Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Simple Protection Tool With Many Meanings

Abstract

Wearing face masks is recommended as part of personal protective equipment and as a public health measure to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Their use, however, is deeply connected to social and cultural practices and has acquired a variety of personal and social meanings. This article aims to identify the diversity of sociocultural, ethical, and political meanings attributed to face masks, how they might impact public health policies, and how they should be considered in health communication. In May 2020, we involved 29 experts of an interdisciplinary research network on health and society to provide their testimonies on the use of face masks in 20 European and 2 Asian countries (China and South Korea). They reflected on regulations in the corresponding jurisdictions as well as the personal and social aspects of face mask wearing. We analyzed those testimonies thematically, employing the method of qualitative descriptive analysis. The analysis framed the four dimensions of the societal and personal practices of wearing (or not wearing) face masks: individual perceptions of infection risk, personal interpretations of responsibility and solidarity, cultural traditions and religious imprinting, and the need of expressing self-identity. Our study points to the importance for an in-depth understanding of the cultural and sociopolitical considerations around the personal and social meaning of mask wearing in different contexts as a necessary prerequisite for the assessment of the effectiveness of face masks as a public health measure. Improving the personal and collective understanding of citizens' behaviors and attitudes appears essential for designing more effective health communications about COVID-19 pandemic or other global crises in the future. To wear a face mask or not to wear a face mask? Nowadays, this question has been analogous to the famous line from Shakespeare's Hamlet: “To be or not to be, that is the question.” This is a bit allegorical, but certainly not far from the current circumstances where a deadly virus is spreading amongst us... Vanja Kopilaš, Croatia.

The social amplification and attenuation of COVID-19 risk perception shaping mask wearing behavior: A longitudinal twitter analysis

“…This change in mask wearing from a medical to public setting reflected a dramatic shift in the public’s psychological bearing and grasping of COVID-19 risk and is in part reflected in mask wearing reactions. This experience has in fact also been observed in other countries across the globe despite other customs [ 58 ].…”

“…Tweets reflected a range of responses referencing the politicization of mask wearing. Mask wearing being ascribed many meanings and deeply connected to social and cultural practices has also been observed since from interviews with from health experts across the globe [ 58 ]. Mask wearing was consequently discussed on Twitter not only as protecting against COVID-19 as a collective risk, but also as a form of government control.…”

Face mask uptake in the absence of mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study with Swiss residents

“…Face masks serve not only the purpose of preventing infections but also have social and cultural meanings [1]. In Europe, where, unlike in Asia, face masks were not commonly seen in public before COVID-19, face masks represent a visible sign of the ongoing pandemic and wearing or not wearing face masks demonstrate personal attitudes and compliance.…”

Biomedical Researchers Confronting the Covid-19 Pandemic

“…The uncertainties with expert opinion definitions have created major ethical issues in the time of the pandemic. Some eminent expert guesses and unfounded speculations, which were rapidly disseminated via journals, news outlets, and social media, caused misconceptions and resulted in unethical uses of some drugs such as hydroxychloroquine or confusion on simple protective tools as face masks [17,18,19]. All opinion-based statements, publications, and online dissemination did not require ethical approval.…”