A new study suggests that the behavior that public officials are now unjustly prescribing or advocating to reduce the spread of COVID-19 surfing – wearing a face mask – should come with a caveat. If not properly accompanied by public education, their use can lead to more diseases.
The discovery is part of a separate study, just published in JMIR Public Health and Inspection, this was done by a team of health economists and the public health faculty at Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont in partnership with public health officials for the state of Vermont.
The study combines study data collected from adults living in northwestern Vermont with test results that showed whether a subset of them had contracted COVID-19, a dual-research approach few COVID studies have been employed. By combining the two datasets, researchers were able to identify which behaviors and conditions increased respondents ’risk of becoming ill.
The main risk factor driving the spread of the disease, the study found, was the number of daily contacts participants had with other adults and the elderly.
That was relevant for two other decisions.
Those who wore masks had more of these daily contacts compared to those who did not, and a higher proportion caught the virus as a result.
Basic human psychology may work, said Eline van den Broek-Altenburg, assistant professor and vice chair for Population Health Science in the Department of Radiation at Larner College of Medicine and lead investigator of the study.
“When you wear a mask, you may have a false sense of protection and more interaction with others,” she said.
The impact of public health is clear.
Messages that people must wear a mask are crucial, but enough. It should go hand in hand with education that masks do not give you a free pass to see what you want. You still need to strictly restrict your contacts. “
Eline van den Broek-Altenburg, Principal Investigator and Associate Professor and Vice-Chair for Population Health Science, Department of Radiation at Larner College of Medicine
Public education messages should make clear how to safely arrange a mask to prevent infection, van den Broek-Altenburg said.
The study also found that participants’ living environment determined how many contacts they had and influenced the likelihood of infection. A higher proportion of those living in apartments were infected with the virus compared to those living in single-family homes.
“If you live in an apartment, you’re going to see more people every day than if you live in one family home, so you have to be so vigilant about social distance,” van said. of the Broek-Altenburg.
The study was controlled for a professional to prevent essential workers, who have explanations with more connections and usually have to wear masks, from slipping the results.
“Critical workers are generally known to be at higher risk, and our study found that,” van den Broek-Altenburg said. “We wanted to see what else was expected of people getting sick,” she said.
Cases reported in Chittenden County, Vermont are just one-fifth of the total likely number
The study provides the first estimate of unreported cases in Chittenden County, Vermont, where the majority of study participants reside. The study found that 2.2 percent of the study group had contracted the virus, suggesting that approximately 3,621 Chittenden County residents appeared to have become ill, compared to just 662 reported cases, just 18%.
That figure translates to a hospitalization rate of 1.2% and a modified infectious death rate of 0.55%.
This finding is important for policymakers, van den Broek-Altenburg said, in and out of Vermont.
“If you know how many people are or have been ill, you are far better equipped to accurately predict what will happen in the future and devise the appropriate policies,” she said.
It also shows the importance of serologic testing and PCR of the general population, she said.
“If you only test simulated patients, you will not be able to find out how many people have already contracted the virus. With our random sample study we were able to show that Vermont has so far only been affected. less than one-fifth of the people susceptible to the virus.To capture the larger population, random samples of the population are needed so that we can also capture asymptomatic patients, apparently as most COVID-19 cases. “
The study is, among other things, a proof of concept, van den Broek-Altenburg said.
“I hope it will lead to other, larger studies that combine survey data with extensive testing. This approach is critical to both understanding the dynamics of this pandemic and the design of our responding to futures. “
Ten of the 454 survey respondents who underwent the serologic test had antibodies to Covid-19, one of which tested positive for the virus. With the small number, researchers simplified their models and were able to reach a high level of confidence in both key decisions.
“We tested our models and found that the results were robust through a number of different model specifications,” van den Broek-Altenburg said.
To form the study group, the researchers surveyed 12,000 randomly selected people between the ages of 18 and 70 who had at least one primary care visit at the University of Vermont Medical Center, which provides service especially northwest Vermont, in the last three years.