Air filtration to reduce covid in govt

[Hopefullyupwards]

It's recently emerged that some government areas e.g. www.purifiedair.com/case-studies/ministry-of-defence/ have had measures in place to reduce the spread of covid. This is obviously a good thing, but why the apparent reluctance to address elsewhere?

At what point do you think they will address air quality elsewhere though?

Given that the quality of the school estate is listed as critical and buildings highly likely to collapse, they don't appear to give a shit about safety of the buildings, let alone the air.

Schools have such a huge backlog of maintenance issues I can't see air filtration prioritised.

Care homes- you might get a grant so homes can put a system in at cost.

Hospitals, would be awesome to get them in there, particularly the wards holding the most vulnerable patients, but I'd want to see a proper evidence base for them ACTUALLY lowering incidence of infection for the people you don't want getting infected.

@Ursula82 "I am very much hoping the money is going to much much better use

and they never promised them!"

What like spending the money on subsidising their bars and canteens.

Yes such a waste of money trying to stop people getting ill and unnecessarily dying.

As usual the government looks after themselves and couldn't give a stuff about the rest of us.

‘Highly likely to collapse’. Really ?
If that’s the case are they shut down?

What are the condition rating descriptions?
All government departments have been running programmes on their estate condition in recent years, with different specifics but generally based on BEIS standards, assessed on a range of elements / systems that make up a building. The ‘highly likely’ relates to failure such as roofs leaking, heating breaking down etc
If the structure of a building is assessed to collapse then no one should be in the building.

In the last edition of the state of the estate report virtually all government departments general standard was good to poor, which is effectively ‘functioning if you maintain it properly’ and ‘likely to fail’ or ‘regular failures’
Among the estates each department would also have those at the best/excellent (as new) and worst/bad (regularly failing)

www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-of-the-estate-in-2020-2021

In this the headline is that schools are close to collapse but also no risk to life (which collapsing would be)
The ratings they show are “critical – likely” to “critical – very likely”

amp.theguardian.com/education/2022/dec/19/risk-of-england-school-buildings-collapse-very-likely-says-dfe

I can see a lot of references to the headline points, but not the actual report
Whereas one quote states that no such buildings are open:

At the publication there are no open schools or college buildings where we know of an imminent risk to life

eduzim.co.zw/news/2022/12/19/risk-of-england-school-buildings-collapse-very-likely-says-dfe/amp/

The MoD also has buildings that are shutdown due to their condition

I suspect the school reporting is using deliberately emotive language to get more investment.
————-

I don’t believe the companies claims that they have supplied their air filtration on such a scale as every MoD site, and building, let alone every room bearing in mind their case study is about mobile units.

Remember that the MoD is all the services, it’s not just ‘them MoD mandarins in London, it’s the Army, Navy, Air Force and also other specific defence departments
Almost 100,000 built assets in the MoD and 22,000 in schools, health over 5,000

Had this company really sold hundreds of thousands of mobile air filtration units to the MoD?
There isn’t one in my office

"Officials have raised the risk level of school buildings collapsing to “very likely”, after an increase in serious structural issues being reported – especially in blocks built in the years 1945 to 1970."

"no imminent risk to life, the report states by way of reassurance, but the situation was said to be “worsening”. As a result officials have escalated the risk level for school buildings collapsing from “critical – likely” to “critical – very likely”, with the issue now so urgent it is being overseen by a board of permanent secretaries from across government departments."

So "very likely" but not "imminent" is fine?

This is a government report and for the government to actually tell the truth and not minimise it is remarkable.

yes actually. There's no solid evidence that shows air filters tend to prevent anyone getting a respiratory infection. It's a result in other people's systematic reviews, too.

There are 3 RCTs about filters in care homes for covid/flu/similar prevention that won't report for a few years: Canada, Australia, Bristol UK. Bradford Uni team are sitting on their school RCT results because they don't like them trying to spin something in peer review God knows why but they wouldn't sit quietly on them if they had an amazing result.

Schools weren’t promised air filters. They were promised CO2 monitors.

Bastards

inews.co.uk/news/7000-air-purifiers-promised-schools-nowhere-near-enough-cover-300000-classrooms-1379093

I asked about the rating descriptions & what critera they fall under and pointed out the quote that buildings at true risk are closed.

Which in comparison to the MoD is the same

pointed out the quote that buildings at true risk are closed.

Like the school where the ceiling collapsed and the only reason no children were injured was it was the weekend?

www.desmondeassociates.co.uk/news/roof-collapse-at-pencalenick-school-truro

That therefore is a risk to life, isn’t ‘approaching the buildings end of design life’ but is beyond its design life

You’re awfully blasé about the state of the school estate which by the government’s own estimates would cost billions to get up to an adequate standard.

That’s even before you consider the asbestos.

apologies I was taking about this actual money

www.gov.uk/government/news/all-schools-to-receive-carbon-dioxide-monitors

i had missed the air purifier promise which I don’t think has actually materialised?

Yes it does seem like the government only cares about protecting itself but not those in schools and hospitals.

And at WEF in Davos last week they were all PCR tested for entry, there were air purifiers in every room, staff wore masks and attendees wore them sometimes too. So the rich evidently think it's worth avoiding catching covid (and other airborne viruses) and are doing everything they can to avoid it.

Schools have been given CO2 monitors but that does nothing to improve air quality, it only tells you the current state of the air, with CO2 as proxy for rebreathed air. So giving CO2 monitors without also giving HEPA filters and/or strict guidance on ventilating rooms when levels exceed X is pointless. HEPA filters are also negligible cost-wise to run, when compared to getting in supply teachers constantly.

In France, Belgium and California there are now official guidelines on acceptable CO2 levels in classrooms (800ppm in France).

There are campaigns to get DIY Corsi-Rosenthal boxes in schools, these can be built for £80 by parents or in school classes. There should be one in every classroom to be honest. The two DofE approved ones are less effective and surprise surprise more expensive - including a Dyson model - Tory donor and all that...

In any case, having HEPA filters in every class is not going to do any harm.

Forgot to say they also had enhanced ventilation at Davos.

If you're interested in getting clean air in schools then have a look at CleanAirClassrm on Twitter, they have lots of useful information about how to talk to schools about the need for clean air in classrooms (viruses aside, high CO2 is not conducive to learning).

Here's a handy leaflet that explains it all with handy stats, examples from schools around the UK, and has instructions for Corsi Rosenthal box (opens as PDF): t.co/5JbjFNsDWZ

Interesting!

No, I’m not blasé

I questioned the details of the condition categories & you’ve given me an actual example of an unsafe building that was still in use and by luck the ceiling collapsed over the weekend

A building in that state should not be in use at all.

Every part of the government estate needs billions spent on them, parts need many billions

Air filtration is effective and in terms of mechanised systems probably most pressing where people are relatively vulnerable such as care homes or hospitals.

At Davos testing and masks were deemed worthwhile, so improved ventilation is consistent with that. In countries with very low infection and death rates, those in schools and work places voluntarily still use high filtration masks and respect distancing and ventilation.

Apart from the more vulnerable in say care homes and hospitals, why should air filtration in the UK be anything other than a personal choice? FFP3 masks are widely available to those who choose to filter the air they breathe. Why waste resources forcing people to breathe filtered air clearly of no value to them since they've chosen not to mask up? Especially as a lot of these people can be inexplicably hostile to masked fellow students and workers.

@maryso I agree with your first two paragraphs but you don't think schools should get filtration? Kids crammed into classrooms, unlikely to be able to wear masks properly the whole time even if they wanted to (or were allowed to - apparently some schools have forbidden them!) and taking home all sickness to wider family? Schools should be a primary candidate for universal air filtration along with care homes and hospitals.

"Why waste resources forcing people to breathe filtered air clearly of no value to them since they've chosen not to mask up? Especially as a lot of these people can be inexplicably hostile to masked fellow students and workers."
So let those doing the sensible thing (masking) continue to get abused by non-mask wearers? I'd rather clean air for everyone, like we have clean tap water for everyone. It benefits the mask wearers as well as the free-riding anti-maskers.

Had no idea buildings were in such a dire state.
I'm not sure how children can 'choose' to keep themselves safer, anymore than they can choose to keep being exposed to conditions that promote short and long term illness.
Thanks rabbit - I'll have a look later.

So let those doing the sensible thing (masking) continue to get abused by non-mask wearers? I'd rather clean air for everyone, like we have clean tap water for everyone. It benefits the mask wearers as well as the free-riding anti-maskers.

Nothing is going to stop abuse from these people. My DC are all FFP3 masked and for them; abuse is nothing compared with the risks from catching covid if avoidable. All of my clinician friends wear FFP3 masks. We do this because the social mores in the UK are compatible with high and unfettered infection and death rates, unlike those operating at Davos or countries where even relatively "less educated" people are smart enough to fundamentally know they're in it together.

Of course demand for "goods" will always be infinite if price is zero, However price is not zero, and children whose parents judge are better unmasked are nowhere as vulnerable as those in care homes and health care settings. In the UK there is no social consideration. Why should we pay to filter air for people who choose to be unmasked and clearly don't mind being infected? They object to paying for self-protecting masks and will undoubtedly object to even more costly ventilation.

One rule for us again