Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Airborne Transmission: Science Rejected, Lives Lost. Can Society Do Better?

This is an account that should be heard of an important struggle: the struggle of a large group of experts who came together at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to warn the world about the risk of airborne transmission and the consequences of ignoring it. We alerted the World Health Organization about the potential significance of the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the urgent need to control it, but our concerns were dismissed. Here we describe how this happened and the consequences. We hope that by reporting this story we can raise awareness of the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need to be open to new evidence, and to prevent it from happening again. Acknowledgement of an issue, and the emergence of new evidence related to it, is the first necessary step towards finding effective mitigation solutions.

Evaluation of aerosol transmission risk during home quarantine under different operating scenarios: A pilot study.

SARS-CoV-2 has been recognized to be airborne transmissible. With the large number of reported positive cases in the community, home quarantine is recommended for the infectors who are not severely ill. However, the risks of household aerosol transmission associated with the quarantine room operating methods are under-explored. We used tracer gas technique to simulate the exhaled virus laden aerosols from a patient under home quarantine situation inside a residential testbed. The Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) concentration was measured both inside and outside the quarantine room under different operating settings including, air-conditioning and natural ventilation, presence of an exhaust fan, and the air movement generated by ceiling or pedestal fan. We calculated the outside-to-inside SF6 concentration to indicate potential exposure of occupants in the same household. In-room concentration with air-conditioning was 4 times higher than in natural ventilation settings. Exhaust fan operation substantially reduced in-room SF6 concentration and leakage rate in most of the ventilation scenarios, except for natural ventilation setting with ceiling fan. The exception is attributable to the different airflow patterns between ceiling fan (recirculates air vertically) and pedestal fan (moves air horizontally). These airflow variations also led to differences in SF6 concentration at two sampling heights (0.1 m and 1.7 m) and SF6 leakage rates when the quarantine room door was opened momentarily. Use of natural ventilation rather than air-conditioning, and operating exhaust fan when using air-conditioning are recommended to lower exposure risk for home quarantine. A more holistic experiment will be conducted to address the limitations reflected in this study.

What were the historical reasons for the resistance to recognizing airborne transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic?

The question of whether SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted by droplets or aerosols has been highly controversial. We sought to explain this controversy through a historical analysis of transmission research in other diseases. For most of human history, the dominant paradigm was that many diseases were carried by the air, often over long distances and in a phantasmagorical way. This miasmatic paradigm was challenged in the mid to late 19th century with the rise of germ theory, and as diseases such as cholera, puerperal fever, and malaria were found to actually transmit in other ways. Motivated by his views on the importance of contact/droplet infection, and the resistance he encountered from the remaining influence of miasma theory, prominent public health official Charles Chapin in 1910 helped initiate a successful paradigm shift, deeming airborne transmission most unlikely. This new paradigm became dominant. However, the lack of understanding of aerosols led to systematic errors in the interpretation of research evidence on transmission pathways. For the next five decades, airborne transmission was considered of negligible or minor importance for all major respiratory diseases, until a demonstration of airborne transmission of tuberculosis (which had been mistakenly thought to be transmitted by droplets) in 1962. The contact/droplet paradigm remained dominant, and only a few diseases were widely accepted as airborne before COVID-19: those that were clearly transmitted to people not in the same room. The acceleration of interdisciplinary research inspired by the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that airborne transmission is a major mode of transmission for this disease, and is likely to be significant for many respiratory infectious diseases.

A review of occupancy-based building energy and IEQ controls and its future post-COVID.

Occupancy schedules and density can have a substantial influence on building plug, lighting, and air conditioning energy usage. In recent years, the study related to occupancy and its impact on building energy consumption has gained momentum and is also promoted by ASHRAE as it has created a multi-disciplinary group to encourage a comprehensive study of occupant behaviour in buildings. Past studies suggest that building systems do not consume the same energy and provide similar Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) to their designed specifications due to inaccurate assumptions of occupants and their behaviour. Supplying ASHRAE 62.1 specified minimum required ventilation based on accurate occupancy may lead to significant air-conditioning energy savings. However, the same strategy is not suitable in the current time since minimum required ventilation may not be sufficient to mitigate the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread in confined spaces. High-temperature cooling augmented with elevated air movement across an acceptable range of velocity can maintain the health and comfort of occupants by providing higher ventilation and without an energy penalty. The analysis of the literature highlights strengths, weaknesses, and key observations about the existing occupancy monitoring and occupancy-based building system control methods to help in the direction of future occupancy-based research.

How can airborne transmission of COVID-19 indoors be minimised?

During the rapid rise in COVID-19 illnesses and deaths globally, and notwithstanding recommended precautions, questions are voiced about routes of transmission for this pandemic disease. Inhaling small airborne droplets is probable as a third route of infection, in addition to more widely recognized transmission via larger respiratory droplets and direct contact with infected people or contaminated surfaces. While uncertainties remain regarding the relative contributions of the different transmission pathways, we argue that existing evidence is sufficiently strong to warrant engineering controls targeting airborne transmission as part of an overall strategy to limit infection risk indoors. Appropriate building engineering controls include sufficient and effective ventilation, possibly enhanced by particle filtration and air disinfection, avoiding air recirculation and avoiding overcrowding. Often, such measures can be easily implemented and without much cost, but if only they are recognised as significant in contributing to infection control goals. We believe that the use of engineering controls in public buildings, including hospitals, shops, offices, schools, kindergartens, libraries, restaurants, cruise ships, elevators, conference rooms or public transport, in parallel with effective application of other controls (including isolation and quarantine, social distancing and hand hygiene), would be an additional important measure globally to reduce the likelihood of transmission and thereby protect healthcare workers, patients and the general public.