A model showing the relative risk of viral aerosol infection from breathing and the benefit of wearing masks in different settings with implications for Covid-19

  1. Gerald D Barr

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Widespread use of masks in the general population is being used in many countries for control of Covid-19. There has been reluctance on the part of the WHO and some governments to recommend this.

Methodology

A basic model has been constructed to show the relative risk of aerosol from normal breathing in various situations together with the relative benefit from use of different masks.

Results

The benefit from mask use between individuals is multiplicative not additive and although social distancing at 2 meters appears beneficial with regards to aerosol infectivity, in confined areas this is time limited requiring additional measures such as masks. The model shows the relative benefit of masks when social distancing is not possible at all times, or when in confined areas which can also be aided by efficient ventilation. Where a person is in one place for a prolonged period there is more risk requiring protection.

Conclusions

Masks should be used in the above situations especially at an early stage of an outbreak. Public health planning requires stockpiling of masks and encouraging everyone to have suitable masks in their household when supplies are normalised. In the absence of widely available good quality masks the use of a cloth mask will be better than no protection at all.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.28.20082990: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.28.20082990v4 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.37871/ajeph.id32
  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.28.20082990v3 on medRxiv
  5. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.28.20082990v2 on medRxiv
  6. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.28.20082990v1 on medRxiv