Documents distance protection 23 results

"Rigid safe distancing rules are an oversimplification based on outdated science and experiences of past viruses, argue Nicholas R Jones and colleagues.
Physical distancing is an important part of measures to control covid-19, but exactly how far away and for how long contact is safe in different contexts is unclear. Rules that stipulate a single specific physical distance (1 or 2 metres) between individuals to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing covid-19, are based on an outdated, dichotomous notion of respiratory droplet size. ..."

"La prévention des collisions entre des engins mobiles et des piétons est une problématique qui concerne un grand nombre de secteurs d'activité : BTP, manutention, collecte des déchets, transport/logistique. Dans chacun de ces secteurs, le problème potentiel de la collision se pose dès lors qu'il existe une proximité entre les hommes et les machines mobiles.Cet article présente une analyse des récits d'accidents de la base EPICEA sur les collisions engins piétons et, ce, plus particulièrement dans les secteurs du BTP (niveleuses, chargeuses, compacteurs...), du transport (manoeuvres des camions), des engins de manutention (chariots à conducteur porté) et de la collecte des ordures ménagères (bennes à ordures ménagères).Les auteurs discutent ensuite de l'intérêt potentiel d'un dispositif de détection de personnes pour prévenir ces collisions et présentent le projet de recherche engagé par l'INRS sur l'apport de ces nouvelles techniques."

"What are the characteristics of workers in jobs likely to be initially affected by broad social distancing and later by narrower policy tailored to jobs with low risk of disease transmission? We use O NET to construct a measure of the likelihood that jobs can be conducted from home (a variant of Dingel and Neiman, 2020) and a measure of low physical proximity to others at work. We validate the measures by showing how they relate to similar measures constructed using time use data from ATUS. Our main finding is that workers in low-work-from-home or high-physical- proximity jobs are more economically vulnerable across various measures constructed from the CPS and PSID: they are less educated, of lower income, have fewer liquid assets relative to income, and are more likely renters. We further substantiate the measures with behavior during the epidemic. First, we show that MSAs with less pre-virus employment in work-from-home jobs experienced smaller declines in the incidence of `staying-at-home', as measured using SafeGraph cell phone data. Second, we show that both occupations and types of workers predicted to be employed in low work-from-home jobs experienced greater declines in employment according to the March 2020 CPS. For example, non-college educated workers experienced a 4ppt larger decline in employment relative to those with a college degree."

"Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings.
Methods
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047.
Findings
Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. ..."

"The choice of various respiratory protection mechanisms, including face masks and respirators, has been a vexed issue, from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic to the west African Ebola epidemic of 2014,1 to the current COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 guidelines issued by WHO, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other agencies have been consistent about the need for physical distancing of 1–2 m but conflicting on the issue of respiratory protection with a face mask or a respirator.2 This discrepancy reflects uncertain evidence and no consensus about the transmission mode of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For eye protection, data are even less certain. Therefore, the systematic review and meta-analysis by Derek Chu and colleagues in The Lancet3 is an important milestone in our understanding of the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and physical distancing for COVID-19. No randomised controlled trials were available for the analysis, but Chu and colleagues systematically reviewed 172 observational studies and rigorously synthesised available evidence from 44 comparative studies on SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), COVID-19, and the betacoronaviruses that cause these diseases."

"In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have sought to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by restricting population movement through social distancing interventions, reducing the number of contacts. Mobility data represent an important proxy measure of social distancing. Here, we develop a framework to infer the relationship between mobility and the key measure of population-level disease transmission, the reproduction number (R). The framework is applied to 53 countries with sustained SARS-CoV-2 transmission based on two distinct country-specific automated measures of human mobility, Apple and Google mobility data. For both datasets, the relationship between mobility and transmission was consistent within and across countries and explained more than 85% of the variance in the observed variation in transmissibility. We quantified country-specific mobility thresholds defined as the reduction in mobility necessary to expect a decline in new infections (R<1). While social contacts were sufficiently reduced in France, Spain and the United Kingdom to control COVID-19 as of the 10th of May, we find that enhanced control measures are still warranted for the majority of countries. We found encouraging early evidence of some decoupling of transmission and mobility in 10 countries, a key indicator of successful easing of social-distancing restrictions. Easing social-distancing restrictions should be considered very carefully, as small increases in contact rates are likely to risk resurgence even where COVID-19 is apparently under control. Overall, strong population-wide social-distancing measures are effective to control COVID-19; however gradual easing of restrictions must be accompanied by alternative interventions, such as efficient contacttracing, to ensure control."