U.S. Nationwide Compliance Towards Restrictions and Mask Mandate

           PLOS ONE states “In the United States, policies on mask wearing have varied from state to state over the course of the pandemic.” In the public eye, if people noticed that their own state was having a mask mandate, while another state wasn’t there is some questioning of the validity of the mandate. Sage Journal states, “The latter is particularly concerning for leader of conservative-leaning states whose populations are relatively unconvinced that COVID-19 poses a significant and immediate threat, which already has sparked protests and other displays of civil disobedience” (e.g., Maqbool 2020; Shepherd 2020). Throughout the pandemic, there was an inconsistency with mask mandate compliance throughout the states, which lead to an uncertainty of the legitimateness of mask wearing among the public.     

    When the pandemic had first started, everything slowly started to shut down. It eventually turned into a nationwide shutdown. Sage Journal stated, “Since the SARS-CoV-2 (commonly referred to as COVID-19) pandemic began in early 2020, public health officials have largely relied on voluntary compliance for social distancing, mask wearing, and hygiene practices to slow community spread” (Phillips 2020). Even with this mask mandate, not all the states put this into effect. According to PLOS ONE, Hawaii didn’t put a mask wearing policy into effect until October 2020.  

This is an image from PLOS ONE showing the COVID-19 cases within each state, the bottom part of the table shows the states that did not have a mask policy. 

 

            This is image is taken from PLOS ONE showing the states in high-risk categories of each thing listed in the table. 

            

            Both these tables provided show the states that didn’t go along with the mask policy. In the first table, states that had no mask policy were listed in the categories of the months June-October for having high case numbers. For example, Arizona was one of the states that was in the bottom category and is found in the other categories listed above. PLOS ONE stated based off the second table, “Eleven states had no stay-at home order, 15 had no mask policy, and four states had low adherence throughout this six-month period.” The states deciding not to enforce and abide by the mandate have been shown in both tables. 

Courtesy of Ryan Taylor, this image shows the states with the least to most anti-mask activity.

 

There is a big difference between states enforcing the mandate versus not following it at all. Sage Journal makes a note of, “Although regulatory compliance strategies are best thought of as fitting along a continuum, they are most often described as fitting into two categories: enforced versus voluntary compliance” (May 2005). Without enforcing the mandate and just having a voluntary compliance, people won’t willingly follow the rules if they don’t have to. Which then will upset other people who are forced to abide by these policies. Sage Journal states, “Unsurprisingly, traditional enforcement of mask mandates has been found to be more effective in some populations, and research also suggests that voluntary mandates are perceived as unfair and may contribute to the stigmatization of mask wearing” (Betsch et. al. 2020).

Some people totally disregard the whole mandate and restrictions. The way their state is handling COVID-19 could influence how they react towards it, but it's not always the case. They think that doing all these precautions aren't beneficial and are foolish. Going out in public, you'll always see people who don't comply and are fine with the choices that they make. When people are closed-minded, its harder for them to see how they're overall actions affects others. However, it does go back to the idea of how there is an irregularity of compliance between states that influence people's decision to follow these rules as well. 

         

       Within the past few months, states have been lifting COVID-19 restrictions and masking policy. However, the inconsistency with the mask and restriction compliance had caused the public to have mixed reactions to that. The New York Times states, “The decisions add to the confusion and patchwork of nature of what Americans can and cannot do. While some people welcomed them as a relief and part of a return to normal life, others asked whether sates were moving too fast at a time when more than 200,000 new infections were being announced each day and when the country was reporting more than 17,00 deaths a week, more than at any other point in the pandemic except last winter.” What was said in The New York Times is an example of how the inconsistency affected the public view of when the mandate actually wasn’t in effect anymore. To add to the confusion, The New York Times stated, “Even as governors were lifting rules, officials in some cities, counties and school districts indicated that they would keep their own mandates in place, adding new complication to an already confusing array of rules across the country.” 

           

This image is from The New York Times showing how the mask mandated was dealt with in each state. 

 

            The inconsistency with the mandate and the compliance of the states had caused the public to have a doubt about the validity of it. Overall, the pandemic was dealt with in a very poor way. When something affects the country like COVID-19, there should be consistency and compliance throughout the whole nation because the public just follows along with the rules created by the government and states. Without having the consistency, it leads to doubts and among the public and they become least compliant.