# 1387
Running a close second to the `Tastes Great-Less Filling" debate is the controversy over the use of surgical masks in a pandemic.
I doubt that anyone believes that surgical masks offer the same level of protection as an N95 or an N100 respirator.
Well, perhaps some bean counters who would prefer to purchase the nickel-a-piece surgical masks for their employees . . . but other than that, most people I believe recognize the superior protection of a NIOSH approved respirator.
But do surgical masks do any good at all?
It depends on who you ask.
Last month in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) there was a study that intimated that surgical masks might be protective: Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review
Today, the Public Health Agency of Canada says there is no evidence that surgical masks can protect against flu virus particles.
Surgical masks don't protect against flu: study
Updated Wed. Dec. 19 2007 9:05 AM ET
The Canadian Press
A new report written for the Public Health Agency of Canada says there is no evidence surgical masks can protect against flu virus particles small enough to be inhaled into the lower respiratory tract or the lungs.
And the report says it's unclear how effective surgical masks are in blocking flu virus particles that are bigger and therefore likely to settle in the nose and throat of an exposed person.
The report is meant to serve as guidance to the public health agency on the question of how flu is transmitted and how best to protect against infection.
Federal, provincial and territorial health authorities need that kind of information to decide what kind of masks to stockpile to protect health-care workers during a flu pandemic -- cheap surgical masks or more expensive N95 respirators.
The panel says the scientific evidence remains unclear about how precisely flu is spread and what role exposure to bigger or smaller virus particles plays in transmission.
It concludes flu viruses are mainly transmitted over short distances and that more people become infected by inhaling viruses than by touching contaminated surfaces.
I doubt that this will be the final word on this subject.
The `no evidence' statement isn't quite the same as saying that there is proof that surgical masks offer no protection. They are simply saying there isn't any scientific evidence proving they work. There have been surprisingly few studies done, and most of the evidence is anecdotal.
For the record, I believe that HCW's (Health Care Workers) should be supplied with the best possible protection, and that means N95 or better respirators.
In the BMJ study, which I covered here, the authors stated:
Researcher Dr Tom Jefferson said: "Worried about the flu? Then we have some good news for you.
"Wash your hands, and if it is a really bad epidemic avoid contact with people and keep your distance. You may even consider wearing paper masks and disposable gloves. They work.
Obviously, if you have the choice, and you expect to be in close proximity to someone with an infectious airborne disease, go with the N95 mask. But if that option isn't open to you, should you even bother with a surgical mask?
I certainly would.
But then, I'm not a scientist. So consider the source.
No matter how ineffective it might be, I have to figure it has to be better than nothing. If nothing else, it will serve as a barrier to touching your nose or your mouth with contaminated hands.
Now, would I expect to be well protected by one?
Not on your life.
