Protecting against Covid-19 with masks, social distancing and sanitiser

14 min readMay 12, 2020

Less invasive Covid-19 prevention policies

Are mask wearing and social distancing policies validated by science?

I’ve been following Covid-19 pretty much full time since the outbreak began. I’ve read all the articles and watched all the videos I find that are related to the subject. Over the past 3 months I’ve been collecting extensive notes on all aspects related to Covid-19. I’ve decided to write all these notes up by breaking them down into a series of articles focusing on specific topics. I originally included the information here as part of the lockdowns topic but decided it was worthy of its own independent article.

I’ll be posting many different topics related to Covid-19 over the coming weeks. The articles are a summary analysis of the information I’ve found; putting it all together and trying to make sense of everything that is really going on. Please check out the other articles I’ve written here: https://medium.com/@tikmann

This article focuses on some of the less invasive measures that governments have advised or enforced. This is my take on all the information that has been put out so far related to this topic.

Several general, non-lockdown specific measures that have been introduced during the Covid-19 outbreak have been:

Wearing a mask
Limiting human contact through social distancing
Encouraging good hand hygiene

The Science of aerosols & droplets: Is Covid-19 airborne?

Viruses such as Covid-19 can be ejected (viral shedding) from people infected with respiratory viruses via sneezing, coughing, spitting, talking and breathing. The greater the force they are ejected at, the further they can travel. Experiments have shown they can at least be coughed 4 metresʳ¹ and sneezed 8 metres.ʳ²

These particles are encased in globs of mucus, saliva, and water. Bigger globs fall faster than they evaporate, so they splash down onto nearby surfaces; these are traditionally called “droplets.” Smaller globs evaporate faster than they fall, leaving dried-out viruses that linger in the air and drift farther afield; these are called “aerosols.” When researchers say a virus is “airborne,” like measles or chickenpox, they mean that it moves as aerosols. When the World Health Organisation asserts that the new coronavirus is “NOT airborne”, it’s claiming that the virus instead spreads primarily through the close-splashing droplets, which either land directly on people’s faces or are carried to their faces by unwashed, contaminated hands.ʳ³

The scientific community doesn’t even agree about whether aerosol transmission matters for the flu, so to expect that after three months we should know definitively that this new virus is not airborne is not necessarily reasonable.ʳ³

Some scientists claim that tiny aerosols carrying Covid-19 can be airborne, floating in the air for up to 8 hoursʳ⁴, being further spread by ACʳ⁵; in such case, social distancing and masks would not prevent you being exposed. Not all scientists agree, claiming that only a few specific viruses can be transmitted via the air.

While respiratory droplets consist mostly of water, airborne particles are relatively dry, which damages many pathogens so that their ability to transmit infection is lessened or eliminated. Thus the number of pathogens that can be transmitted through an airborne route is limited. According to Wikipedia, coronavirus is among a limited number of viruses that could potentially be spread by airborne transmission.ʳ⁶

As you move further away from the source, the concentration or density of virus in the air decreases rapidly. It may still be possible to be exposed at greater distances, however, the viral load will be lower.

A preprint study of outbreaks in Japan suggests that the chances of direct transmission are almost 20 times higher indoors compared to outdoors and researchers in China also found that only one of 314 outbreaks they examined could be traced back to outdoor contact.ʳ⁴ This is an expected finding as contaminated aerosols and small droplets can be quickly dispersed by air currents and viruses are killed by UV, the rate at which depends on light intensity.

Wearing a mask

How the coronavirus travels through the air has become one of the most divisive debates in this Covid-19 outbreak. Many people are anti-mask for various reasons and many are pro. Even government guidelines have been extremely unclear and inconsistent. I have worn masks for years, mainly due to the air quality, so I was pretty happy when I was suddenly allowed to wear my mask in stores.

Important disclaimer: I wear a high quality, tight fitting, non-disposable, washable mask. This is not the same as a loose-fitting disposable surgical mask which allows you to inhale unfiltered air from around the sides, acting as little more than a splash guard. My comments about wearing a mask refer to using something ‘decent’. Sometimes I also wear a disposable surgical mask under my main mask which I find to be noticeably more effective at filtering road pollution. If you don’t have access to a proper mask you can wear a standard disposable surgical mask which you can cover and fasten tightly using some other larger cloth such as a t-shirt or head scarf; the better the mask is sealed, the more air is filtered through the cloth and mask.

When mask wearing became more widespread I started to become embarrassed / self-conscious that people thought I was scared of Covid-19, or worse, I was wearing it because I was infected. I ended up wearing my mask less often in public, contrary to my own analysis here. I didn’t want the stigma attached to believing the mainstream media which has been shown to be highly misleading and fear mongering. Some may see this as ridiculous but there is also a lot of anti-mask peer pressure due to the lack of reliable data published by doctors, scientists, authorities and media surrounding the Covid-19 outbreak. This has certainly been the most controversial event in my lifetime. If you disagree, as many do, I’d be interested to know why. There is a big difference between believing in the effectiveness of masks against spreading viruses and believing the mainstream media hype of Covid-19.

An initial hesitation with wearing masks was that there was a limited supply of masks which should be reserved for medical staff. This sounded concerning as you would have expected the health services to be prepared with such basic equipment. Everyone can also produce homemade cloth masks.

Some have argued that masks are dangerous because they restrict your oxygen intake. Yes, they do make it more difficult to breathe. There is, however, one very simple solution to eradicate any danger: there are a lot of warning signs (like getting out of breath), so if you’re ever finding it difficult to breathe, you can just instantly pull it off your face. Problem solved.

Others have also highlighted the detrimental social issues of not being able to connect with people properly if you can’t see their facial expressions. I think this is a very fair point and something I’ve experienced for years. I also find talking clearly through the mask to be more difficult.

Other concerns with wearing masks are focused on the hygiene aspect. It is claimed that:

The mask itself can quickly become a breeding ground for viruses and bacteria: This is certainly a logical claim but I can say from my own personal experience, I’ve had no negative effects from years of regular mask wearing.
The mask can recirculate your own Covid-19 expulsions, increasing your viral load: I’m not sure this is based on any scientific evidence; even if it is possible, if you’re sick you probably shouldn’t be out needing to wear a mask anyway. At least not for extended periods of time. I haven’t been able to find any evidence to back up this claim but it seems unreasonable to be able to increase your viral load from re-inhaling something that just came out of you.
Wearing a mask encourages you to touch your face more often to adjust the mask: This is possibly a valid claim, however, personal discipline and good hand hygiene should avoid problems with this. I would argue the opposite is true, it makes logical sense that it’s not possible to touch your mouth or nose while they’re covered by a mask.

A mask is better at protecting against larger droplets. If Covid-19 is shown to be airborne, a mask is not going to stop you breathing it in. The pore size of a standard surgical mask (10–30μm)ʳ⁷ is a factor of 100x bigger than the size of Covid-19 (0.1μm); thus will float right through your mask. It’s like trying to protect your house from mosquitoes by using chicken wire. Therefore, if you don’t come into close proximity to other people then a mask is probably not doing much to protect you.

Even basic homemade cloth masks worn by infected individuals have been shown to be highly effective at stopping larger droplets escaping from a sneeze, cough or spit which has been shown to travel up to 8m. Experiments have shown that a mask can reduce the viral load ejected by an infected individual up to 36 times.ʳ⁸

Any type of cloth mask can be highly effective as source control (preventing the virus escaping at the source). In general, mask wearing by the public is not common. In Asia, masks are typically only worn by those showing specific symptoms such as coughing; however, the Covid-19 outbreak has highlighted the potential for asymptomatic spread. It is speculated that for this reason, everyone wearing a mask could be by far the most important factor in reducing the spread of a virus such as Covid-19.ʳ⁸

A mask works both ways — if it’s effective at stopping these larger droplets getting out, then it’s common sense that it will also protect you from them getting in. Smaller droplets do, however, reduce in size through evaporation after they have been expelled making them more difficult to stop on the receiving end. A mask is more effective at close range where the droplets are larger. Smaller droplets and aerosols can travel further, reducing the effectiveness as the distance from the source increases. Aerosols may be able to go through the mask but as the distance from source increases, their concentration in the air also reduces.

Wearing a mask is non-invasive but I totally understand people who think being forced to wear a mask is a violation of their freedom or don’t want to be associated with mass mind control. For me, wearing a mask has always been my own choice. It can also be argued that policies forcing people to wear a mask are a matter of public safety, rather than a matter of personal safety.

If you’re willing to accept laws preventing people physically abusing others then by extension, masks being a matter of public health, you should be willing to accept laws preventing people from infecting others with potentially deadly viruses. A typical counterargument to this from individuals who don’t agree, is:

“if you believe a mask is effective, then as long as you are wearing one, it shouldn’t matter if others aren’t”

Some people may recognise similarities here to a common anti-vaxxer counterargument. However, this doesn’t consider the issue of protecting mask wearers (or anybody) that could later touch surfaces that have been contaminated by non mask wearers.

I would not support any temporary laws issued related to the Covid-19 outbreak based on the widespread misinformation presented by the mainstream media. However, in general, where there is potential for your actions to cause harm to others against their will, I would support laws to prevent it which may extend to wearing masks in all public places.

I think I have provided enough reasoning above that by wearing a mask:

Despite some claims that have been made, it’s unlikely to be harmful to you.
If you’re contagious, even asymptomatically, you could protect other people.
You could protect yourself.

Two-metre physical distancing

This is more commonly known as social distancing but why is it being called social distancing when it would actually be more precisely described as physical distancing? Social distancing would imply you also couldn’t speak to someone on the phone for example.

The main reason for social distancing is to prevent people coughing and sneezing on each other. It was bad enough that they didn’t think through the associated social or economic implications (discussed in detail in a future article) but a sneeze or cough doesn’t stop at 2m.

I don’t see any evidence from my analysis that a separation rule of specifically 2 metres minimum is based on the above science (i.e. there is no study showing that there is a sudden reduction in risk at a separation of 2m) but appears to be arbitrary and has been adopted as a compromise between safety and practicality.

If the science shows that Covid-19 is airborne for hours then you are still at risk of exposure at any distance whilst indoors. If it’s shown that Covid-19 is not airborne at all then the only concern related to social distancing is larger ejected droplets at closer range.

The closer you get to someone, the greater the chance of contamination from a higher viral load due to larger droplets and a higher concentration of tiny aerosols; therefore there is some validity to social distancing as even a mask is not that effective against aerosols smaller than 5μm.

The science has shown that social distancing could be beneficial if you’re not wearing a mask. Masks provide the most protection at close range so the risk when not practicing social distancing would be greatly reduced by wearing a mask. Masks cannot completely take the place of social distancing; however, it could certainly be considered excessive to combine the two. We must consider that between 2–8m distance, one still requires a mask to be safe from ejected droplets. It seems rational that wearing a mask at a 1m distance is safer than not wearing a mask at 2.5m (while seemingly following social distancing guidelines).

There are certain circumstances where maintaining a 2m social distance is not possible. Consider the example of travelling on a crowded train; you have the ultimate combination of risk factors, close human contact, indoors and a lot of potentially contaminated surfaces. This scenario is permitted under the UK government Covid-19 response policy. While it’s far from an ideal situation to be in, and where it is not realistic to expect adherence to social distancing guidelines, wearing a mask would significantly mitigate your risk. If there is little or no threat from Covid-19 then continuing to operate public transport is fine; however, during a serious respiratory pandemic, public transport could not continue without serious consequences.

Knowing that a human can project Covid-19 containing aerosols/droplets at least 8m then it’s clear that 2m is not a safe distance either. If no one is coughing or sneezing in close proximity to you, there may be other forms of viral shedding to consider but your risk should be reduced.

This article has not addressed the negative effects associated with social distancing. I feel these are far more pronounced under more serious conditions such as the social isolation involved in lockdowns. An extensive study on these negative effects will be the subject of a subsequent article.

Irrespective of the quality of your social distancing, a major issue we face is that surfaces become contaminated by these ejected droplets or infected individuals coming into contact with them. Therefore, another serious concern is surface to hand transmission.

Education in hand hygiene

Regardless of reducing human-to-human contact or maintaining ‘safe’ physical distance between humans; we still must consider the real risk of viral transmission via surfaces such as on supermarket products or anything else we touch when out in public. This seems to be a much more serious threat than airborne transmission — for close range human to human transmission, you need to be in close proximity to the contagious person ejecting droplets containing viral matter to be exposed; this is in contrast to touching a contaminated surface up to 72 hours after it was compromised.ʳ⁹ This is particularly important for people who think they are already taking sufficient precautions by wearing a mask (which protects against close range transmission).

The advice is to regularly use hand sanitiser and, where possible, wash your hands thoroughly with soap. Washing my hands with soap after touching potentially contaminated surfaces or at least before eating or touching my face, is something I’ve been taught and practicing since I was a child. I would have hoped that everyone washed their hands after coming home from the supermarket but it seems that the general public needs to be educated about this.

If the policy is to attempt to slow down the nationwide spread of Covid-19; if you’re at risk of serious symptoms or even if you just want to reduce the viral load that you are exposed to and build immunity, then practicing proper hand hygiene is good advice.

It is well documented that good hand hygiene is effective at protecting you from most viruses and bacteria; not just good advice for Covid-19 — it should be standard practice.

Conclusion

Masks appear to only be effective at close range, as a shield to either: prevent you spreading contaminated droplets or to protect you if you come into close proximity with an infected person.

In general, aerosols that can travel more than a few metres may be too small for a mask to stop.

I don’t believe any of the highlighted hygiene risks associated with wearing a mask outweigh the potential protection they can provide. If you are fearful of exposure to Covid-19, it seems far more sensible to wear a mask than not wear one.

Compared to outdoors, indoors you are far more likely to be in close proximity to other people (where 2m distancing often can’t be avoided) and also have a much higher risk of exposure to contaminated aerosols/droplets.

It has been shown that droplets can be coughed up to 6m and sneezed up to 8m. If you’re going to do social distancing properly (and not wear a mask) then the limit needs to be 8m or even 10m to be safe. They introduced just enough social distancing to mess up people’s lives, but not enough to do much good.

From everything presented in this article, we can see that staying 1m, 2m or 5m apart from everyone is not going to prevent you being exposed to Covid-19. If you’re scared of catching Covid-19, it would be far more effective to wear a mask and practice good hand hygiene by not touching your face and keeping your hands clean after touching anything in public than being concerned about social distancing.

The government could have used the money they’ve wasted on enforcing social distancing to instead, manufacture and distribute masks and hand sanitiser to everyone.

Overall I conclude that where a threat from a respiratory viral outbreak is identified then hand hygiene, widespread mask wearing and, if possible, some social distancing are scientifically reasonable actions to take. For the reported Covid-19 outbreak, these responses are relevant and therefore don’t raise any extra suspicions. This is similar to how Sweden has reacted.

In the UK especially, along with some other countries, the guidelines about social distancing and the enforcement by police are highly inconsistent. It seems there has been no consideration to the varying risks associated with different situations. There is certainly scientific evidence to support the policies but they must be implemented sensibly and consistently.
Arresting or fining people for interacting outdoors while allowing crowded trains to operate is a total abuse of authoritarian control. Governments preventing the public doing extremely low risk activities such as fishing in the middle of nowhere or sunbathing in a park has completely undermined the elements of their responses that are/were scientifically valid and points to the existence of abstract intentions that cannot be simply brushed off using the well-worn trope of mere ‘government incompetence’.

Copyright disclaimer: This article is original content authored by Derrik Tikmann. The first draft was written on 07/05/2020 and published on 12/05/2020. The content has been immutably timestamped in the bitcoin blockchain and can be proved as first existing by this point. Please don’t copy this article and post it elsewhere. I welcome you to link to it wherever you like. Please leave your comments below, I’m always happy to improve my articles. References are located at the end. You can contact me by email: derriktikmann [at] gmail [dot] com