
control: Despite having respiratory symptoms, one went to work and saw clients
for eight days, when she learned she had tested positive for Covid-19. Her
colleague also developed symptoms, three days after her co-worker, and also
kept working until she tested positive, two days after the first stylist.
Together, they saw 139 clients, with appointments for haircuts, shaves, and
perms lasting 15 to 45 minutes.
Yet when
the local health department identified and contacted the 139 clients, asking
them to self-quarantine for 14 days and checking in daily about whether they
had developed Covid-19 symptoms, not a single one (of the 104 who agreed to be
interviewed) did. Of the 67 who consented to a swab test, every one tested
negative. There was one other notable fact about the case: Both stylists and
every client had worn a face covering.
The stark
case, described on
Tuesday in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, adds to the near-universal
scientific consensus that, more than any of single action short of everyone
entering solitary confinement, face coverings can prevent the transmission of
the coronavirus that causes Covid-19.
“Like
herd immunity with vaccines, the more individuals wear cloth face coverings in
public places where they may be close together, the more the entire community
is protected,” Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and two colleagues wrote in an editorial in the
Journal of the American Medical Association, also published on Tuesday. Because
cloth face coverings can also allow states to more safely ease stay-at-home
orders and business closings, Redfield told a JAMA Live webcast Tuesday, “If we
could get everybody to wear a mask right now, I really think in the next four,
six, eight weeks, we could bring this epidemic under control.”
The “if,”
of course, has been the problem. Because masking or refusing to mask has become
a political statement, only 62% of Americans said in April that they did so
(the CDC recommended the practice on April 3); in May, 76% said they did,
according to another MMWR study. The CDC advice
followed weeks of mixed and contradictory messaging, and even after it was
issued, President Trump and other national leaders fell well short of endorsing
face coverings.
Although
mask wearing does not differ by gender, it does vary by region of the country.
In May, 87% of people surveyed in the Northeast said they wore masks when going
out in pubic; it was 80% in the West, 74% in the Midwest, and 71% in the South,
where cases are skyrocketing.
Face
coverings almost certainly explain why the Springfield hair stylists did not
transmit the virus to a single client. Of the 104 clients surveyed, 102 said
they wore a face covering (usually cloth coverings or surgical masks) during
their entire appointment; two said they did for part of it. Both stylists were
always masked.
The
benefits of masking in reducing viral transmission are clear from much more
than the unusual case of a Springfield hair salon, of course. In an unpublished
analysis of 194 countries, those that did not recommend face masks saw
per-capita Covid-19 mortality increase 54% every week after the first case
appeared; in countries with masking policies, the weekly increase was only 8%.
And at
the largest health care system in Massachusetts, Mass General Brigham, before
administrators adopted a policy of universal masking for health care workers in
late March, new Covid-19 infections in that population were increasing
exponentially, from 0% to 21%, or 1.16% per day, on average, researchers reported in another JAMA paper published
Tuesday. With everyone masked, the rate of Covid-19 in health care workers fell
to 11.5% by late April, dropping 0.49% per day, on average.
In his
editorial, Redfield made not only a public health case for face coverings but
also an economic one. Citing an analysis by Goldman
Sachs Research, he and his colleagues noted that if masking increased 15%, it
“could prevent the need to bring back stay-at-home orders that would otherwise
cost an estimated 5% of gross domestic product, or a projected cost of $1
trillion.”
“Broad
adoption of cloth face coverings is a civic duty,” Redfield and his co-authors
wrote in their editorial.
No comments:
Post a Comment