Solutions exist to reduce viral load – and they are not astronomically expensive and could be more affordable if mass produced – closing the economy vs. spending on devices to make places more safe would seem to be a better option – https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiegold/2020/08/25/columbia-university-far-uvc-light-study-shows-promise-as-wellness-design-based-covid-killer/#49b658f14e83

“The director of the university’s Center for Radiological Research identified a wavelength called far-UVC that kills these superbugs without penetrating human skin. He shared the concept in a 2017 TED Talk.”

“In a study published in June, the news was extremely promising: “Far-UVC Light Safely Kills Airborne Coronaviruses,” preliminary findings declared in the study headline. “Based on our results, continuous airborne disinfection with far-UVC light at the current regulatory limit could greatly reduce the level of airborne virus in indoor environments occupied by people,” Brenner reported

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2

“Germicidal ultraviolet light, typically at 254 nm, is effective in this context but, used directly, can be a health hazard to skin and eyes. By contrast, far-UVC light (207–222 nm) efficiently kills pathogens potentially without harm to exposed human tissues.”

“Based on the beta-HCoV-OC43 results, continuous far-UVC exposure in occupied public locations at the current regulatory exposure limit (~3 mJ/cm2/hour) would result in ~90% viral inactivation in ~8 minutes, 95% in ~11 minutes, 99% in ~16 minutes and 99.9% inactivation in ~25 minutes. Thus while staying within current regulatory dose limits, low-dose-rate far-UVC exposure can potentially safely provide a major reduction in the ambient level of airborne coronaviruses in occupied public locations.”

“In conclusion, we have shown that very low doses of far-UVC light efficiently kill airborne human coronaviruses carried by aerosols. A dose as low as 1.2 to 1.7 mJ/cm2 of 222-nm light inactivates 99.9% of the airborne human coronavirus tested from both genera beta and alpha, respectively. As all human coronaviruses have similar genomic size, a key determinant of radiation sensitivity27, it is likely that far-UVC light will show comparable inactivation efficiency against other human coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2.”

Interested to see if there were a long term study at the lower nm…. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/php.13269

“We therefore investigated the long‐term effects of 222‐nm UVC on skin using a highly photocarcinogenic phenotype mice that lack xeroderma pigmentosum complementation group A (Xpa‐) gene, which is involved in repairing of CPDs. CPDs formation was recognized only uppermost layer of epidermis even with high dose of 222‐nm UVC exposure. No tumors were observed in Xpa‐knockout mice and wild‐type mice by repetitive irradiation with 222‐nm UVC, using a protocol which had shown to produce tumor in Xpa‐knockout mice irradiated with broad‐band UVB. Furthermore, erythema and ear swelling were not observed in both genotype mice following 222‐nm UVC exposure. Our data suggest that 222‐nm UVC lamps can be safely used for sterilizing human skin as far as the perspective of skin cancer development.”

“Ultraviolet radiation C (UVC) is defined as 100–280 nm wavelengths UV. UVC from solar UV cannot reach the surface of the earth, because this range of UV is absorbed by ozone layer. Germicidal lamps that primarily emit 254‐nm UVC have been utilized for sterilization because this wavelength is effective for killing bacteria. In spite of the usefulness of 254‐nm UVC lamps for sterilization, it is well known to be harmful to skin and eyes, causing erythema and keratitis, respectively. Its most critical effects on humans and experimental animals are skin carcinogenicity caused by genotoxicity”

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10715762.2019.1603378

“the effects of 222-nm UV light exposure to the eye are not fully known. We evaluated acute corneal damage induced by 222- and 254-nm UV light in albino rats. Under deep anaesthesia, 6-week-old Sprague–Dawley albino rats were exposed to UV light. The exposure levels of corneal radiation were 30, 150, and 600 mJ/cm2. Epithelial defects were detected by staining with fluorescein. Superficial punctate keratitis developed in corneas exposed to more than 150 mJ/cm2 of UV light, and erosion was observed in corneas exposed to 600 mJ/cm2 of UV light. Haematoxylin and eosin staining also showed corneal epithelial defects in eyes exposed to 254-nm UV light. However, no damage developed in corneas exposed to 222-nm UV light. Cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer-positive cells were observed only in normal corneas and those exposed to 254-nm UV light. Although some epithelial cells were stained weakly in normal corneas, squamous epithelial cells were stained moderately, and the epithelial layer that was detached from the cornea exposed to 600 mJ/cm2 of light was stained intensely in corneas exposed to 254-nm UV light. In the current study, no corneal damage was induced by 222-nm UV light, which suggested that 222-nm UV light may not harm rat eyes within the energy range and may be useful for sterilising or preventing infection in the future.”

I went shopping for this light – but only found a TX manufacturer but price $1500+ (https://www.larsonelectronics.com/category/57/intrinsically-safe-lights) – need to make sure getting the far UVC light 222nm.

If they were mass produced the price would decrease rapidly – I am sure if a school district or broad govt building purchase was made this cost could become affordable for the masses. I don’t think you would want to live in a completely sterilized room as your immune system will likely be weakened but IF you had guest over or going to public place given covid I would want that place to be sterilized.

So tired of hearing about all these quick test – https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/26/21403432/fda-authorizes-binaxnow-covid-19-test-abbott-cheap-fast