(Assumptions: retail prices of $400 per 350 cubic feet per minute of air flow, 97 billion sq ft of commercial real estate based on a random figure I found online, 12 ft average ceiling height to determine air volume, microCOVID goal of 5 air changes per hour.)
Conversation
Obviously, $110 billion is a lot! But... not that much on the scale of the trillions of dollars spent on COVID relief. I'd also expect that you could do a lot better than paying retail prices at country-sized volumes.
1
1
The weirdest part is that I don't understand why this hasn't happened more? It's useful on the margin and doesn't require much coordination. As far as I know there are no regulatory barriers. I would preferably patronize businesses that advertised good ventilation or filtration!
1
The best explanation I can think of is that good ventilation is illegible: unlike masks, it's hard for an individual to verify that an area is well-ventilated or well-filtered.
1
Apparently Belgium has mandated CO2 meters in many public spaces (restaurants, bars, gyms), using CO2 as a proxy for fresh air ventilation (that is, air brought from outside). Filtration won't affect that, but it seems like a pretty good attempt at making ventilation legible.
1
1
1
(Source for claims about Belgium, from what appears to be the government's official COVID info site: info-coronavirus.be/en/ventilation/)
1
Either I'm missing something (and please tell me if you think I am!), or we're... just collectively making a terrible decision for no good reason? We're trapped in a bad state, and it's not even like we need coordinated action to make it much better. Any ideas?
1
(I've not verified this in any way) Apparently teachers are trying to use air filters in their classrooms and getting told that they are... fire hazards? A large air filter draws maybe a few hundreds Watts.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @j_g_allen
Fire codes- our district told us we couldn’t use them (we bought them for ourselves) because they’re a fire hazard.
1
I wonder if this is an actual safety concern (albeit probably not one that outweight the benefit) a bureaucratic mixup, or someone on a power (ha!) trip.
1
Replying to
Most likely, institutions are counting rule/regulation violations rather than direct risks and impacts. Violating the fire code has consequences even if it's within "reasonable margins" and/or offsetting other risk.
1
1
Right, that would make sense to me (and would be an instance of the first option), but I can’t seem to figure out which regulation is being violated. They’re pretty small and the electrical loads are light: like, my laptop uses more footprint and more power than my air filter.
Sadly I also have a lot of personal experience with people saying no to things and citing non-existent fire regulations. It was a much less important context so I really hope that’s not what’s happening here.
1
My best guess for a real rule that might exist is something like “no unapproved electrical appliances in the classroom” with either deliberate or social exemptions for computers and, like, lamps.