Page last
modified May 18, 2020.
This is an optional reading
for the
students in my CSC 301 Computers and Society class.
Beaches vs. Coronavirus
by Dr. Marek A. Suchenek
May 18, 2020
Copyright and all
rights
reserved.
This article is
posted here
for in-class educational use only. No other use or uses
is/are allowed.
Disclaimer:
Except noted otherwise, some claims - including those made
by some
governmental agencies or entities - related to the
infectiousness of the
novel coronavirus specifically expressed or referred to in
this paper
have not been
scientifically proven or disproved, even though there may
be, or there
is, a credible evidence that supports some of them.
Contents
Introduction
There has been some controversy, including street protests,
regarding
California Governor's order to close beaches of Orange County
(see a
link to and an excerpt from an article,
at the end of this page, published by the Orange County
Register).
According to the Governor, his decision was based on a
scientific
consensus that such closings would reduce the risk of spread
of novel
coronavirus infection. His critics, however, maintained that
such
closing would have no measurable effect or would actually
increase the
risk of spread of novel coronavirus infection, never mind its
negative
impact on the quality of life of the individuals affected by
the
Governor's order.
Some detriments of closing of the beaches were pretty clear. A
heat
wave at the end of April 2020 forced many residents with no
air conditioning at home to seek
refuge in proximity of the Ocean the cooling effect of which
during hot
weather is beyond any question.
Also, it has been known for centuries that a lack of fresh air
and
insufficient exposure to sunlight have been aggravating
factors in many
infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis (just to name one).
On the other hand, supporters of the Governor's order were
claiming
that the beaches (particularly those in Orange County) were
crowded,
thus making it difficult to maintain the recommended social
distancing
of 6 feet, and the breeze from the ocean could actually spread
the
coronaviruses shed by the infected individuals and, therefore,
increase the chances of healthy individuals getting infected.
(Never mind the well known facts that prolonged exposure to
sunlight
may be a contributing factor to such deadly diseases as
malignant
melanoma.)
A careful examination of the facts (as of time of this
writing) leads
to a realization that there has been no scientific evidence that
closing of
the beaches in Orange County has reduced the risk of spread
of the
novel coronavirus infection, and there is some,
however scant, evidence
that closing of the said beaches might have actually increased
the risk
of spread of the infection. For instance, it has been observed
that
direct sunlight destroys airborne viruses in less than a
minute, and
cool breeze from the ocean carries with it air moisture that
makes it
more difficult for them to stay airborne. (Please, beware,
though, that
ocean water may in itself be a source of infectious pathogens;
for
instance, there were cases of e-coli infection reportedly
contracted
from the ocean water in California.)
Where
are we safer from coronavirus, indoors or outdoors?
Generally, with all other factors kept the same, we are safer (from
airborne infections) outdoors while the weather is
good enough and the
air is clean than we are indoors.
This is due to several factors, the most obvious of which is a
lower
concentration of airborne pathogens in typical outdoor
environment,
like beaches, than
in typical indoor spaces, like residences, stores, and
offices. It's
simple mathematics. A fixed amount of airborne pathogen (for
instance,
coronavirus) shed by a set of infected individuals will have a
much
smaller average concentration, and - therefore - a lesser
potential of
infecting a healthy individual, in a large volume of air
outside than
in a much smaller volume of air inside.
One needs to take into account that it is statistically
unlikely that
one particle of a contagious pathogen (for instance, one virus
or one
bacterium) can actually cause an infection; you need many of
them, the
so-called "minimum infectious dose" ("around a hundred" is
needed for
coronavirus infection, according to recent speculations by some scientists)
in order to make it statistically significant to infect a
healthy
individual. Thus the same number of pathogens "diluted" in a
large
volume of air is statistically less likely to cause spread of
infection
than the same number of pathogens contained in a smaller space
(like a
room or a hall).
The above, however obvious, are statistical speculations that
need to
be confirmed or refuted by a scientific experiment with use of
such
methods as hypotheses testing. As of time of this
writing
there has been no such experiment validated by a peer-review
process.
Below is a link to and an excerpt from a scholarly publication
published at the University of Edinburgh.
What is the evidence for the
importance of outdoor transmission and of indoor
transmission of
COVID-19?
https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/uncover_002-01_summary_-_indoor_and_outdoor_transmission.pdf
"We
found no studies reporting data on transmission in outdoor
settings and
no studies comparing transmission in outdoor settings with
transmission
in indoor settings."
Can
one actually catch coronavirus while outdoors?
Certainly, one can, for instance, by inhaling enough of
coronaviruses
from coughs of an infected person who is coughing right into
one's
face. But such a scenario seems much more likely to happen
indoors than
outdoors.
As a matter of fact, some scientists reported difficulty in
identifying individuals diagnosed wit novel coronavirus who
contracted
it while outdoors. It
appears that chances of contracting coronavirus
outdoors are about four orders of magnitude smaller than
chances of
contracting it indoors. (If that is the case, then
closing indoor
spaces, including public transportation, would have a
dramatically
stronger "life-saving" impact than closing of the beaches.)
Below is a link to and an excerpt from an article published by
the San
Francisco Chronicle on this subject.
China study suggests outdoor
transmission of COVID-19 may be rare
https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/China-study-suggests-outdoor-transmission-of-15229649.php
A study of COVID-19 outbreaks in China
earlier this year found that the virus is spread far more
easily
indoors than outdoors.
[...]
The large majority of
the
outbreaks occurred at home (79.9%) and involved three to
five cases.
Public transport was the next highest source of outbreaks
(34% - note
that many outbreaks involved more than one venue category).
[...]
Strikingly, only one
instance of outdoor transmission - involving two men talking
together
in the village of Shangqiu, Henan province - was found "among our 7,324
identified cases in China with sufficient descriptions."
The impact of direct sunlight
Sunlight propels most of known life on Earth. It also works as a
potent sterilizer. The ultraviolet (invisible)
radiation that comes with
sunlight is only partially shielded by the Earth's atmosphere.
The part
that goes through it has a potential of destroying living
organisms and
viruses. (There is no consensus among scientists if viruses do
qualify
as
living organisms.) Thus, as much as the direct sunlight may
cause
damage to your skin, it can also disinfect the air your breath
and the
surroundings you touch. It is also known to strengthen your
immune
system, for instance, by making your body to produce vitamin
(or hormone,
as some insist) D. (As of the time of writing, the specific
effects of
direct sunlight on one's immune system are not fully
understood.)
Sunlight destroys virus
quickly, new
govt. tests find, but experts say pandemic could last
through summer
https://news.yahoo.com/sunlight-destroys-coronavirus-very-quickly-new-government-tests-find-but-experts-say-pandemic-could-still-last-through-summer-200745675.html
The
study found that the risk of "transmission from surfaces
outdoors is
lower during daylight" and under higher temperature and
humidity
conditions. "Sunlight destroys the virus quickly," reads the
briefing.
What
some
health experts believe regarding indoors vs. outdoors risk
of
coronavirys infection
Although, at the time of this writing, there is no definite
scientific
evidence about the comparative risks of infection in an
outdoor vs.
indoor environment, many experts believe that being outside (weather
permitting) is safer than staying inside.
Below is a link to and excerpts from an article published by
The Hill.
Evidence mounts that outside
is safer
when it comes to COVID-19
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/496483-evidence-mounts-that-outside-is-safer-when-it-comes-to-covid-19
Health
experts say people are significantly less likely to get the
coronavirus
while outside, a fact that could add momentum to calls to
reopen
beaches and parks closed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[...]
The virus is harder to
transmit outdoors because the droplets that spread it are
more easily
disturbed or dispersed outside in the elements than in a
closed,
confined, indoor setting.
"It definitely spreads
more
indoors than outdoors," said Roger Shapiro, a professor at
Harvard
University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. "The virus
droplets
disperse so rapidly in the wind that they become a nonfactor
if you're
not really very close to someone outdoors - let's say within
six feet."
"Scientific"
politics or politicized "science"
As one can conclude from the above discussion, there is no
scientific
evidence that would dictate the thesis that closing of the
Orange
County beaches have saved lives (not counting the lives lost
to drownings or malignant melanoma). Yet the Governor, not
withstanding
his
presumably noble intentions, appeared to act as if he did
believe that
the said scientific did exists and implied that his
presumptions in
this respect were actually true.
Which brings up this question:
|
When a politician or a political group claims that
their position is
"scientific" or "based on science", does it mean
that it really is? |
Well, based on my experience, one may wish to remain skeptical, unless
the claimant provide specific reference or references to
peer-refereed
scientific study or studies that clearly imply the correctness
of the
said position. For it is easy for anyone to say: "What I claim
is a
scientifically-proven fact" even if the fact in question
happens to be
false or only partially true.
The question of burden of
proof that I discussed in class at several occasions
is of utmost importance here. The claimant does bear the
burden of proof that
his claim is true, or otherwise his claim has to
be classified as not
known to be true. And invoking "science" or
"scientific facts" without specific references to actual
scientific
justifications, does not constitute satisfaction of the said
burden,
and - therefore - is methodologically invalid. In the case discussed, above, the Governor has not satisfied the burden of proof of his claim that closing of the Orange County beaches would have a mitigating effect on spread of the coronavirus infection.
Let me use as an example a concept that I have had a life-long
(or half-life, to
be exact) experience with: the so-called "scientific"
socialism.
A
planned socialist economy was implemented after the WWII in my
country of birth and its
neighboring "Peoples' Democracies". It was scientifically
validated, or so
my government and its agencies claimed. It was called "Marxist
economy"
and was declared a settled science. It was predicted - by the
government's
experts -
to outperform the free-market capitalist economy of Western
Europe and
the United States. The said prediction did not materialize, as
the
economies of Eastern European socialist countries collapsed.
One of the
reasons of such a spectacular failure was that there was no
sound
scientific basis for the
"scientific" theory
of Marxist economy. The said theory was not a subject of a
meaningful peer-review process, and even if it were it would
not have withstood serious scientific scrutiny.
There was an
overwhelming
political pressure on scientists and researchers to not
disseminate
their findings of obvious flaws and non-sequiturs in
the "scientific" theory of
Marxist economy. And those who did voice their rational and
factual
criticism of the "science" of Marxist economy were deemed
enemies of
the proletariat (the blue-collar
workers) and silenced promptly. Similar criticism published
outside to
the socialist bloc countries was summarily dismissed as
anti-socialist
propaganda.
The above example serves as a good case study of credibility
of politicized
"science". It is not surprising that it tends to entail false
conclusions and
failed predictions. Because for the scientific method to yield a valid
result,
the scientists and researchers involved in the truth
discovery, verification, and validation process must be
disinterested. Thus, as soon as they submit
themselves to ideology, or
to political agenda, they are doomed to fail as a result of
their
repeated use of moralistic fallacy.
References
Gov.
Newsom orders hard close of beaches in Orange County
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/04/30/reactions-mixed-to-news-gov-newsom-may-order-beaches-closed-statewide/
No surfing or going for a cool ocean dip,
no walks on the beach for fresh air or laying on the sand.
All beaches along
Orange
County's 42 miles of coast are officially closed starting
Friday.
The hard closure
announced
by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday, April 30, came after
concerns that
too many people had visited the sands last weekend,
particularly in
areas of Orange County and Ventura - though the beach town
north of Los
Angeles was not given the same restrictions.
"My job as governor is
to
keep you safe," Newsom said in his daily press conference as
he
announced the closure targeted at O.C. beaches. "We don't
want to have
beaches with tens of thousands of people mixing."
"We're going to have a
temporary pause on beaches down there," he said. "I hope
it's a very
short-term adjustment."
Newport Beach Mayor
Will
O'Neill criticized Newsom, who earlier this week had called
out the
city in a daily briefing, saying the governor's move was
made "without
speaking to a single local official in Newport Beach" and
arguing that
Newsom put politics over data and "substituted his will for
our
judgment from 428 miles away in Sacramento."
"Los Angeles County
closed
their beaches over a month ago and data now shows that every
single Los
Angeles County beach community has a higher per capita COVID
infection
rate than Orange County's open beach communities," O'Neill
said in a
statement. "Any restriction that invokes health and safety
to shut down
freedom of movement needs to be grounded in data to show
that such
activities are direct threats to health and safety. That
showing was
not made today. Orange County's 42 miles of beaches can, and
should, be
safely opened."
Newsom shuts down Orange
County
beaches, spares rest of California
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/30/newsom-beaches-to-close-but-only-in-orange-county/
Gov.
Gavin Newsom's threat of shutting all California parks and
beaches to
stop crowds from spreading the coronavirus evaporated like
the morning
coastal fog Thursday.
Instead, in a growing
clash
with local officials downstate, the governor limited
closures to
beaches in Orange County, where tens of thousands of
sun-seekers
infuriated him by hitting the sands over the weekend in
seeming
defiance of the state's social distancing rules. His
declaration
enraged officials in Orange County, where the board of
supervisors
chairwoman called it "an overreaction and abuse of power"
that "tramples on our constitutional rights" - but it brought
relief to
other coastal communities spared by the order.
Whether Newsom ever
planned
the more extreme step laid out in a Police Chiefs
Association memo late
Wednesday - he denied it - or backed off under protest, as
others
insisted, remained up for debate. But the governor made
clear his
willingness to override local authorities and enforce his
first-in-the-nation, statewide stay-home order to slow the
spread of
the COVID-19 virus.