Keywords
City mask orders, County mask orders, COVID-19 masks, local government prevention, COVID-19, health communication, health policy
This article is included in the Political Communications gateway.
This article is included in the Sociology of Health gateway.
This article is included in the Emerging Diseases and Outbreaks gateway.
This article is included in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) collection.
City mask orders, County mask orders, COVID-19 masks, local government prevention, COVID-19, health communication, health policy
During the Spring of 2020, the use of face masks in public places emerged as an important determinant of the prevention of COVID-19. By August, 2020 public health officers in 34 US states had issued statewide orders for occupants to wear masks in public places1. In many of these states, local governments issued their own mask orders prior to the statewide orders. When we are considering the impact of mask wearing orders, we need to know the full extent to which local governments required occupants to wear masks in public. We developed a dataset of mask orders by local government units (counties and cities) in the states which eventually enacted statewide orders, and the dates which these orders came into effect.
Our initial sample consisted of 34 states whose governments issued statewide mask wearing mandates by 1 September, 2020. Starting with the date that each state issued statewide orders, and going backwards until early April, we conducted Google searches with the following search terms: state AND city or county or tribal group (general and specific terms) AND COVID-19 AND “mask order” or “mask mandate” AND date (backwards from state order date). From the resulting articles we searched first for website news articles from local newspapers, commercial TV and radio stations, and local Public Radio (NPR) or television (PBS) stations that listed government mask orders. If there was no statewide list, we then searched for articles on orders from key counties and cities in all of the remaining states. From these items, and for each state, we developed a list of cities and counties where orders had been reported. We recorded the date on which each order came into effect, and also the internet address of the mask order or news source reporting on a mask order.
Among the 34 states that issued statewide orders, counties, cities or tribal councils in 21 states issued orders prior to the statewide mandates in 21 states. We could not find any early local orders in the following 13 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. In the accompanying Excel file (Underlying data), we present the state name, the name of the local area, the designation of the area as a county (C), municipality (M) or Tribal Council (T), and the date the local mask order came in effect and the reference for the mask order.
We present data on the number of orders by C, M, and T, along with the date of the state order going into effect in Table 1.
State | Statewide order date | Early county mandates | Early municipal mandates | Early tribal mandates |
---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama | 16-Jul-20 | 2 | 7 | 0 |
Arkansas | 20-Jul-20 | 0 | 11 | 0 |
California | 18-Jun-20 | 35 | 22 | 0 |
Colorado | 17-Jul-20 | 13 | 22 | 0 |
Illinois | 1-May-20 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
Indiana | 27-Jul-20 | 7 | 4 | 0 |
Kansas | 3-Jul-20 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Louisiana | 13-Jul-20 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
Massachusetts | 6-May-20 | 0 | 51 | 0 |
Minnesota | 25-Jul-20 | 0 | 12 | 0 |
Mississippi | 4-Aug-20 | 37 | 0 | 0 |
Montana | 15-Jul-20 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
North Carolina | 26-Jun-20 | 3 | 4 | 0 |
Ohio | 23-Jul-20 | 21 | 23 | 0 |
Oregon | 1-Jul-20 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
Rhode Island | 8-May-20 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Texas | 3-Jul-20 | 13 | 23 | 0 |
Vermont | 1-Aug-20 | 0 | 7 | 0 |
Washington | 26-Jun-20 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Wisconsin | 1-Aug-20 | 4 | 7 | 0 |
Michigan | 27-Apr-20 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
We should note that although we list Mississippi state as having local mask orders, in fact it was the Governor who issued the counties’ orders: counties were exempt from the orders if they had incidences of COVID-19 below rates set by the Governor’s office and the State Health Officer.
Our dataset shows the number of local government units that established mask orders prior to the states issuing statewide orders. In Table 1 we show the number of local government orders for each state. In the 34 states, 218 municipalities, 155 counties and 1 tribal council issued orders.
University of Alberta Library Dataverse: Local mask orders pre Statewide, https://doi.org/10.7939/DVN/NDFEHK2.
The database contains detailed collected data for 21 states with local orders that were in effect prior to statewide orders:
A. County, Municipality or Tribal Council
B. State
C. Identification of locality as county (C), City or town (M), or Tribal Council (T) + source data embedded.
D. Date the local order came into effect
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?
Yes
Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Health economics, Health policy
Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?
Yes
Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: epidemiology
Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?
Yes
Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: health care services research
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | |||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Version 1 08 Jan 21 |
read | read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)