Table 1.
COVID-19 pandemic trend and projection of the difference in total infections by face covering in fifteen top-infected states of U.S.
| Daily confirmed cases |
Total confirmed cases |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stay-at-home ordera | S1b (d−1) | Mandated face coveringa | S2b (d−1) | Sub-exp range | Linear range | Projected differencec | |
| States without mandated face covering | |||||||
| CA | 3/19 | 24 | 3/8–4/2 | 4/3–5/18 | |||
| FL | 4/3 | −12 | 3/8–4/9 | 4/10–5/18 | |||
| GA | 4/3 | −4 | 3/8–4/5 | 4/6–5/18 | |||
| OH | 3/24 | 7 | 3/8–4/2 | 4/3–5/18 | |||
| TX | 4/2 | 11 | 3/8–4/10 | 4/11–5/18 | |||
| VA | 3/30 | 15 | 3/8–4/11 | 4/12–5/18 | |||
| States with mandated face covering | |||||||
| CT | 3/24 | 34 | 4/21 | −11 | 3/8–4/4 | 4/5–4/20 | 5835 (15%) |
| MA | 3/24 | 31 | 5/6 | −70 | 3/8–4/8 | 4/9–5/5 | 13,634 (16%) |
| MI | 3/24 | 2.5 | 4/27 | −13 | 3/8–3/27 | 3/28–4/26 | 8452 (16%) |
| NJ | 3/22 | 127 | 4/14 | −86 | 3/8–3/29 | 3/30–4/13 | 40,529 (27%) |
| NY | 3/23 | 123 | 4/18 | −181 | 3/8–3/27 | 3/28–4/17 | 168,884 (48%) |
| PA | 4/1 | −15 | 4/20 | −21 | 3/8–4/2 | 4/2–4/19 | 13,086 (21%) |
| IL | 3/22 | 50 | 5/1 | −30 | 3/8–4/11 | 4/12–4/30 | −12,113 (−12%) |
| LA | 3/24 | −18 | 5/1 | −2 | 3/8–4/11 | 4/12–4/30 | 1122 (3.2%) |
| MD | 3/31 | 23 | 4/18 | 12 | 3/8–4/2 | 4/3–4/17 | −8546 (−20%) |
Orders that took effect after 5 pm are considered to start from the next day.
S1denotes the slope of linear regression for the daily cases after stay-at-home order (for states without mandated face covering) or between stay-at-home order and mandated face covering, and S2 denotes the slope of linear regression for the daily cases after mandated face covering
The number of the total infections prevented by face covering is estimated from the difference on 18 May between the reported cases and the projected cases based on the linear regression using the data prior to implementing mandated face covering. The percentage is relative to the reported total cases on 18 May.