We appreciate the interest in our paper. However, the commenters are confused about the meaning of some of the numbers we presented, perhaps because we were unclear in our original exposition. The numbers referenced (125.6/1000 per week vs 38.9/1000 per week) are sums of the individual districts’ values for this variable and are not a calculation of aggregate primary infection rates by masking category. This summation is determined by both the individual infection rates in the districts and by the number of districts. Because there are more districts in the masking category, the sum of individual values is higher in the universal masking districts. To help the reader, we provide a different view of the data in this response. In this letter’s Table 1, we provide data across each category of masking. For each category of masking, we provide the number of attendees, the number of primary infections, and...

You do not currently have access to this content.