Eye protection suggested for preventing person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19
A study published in The Lancet found that eye protection may also be critical in transmission prevention for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19, and is spread person-to-person through close contact, states a publication release.
The investigation shows the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in healthcare and non-healthcare (e.g., community) settings. The study was funded by the World Health Organization (WHO) International.
The study authors are part of the COVID-19 Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE), stated that in view of inconsistent guidelines by various organizations based on limited information, our findings provide some clarification and have implications for multiple stakeholders. 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 m physical distancing seem to be strongly associated with a large protective effect, and distances of 2 m could be more effective.
These data could also facilitate harmonization of the definition of exposed (e.g., within 2 m), which has implications for contact tracing. The quantitative estimates provided here should inform disease-modelling studies, which are important for planning pandemic response efforts. 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 healthcare workers and administrators, the 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 m 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, although much of this evidence was on mask use within households and among contacts of cases. Eye protection is typically under-considered and can be effective in community settings. However, no intervention, even when properly used, was associated with complete protection from infection. Other basic measures (e.g., hand hygiene) are still needed in addition to physical distancing and use of face masks and eye protection.
To contain widespread infection and to reduce morbidity and mortality among healthcare workers and others in contact with potentially infected people, jurisdictions have issued conflicting advice about physical or social distancing.
· Use of face masks with or without eye protection to achieve additional protection is debated in the mainstream media and by public health authorities, in particular the use of face masks for the general population;
· moreover, optimum use of face masks in healthcare settings, which have been used for decades for infection prevention, is facing challenges amid personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages.
· Any recommendations about social or physical distancing, and the use of face masks, should be based on the best available evidence. Evidence has been reviewed for other respiratory viral infections, mainly seasonal influenza,
No comprehensive review is available of information on SARS-CoV-2 or related betacoronaviruses that have caused epidemics, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Therefore, the researchers systematically reviewed the effect of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on transmission of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV.
Transmission of viruses was found to be lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m protection was increased as distance was lengthened. Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (e.g., reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks). Eye protection also was associated with less infection.
In view of inconsistent guidelines by various organizations based on limited information, our findings provide some clarification and have implications for multiple stakeholders. The risk for infection is highly dependent on distance to the individual infected and the type of face mask and eye protection worn.
To contain widespread infection and to reduce morbidity and mortality among healthcare workers and others in contact with potentially infected people, jurisdictions have issued conflicting advice about physical or social distancing. Use of face masks with or without eye protection to achieve additional protection is debated in the mainstream media and by public health authorities, in particular the use of face masks for the general population; moreover, optimum use of face masks in healthcare settings, which have been used for decades for infection prevention, is facing challenges amid personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages.
