SO-CALLED “Covid-secure” perspex screens could be driving infections instead of stopping them, scientists have warned.
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) says the barriers could do more harm than good if they are placed in positions that block airflow or cause poor circulation.
In an undated document, the experts explained there is very little overall evidence of screens reducing infection transmission through droplets.
Evidence suggests coronavirus can spread from an infected person's mouth or nose in small liquid particles when they cough, sneeze, speak or breathe.
These particles range from larger respiratory droplets to smaller aerosols, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Sage experts said there may be benefits to using screens or barriers in certain situations – such as where people are sitting face-to-face and less than two metres of each other.
They added: "Screens are unlikely to provide any direct benefit in reducing exposure to the virus from droplets or aerosols when people are already located at 2m or greater or where they are not face to face.
"Unless they are designed to work with the airflow, screens are unlikely to reduce exposure to virus in smaller aerosols as they can easily pass around a screen with the airflow in a short period of time.
"There is some epidemiological and mechanistic evidence that suggests that screens could increase risks of aerosol transmission due to blocking/changing airflow patterns or creating zones of poor air circulation behind screens."
READ MORE: Covid infection rates drop in Scotland as rest of UK increases
The scientists explained that whether the screens are effective will depend on layout of the space, the ventilation, the size and design of the screen and the interactions that happen in the environment.
They added: "There are large numbers of screens that are unlikely to be effective due to their design or positioning."
The experts said further research is needed to look at the effectiveness of screens and barriers in real-world settings.
They also said it is unclear whether screens or barriers can act as reminders to people to maintain social distance or help organisations manage the layout in their environments.
"It is also possible that screens could provide false assurance, although studies have shown that there is very little evidence of risk compensation behaviour,” the scientists commented.
"Further research is needed to understand whether there are any behavioural influences of screens and barriers."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here