COVID-19: The Importance of an Earlier Implementation of the Face Mask Mandate

The COVID-19 pandemic unveiled the United States’ lack of preparation and resources for facing a world-wide pandemic. Lack of information and conformity amongst the public, a shortage of ventilators within hospitals, and the mass loss of life throughout the country proved that the U.S. was less than capable of handling the pandemic. One notable topic of debate exhibited throughout the pandemic was the proper use of masks and how necessary masks were for preventing the spread of coronavirus. Differences in mandates, opinions, and political beliefs led the country to have split views concerning the legitimacy of the necessity of masks. In efforts to reduce the morbidity and mortality rates during the COVID-19 pandemic, I would have a stricter enforcement of the face mask mandate without allowing political ideologies to taint the attempt to protect oneself and others.

How Face Mask Guidelines Changed Over Time

Since the start of the pandemic, the public was provided with different messages regarding the use of face masks. In February 2020, Dr. Jerome M. Adams, who was the surgeon general at the time, informed the public that they needed to stop purchasing and hoarding face masks. He went on to explain that the masks would not be effective in protecting the public. However, it is vital that health care workers had access to face masks, as they are the ones at higher risk of contracting the virus. Rather than wearing masks, Dr. Adams promoted proper hand washing and social distancing as ways to keep the public safe (Fazio, 2021). The main concern during this period of the COVID-19 pandemic was the shortage of face masks, specifically N95s.

It was only in April 2020, when the CDC began to enforce all U.S. residents to wear a mask when leaving their homes; however, officials noted that the purpose of wearing masks was not to protect oneself, but to prevent the spread of the virus. It was at this point that President Trump proclaimed to the public that wearing a mask was a voluntary choice, thus undermining the CDC’s efforts to promote mask-wearing (Fazio, 2021).

In September 2020 the CDC director, Dr. Robert R. Redfield, informed the public that wearing a mask was the best way to fight the pandemic and to keep incidence rates under control. He further stated that wearing masks would be more effective than vaccines, as there was room for error with vaccines, but a mask worn properly and appropriately does what it was meant to do. Once again, President Trump undermined the CDC’s mask enforcement by publicly removing his own mask when returning from Walter Reed medical center where he was treated for COVID-19 (Fazio, 2021).

The constantly-changing recommendations the public received about wearing masks had understandably made the public weary about who to listen to. To the public, two highly respected figures in the country (the head of the CDC and the President of the U.S.) had opposing views regarding the necessity of wearing a mask, and so, many were divided in regards to who they felt they should trust.

How Politics Influenced the Mask Mandate

As the incidence rate of COVID-19 cases continued to rise in the U.S., the CDC urged the public to start wearing face masks and stay within 6 feet from people, in efforts to reduce the spread of the virus. However, according to research, counties that heavily supported President Trump such as Provo, Utah and Tulsa, Oklahoma were opposed to this mandate. Their actions

were supported by President Trump, who had personally stated that wearing masks was not mandatory, as he would refuse to wear one himself (Kahane, 2021).

Due to the Trump Administration’s weak efforts to enforce a nation-wide mask-wearing mandate, the responsibility was left to the individual state officials. By August 2020, only thirty four of the fifty states had implemented mask mandates. All sixteen states that had refused to enforce mask mandates had a Republican governor. Due to the extreme polarizations between Democrats and Republicans during Trump’s presidency, it is plausible that Trump’s attitude towards wearing masks had persuaded his followers to behave in the same manner (Kahane, 2021).

Moreover, research has shown that partisan differences between Democrats and Republicans also affected how U.S. citizens viewed the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study by Alcottt observed that Republicans were less likely to social distance and take into account the seriousness of the pandemic, compared to Democrats (Kahane, 2021).

Evidence points to the unavoidable truth that the polarization of political parties impacted how part of the population viewed masks as a false method of protection from COVID-19 and a means of taking away an individual’s rights. Allowing political opinions to rival against scientific research in social media and television led the public to believe that wearing a mask was a choice based on your personal beliefs rather than a necessary action that had the potential to save lives.

What Could Have Been Done Differently?

What the country needed from the start of the pandemic was a firm voice of guidance that had supported the use of face masks. Regardless of COVID-19 being a novel virus of which the method of transmission was unknown to scientists, I believe that enforcing mask-wearing early

on would have still been a valid safety precaution that had the potential to save the lives of many. A study conducted by Dr. Christopher Leffler at VCU Health found that COVID-19 mortality rates were up to a hundred times lower in countries that either recommended wearing masks earlier on in the pandemic, or had already regularly worn masks in public as a cultural norm. Several Asian countries, such as Japan, Thailand, and Taiwan, had a COVID-19 related mortality rate of nearly 1 in 1 million. In contrast, the mortality rate of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. was 1 in 2,500 (Marino, 2020). This drastic difference in statistics proves the efficacy of an earlier face mask mandate.

To counter the differences in opinion about wearing masks, the CDC needed to make a strong directive towards the public from the time the first few COVID cases were reported, informing them that they must wear a mask to keep themselves and others safe. Rather than changing their mask recommendations every few months, which both confused the public and weakened the potency of their statement, keeping their message regarding face masks consistent and providing the public with research that supported their statement, would have ensued more support and compliance from the public. Moreover, by enforcing mask-wearing early on and holding a strong stance on the mandate, President Trump would have less leeway to sway the public to turn down the recommendations of the CDC. Overall, based on previous data, a single change in this one dilemma had the potential to save thousands of lives during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Works Cited

Fazio, M. (2021, April 27). How Mask Guidelines Have Evolved. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/science/face-mask-guidelines-timeline.html.

Kahane, L. H. (2021, January 5). Politicizing the Mask: Political, Economic and Demographic Factors Affecting Mask Wearing Behavior in the USA. Eastern economic journal. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7783295/.

Marino, K. (2020, July 6). Early face mask policies curbed COVID-19’s spread, according to 198-country analysis. https://news.vcu.edu/article/Early_face_mask_policies_curbed_COVID19s_spread_according_to.