11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      DURING THE CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) PANDEMIC, DOES WEARING A MASK IMPROVE OR WORSEN PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE? Translated title: ¿DURANTE LA PANDEMIA DE CORONAVIRUS (COVID 19) EL USO DE LA MÁSCARA MEJORA O EMPEORA EL DESEMPEÑO FÍSICO? Translated title: DURANTE A PANDEMIA DE CORONAVÍRUS (COVID 19), O USO DE MÁSCARA MELHORA OU PIORA O DESEMPENHO FÍSICO?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          ABSTRACT A mask is a simple device yet it provides high levels of protection. As the virus affects mainly the respiratory tract – the nose, mouth, and lungs - it is highly contagious when people sneeze or cough, or exchange respiratory droplets with other people. This exchange is also promoted when a person is performing physical exercise. Although a mask provides some protection, it does not eliminate the need for social distancing. Around 25% of people infected with the new coronavirus may show no symptoms, yet still transmit the virus. One of the main problems with wearing a mask is that it hinders breathing, with the mask gradually becoming damp, increasing its resistance to air intake. Wearing a mask while performing physical activity requires a period of adaptation, as the flow of air to the lungs is reduced, requiring a reduction in the normal rhythm until the wearer has managed to adapt to it. Vigorous and intense exercise can cause inflammatory activity to increase, and should be minimized in order to protect the immune system. Secretory immunoglobulin A (IgA) is an antibody protein used by the immune system to neutralize pathogens, including viruses, and decreases with intense exercise. Exercise is considered intense when it is necessary to breathe through the mouth to eliminate the higher concentrations of CO2, but mouth breathing is associated with infections of the upper respiratory tract. Preference should be given to light to moderate exercise, around three times a week. Wearing a mask, and training in nasal breathing are the best and safest ways to reduce the entry of particles, and should be encouraged during this COVID-19 pandemic. Level of evidence V; Opinion of the specialist.

          Translated abstract

          RESUMEN La máscara es un dispositivo simple, pero ofrece altos niveles de protección. Debido a que el virus afecta principalmente el tracto respiratorio (nariz, boca y pulmones) es muy contagioso cuando las personas estornudan, tosen o intercambian gotitas respiratorias con otros. Aunque la máscara proporciona cierta protección, no elimina la necesidad del distanciamiento social. Alrededor del 25% de las personas infectadas con el nuevo coronavirus pueden no tener síntomas, pero aun así transmiten el virus. Uno de los principales problemas de la máscara es que dificulta la respiración, ya que gradualmente se humedece y aumenta la resistencia a la entrada del aire. Es necesario un período de adaptación para la actividad física con una máscara, ya que reduce el flujo de aire a los pulmones, lo que requiere una disminución del ritmo normal hasta que se produzca la adaptación. El ejercicio vigoroso e intenso puede aumentar la actividad inflamatoria y debe minimizarse para proteger el sistema inmunitario. La inmunoglobulina secretora A (IgA) es una proteína anticuerpo utilizada por el sistema inmunitario para neutralizar los patógenos, incluidos los virus, y disminuye con el ejercicio intenso. El ejercicio se considera intenso cuando es necesario respirar por la boca debido la mayor concentración de CO2, pero la respiración bucal se asocia con infecciones del tracto respiratorio superior. La preferencia debe ser para la realización de ejercicios leves a moderados aproximadamente tres veces por semana. Usar la máscara y entrenar la respiración nasal es mejor y más seguro para reducir la entrada de partículas y deben estimularse durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Nivel de evidencia V; Opinión de expertos.

          Translated abstract

          RESUMO A máscara é um dispositivo simples, mas oferece altos níveis de proteção. Como o vírus afeta principalmente o trato respiratório – nariz, boca e pulmões – é altamente contagioso quando as pessoas espirram, tossem ou trocam gotículas respiratórias com outras pessoas. Essa troca também é promovida quando a pessoa está realizando exercícios físicos. Embora a máscara forneça alguma proteção, ela não elimina a necessidade de distanciamento social. Cerca de 25% das pessoas infectadas com o novo coronavírus podem não apresentar sintomas, mas mesmo assim, transmitem o vírus. Um dos principais problemas do uso de máscara é que ela dificulta a respiração, pois gradualmente fica úmida e aumenta a resistência à entrada de ar. É necessário um período de adaptação para a atividade física com máscara, pois o fluxo de ar para os pulmões é reduzido, exigindo a diminuição do ritmo normal até que a adaptação ocorra. Exercícios vigorosos e intensos podem aumentam a atividade inflamatória e devem ser minimizados para proteger o sistema imunológico. A imunoglobulina secretora A (IgA) é uma proteína anticorpo usada pelo sistema imunológico para neutralizar patógenos, incluindo vírus, e diminui com exercícios intensos. O exercício é considerado intenso quando é necessário respirar pela boca para eliminar a maior concentração de CO2, mas a respiração bucal está associada a infecções do trato respiratório superior. A preferência deve ser pelos exercícios leves a moderados, realizados cerca de três vezes por semana. Usar a máscara e treinar a respiração nasal são os modos melhores e mais seguros de reduzir a entrada de partículas e precisam ser incentivados durante a pandemia de COVID-19. Nível de evidência V; Opinião do especialista.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1

          To the Editor: A novel human coronavirus that is now named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (formerly called HCoV-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and is now causing a pandemic. 1 We analyzed the aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 and compared it with SARS-CoV-1, the most closely related human coronavirus. 2 We evaluated the stability of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on various surfaces and estimated their decay rates using a Bayesian regression model (see the Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). SARS-CoV-2 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1) and SARS-CoV-1 Tor2 (AY274119.3) were the strains used. Aerosols (<5 μm) containing SARS-CoV-2 (105.25 50% tissue-culture infectious dose [TCID50] per milliliter) or SARS-CoV-1 (106.75-7.00 TCID50 per milliliter) were generated with the use of a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum to create an aerosolized environment. The inoculum resulted in cycle-threshold values between 20 and 22, similar to those observed in samples obtained from the upper and lower respiratory tract in humans. Our data consisted of 10 experimental conditions involving two viruses (SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1) in five environmental conditions (aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper, and cardboard). All experimental measurements are reported as means across three replicates. SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from 103.5 to 102.7 TCID50 per liter of air. This reduction was similar to that observed with SARS-CoV-1, from 104.3 to 103.5 TCID50 per milliliter (Figure 1A). SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces (Figure 1A), although the virus titer was greatly reduced (from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter of medium after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). The stability kinetics of SARS-CoV-1 were similar (from 103.4 to 100.7 TCID50 per milliliter after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.6 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). On copper, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 4 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours. On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 24 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours (Figure 1A). Both viruses had an exponential decay in virus titer across all experimental conditions, as indicated by a linear decrease in the log10TCID50 per liter of air or milliliter of medium over time (Figure 1B). The half-lives of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 were similar in aerosols, with median estimates of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 hours and 95% credible intervals of 0.64 to 2.64 for SARS-CoV-2 and 0.78 to 2.43 for SARS-CoV-1 (Figure 1C, and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). The half-lives of the two viruses were also similar on copper. On cardboard, the half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was longer than that of SARS-CoV-1. The longest viability of both viruses was on stainless steel and plastic; the estimated median half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was approximately 5.6 hours on stainless steel and 6.8 hours on plastic (Figure 1C). Estimated differences in the half-lives of the two viruses were small except for those on cardboard (Figure 1C). Individual replicate data were noticeably “noisier” (i.e., there was more variation in the experiment, resulting in a larger standard error) for cardboard than for other surfaces (Fig. S1 through S5), so we advise caution in interpreting this result. We found that the stability of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 under the experimental circumstances tested. This indicates that differences in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from other factors, including high viral loads in the upper respiratory tract and the potential for persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. 3,4 Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days (depending on the inoculum shed). These findings echo those with SARS-CoV-1, in which these forms of transmission were associated with nosocomial spread and super-spreading events, 5 and they provide information for pandemic mitigation efforts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

            Summary 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; p interaction=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; p interaction=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. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Funding World Health Organization.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Air, Surface Environmental, and Personal Protective Equipment Contamination by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) From a Symptomatic Patient

              This study documents results of SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of environmental surfaces and personal protective equipment surrounding 3 COVID-19 patients in isolation rooms in a Singapore hospital.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                rbme
                Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte
                Rev Bras Med Esporte
                Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina do Exercício e do Esporte (São Paulo, SP, Brazil )
                1517-8692
                1806-9940
                August 2020
                : 26
                : 4
                : 281-284
                Affiliations
                [1] orgnameUniversidade de São Paulo orgdiv1Faculdade de Medicina orgdiv2Orthopedics and Traumatology Department Brazil
                Article
                S1517-86922020000400281 S1517-8692(20)02600400281
                10.1590/1517-869220202604esp001
                68ba77db-0337-4bb8-ace5-2a73672cd7fd

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 25, Pages: 4
                Product

                SciELO Brazil

                Self URI: Full text available only in PDF format (EN)
                Categories
                Special Article

                SARS-CoV 2,Actividad deportiva,Exercício físico,Atividade esportiva,Ejercicio físico,Exercise,Sports activity

                Comments

                Comment on this article