A row has erupted among scientists over a new report into the use of face masks by the general public as an approach to managing the spread of Covid-19 in the community.
The report from a multidisciplinary group convened by the Royal Society called Delve – Data Evaluation and Learning for Viral Epidemics – has weighed up the evidence and come out in favour of the public wearing face masks, including homemade cloth coverings, in a bid to tackle Covid-19.
“Our analysis suggests that their use could reduce onward transmission by asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic wearers if widely used in situations where physical distancing is not possible or predictable, contrasting to the standard use of masks for the protection of wearers,” the report notes. “If correctly used on this basis, face masks, including homemade cloth masks, can contribute to reducing viral transmission.”Q&A
Coronavirus: should everyone be wearing face masks?
The conclusion is based on analysis of three key considerations, including the role of droplets as a route of transmission, and whether masks can help to reduce dispersal of droplets. However the authors note there are only a small number of studies.
But the report prompted other scientists to express their reservations, warning that it amounted to no more than opinion and overstated the available evidence.
Dr Simon Clarke, associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, said the report “falls short of delivering new evidence and too casually dismisses precautionary principle when addressing the possibility that masks and coverings could have negative effects on people’s behaviours”.
He added: “Until more evidence is delivered in either direction, that’s all advice can be based on – opinions.”
Dr Ben Killingley, consultant in acute medicine and infectious diseases at University College London hospital, was also critical.
“The report is overly optimistic about the value of face coverings and it is incorrect to conclude that the evidence shows that face covering can reduce viral transmission in the community,” he said. “There is in fact no good evidence that face coverings achieve this.”
Killingley added that the report largely ignored real-world data, which suggests low effectiveness, albeit for protection of the wearer.
“This is not to say that face coverings might not be helpful,” he said, noting, face mask studies have not been carried out during a pandemic or in the context of a novel virus. “Nevertheless, the report, in my view, does not accurately represent the evidence on face coverings that currently exists,” he said.
Dr Antonio Lazzarino of the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at University College London, agreed.
“That is not a piece or research. That is a non-systematic review of anecdotical and non-clinical studies,” he said.
“The evidence we need before we implement public interventions involving billions of people, must come ideally from randomised controlled trials at population level or at least from observational follow-up studies with comparison groups,” said Lazzarino noting that will allow experts to look at the pros and cons of wearing masks.
“Based on what we now know about the dynamics of transmission and the pathophysiology of Covid-19, the negative effects of wearing masks outweigh the positive,” he said.
Share your story
Share your stories
If you have been affected or have any information, we’d like to hear from you. You can get in touch by filling in the form below, anonymously if you wish or contact us via WhatsApp by clicking here or adding the contact +44(0)7867825056. Only the Guardian can see your contributions and one of our journalists may contact you to discuss further.
But Prof Trisha Greenhalgh, of the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford, welcomed the report, saying it adds weight to the argument that face coverings by the general public could be part of a route out of lockdown.
“It draws together a wealth of evidence including the science of transmission and the efficacy of cloth-based materials both in laboratory studies and in randomised controlled trials, in relation to both source control and protection of the wearer,” she said.
“The authors flag the important finding that much if not most transmission of Sars-CoV-2 [coronavirus] happens from people who do not currently have symptoms. As would be expected from this distinguished group of scientists, the underlying evidence base is meticulously dissected and presented, including pointing out areas where more research is needed.”
Greenhalgh noted that while there have been concerns that use of masks by the public could reduce supply of medical-grade masks for healthcare workers, a homemade mask is sufficient for most people. “Medical-grade masks are not needed outside of healthcare settings. A cloth mask provides very good protection, and is more comfortable to wear,” she said.
News is under threat …
… just when we need it the most. Millions of readers around the world are flocking to the Guardian in search of honest, authoritative, fact-based reporting that can help them understand the biggest challenge we have faced in our lifetime. But at this crucial moment, news organisations are facing an unprecedented existential challenge. As businesses everywhere feel the pinch, the advertising revenue that has long helped sustain our journalism continues to plummet. We need face masks your help to fill the gap.
You’ve read 25 articles in the last six months. We believe every one of us deserves equal access to vital public service journalism. So, unlike many others, we made a different choice: to keep Guardian journalism open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This would not be possible without financial contributions from those who can afford to pay, who now support our work from 180 countries around the world.
We have upheld our editorial independence in the face of the disintegration of traditional media – with social platforms giving rise to misinformation, the seemingly unstoppable rise of big tech and independent voices being squashed by commercial ownership. The Guardian’s independence means we can set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Our journalism is free from commercial and political bias – never influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This makes us different. It means we can challenge the powerful without fear and give a voice to those less heard.
Reader financial support has meant we can keep investigating, disentangling and interrogating. It has protected our independence, which has never been so critical. We are so grateful.
We need your support so we can keep delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. And that is here for the long term. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable.
Originally Publish at: https://www.theguardian.com/