The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune

From the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has used WHO “guidelines” to justify the decisions they have made. It seems they are unaware that guidelines are just that, guidelines not mandates. Guidelines in any scenario should be adjusted to suit the situation, maximise benefits and minimise risks. They have not done this, but have blindly plodded along inflicting much avoidable pain on the masses, while failing to inject any actual thought into what they were doing.

A little over a month ago I came across a formula, along with other worthwhile articles, published online by Erin Bromage, Phd Microbiology, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, that seems to explain the chances of being infected by COVID 19 (or any other infection) fairly well. The formula is: successful infection = exposure to virus x time. This simply means that the longer a person is exposed to the virus, the greater their likelihood of becoming infected. The significance of this in relation to the course the country has taken and is about to take from government mandates, cannot be understated.

People are already returning to the workplace, the country is looking to open its borders and the prime minister is advocating for indoor dining and the reopening of schools. The obvious problem with this is that in a restaurant, for instance, patrons cannot put food into their mouths with a mask on. If viral particles are released in a closed air conditioned environment, the particles can stay suspended in air for up to three hours, based on past published reports. This increases the potential exposure time of other patrons and workers, no matter how far apart they are sitting and still creates an opportunity for spread and subsequent infection. However, if persons are outdoors with adequate spacing (six feet) and masks, breeze can easily dissipate any airborne particles, significantly reducing exposure time and significantly reducing risk of infection. But this is only common sense, for if one sprays air freshener in a closed room versus outdoors one can easily compare the effects of airborne particles in those differing environments. This suggests to me that with appropriate guidelines (masks, spacing and minimal contact time with patrons, etc.) fishermen and other outdoor vendors could have returned to work a long time ago. Outdoor dining could have been reinstituted some time ago as well. Jitneys may be able to transport masked patrons with windows open and buildings with windows should open them occasionally to improve ventilation, in order to reduce the potential risk of infection as people return to work. Schools without windows that can be opened, may consider having outdoor classes under tents for the time being. Households could have returned to beaches, without their grills, of course, while practising safe distancing from others a long time ago as well. Of course, fines could have been implemented against obvious lawbreakers!

Unfortunately, in the persistent effort to show who the boss is, there is so much that our medically trained decision makers seem oblivious to. Sadly, these are simple things we would expect them to know. Things they are being paid to know!

JB

Nassau,

June 27, 2020.