Dataset Information

Strategies for supplying face masks to the population of Taiwan during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of face masks has become ubiquitous in Taiwan during the early COVID-19 pandemic. A name-based rationing system was established to enable the population of Taiwan to purchase face masks. This study is to assess the extent and fairness of face mask supply to the public in Taiwan.

Methods

The weekly face marks supplies were collected from name-based rationing system administrative statistics included national health insurance card and e-Mask selling record. National registered population statistics by age, gender, and district were collected from department of statistics ministry of the interior. The number of COVID-19 non-imported cases of Taiwan was collected from Taiwan centers of disease control.

Results

A total of 146,831,844 person times purchase records from February 6, 2020, to July 19, 2020, the weekly average face mask supply is 0.5 mask (per person) at the start of name-based rationing system, and gradually expanded to the maximum 5.1 masks (per person). Comparing the highest weekly total face mask supply (from Apr 9, 2020, to Apr 15, 2020) in aged 0-9 -, 10-19 -, 20-29 -, 30-39 -, 40-49 -, 50-59 -, 60-69 -,70-79 -, 80-89 -, 90-99, and > 100 years to the register population showed similar distribution between mask supplied people and total population (all standardized difference < 0.1).

Conclusion

The masks supply strategies has gradually escalated the number of face masks for the public, it not only has dominant decreased the barrier of acquiring face mask, but a fair supply for total population use of Taiwan.

SUBMITTER: Liu CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8514256 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Covid-19 pandemic led to threatening shortages in healthcare of medical products such as face masks. Due to this major impact on our healthcare society an initiative was conducted between March and July 2020 for reprocessing of face masks from 19 different hospitals. This exceptional opportunity was used to study the costs impact and the carbon footprint of reprocessed face masks relative to new disposable face masks. The aim of this study is to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to assess and compare the climate change impact of disposed versus reprocessed face masks. In total 18.166 high quality medical FFP2 face masks were reprocessed through steam sterilization between March and July 2020. Greenhouse gas emissions during production, transport, sterilization and end-of-life processes were assessed. The background life cycle inventory data were retrieved from the ecoinvent database. The life cycle impact assessment method ReCiPe was used to translate emissions into climate change impact. The cost analysis is based on actual sterilization as well as associated costs compared to the prices of new disposable face masks. A Monte Carlo sampling was used to propagate the uncertainty of different inputs to the LCA results. The carbon footprint appears to be 58% lower for face masks which were reused for five times compared to new face masks which were used for one time only. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the loading capacity of the autoclave and rejection rate of face masks has a large influence on the carbon footprint. The estimated cost price of a reprocessed mask was €1.40 against €1.55. The Life Cycle Assessment demonstrates that reprocessed FFP2 face masks from a circular economy perspective have a lower climate change impact on the carbon footprint than new face masks. For policymakers it is important to realize that the carbon footprint of medical products such as face masks may be reduced by means of circular economy strategies. This study demonstrated a lower climate change impact and lower costs when reprocessing and reusing disposable face masks for five times. Therefore, this study may serve as an inspiration for investigating reprocessing of other medical products that may become scarce. Finally, this study advocates that circular design engineering principles should be taken into account when designing medical devices. This will lead to more sustainable products that have a lower carbon footprint and may be manufactured at lower costs.

Project description: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.

Project description:This article contributes an empirical analysis of information sharing practices on Twitter relating to the use of face masks in the context of COVID-19. Behavioural changes, such as the use of face masks, are often influenced by people's knowledge and perceptions, which in turn can be affected by the information available to them. Face masks were not recommended for use by the UK public at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to developments in scientific understanding, the guidance changed and by the end of 2020 they were mandatory on public transport and in shops. This research examines tweets in this longitudinal context and, therefore, provides novel insights into the dynamics of crisis communication in an ongoing crisis event with emerging scientific evidence. Specifically, analysis of the content of tweets, external resources most frequently shared, and users sharing information are considered. The conclusions contribute to developing understanding of the digital information ecology and provide practical insights for crisis communicators. Firstly, the analysis shows changes in the frequency of tweets about the topic correspond with key guidance and policy changes. These are, therefore, points in time official channels of information need to utilise the public's information seeking and sharing practices. Secondly, due to changes in face mask guidance and policy, the current literature on digital information ecology is insufficient for capturing the dynamic nature of a long-term ongoing crisis event. Challenges can arise due to the prolonged circulation of out-of-date information, i.e. not strategic misinformation, nor "mis"-information at all, which can have serious ramifications for crisis communication practitioners. Thirdly, the role of traditional media and other journalism/broadcasting platforms in shaping conversations is evident, as is the potential for scientific organisations' and individual people's Twitter user accounts. This plurality of contributors needs to be acknowledged and understood to inform crisis communication strategies.