ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Data Note

Dataset: local government mask orders preceding statewide orders by US states

[version 1; peer review: 3 approved]
PUBLISHED 08 Jan 2021
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

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.

Abstract

We present a database listing local government mask orders for COVID-19 that were enacted between April and September, 2020, prior to the date that the governors issued statewide mask wearing mandates. We obtained data from a Google search of web pages of local and national commercial and public broadcasters and newspapers, and of the orders themselves.  In the database, we present data identifying the county, municipality or tribal council, date of the order, and the source’s internet address. In the 34 states with statewide orders, local governments in 21 of these states issued mandates in 218 municipalities, 155 counties, and 1 tribal council.  The dataset can be accessed from https://doi.org/10.7939/DVN/NDFEHK

Keywords

City mask orders, County mask orders, COVID-19 masks, local government prevention, COVID-19, health communication, health policy

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Dataset description

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.

Table 1. Local government mask orders preceding statewide orders by US states.

StateStatewide
order date
Early county
mandates
Early municipal
mandates
Early tribal
mandates
Alabama16-Jul-20270
Arkansas20-Jul-200110
California18-Jun-2035220
Colorado17-Jul-2013220
Illinois1-May-200200
Indiana27-Jul-20740
Kansas3-Jul-20200
Louisiana13-Jul-20220
Massachusetts6-May-200510
Minnesota25-Jul-200120
Mississippi4-Aug-203700
Montana15-Jul-20121
North Carolina26-Jun-20340
Ohio23-Jul-2021230
Oregon1-Jul-20700
Rhode Island8-May-20010
Texas3-Jul-2013230
Vermont1-Aug-20070
Washington26-Jun-20200
Wisconsin1-Aug-20470
Michigan27-Apr-20100

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.

Summary

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.

Data availability

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).

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 08 Jan 2021
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Jacobs P and Ohinmaa A. Dataset: local government mask orders preceding statewide orders by US states [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 10:8 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27614.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 08 Jan 2021
Views
9
Cite
Reviewer Report 28 Apr 2021
Karen Lee, Canadian Agency for Drugs & Technologies in Health (CADTH), Ottawa, Canada 
Approved
VIEWS 9
The format for this publication is appropriate as a "data note". The research reported is timely and likely to evolve over the next few months - potentially warranting an update. Information on validation of the data directly with sources might ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Lee K. Reviewer Report For: Dataset: local government mask orders preceding statewide orders by US states [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 10:8 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.30521.r81356)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
11
Cite
Reviewer Report 23 Apr 2021
Meg Seymour, National Center for Health Research, Washington, DC, USA 
Diana M. Zuckerman, National Center for Health Research, Washington, DC, USA 
Approved
VIEWS 11
This is a well-done dataset and could be very useful to other researchers. It should be accepted. Our only suggestion is that perhaps listing the dates numerically on the spread sheet would be easier to read. On the other hand, ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Seymour M and Zuckerman DM. Reviewer Report For: Dataset: local government mask orders preceding statewide orders by US states [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 10:8 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.30521.r82423)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
14
Cite
Reviewer Report 26 Jan 2021
Ying-chu NG, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China 
Approved
VIEWS 14
No further comments. The study seems to be done in an appropriate manner. The issue addressed in the article is timely needed in these days. Any studies about commenting on government policy on preventing COVID-19 can make use of the ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
NG Yc. Reviewer Report For: Dataset: local government mask orders preceding statewide orders by US states [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 10:8 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.30521.r77018)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 08 Jan 2021
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

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.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.