An Old Defence Against New Infections: The Open-Air Factor and COVID-19.

Outdoors, the risks of transmission of COVID-19 and many other respiratory infections are low. Several environmental factors are known to reduce the viability of viruses and other infectious pathogens in the air. They include variations in temperature, relative humidity, solar ultraviolet radiation, and dilution effects. But one agent that reduces the viability of both viruses and bacteria outdoors, the germicidal open-air factor (OAF), has not been properly recognized for decades. This is despite robust evidence that the OAF can influence both the survival of airborne pathogens and the course of infections. The germicidal effects of outdoor air were widely exploited during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Firstly, in the treatment of tuberculosis patients who underwent 'open-air therapy' in sanatoria; and secondly by military surgeons during the First World War. They used the same open-air regimen in specially designed hospital wards to disinfect and heal severe wounds among injured soldiers. It was also used on influenza patients during the 1918-19 pandemic. Later, in the 1950s, open-air disinfection and treatment of burns were proposed in the event of nuclear warfare. During the 1960s, the OAF briefly returned to prominence when biodefence scientists conducted experiments proving that open air has a potent germicidal effect. When this work ended in the 1970s, interest in the OAF again fell away, and it remains largely ignored. The COVID-19 pandemic has revived interest in understanding the transmission dynamics and survival of viruses in the air. The pandemic has also stimulated research in the science and practice of improved ventilation to control respiratory infections. Such work is incomplete without an appreciation of the inactivation of viruses and other pathogens by the OAF, but this needs further investigation as a matter of urgency. Research to better understand the conditions under which the OAF can be preserved indoors is urgently needed. We need to review building design with better regard to infection control and patient recovery. But we need to act without delay, as there is already sufficient evidence to show that public health generally would improve if more emphasis was placed on increased exposure to outdoor air.

Myopia and daylight in schools: a neglected aspect of public health?

A century ago, it was widely believed that high levels of daylight in classrooms could prevent myopia, and as such, education departments built schools with large windows to try to stop children becoming short-sighted. This practice continued until the 1960s, from which time myopia was believed to be an inherited condition. In the years that followed, less emphasis was placed on preventing myopia. It has since become more common, reaching epidemic levels in east Asia. Recent research strongly suggests that the amount of light children get as they grow determines whether they will develop short sight; however, evidence that daylight in classrooms prevents myopia is lacking. Given the rapid increase in prevalence among school children worldwide, this should be investigated.

The open-air treatment of pandemic influenza.

The H1N1 "Spanish flu" outbreak of 1918-1919 was the most devastating pandemic on record, killing between 50 million and 100 million people. Should the next influenza pandemic prove equally virulent, there could be more than 300 million deaths globally. The conventional view is that little could have been done to prevent the H1N1 virus from spreading or to treat those infected; however, there is evidence to the contrary. Records from an "open-air" hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, suggest that some patients and staff were spared the worst of the outbreak. A combination of fresh air, sunlight, scrupulous standards of hygiene, and reusable face masks appears to have substantially reduced deaths among some patients and infections among medical staff. We argue that temporary hospitals should be a priority in emergency planning. Equally, other measures adopted during the 1918 pandemic merit more attention than they currently receive.

A viral aetiology for breast cancer: time to re-examine the postulate.

Despite decades of research, no aetiologic factor(s) for human breast cancer has been identified and the search for a causal agent has all but been abandoned during the past thirty years. Over 60 years ago, it was demonstrated that breast tumours in mice are caused by an oncornavirus, murine mammary tumour virus (MMTV). Whilst many at that time postulated a similar virus might be the causative agent of human breast cancer, genetic evidence was difficult to obtain primarily because of the occurrence of endogenous human retrovirus (HER) sequences within the human genome that share extensive regions of nucleotide homology with MMTV. Recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in the possibility that a significant proportion of human breast cancers may be caused by viral infections. Two candidate viruses have been proposed, a human retroviral analogue of MMTV (which differs significantly in sequence and characteristics from HERs) and, the Epstein-Barr virus (gamma-herpes virus). These two viruses have been reported to occur in up to 37 and 50% of breast cancer cases, respectively. Here we present the background to the infectious hypothesis for the aetiology of breast cancer and review recent findings.