![]() Coronavirus Technology Solutions
March 30, 2020
Masks and Filters Would Allow
Businesses to Reopen and Create
a Huge Market
Proactive Suppliers will find
the Most Profitable Market
Life Quality Costs Need to be
Considered by a Proactive
Supplier
Justifying Social Distancing
Reduction Now by Discounting the
Future Harm Value of Virus
Prevention Products
____________________________________________________________________________
The economic consequences of the
business shutdowns are
staggering. There is going to be
great pressure to reopen
businesses while reducing
coronavirus risk.
China was producing 10 million
masks per day on January 1.
On March 1 the number was 200
million (N95 mask production
increased from 200,000 to 1.6
million). With this rate
of increase could they reach 800
million in June. The U.S.
is talking a million masks here
and a million masks there but
what if a World War II type
expansion took place?
Businesses would be relatively
safe if workers wore masks and
traveled to work on public
transportation which was
frequently sanitized and
equipped with HEPA filtered air
systems. If when they
arrived at work there were
upgraded central air systems and
room purifiers in strategic
locations wouldn’t the risk of
infection be greatly reduced?
One big concern has been the
temporary nature of the
emergency. But there is likely
to be a new attitude toward
pandemics in the future. The
Three Mile Island nuclear
incident resulted in significant
safety related expenditures in
every nuclear plant built
subsequently. Virus
protection could be viewed in a
similar manner.
Proactive Suppliers will find
the Most Profitable Market
Deaths and sickness combined
with social distancing and
economic disruption caused by
the coronavirus create costs to
society which can be weighed
against the benefits.
A cost-benefit analysis has been
prepared and can be viewed at http://home.mcilvainecompany.com/images/Coronavirus_Mitigation_Cost.pdf
Here is one example where a room
purifier cost per year versus
the number of lives that would
need to be saved to justify the
investment are calculated.
The following slides in the
series show that widespread use
is justified to prevent a
pandemic the scale of the
Spanish flu but not the swine
flu. On the other hand for
an apartment dweller in a
building where another tenant is
self-isolated the use of the
room purifier is justified many
times over even if the risk
level is that of the swine flu.
Industry has the potential to
innovate and make a big
contribution to coronavirus
mitigation. Countless hours have
been spent to perfect monitoring
and particulate removal
techniques to keep our air
clean. Equal amounts have
been spent to protect our
pharmaceutical products through
sophisticated cleanroom
technology. We are now
facing an even bigger threat and
our primary solution is social
distancing and shutting down the
economy. There is a better
solution.
There is a shocking lack of hard
information about the
fundamental science. The
filtration and monitoring
industry needs to take a
proactive rather than reactive
approach. Some of the advice we
have been receiving is
questionable at least.
Some Asian countries have used
technology to be proactive. They
have tested extensively and
tracked movements and contacts
of those infected. As early as
January 1 the Taiwan Railway
Administration said that if the
virus continues to spread it
would refuse to carry passengers
not wearing masks.
Many Asian countries have very
efficient air filtration systems
in buildings and
residences. Monitoring has
progressed to where electronic
screens provide the current PM
2.5 concentrations. Is it
possible that one reason there
are more deaths in Italy than
China is the better indoor air
filtration?
The irony is that the countries
with the worst outdoor pollution
may be better off. The
more efficient indoor air
filtration systems are reducing
transmission through HVAC
systems.
The facts versus conventional
wisdom make it clear that
filtration and monitoring
technology can make a big
difference. Here are a few
of the potential innovations.
·
Use PM2.5 as a surrogate for the
virus and expand the monitoring
to individual indoor spaces.
PM2.5 is already used as a
surrogate for heavy metals by
U.S EPA. The assumption is that
if the filter captures all the
particles it will capture the
lead and cadmium.
·
Require all those in quarantine
to rent room air purifiers and
reduce PM 2.5 to the equivalent
of 10 air changes per hour or
some other suitable number.
·
Use small air purifiers
throughout sensitive areas. (the
Chinese have $50 fans with a
HEPA filter for small areas)
·
Require air purifiers in public
transportation including ride
sharing and taxis. (A
fundamental cleanroom technology
principle is to capture
particles while airborne so that
they do not deposit on
surfaces.)
·
Utilize various destruction
methods including ozone and UV
light. (A Florida hospital has
reduced HAI by 34% since
implementing the use of a
footwear sanitizing station)
·
Improve mask technology to
increase comfort, lower pressure
drop and increase capture
efficiency.
·
Develop improved microbial
sampling techniques.
·
Utilize advanced cleanroom
technology in critical hospital
areas
o
HEPA filtered entry zones such
as gowning areas for hospital
personnel
o
Require operating theaters to
use 100% HEPA filtered air and
100 fpm ceiling to perforated
floor flow
o
Radically revise gowning
protocols including quality of
gowns, face masks, gloves etc.
o
Use cleanroom protocols for gown
donning and disposal
o
Reduce investments in hospital
decoration and eliminate pockets
of virus growth
o
Turn isolation rooms into Class
100 cleanrooms.
o
Provide hospital wide
contamination monitoring systems
·
Utilize portable cleanrooms for
emergency overflows of patients
requiring isolation (Australian
hospitals have them)
Life Quality Costs Need to be
Considered by a Proactive
Supplier
Epidemiologists believe that
COVID-19 will re-occur
periodically over the next
several years until a vaccine is
in widespread use. Various
degrees of social distancing may
therefore be warranted.
Alternatively initiatives
such as the wearing of masks in
public places and upgrading HVAC
systems will offset some of the
social distancing. It is
therefore necessary to determine
the negative impact on life
quality of protocols such as
social distancing. There
is a negative life quality
impact of wearing a mask in
public. This can also be
quantified.
McIlvaine has developed a metric
to measure all life quality
impacts. It is discussed
in the Coronavirus Cost Benefit
Analysis. In the example
below the social cost of
distancing a whole population
for one year would be justified
to prevent a pandemic the size
of the Spanish flu but not the
Swine flu.
Visitors to a hospital as well
as patients and staff enjoy the
art on the walls and other
niches for germ growth.
Visitors do not like a
requirement to wear masks.
One consideration is that all
visitors to hospitals wear
masks. This can be justified
economically if one life is
saved every 100 years.
There is a social cost.
Each visitor may equate wearing
a mask on a visit as equivalent
to one minute of life quality
lost. In the aggregate
this equates to 0.2 life years.
The life of one patient who
could have lived 50 additional
years can be compared 50/0.2 and
the conclusion reached that the
life quality cost can be
justified if one patient is
saved every 250 years.
Assuming the life quality cost
for family and others is equal
to that of the patient, the
wearing of masks can be
justified on saving one life
every 500 years.
Justifying Social Distancing
Reduction Now by Discounting the
Future Harm Value of Virus
Prevention Products
Sanitizers, ozone treatment, and
certain other technology can
reduce the incidence of
coronavirus in the short term
but can have long term effects
on health life quality. In
weighing the costs and benefits
it is necessary to evaluate the
discount of any harm based on
when it will occur. For example
FAR UV could be saving lives now
but might cause cancer 30 or 40
years from now. The present harm
has to include a discount based
on the number of years in the
future the harm will occur.
This is considered in the cost
benefit analysis.
![]() |