However I have seen no argument to disregard ACH's from natural ventilation, and significant natural ventilation is desirable: for low CO2. Also, a CR-box can certainly do a little more than 400 CFM, just at expense of more noise.
1/
900x8 classroom:
0 ACH ➡️ 1440 CFM
1 ACH ➡️ 1320 CFM
2 ACH ➡️ 1200 CFM
6 ACH ➡️ 720 CFM
900x10 classroom:
0 ACH ➡️ 1800 CFM
1 ACH ➡️ 1650 CFM
2 ACH ➡️ 1500 CFM
4 ACH ➡️ 1200 CFM
2/
@sri_srikrishna@RanuDhillon@T_Inglesby@kprather88@AbraarKaran Few thoughts on the numbers:
Natural ACH can probably be estimated with 'citizen science' and 'citizen math'.
Having to run a CR-box at higher speed is not an unfair 'price' of bad (less than 2 ACH) ventilation.
The best case of 6 ACH in a smaller classroom will be very rare.
3/
@sri_srikrishna@RanuDhillon@T_Inglesby@kprather88@AbraarKaran Summing up, for 12 ACH, you'd need 3 to 4 CR-boxes per classroom that in principle should be run at low speed (400 CFM), but, in context of bad ventilation (which can be checked by anyone by measuring CO2) may have to be run at higher speed (more noise) giving around 500 CFM.
4/
In fact, I think it's pretty *mundane* idea (that is, I'd say not something really up to debate), in the context of this pricing / sizing conversation.
6/
With portable air cleaners or one or more #CorsiRosenthalBox'es, we can make classrooms at least a bit safer. You can make a big difference with just 400 USD (depends on salestax). With 21 students, this gives more than 16 liters of cleaned air per student per second.
1/
@nilikm The 400 USD solution consists of 6 of the devices below. They deliver 58 * 6= 348 liters of clean per second in total. 6*60 = 360 USD without sales tax.
2/
@nilikm This is an example from my shopping cart at the Taotronics website. Note the discount code applied ("MAY25").
@_mbdr_ Further thoughts, re biases: It might also be kind of dunning-kruger effect, of non-medical people DEEPLY understimating the complexity of finding a cure. They may feel that they'd find a cure for something if *they* would look at it or so. "How hard can it be?"
1/
@_mbdr_ And surely, and I guess that's the elephant in the room: There will also be a lot of wishful thinking. It's just not nice to think we have a new raging virus that is actually causing (for any forseeable future) incurable permanent disease. It's tough on the conscience.
@MeddygLou One thing that I think could make a different is increasing the hope that IF we resume masking, it won't be forever. Because I think a lot of people associate masking now with masking forever. Masking for a short while is definitely more palatable than masking forever.
1/
Other than pointing at potential significant improvements in drugs and/or vacines (especially transmission-blocking nasal vaccines) it would be pointing out that filtering the virus out of indoor air also could greatly reduce infection risk.
2/
@MeddygLou The advantage of focusing on indoor quality is that it at least *seems* to be much more under our control.
In contrast, most of us 'common people' will just have to wait for better drugs and vaccines, and people may also have lost faith in pharmaceutical solutions.
3/