Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for prevention of COVID-19
Authors: C Raina MacIntyre, Quanyi Wang
Journal: The Lancet (2020)

The choice of various respiratory protection mechanisms, including face masks and respirators, has been a vexed issue, from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic to the west African Ebola epidemic of 2014,1MacIntyre CRC Chughtai AA Seale H Richards GA Davidson PM Respiratory protection for healthcare workers treating Ebola virus disease (EVD): are facemasks sufficient to meet occupational health and safety obligations?.Int J Nurs Stud. 2014; 51: 1421-1426Crossref PubMed Scopus (67) Google Scholar to the current COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 guidelines issued by WHO, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other agencies have been consistent about the need for physical distancing of 1–2 m but conflicting on the issue of respiratory protection with a face mask or a respirator.2Chughtai AA Seale H Islam MS Owais M Macintyre CR Policies on the use of respiratory protection for hospital health workers to protect from coronavirus disease (COVID-19).Int J Nurs Stud. 2020; 105103567Crossref PubMed Scopus (78) Google Scholar This discrepancy reflects uncertain evidence and no consensus about the transmission mode of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For eye protection, data are even less certain. Therefore, the systematic review and meta-analysis by Derek Chu and colleagues in The Lancet3Chu DK Akl EA Duda S et al.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.Lancet. 2020; (published online June 1.)https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9Summary Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2489) Google Scholar is an important milestone in our understanding of the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and physical distancing for COVID-19. No randomised controlled trials were available for the analysis, but Chu and colleagues systematically reviewed 172 observational studies and rigorously synthesised available evidence from 44 comparative studies on SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), COVID-19, and the betacoronaviruses that cause these diseases. The findings showed a reduction in risk of 82% with a physical distance of 1 m in both health-care and community settings (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09–0·38). Every additional 1 m of separation more than doubled the relative protection, with data available up to 3 m (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041). This evidence is important to support community physical distancing guidelines and shows risk reduction is feasible by physical distancing. Moreover, this finding can inform lifting of societal restrictions and safer ways of gathering in the community. The 1–2 m distance rule in most hospital guidelines is based on out-of-date findings from the 1940s, with studies from 2020 showing that large droplets can travel as far as 8 m.4Bahl P Doolan C de Silva C Chughtai AA Bourouiba L MacIntyre CR Airborne or droplet precautions for health workers treating COVID-19?.J Infect Dis. 2020; (published online April 16.)DOI:10.1093/infdis/jiaa189Crossref PubMed Scopus (247) Google Scholar To separate droplet and airborne transmission is probably somewhat artificial, with both routes most likely part of a continuum for respiratory transmissible infections.4Bahl P Doolan C de Silva C Chughtai AA Bourouiba L MacIntyre CR Airborne or droplet precautions for health workers treating COVID-19?.J Infect Dis. 2020; (published online April 16.)DOI:10.1093/infdis/jiaa189Crossref PubMed Scopus (247) Google Scholar Protection against presumed droplet infections by use of respirators, but not masks,5MacIntyre CR Chughtai AA Rahman B et al.The efficacy of medical masks and respirators against respiratory infection in healthcare workers.Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2017; 11: 511-517Crossref PubMed Scopus (78) Google Scholar supports a continuum rather than discrete states of droplet or airborne transmission. Both experimental and hospital studies have shown evidence of aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2.6Fears AC Klimstra WB Duprex P et al.Comparative dynamic aerosol efficiencies of three emergent coronaviruses and the unusual persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosol suspensions.medRxiv. 2020; (published online April 18.) (preprint).DOI: 10.1101/2020.04.13.20063784PubMed Google Scholar, 7Guo Z-D Wang Z-Y Zhang S-F et al.Aerosol and surface distribution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in hospital wards, Wuhan, China, 2020.Emerg Infect Dis. 2020; (published online April 10.)DOI:10.3201/eid2607.200885Crossref Scopus (723) Google Scholar, 8Santarpia JL Rivera DN Herrera V et al.Transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 in viral shedding observed at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.medRxiv. 2020; (published online March 26.) (preprint).DOI: 10.1101/2020.03.23.20039446Google Scholar One study found viable virus in the air 16 h after aerosolisation and showed greater airborne propensity for SARS-CoV-2 compared with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.6Fears AC Klimstra WB Duprex P et al.Comparative dynamic aerosol efficiencies of three emergent coronaviruses and the unusual persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosol suspensions.medRxiv. 2020; (published online April 18.) (preprint).DOI: 10.1101/2020.04.13.20063784PubMed Google Scholar Chu and colleagues reported that masks and respirators reduced the risk of infection by 85% (aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07–0·34), with greater effectiveness in health-care settings (RR 0·30, 95% CI 0·22–0·41) than in the community (0·56, 0·40–0·79; pinteraction=0·049). They attribute this difference to the predominant use of N95 respirators in health-care settings; in a sub-analysis, respirators were 96% effective (aOR 0·04, 95% CI 0·004–0·30) compared with other masks, which were 67% effective (aOR 0·33, 95% CI 0·17–0·61; pinteraction=0·090). The other important finding for health workers by Chu and colleagues was that eye protection resulted in a 78% reduction in infection (aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12–0·39); infection via the ocular route might occur by aerosol transmission or self-inoculation.9Lu CW Liu XF Jia ZF 2019-nCoV transmission through the ocular surface must not be ignored.Lancet. 2020; 395: e39Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (713) Google Scholar For health-care workers on COVID-19 wards, a respirator should be the minimum standard of care. This study by Chu and colleagues should prompt a review of all guidelines that recommend a medical mask for health workers caring for COVID-19 patients. Although medical masks do protect, the occupational health and safety of health workers should be the highest priority and the precautionary principle should be applied. Preventable infections in health workers can result not only in deaths but also in large numbers of health workers being quarantined and nosocomial outbreaks. In the National Health Service trusts in the UK, up to one in five health workers have been infected with COVID-19,10Hunter E Price DA Murphy E et al.First experience of COVID-19 screening of health-care workers in England.Lancet. 2020; 395: e77-e78Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar which is an unacceptable risk for front-line workers. To address global shortages of PPE, countries should take responsibility for scaling up production rather than expecting health workers to work in suboptimum PPE.11Greenhalgh T Schmid MB Czypionka T Bassler D Gruer L Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis.BMJ. 2020; 369m1435Crossref PubMed Scopus (442) Google Scholar Chu and colleagues also report that respirators and multilayer masks are more protective than are single layer masks. This finding is vital to inform the proliferation of home-made cloth mask designs, many of which are single-layered. A well designed cloth mask should have water-resistant fabric, multiple layers, and good facial fit.12MacIntyre R Chughtai A Tham CD Seale H Covid-19: Should cloth masks be used by healthcare workers as a last resort?.https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/04/09/covid-19-should-cloth-masks-be-used-by-healthcare-workers-as-a-last-resort/Date: April 9, 2020Date accessed: May 14, 2020Google Scholar This study supports universal face mask use, because masks were equally effective in both health-care and community settings when adjusted for type of mask use. Growing evidence for presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-213He X Lau EHY Wu P et al.Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19.Nat Med. 2020; 26: 672-675Crossref PubMed Scopus (2719) Google Scholar further supports universal face mask use and distancing. In regions with a high incidence of COVID-19, universal face mask use combined with physical distancing could reduce the rate of infection (flatten the curve), even with modestly effective masks.14Ngonghala CN Iboi E Eikenberry S et al.Mathematical assessment of the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on curtailing the 2019 novel Coronavirus.Math Biosci. 2020; 325108364Crossref PubMed Scopus (339) Google Scholar Universal face mask use might enable safe lifting of restrictions in communities seeking to resume normal activities and could protect people in crowded public settings and within households. Masks worn within households in Beijing, China, prevented secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 if worn before symptom onset of the index case.15Wang Y Tian H Zhang L et al.Reduction of secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in households by face mask use, disinfection and social distancing: a cohort study in Beijing, China.BMJ Glob Health. 2020; (published online May 28.)DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002794Crossref Scopus (287) Google Scholar Finally, Chu and colleagues reiterate that no one intervention is completely protective and that combinations of physical distancing, face mask use, and other interventions are needed to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic until we have an effective vaccine. Until randomised controlled trial data are available, this study provides the best specific evidence for COVID-19 prevention. This online publication has been corrected. The corrected version first appeared at thelancet.com on June 5, 2020 This online publication has been corrected. The corrected version first appeared at thelancet.com on June 5, 2020 CRM and QW declare no competing interests. CRM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Principal Research Fellowship (grant number 1137582). 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-analysisThe findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Full-Text PDF Open AccessDepartment of ErrorMacIntyre CR, Wang Q. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for prevention of COVID-19. Lancet 2020; published online June 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31183-1—In this Comment, the second sentence of the fourth paragraph should read ". . . in a subanalysis, respirators were 96% effective (aOR 0·04, 95% CI 0·004–0·30) compared with other masks, which were 67% effective (aOR 0·33, 95% CI 0·17–0·61; pinteraction=0·090)." This correction has been made to the online version as of June 5, 2020, and will be made to the printed Comment. Full-Text PDF