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

____________________________________________________________________________

Masks and Filters Would Allow Businesses to Reopen and Create a Huge Market

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.