There are some basic things about Covid 19 that would be valuable to know and which could be settled with some fairly simple scientific experiments (compared to vaccine development). What’s wrong is that, instead of doing this necessary science, the feds, including CDC’s shameful performance (hobbled by Trump?) look mostly like a Martin Short Ed Grimly routine – running around in circles, throwing hands up, creating confusion, and accomplishing very little. For example, after 3 months why don’t we have definitive answers about:
- Masks – their hierarchy of effectiveness and who they protect (the user vs the exposed) and to what degree? It would also be useful to get some guidance on identifying the different types of masks.
- Gloves – who really needs them and why are they safer than hand washing/sanitizing (they get the same amount of virus contamination as ungloved hands and gloved hands can touch the face as easily as ungloved hands)?
- Washing – why is it effective (does soap dissolve the virus membrane or is it just the friction?) and how effective are variations (e.g., 10 seconds vs 20 seconds)?
- Drying – what’s the risk of using a regular towel vs a one-time throwaway?
- Heat – how much heat/temperature is needed to neutralize the virus?
- Surfaces – advice is all over the map from hours to days; why can’t we figure this out definitively?
- Airborne load – how much virus intake is possible from various distances/times/air currents as a function of output (contaminated breathing, sneezing, coughing, talking, yelling, etc.)?
- Hair dryers – if heat destroys the virus, why shouldn’t hairdressers use hairdryers? Should they actually be required to?
- Testing – why focus on symptomatic people? We can already guess their status; it’s the asymptomatic and the people we want to keep healthy that need testing.
The practical answer to some of these questions unfortunately for now is linked to shortages, no matter what the feds say. Masks, gloves, and testing remain in short supply, so we are told stupid things about them. If our leaders believed in science, CDC and other feds would have spent the last 3 months systematically answering these questions with scientifically well-designed experiments. For example, experiments can be performed to examine:
- Masks – Filtration efficiency (particle size, force, duration – in both directions) for various types of masks (N95, KN95, surgical, procedure, dust, bandanas).
- Gloves – Given that the virus load on gloves vs ungloved hands will be identical depending on exposure type, and that removing gloves without washing hands could actually contaminate hands (without post-glove washing so why not skip the gloves and just wash?), what conditions make gloves advantageous?
- Washing – virus load on hands before and after washing hands with various agents, for various times, and with various degrees of vigor.
- Drying – virus load on hands after drying with a pre-used towel, a throwaway towel, and a hand drying hot air unit.
- Heat – virus “survival” vs temperature and time.
- Surfaces – for various surfaces at several temperatures, virus survival vs time;
…among other things. It may be argued that such experiments are not feasible. Baloney. Filters and surfaces are tested all the time as are systematic environmental factors (e.g., temperature effects). Sample concentration techniques (virus loads are relatively dilute) are routine as are very sensitive assays. This author’s own experience with environmental testing saw several assays improved a thousand-fold within month timeframes. Science should perform these experiments and prepare a logical protocol for testing and tracing/isolation. Government should fund them and ensure sufficient materials supply and enforceable requirements for the recommended outcomes. Then we will be much safer with less anxiety until vaccines are available.