3 ms·
Fine, by that metric, the ventillation would have to be 12 times more effective than wiping down to have the same cost/benefit ratio. So if the wiping is 8.4% o
by jjk166 6y ago
Fine, by that metric, the ventillation would have to be 12 times more effective than wiping down to have the same cost/benefit ratio. So if the wiping is 8.4% or more effective than it will always be the cheaper alternative; and even if wiping is less effective than that, odds are the ventilation system is going to be far less than 100% effective.
And again, wiping surfaces does more than fight covid. The flu, the common cold, and countless more diseases are very effectively countered by washing down surfaces. If you make federal minimum wage and you miss work for 2 days because of the flu, that's $120 in lost earnings. The average person flying probably makes significantly more than that. Even if wiping down your seat only reduces the odds of getting the flu by 0.15% you're still coming out ahead at minimum wage; if you make $100k/yr it need only be 0.02% effective.
Also it's worth noting that contact with contaminated surfaces is still believed to be a major means of transmission of the disease. It is airborne transmission of covid which is still being debated though there seems to be mounting evidence in support of it as an additional transmission pathway.