I would have thought since droplets can fall on one's eyes, absence of visor/goggle would always put one at some risk, with surgical mask or respirator.
Before generalisation, I think there are a couple of key points in the report that bear careful consideration:
"The reason for the similar effects on preventing influenza for the use of N95 respirators versus surgical masks may be related to low compliance to N95 respirators wear, which may lead to more frequent doffing compared with surgical masks. Although N95 respirators may confer superior protection in laboratory studies designing to achieve 100% intervention adherence, the routine use of N95 respirators seems to be less acceptable due to more significant discomfort in real-world practice. Therefore, the benefit of N95 respirators of fitting tightly to faces is offset or subjugated. However, it should be noted that the surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment."
It has always been clear that respirators require proper fitting (I think medics are retrained annually for such), upon which near 100% seal is possible unless one is hairy, while a proper seal is impossible with surgical masks. I have tried both respirators and surgical masks - I find them equally uncomfortable, but YMMV.
What I find difficult to understand/accept, is how our government seems to discourage people wearing any. Other governments (e.g. China, Hongkong, Korea, Japan e.g.) clearly don't agree, so either they are wrong, or we are.
Whom do you trust?
Senior staff have the same but a mask with an attached visor.
