Fact-Checked Source: Center for Disease Control "Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings"

This article, as written by the US government, explains that COVID-19 can be transmitted through infected airborne particles.

Looking Deeper: The Checked Fact

Myth: There is no real use in distenfecting the surrounding air of gathering areas.

I want to look at related scientific studies myself so I can better understand how the virus spreads in order to gain control of my health and help accurately inform those around me of proper precautions to take.

Essay

How the Government's Perspective Impacts the Use of Precautionary Measures Against Airborne Transmission of COVID-19

The topic of airborne transmission of COVID-19 between people, is of extreme relevance because governments are informing citizens of conflicting information on the matter. Italy and China care to disperse disinfectants throughout the air, but the representative American health agency, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), is insisting this is unnecessary protocol (Center for Disease Control, 2020). So, I set out to see if one can become infected with COVID-19 through contact with lingering infected air particles. 

Researchers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center tested air samples from 11 isolation rooms of mild-symptomed COVID-19 patients. And, upon testing the samples, a fingerprint of the virus was found. The findings were further elaborated on, as it was stated that this doesn’t mean that the particles can actively infect people, and that future studies would have to be done (Greenfieldboyce N, 2020) . Another study published by the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed these findings and proved that the virus does linger in the air with a half-life of 1.1 to 1.2 hours and remains viable for up to three hours (Doremalen NV et al., 2020). The results of these studies, along with many more, suggest that COVID-19 lingers throughout the air and that it can cause for transmission, although it is unlikely. 

It is hard to pinpoint why other governments seem to find great importance in sanitizing the streets and spraying disinfectant throughout the air, while the US government appears to have determined otherwise, especially because the US is well developed and has access to almost all the same resources. I speculate this is a result of where on the “standard COVID-19 timeline” the country is, which is influencing its decisions. The States have yet to reach the national peak of the curve, meaning its time, money, and resources are prioritized to be spent on the front lines of the COVID-19 battle (Harvard Health Publishing, 2020). America probably doesn’t yet want to invest their time and resources into a precautionary practice, as investing in it is less effective at saving lives than investing in actively needed resources. Until there are less national COVID-19 cases and the US is able to appropriately tend to the virus' possible airborne transmission, the CDC will likely not stress the importance of the related practices that they don't have the resources for. The US government may instead follow the pattern of China and Italy by waiting to entirely recognize the probability of airborne transmission until the national curve is on the decline and the government has ample resources to properly disinfect the streets and air (Secon, 2020). 

For the reasons presented above, it is important as a US citizen not practiced in the medical field, to look at the source of presented information and assess its reliability and potential biases. It is necessary to practice skepticism when interpreting assumed factual information by acknowledging the possible perspectives of the source. Is the government relying on previous data that has since been disproven? Are they aware of current data but will not stress it until they are prepared for the consequences? With a holistic understanding of how new information is accepted as factual, each individual is able to consider the impact of the source’s bias and how factual the “fact” truly is, resulting in informed decisions that allow you to take control of the health of you and others.