Commercially Manufactured Masks are a Luxury for the Financially Insecure

"No Masks, No Service." As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, the wearing of surgical masks in public has increasingly a global norm, spreading beyond the confines of East Asia where it has been used for decades to mark colds and other potentially contagious illnesses. As scientists around the world shift from recommending not just essential health workers, but everyone to wear masks, their ubiquity, and level of general acceptance have increased, despite some continued resistance.

The newfound global prevalence of masks is also backed by the ability of the world to manufacture so many masks that now allow many people to buy disposable masks en masse, throwing away one every day. As the number of masks circulating in the market increase, many producers have tried to differentiate themselves, often through the application of creative designs to signal style or innovative materials that increase the comfort or perceived safety of the users.

The abundance of masks, both being sold and worn, today is a far cry from the initial stages of the pandemic, where masks suddenly became an essential item for which prices surged. The ability for masses of masks to arrive in the market and push them down to "normal" pre-COVID prices (and even less) is a sign that the mechanism of global capitalism, supported by mass manufacturing and global logistics systems, are working to ensure production and distribution increase quickly as needed.

But not everywhere. Scenes from the global South suggest that, while the adoption of masks as a social norm to prevent the spread of the pandemic has become global, the ability to buy enough masks has not. Despite scientific studies showing that potential substitutes for commercially produced masks, including bandanas, headscarves, and even just pieces of available cloth, are much less effective in stopping virus-carrying droplets, people continue to use the substitutes because they cannot afford to buy masks.

The lack of masks' affordability is not due to the masks themselves being too expensive. With so many masks out on the market, the margins of mask producers are probably already razor-thin. A bigger cause is the precarity of incomes for people whose jobs have become less predictable and secure in the long-term as a result of the pandemic. When people perceive that they have a limited amount of money, they justifiably prioritize the purchase of food and daily essentials over masks.

So far, policymakers have not paid enough attention to the anxiety of income that has deterred many people from buying masks. They have instead focused on the "supply side," ensuring masks are made and delivered to the market in enough quantities, rather than address the concerns about people feeling masks to be an expense that they best avoid when future incomes are uncertain. The inability for governments to assuage fears about losing jobs and incomes means that, even when stimulus checks are handed, they are saved rather than spent on items like masks.

Under such circumstances, pushing through regulations that compel businesses to only provide services to masked customers can appear tone-deaf and further the still-apparent movement against the wearing of masks. Making people wear masks without given them the financial stability needed to do risk turning the issue from one of personal freedom, as initially envisaged by the anti-mask movement leaders, to one of economic freedom, in which masks become a burden for the poor.

Instead, the government should be doing more to educate people about the science behind masks and provide them free of charge. By making sure that people know that homemade mask substitutes only create a false sense of safety, and by redirecting a part of fiscal stimulus plans to purchase masks that can be directly posted to people's houses, governments can do much more to encourage their wearing, especially compared to forcing businesses to enforce mask use.