Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
News
Open Access

Time for more effective masks?

Diana Duong
CMAJ February 16, 2021 193 (7) E258; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1095920
Diana Duong
CMAJ
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

For months now, most Canadians have been following public health recommendations to wear nonmedical masks to protect themselves and others against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. But with the emergence of more transmissible variants of the virus, some experts are questioning whether current mask recommendations go far enough.

“Cloth masks, especially homemade ones, were supposed to be a stopgap measure” until countries could ramp up production of protective equipment, wrote Zeynep Tufecki and Jeremy Howard in The Atlantic. “Why are so many of us still wearing them?”

According to Zeynep and Tufecki, wearing nonmedical masks was “much better than nothing” when countries faced shortages of higher grade N95 respirators and equivalents. But they argued there are “better possibilities now,” noting that Taiwan and Hong Kong have increased production to distribute high-quality masks to their populations.

Public health experts and physicians have raised similar concerns on social media, rallying around the hashtag #bettermasks. “A fabric mask is a lot better than no mask, but we may need to step up our mask game if contagious COVID variants start to spread widely,” tweeted Dr. Tom Frieden, former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

According to Joseph Allen of Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, governments could also offer clearer guidance on separating good quality masks from the sea of unregulated and sometimes counterfeit options.

Most masks provide some level of protection but, depending on fabric and fit, their efficacy can vary widely from blocking less than 10% of virus particles to nearly 100%. One study showed N95 respirators and equivalents filtered 80%–90% of virus droplets and aerosols, while three-ply surgical masks blocked about 50% and cloth masks blocked 20%–40%.

Figure

Canada and the United States have lagged on securing supplies of high-quality masks for their populations while other countries are distributing and mandating them widely.

Image copyright iStock.com/Rattankun Thongbun. No standalone file use permitted.

In Europe, increasing concern about the spread of new coronavirus variants recently prompted several countries to mandate the widespread use of high-quality masks and respirators that block 90%–95% of particles.

Health officials in the United States and Canada have taken a more conservative stance, possibly because of ongoing supply issues. In the U.S., Dr. Anthony Fauci recently suggested that wearing a cloth mask over a surgical mask “might be better than a single mask,” although he later backtracked.

In Canada, Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam suggested in November that Canadians should start wearing face coverings made of three layers, with one layer being a filter.

According to a spokesperson for Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, federal officials are aware of the recommendations coming out of Europe and will “consider what additional measures may be needed to address emerging variant viral strains.”

In the meantime, the government will continue to “reinforce the importance of consistently wearing well-fitting masks.” With the right fit, at least one study suggests it’s possible for the type of nonmedical mask recommended by Health Canada to filter 90% of virus particles.

However, the federal spokesperson did not answer why Canada still doesn’t have enough supplies of N95 respirators or other medical-grade masks for the general public.

Footnotes

  • Posted on cmajnews.com on January 29, 2021

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original publication is properly cited, the use is noncommercial (i.e., research or educational use), and no modifications or adaptations are made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 193 (7)
CMAJ
Vol. 193, Issue 7
16 Feb 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Time for more effective masks?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Time for more effective masks?
Diana Duong
CMAJ Feb 2021, 193 (7) E258; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1095920

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Time for more effective masks?
Diana Duong
CMAJ Feb 2021, 193 (7) E258; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1095920
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Resignations at Canada’s drug pricing panel raise independence questions
  • Provinces accept federal health funding deal
  • Feds propose $196B health funding deal with few strings attached
Show more News

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Canadian government
    • Global health
    • Infectious diseases
    • Public health

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire