Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. This review investigated the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care settings.
The review covered “172 observational studies in health-care and non-health-care settings across 16 countries and six continents; 44 comparative studies were included in a meta-analysis, including 25 697 patients with COVID-19, SARS, or MERS.” The findings … “provide the best available evidence to inform optimum use of three common and simple interventions to help reduce the rate of infection and inform non-pharmaceutical interventions, including pandemic mitigation in non-health-care settings.”
“Physical distancing of 1 meter [about 3.3 feet] or more was associated with a much lower risk of infection, as was use of face masks (including N95 respirators or similar and surgical or similar masks [eg, 12–16-layer cotton or gauze masks]) and eye protection (eg, goggles or face shields). Added benefits are likely with even larger physical distances (eg, 2 meters [6.6 feet] or more) and might be present with N95 or similar respirators versus medical masks or similar.”
“Most stakeholders found these personal protection strategies acceptable, feasible, and reassuring but noted harms and contextual challenges, including frequent discomfort and facial skin breakdown, high resource use linked with the potential to decrease equity, increased difficulty communicating clearly, and perceived reduced empathy of care providers by those they were caring for.”
“The risk for infection is highly dependent on distance to the individual infected and the type of face mask and eye protection worn. From a policy and public health perspective, current policies of at least 1 meter physical distancing seem to be strongly associated with a large protective effect, and distances of 2 meters could be more effective. Policy makers around the world should strive to promptly and adequately address equity implications for groups with currently limited access to face masks and eye protection. For health-care workers and administrators, our findings suggest that N95 respirators might be more strongly associated with protection from viral transmission than surgical masks. Both N95 and surgical masks have a stronger association with protection compared with single-layer masks. Eye protection might also add substantial protection.”
“For the general public, evidence shows that physical distancing of more than 1 meter is highly effective and that face masks are associated with protection, even in non-health-care settings, with either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton ones. Eye protection is typically underconsidered and can be effective in community settings. However, no intervention, even when properly used, was associated with complete protection from infection. Other basic measures (eg, hand hygiene) are still needed in addition to physical distancing and use of face masks and eye protection.”
Go to the source —
Chu, DK, Akl, EA , Duda, S, Solo, K, Yaacoub, S, Schünemann, HJ, et al. (2020). Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, published June 1, 2020. [PDF]
See also —
Questions? Please let me know (engelk@grinnell.edu).
