Covid-19 rarely spreads through surfaces. So why are we still deep cleaning?
nature.com
nature.com
But this is like optimizing the last 2%. The most important thing other than masks and distancing would be opening windows, installing air purifiers that kill viruses, and setting hvac’s to bring in outside air. Co2 meters could be used to gauge effectiveness.
One year in official guidelines in most cases don’t mention ventilation and in some workplaces people are forbidden from ventilating because it isn’t in the guidelines.
We’d be a little chilly or a little warm, but the virus would spread much less readily.
Yeah, no thanks.
Same thing with checking temperature at the door (it doesn't work because people can either never get a fever or be infectious before/after one).
Even when it comes to masks we still have very few of the public using well fitting N95 and manufacturers mass-producing masks that barely even cover the side of people's faces (i.e. they don't work as well as they could, even for cloth!).
This was totally forgivable in the early days since "better than nothing" masks, but it has been almost a year and effective mask/mask usage still isn't being promoted nor guidelines for producing high quality masks exists.
Note that KF94 and KN95 masks are somewhat available, I'd recommend my friends use them, but not my friends' friends as supply isn't enough to cover the friends of my friends. These are the Korea and Chinese equivalent to N95, perhaps not as good, but still a lot better. There is also a European standard, but I haven't seen it anywhere in the US.
Ideally the US would have an equivalent, or have encouraged manufacture of one long ago, but we all know how that went.
....but they still largely focus on deep cleaning rather than ventilation! And they emphasize the six foot rule in their contact tracing.
I think the true explanation has to do with first impressions. People seem to have stuck on whatever they first heard in Feb-April. And it is harder for an institution to change its mind than for an individual.
On masks, for example, I think the mantra of “masks protect others, they don’t protect you” has stuck even though other types of mask also filter incoming air. People just don’t update their beliefs too easily.
Attempts to reduce infection do not require 100% success in order to be effective at reducing the transmission rate. If we estimated that say 10% of patients experienced a fever, then a temperature check reduces the number of potential exposures.
The question is whether its worth it ? For me its obviously No
I didn't say/imply its obvious for you or any other people.
Its a subjective comparison.
2 to 5 dollar masks that are proven to significantly reduce spread and a single employee standing outside with a hundred dollar thermometer to make sure no one with obvious symptoms comes in (they're also checking for people coughing as well) seems about as tiny an inconvenience as possible.
It's not 100 percent but we know how it spreads, people that actually need to go out have the ability to get the most effective PPE, and at this point we should be directing our efforts to vaccine distribution instead of improving covid protocols (or worse loosening them prematurely as we vaccinate) for the people bored at home.
I've literally had the conversation about going to a mall, and the person responding "but they're doing temperature checks at the doors!" as why it is safe.
The public has been [mis]led to believe that these checks work, and that may be the bigger problem than the checks themselves. I'm all for arguing "the enemy of better is perfect" except when you alter the general-public's behavior into less safe behaviors.
If your argument is that some partially effective measures might have a paradoxically negative effect by encouraging unsafe behaviour, then that seems like a reasonable possibility to explore - and would require some data.
I personally struggle to think of any ways in which my behaviour would become less safe as a result of having my temperature taken when entering a store, but YMMV.
Literally the example given--people don't feel the need to avoid going to a crowded, indoor space because "they're taking temperatures at the door".
You may not fall victim to this, but it's otherwise a pretty well-known phenomenon with some research:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/iere.12402
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/260352
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...
I mean its literally not about you, its about the behavior of crowds and you are one N=1?
Also the people who object to this are generally the kind of people who don't realize how much their own opinions and behavior are molded by these things. If you don't realize that this goes on, and that it is effective, you are more likely to be one of the susceptible ones.
I'm imagining a friend challenging me on whether it's safe to go out to get boba. I might point out that they don't have you wait inside the shop or that I avoid going when there's a long line, but the honest answer is that I really want boba and don't typically think about the risk in this level of detail.
Wife and I were horribly exhausted for a week before any other symptoms showed up. So we just dismissed it as being tired. Even had a negative test during that week.
But it stops some cases, which is much better than no cases.
> Even when it comes to masks we still have very few of the public using well fitting N95 and manufacturers mass-producing masks that barely even cover the side of people's faces (i.e. they don't work as well as they could, even for cloth!).
Because the unfitted masks significantly reduce the amount of large particulates (ie, saliva) spread into the air, because they're caught by the mask which is directly in front of the mouth/nose.
Arguing that seatbelts shouldn't be used because they don't prevent all injuries doesn't make much sense. Sure, we can do better, but it's not "COVID theater". It's rational, useful actions being taken to mitigate the impact of COVID.
Following the car analogy, it's like not stopping at seat belts and adding airbags and traction control and so on. The improved measure (high quality masks) is inexpensive enough that it should be the standard.
That's an incredibly disingenuous/uncharitable analogy for what I actually posted. A more accurate one would be:
> Two-point Seatbelts cause massive internal injuries during an accident, why haven't we improved them/the guidelines in producing them after 40+ years? (see period from 1910 to 1960).
Cloth masks were created in a rush to fill a void. Then a year passed. In that year nobody spent time/money improving/researching the design of cloth for better coverage nor did we increase the supply/availability of more effective filter material/fitment.
It is fair to criticize the lack of improvement partially given the urgent public health crisis.
Can we do better? Yes. Are cloth masks useless "theater"? No, not even remotely.
> That's an incredibly disingenuous/uncharitable analogy for what I actually posted
It's really not. It would be disingenuous if it was aimed at one part of your post (we can do better). However, it is perfectly applicable when aimed at the "this is useless" part.
I think you replied to the wrong comment/comment chain, it said nothing even ballpark like that. The word "damage" doesn't appear in the comment chain aside from this comment.
> Are cloth masks useless "theater"?
Again, this wasn't something anyone in the comment chain claimed.
> However, it is perfectly applicable when aimed at the "this is useless" part.
That quote is a fabrication. The word "useless" doesn't even appear in this comment chain aside from this post/quote.
So when you're creating fake quotes and making multiple baseless claims (quite literally putting in words/quotes that don't exist), it is the epitome of disingenuous.
I was "converting" from _injuries_ (in relation to seat belts) to _damage_ (in relation to masks) as the closest parallel I could make. My apologies that it wasn't clear.
----
>> Are cloth masks useless "theater"?
> Again, this wasn't something anyone in the comment chain claimed.
I was grouping the comment about how most of what had been done was "COVID theater" and the comment about masks together. The overall post read, to me, in a way that made it sound like the former also applied to the later. That may not have been intended.
----
>> However, it is perfectly applicable when aimed at the "this is useless" part.
> That quote is a fabrication.
It's another wording for part of the original post. The double quotes were intended to indicate the grouping/meaning, not the actual words. I've been using ">" where something is an actual quote, which is generally standard for text communication, but I can see where it might be confusing to someone not used to it.
> most of it was "COVID theater" rather than intended to actually make people safer
That statement, I believe, comes across very clearly as presenting a lot of what was done as useless.
----
I'm going to stop on this thread, as replying to multiple individual blocks of text (as I have done here) tends to be a sign that things have either gotten off topic or people are going to stop caring.
The high level summary of what I originally meant was that I believe the steps we are taking are very useful, but agree we should be doing more.
Any test that gives a false sense of security may cause people to do things that they otherwise should not, such as travel. Spot temperature checks are not effective but doing them at airports makes people feel safer. Safe-feeling people travel more, spreading more virus.
As for masks, I still see people wearing bandanas and scarves all the time, and my understanding is these are much less effective than even a simple surgical mask. I think your bar is much too low, sounds like you’re saying as long as we’re doing more than nothing that’s good enough.
There’s no excuse almost a year in that there exist masks which are significantly more effective than what most people are wearing and we’re making no effort to encourage people to use them.
That's not what I meant, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. What I meant was that we're doing a number of different things that aren't perfect... and I constantly see people complain about it not being perfect so why are we doing it... and my response is that every little bit helps. I agree that we can and should be doing more. I just think saying what is being done now is mostly useless theater is ridiculous and dangerous, and results in people not bothering to take even basic precautions "because it doesn't help".
It is a known fact that temperature in a body may not show upto 6 days from onset of the virus.
It creates a false sense of safety and is dangerous.
And half of those non contact thermometers are useless. And moat of the personnel dint even know how to use them.
I honestly can't believe that at this point in the pandemic, full-face respirators haven't been adapted to have exhale filters and widely distributed. I think our product (https://narwallmask.com) is still the only such device, and I'm just some software engineer who thought to do something.
Single use masks are much easier, but indeed there's a lot of mask-like products that have enough leakage to let a tank through, or have an unfiltered vent which is unacceptable.
* Looks. Even if I can decide to look like the Reddit alien in a motorcycle helmet while everybody else is wearing an FFP2 mask, there is no way I can persuade my wife or kids. Would it be possible to make the exhaust pipe a bit more inconspicuous? E.g. inhale from the left cheek, exhale to the right cheek?
* Filtration efficiency and trust. There is a reason the FFP2/FFP3 standards test with 0.3um sized particles - those are the most difficult to filter out. Your marketing copy talks about 0.4um and 0.1um, and the headline screems about 3um large virus particles, which are even less relevant. Even though the 0.4um numbers look close to FFP3, any official certification is missing. Is it safe to say that your product does not meet the FFP2 standards?
Additionally, I'd love a mask that does not saturate out within minutes if I am panting (from chasing after kids).
https://fixthemask.medium.com/the-standards-for-face-masks-i...
* Sizing. How do I know which size I need? Maybe you could publish a guide like the CPAP mask manufacturers do. https://www.resmedshop.de/media/pdf/b1/e4/06/ResMed-AirFit-F... https://www.resmedshop.de/media/pdf/03/b0/57/ResMed-AirFit-F...
* Facial expressions. If you could make the mouth covering transparent, it would show my mimics in a conversation. That could be a killer feature, especially for socializing (or salesy jobs).
* Glasses and field of vision.
* Sticker price shock. Most FFP2/KN95 masks are counterfeit and none have a good seal, so I might as well grab the ones for $0.17 a piece from aliexpress. But, I am already spending much more on other Covid safety measures.
EDIT: Can you give me an accessible way to experience the mask's safety? So far, the best criterion I have come up with is if I can smell the smoke when I'm standing next to a smoker. In defense of that metric: There are absolutely no credible alternatives proposed on the internet. Mask fit used to be tested officially with noxious smoke. Cigarette smoke particles are pretty close in size to the virus-laden droplets. But in practise, an FFP2 mask passes this test only if I tape over all of its edges with a band-aid, and my skin won't tolerate that day-in day-out.
Ultimately, most of this comes down to your risk tolerance - how much is quality covid protection worth to you? I agree that looks are more likely to be the barrier there than $85, which as you mentioned is high relative to cheap disposable masks but low relative to how bad covid is. Regarding looking weird, I can only point to our product reviews where users consistently find that they are, to their surprise, not treated like aliens: https://narwallmask.com/products/narwall-mask#reviews
Re; filtration, we link to a test data sheet showing that the filter material is tested by Nelson Labs, a major lab testing company. I'm not sure where you get the 0.4um or 1um numbers from - the particle size we test to is 0.1um, and the viruses used in Nelson Labs' VFE testing are much smaller than that (google "Nelson Labs VFE").
Back in the 70s or so, they thought 0.3um was the most difficult size particle to filter, which is why the standards test for that; since then, studies have shown that 0.1um is actually slightly more difficult, but everything in that range is near the bottom of the parabolas and tends to be very close.
I can try to link to some papers on this later but I'm on mobile right now.
Our size guide is next to the size selector on our website; I'll try to make that easier to find.
The safety issue comes down to this paragraph in your FAQ:
What is the filter material and how is it tested? Our filters are made in the USA with material tested to >99.997% VFE (viral filtration efficiency) by Nelson Labs. Another metric is PFE (particle filtration efficiency). The N95 standard for 0.3-micron PFE is >95.00%, while Narwall's filter material is tested to >99.50% 0.1-micron PFE. You can learn more about these particle sizes here.
The way I read it, you test for 3um (VFE is that according to https://fixthemask.medium.com/the-standards-for-face-masks-i...) and 0.1um, but not 0.3um. I'd be happy if you could point me to papers that those two sizes cover 0.3um and saturation issues.
Is there some kind of independent verification of efficacy and safety of the whole device, not just the mask?
As a minor point - the sticker price is closer to $820 (4 persons times mask and 6 months of filters and international shipping).
I am legally required to wear a medical-grade mask (FFP2 or surgical). Do you have an official-looking document to show to the authorities?
> Bacteria ~ 3μm while viruses ~0.025μm in diameter
However, SARS-CoV-2 is estimated to be around 0.1um, per https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7224694/#:~:tex....
> SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped virus ≈0.1 μm in diameter
Making the 0.1μm measure more relevant.
Ultimately, it's up to your judgement whether to determine these filters are likely to be at least as useful as alternatives, bearing in mind that a poor seal/fit (which you may get with other masks) reduces effective filtration by quite a bit.
Apart from the aforementioned testing of our filter material, and the third-party fit tests (https://narwallmask.com/#h:testing), the CDC's National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, under NIOSH, is currently assessing the mask but has yet to release results.
Another option you could pursue is a half-face elastomeric respirator with a surgical mask securely taped over the exhale valve, coupled with tight-fitting goggles. It may be less convenient and may or may not achieve the aesthetic properties you seek, but those masks have been around long enough to be evaluated by government bodies for their ability to protect the wearer (though, not the public).
This makes it easy to tell that you have a complete seal.
The fact that your existing masks do not pass without tape indicates that you do not have a seal, and the filtration numbers you're seeing are reduced by many percentage points (eg; from 95% to 90% or lower) as air enters the mask unfiltered through the sides.
I have not performed the cigarette test myself, and haven't seen information indicating it is a reliable covid test, but you are certainly welcome to try it with a Narwall! I'd be keen for your results, and could provide a discount in exchange for the information.
Would you be open to a full refund if I order it and can still smell cigarette smoke?
From https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrar...
Due to the associated time and costs, some health officials propose the elimination of fit testing and advocate that a fit check is sufficient in determining respirator fit [39]. The NIOSH conducted a study that demonstrated protection of N95/FFP2 masks improved from 67% without fit testing to 96% with fit testing [40]. Subsequently, NIOSH determined fit check alone to be insufficient and fit testing should be mandatory when selecting filtering facepiece respirators or elastomer half mask respirators.
Three studies that included 1111 Asians assessed the ability of fit check to detect leak determined by a quantitative fit test [36, 41, 42]. Average (range) sensitivity and specificity of the fit check to correctly detect leak were 26 (14–40)% and 79 (58–92)%, respectively, and consequent average (range) fit test pass rate following ‘successful’ fit check was 56 (34–73)%. Another study found the protection factor of filtering facepiece respirators increased from 3.3 to 20.5 when comparing the results of the entire test panel with those who had passed the fit test [32]. However, non‐fitted filtering facepiece respirators are still likely to provide greater protection than surgical masks, with a measured protection factor of 1.2 (Table 1) [32].
In summary, while fit check remains recommended before each use of any respirator to ensure fit on a day‐to‐day basis (Grade 1C evidence), we recommend not to use fit check as a substitute for fit testing to identify the size and shape of respirator that fits best (Grade 1B evidence).
For what it's worth, I think we provide tools to perform more accurate fit checks than are possible with other masks, but of course I don't have data to back that up, and this is a situation that warrants caution.
You can perform a standard fit test (eg; with Bitrex) with a Narwall, by the way, or a home-jury-rigged one, like this customer did: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0264/5311/4970/files/Tim-s...
The smoke check sounds like a great idea too, I just can't confirm that it will produce a true result for Narwall since we haven't specifically evaluated that methodology.
Even if we can't accept a full return because the mask has been tried on, we always offer partial refunds at least when a customer isn't satisfied for any reason, if that's any help.
Industrial places: they have AC but unfortunately the way most if not all of these are built they're germ spreaders rather than germ catchers. Retrofitting or modifying existing installations is expensive and the tradespeople doing this kind of job have been in high demand everywhere since years now.
Schools: same as above - ACs or ventilation in schools exist mostly in new buildings which have had energy efficiency requirements respected during design, retrofitting is often impossible (e.g. due to low room heights), and the "there are no tradespeople" argument from above also applies here, with the added difficulty that government jobs pay pennies compared to what industry puts up. To make stuff worse: many school buildings have outright broken windows - in Cologne / Germany for example one in five schools has windows that don't open, sometimes for many years (https://www.ksta.de/koeln/keine-lueftung-moeglich-trotz-coro...).
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/dod-reporters-notebook-jared-...
What does that even mean? Of course the number of people who catch covid on a flight is relative to the number of people on planes. If fewer people fly, fewer people will catch covid, and vv - I think we can all agree on that. A better comparison is between how many will people catch covid on a flight compared to how many would catch it if they didn't fly at all. How many is not many? 1%? 2%?
Credits I give to this study: none.
And I’ve measured CO2 on planes. 800 or less, very impressive for a crowded environment. On the Canadian Via Train it gets up to 3500 ppm!
Since I know these outside facts about planes, it seems likely the study is true. It fits with other data.
It does not remove the fact that we should not relay observation about health and safety made by teams with significant (disclosed or undisclosed) conflict of interest.
Proof?
I did not catch anything, and in fact, I don't think I'll ever fly on a plane again without a mask, even long after the acute danger of COVID-19 has passed. I physically felt the best I've ever felt while flying!
I was very much aware of airflow on the plane, which seemed really good once we were in the air. Not so much while we were still on the ground.
I bet this will be commonplace.
its easy for a city to close a park down, but hard for a city to tell every bar and restaurant to go out of business, or to pay them to survive while closed.
Nobody has done an analysis of this that I can tell even though it is obvious. It seems like a HEPA air filter next to the salt shaker (in the middle of the table so you are generally breathing in its direction) could get a useful fraction of the virus. Then some larger room filters, maybe an upper room UV-C light....
If restaurants are told close or install the above system they will install that system. I know restaurants near me installed tents in the summer which may not have worked much better than the above.
I'm hoping that this is unique to my country but a lot of such "kills virus" products I've seen are a)diluted bleach, or b)ozone generator, or c)UV lamps, none of which is safe near a person and none of which is effective at its job. It was my impression that there's no need to consult 4chan to assess the cost and benefit associated with inhaling bleach.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/can-hepa-air-purifie... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch/kH5APw_SLUU [3] https://www.wired.com/story/could-a-janky-jury-rigged-air-pu...
We would’ve been far better off as a society if we’d kept inside dining and improved our HVAC regulations for large gathering areas. It probably would permanently suppress common cold & flu numbers too, since those are also respiratory in nature.
Basically it’s “we don’t really know, we don’t even really examine most sources of infection, we’ve never done controlled trials on it, you can find the virus on lots of surfaces, most of the time it’s probably not infectious but sometimes it could be, there have been a few documented cases of infections from surfaces”.
It’s clearly a lower risk than airborne transmission but it seems like we can’t say with much certainty how low.
The only estimate of a risk probability mentioned is a 5 in 10000 chance of being infected if you’re out in public touching things. Not even sure if this was from a real study or just an expert’s back of the envelope calculation. I don’t know exactly the parameters involved but if you had taken that chance every day for the past year you would have had a 17% chance of getting infected at some point which is relatively significant. And seems like it would be likely worse at times the outbreak is at a higher peak, or if you’re an essential worker taking that chance multiple times a day.
1 - (1 - 5/10000)^330 => 0.152
(But I think you make a great point, it sounds like a tiny chance but it really does add up.)
Where it makes less sense is if you have endemic virus and you're basically not bothering to even control that why bother cleaning surfaces when they'll be re-contaminated shortly afterwards? In fact several countries have this practice while also ensuring sick people who work as cleaners feel obligated to stay on the job to feed their families, so the people cleaning may spread the virus.
As to ventilation, that's expensive. One hypothesis for that New Zealand case is that she was infected through the AC at the isolation hotel. Another guest in that hotel tested positive and was transferred to quarantine but obviously you could be infectious days before you test positive. That hotel is being closed for an upgrade, but this is expensive and it's only practical for New Zealand to do this for their managed isolation & quarantine facilities, in a country with endemic virus you'd want to do it in every building.
Personally I just assume all surfaces outside my home are contaminated, and any humans who get within a few metres are infectious and spreading viral particles. But I'm lucky, I don't have to go out and do a job out there.
Which isn't to say that it is easy to just upgrade everything, more that we should account for how damaging an airborne virus can be when we construct facilities.
"On the other hand, transmission of novel coronavirus to persons from surfaces contaminated with the virus has not been documented."
Mask are mandatory now in confined public spaces, but they have never started a campaign to train the public to handle the mask properly.
There hasn’t been a public health campaign in the past 9 months to say “now that the shortage is over, wear a mask that actually works” which is crazy to me.
At getting infected or spreading infection?
But looking back at it from 2021, I can easily imagine that while most people wouldn't engage in any false security follies now, after months of various levels of lockdown, (except for those who are just as capable of follies without a mask), back then things might have been very different.
It would take quite some confidence now to return to old habits, but then it wasn't return to but not breaking. Not breaking old habits was hard enough even without a false security token, even the tiniest glimpse of security theatre could have blocked a lot.
After the above fiasco I don’t trust the CDC or any U.S. local or federal government agency to say that COVID won’t spread on surfaces when they are motivated to say so to save significant money and resources by skipping disinfection protocols.
>Who does not need PPE: CDC does NOT currently recommend the general public use facemasks. Instead, CDC recommends following everyday preventive actions, such as washing your hands, covering your cough, and staying home when you are sick.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200325060652/https://www.cdc.g...
You can see why this was interpreted to mean “masks don’t help”. There is no implication they are a good idea.
Is it actually a lie? I don't believe there is conclusive evidence either way. (It certainly doesn't appear to have made much difference here where we have had a mask mandate for months).
Edit: actually, the CDC did recommend people who were either sick or caring for those who are sick wear masks and gives a clear reason as to why that's the recommendation: https://web.archive.org/web/20200324155703/https://www.cdc.g...
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronav...
CDC is referenced in the article too, but this tweet was just egregious.
So the surgeon general, not the CDC.
Edit: [0] is a archived version of the WHO public advice about when to use mask from late april. It probably was up even longer:
> If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19. Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing. Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water. If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20200421063423/https://www.who.i...
Obviously this is disputed, because it's impossible to tell - saying "not been documented" is quite a neutral statement.
Even if surface transmission is unlikely, a single case could be enough to trigger a wider outbreak. So, if you are doing what you can to prevent aerosol transmission, then it also makes sense to minimise surface transmission.
Please read again. If a virus is transmitted even once via a surface, it is then free to transmit onwards by whatever method is most efficient. This is likely to cause an outbreak whenever R>1.
Preventing an additional outbreak is more relevant in NZ than in the US, perhaps.
If you rode in the lift shortly after someone with COVID-19 used it, it seems that airborne transmission is quite plausible.
Back to topic, I think that in early days the surface focus wasn't a bad guess, it just happened to be wrong.
Wouldn't this observation be biased? The paranoid would know socializing is still not safe, and the reckless would think "Relax, it's just a flu", and so you'd see bars full but full of the reckless.
I applaud the renewed interest in basic hygiene.
Cleaning high-contact surfaces was not an unreasonable precaution to take; it’s probably something we will slowly stop doing now as the pandemic starts to ease.
Too much deep cleaning is fine frankly, it's too few masks, no quarantine of travellers, workplaces remaining open etc that's the issue.
They aren't going to let the chance to change norms around it just slip away
With all this constant disinfecting, are we not doing ourselves out of our ability to fight things off in future?
If there is one thing to be learned from the whole covid-19 disaster, it is that a lot of life and productivity loss can be prevented by relatively simple measures.
Contact with some diseases is desirable, just not with _all_ diseases.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25989726
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/dec/30/children-leu...
You can't put a price on human life(unless you're an insurance company), but you definitely can on sick days.
I have a data point, namely a few friends who seasonally get the flu and take sick days for that. On average it shaves off ~2% of their annual work hours.
At this rate I can't tell if this is worth the trouble, especially that a few of them definitely catch those viruses from their kindergarten-attending children.
This is a lot of lost productivity, even when one takes into account that the 2019 flu season was nasty (I was off for two weeks too, hardest hit in about one and a half decades for me).
Side note: I assume you're American - just ask yourself how many of your friends and colleagues go to work while symptomatic because you don't have mandatory sick days that don't count against regular vacation and so end up spreading contagions... I agree that the sick days number in Germany seems quite excessive but I rather had a loss in productivity than getting sick from co-workers and ending out sick for weeks.
And more than that, it's about what's seen by politicians, their constituents, the media, and society at large as effective. Safety theater, as another commenter put it.
How on Earth, after a year, you are so ignorant about it?
And in the US at least, public health seems very biased against acknowledging aerosol type transmission.
Then several months later we started hearing about how the virus can hang in the air for hours in buildings with poor ventilation; that's aerosols, not droplets. At that point social distancing does almost nothing, and even masks are questionable since it can far far more easily go around the edges of any masks, and slip through cloth masks in ways droplets can't.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-scien...
I find apalling that you call it "safety theater". What is YOUR big solution?