Admittedly there's a research gap concerning face shields since they are mainly intended for hospital settings, hence scenarios limited to hospital settings. The general consensus is that face shields are intended for ballistic droplets, not for aerosols.
Below are the studies:
Lindsley et al. (2014). Efficacy of Face Shields Against Cough Aerosol Droplets from a Cough Simulator
Face shields are evaluated to stop the initial impact of the cough which brought heavy droplets, however, airborne droplets still make way around.
Pan et al. (2021) Inward and outward effectiveness of cloth masks, a surgical mask, and a face shield, Aerosol Science and Technology, 55:6, 718-733, DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2021.1890687
Face shields are rated as the poorest protective layers.
Salimnia et al. (2021). A laboratory model demonstrating the protective effects of surgical masks, face shields, and a combination of both in a speaking simulation
An experimental study evaluating little to no contribution of face shield.
Bagtasa (2021). Efficacy of face shields to ambient aerosols in local indoor and outdoor setting. 2021: Proceedings of the 39th Samahang Pisika ng Pilipinas Physics Conference
Evaluating that face masks are the ones doing the work, not face shields.
Wendling et al. (2021) Experimental Efficacy of Face Shield and the Mask against Emitted and Potentially Received Particles, J. Environmental Research and Public Health
One of the flawed studies conducted by medical professionals. Fails on equipoise.
Most of these studies were derived from hospital settings, therefore they perceived sporadic (i.e. cough, sneezes, speaking) emissions as the high risk scenarios, and focused only for that scenario.
Here is what happens at different angles of approach:
As Dr. Jimenez has said, face shields are useless against Covid-19, now that the understanding that it is airborne. When face shields are coupled with face masks, face masks are the ones doing the work while face shields do nothing.
There are in-fact, other atmospheric consequences of face shields that lead to the increase in infectivity of SARS-CoV-2.
This is the extended abstract of the conference paper that I'll be presenting two weeks from now.
If one insist on doing RCTs on face shields in public settings, despite these studies and despite the fact that face shields are physical items, not medicine, maybe for truthfulness sake, include the Pontresina Case thelocal.ch/20200715/only-…
I advise people to subscribe to vital weather information from weather agencies and reputable scientists with their reputations at hand, since accountability forges trust.
I also would want to you to sit through and read through this thread that gives complementary information🧵
It is also important to anticipate and know where the winds will be coming from due to what's called wind exposure affecting the characteristics of typhoon winds, on how strong and/or consistent they will be depending on your location.
Winds at sea will experience little to no dissipative effects. Therefore the winds will be consistently strong.
The peak gust (bugso) will not be far on how strong the sustained winds will be.
Our study that developed CO2 monitors that informed occupants of the relative risk that they may be subjected to due to airborne diseases transmitted through shared room air transmission has been published. #CovidIsAirborne
Using a multivariate method, the ventilation rates of different indoor spaces are determined and used for the subsequent computations using the Wells–Riley model to derive the respective infection risk, particularly of COVID-19.
"Infection risks are determined to be higher in indoor spaces with low ventilation rates. However, having high ventilation rates does not mean low infection risks as smaller spaces will also have higher infection risks."
High humidity also attributes to high infection rates and deaths due to Covid-19.
Shown below are the trends derived from the correlation between Covid-19 deaths and relative humidity. 60% RH is the Goldilocks Zone: lesser or greater than that results in the increase of the risk
Why 60%?
It has to do with two things: (1) lessening evaporation rates due to inhomogeneous mixing and (2) rate of condensation which attributes to the increase of pore pressure within the mask.royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
Countries above the tropics experience case surges during their winter season when relative humidity is low. The hot and humid respiratory emissions will mix with the cold and dry indoor air resulting in higher evaporation rates,
When used in physical settings, the Cochrane method and RCTs are mere pretentious eminence-based assertions masquerading as empiricism (A thread).
It is important to note that the interventions mentioned are physical in nature, not clinical and medicinal. (1/n)
We have two studies that use the Cochrane method:
The first one is the study headed by Derek Chu (funded by WHO) in 2020, which has determined, using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale & Cochrane method, the effectiveness of face masks in stopping transmission. (2/n)
The second one, headed by John Conly, uses the Cochrane method whose results are being interpreted as "evidence" against face masks.
In fact, the study pointed out the inadequacy of the study design due to the high risk of bias when dealing with physical interventions. (3/n)