|
|
|
|
|
|
by giraffe_lady
1150 days ago
|
|
|
Very cynically I think it was rejected early and high up because it simply would have required a top-down decree that large corporations spend an astounding amount of money for the wellbeing of their workers. As a society we've basically ruled out interventions of that sort by now, and it would establish/reinforce the belief that companies are responsible for the health of their workers. Whereas personal-domain actions like sanitizing and masking cost companies basically nothing and reinforce the mindset that covid mitigation is an individual responsibility and so the consequences from having it are an individual burden. It doesn't even matter if they work or not, from this perspective, which explains why pointless things like sanitizing and QR menus persisted so long. |
|
|
1. Inertia: Sanitizing and disinfection was what was recommended in March 2020. Even masking was actively discouraged until later.
2. "We have to do something." "This is something."
3. Handwashing/hand sanitizing and sanitizing surfaces are visible actions that reassure some people. Ventilation and filtration improvements are generally not visible.
4. Ventilation and filtration improvements are expensive and, for an institution, require certified professionals to design and implement. There aren't enough of these people and not enough equipment to implement this for every building in a timely manner. Handwashing and clorox wipes are cheap and anyone can use them.
Personally I think that COVID is likely going to be with us for some time to come and will cause significant disability as people get infected repeatedly. I think eventually we will see significant uptake of ventilation/filtration improvements.