Urge WHO to agree not only aerosol route is possible for COVID-19, but we need to make provision in our buildings

A few things:

• The choice of the word "promising" in the context of acknowledging the role of aerosolization in the transmission of CoViD-19 seems a little bit out of tune.
• I am concerned that the message that gets sent will be that because the airborne transmission of the virus is no longer in doubt, there will be a hue and cry for building systems to take the role of protecting built environment occupants from infection.  THAT IS A BAD THING!  What we must emphasize is the role of individuals to break the chain of person-to-person transmission through wearing face coverings and maintaing social distancing.
• Short of clean room quality laminar flow air patterns, ventilation systems cannot provide nearly the level of protection and mitigation as face covering and social distancing.  There is simply no evidence that a virus (not just CoViD, but also SARS, MERS, the flu and measles) can be picked up by an HVAC system with more than minimal filter performance and deliver an infectious dose of CoViD to another space through recirculation.  Having said that, there is a difference between airborne viral transmission and that of other microbes (such as legionella or TB), mostly having to do with the very short viability "half-life" of virus in airborne particle form.

First bullet:  While the WHO's statement on July 9 acknowledging the role of aerosol emissions in transmission of the virus is an important step in understanding the disease propogation, their brief is still limited in scope. Second bullet:  I think I would just delete the whole thing about the role of the buit environment and simply state:  "This finding confirms the need for each of us to take the personal responsibility for protecting our fellow citizens, and to wear a face covering whenever in a shared indoor space, and to maintain social distancing.  The virus can travel well beyond a six foot radius and the best way to inhibit its transmission is through source control." Third bullet:  Amoy Garden's transmission was not through recirculation of an HVAC system with more than minimal filter performance, but the faulty operation of an exhaust system that allowed viable virus a "short circuit" path between dwelling units.

Oh, dear.  I have just now read the petition itself (highllights my own): "As design and built environment professionals, we can immediately apply the knowledge, based on scientific evidence, of clean indoor air and mitigation techniques using proven technology: enhanced natural air ventilation, high performance air filters, good ventilation rates, appropriate humidity control, robust sunlight or proper ultra-violet light. We can protect first responders, students, office workers, essential workers and all citizens. The built environment can be a great health equity equalizer." We are getting WAY out over our skis saying we can protect all these populations - and all citizens? I'm not signing.

A lot to digest here... I'm trying to focus on what the desired outcome is of this. Is it to get them to create a best practices guide related to IAQ? I'm not sure that would have much more utility than documenting a utopian version of what we want buildings to look like. I don't know if this is echoing any of Kim's concerns or not, but I think it has to potential to skip right past the elephant in the room, which is that a significant portion of our existing building stock is screwed up. And for most buildings, our best work as designers isn't really about making them safe, but is probably really just making them less bad.  

Unfortunately, I believe the general public and the WHO themselves interprets the their "indoor crowded poorly ventilated settings" to be bars, restaurants, and a Crossfit gym. They probably don't suspect that "poorly ventilated settings" often applies to daycares, schools, offices, and just about any manner of building loaded up with people. There are multiple studies out there on how inadequately ventilated classrooms are, yet every one of my conversations with a school district professional has resulted in them being surprised that ventilation is such a pervasive problem. These are districts, by the way, that will have kids going to school in those classrooms next month. 

Getting the WHO to realize that much of our building stock exacerbates the risk based on what they've begun to acknowledge is probably where I feel the most urgency. And, it actually aligns with what many of the scientific professionals with some knowledge of building systems (namely Linsey Marr, Lidia Morawska, Joseph Allen, Shelly Miller) who petitioned them have been focusing on. So we could be complimentary to that effort as people with more robust knowledge on what types of systems are found in buildings, and how they affect risk.  So a simple structure would look something like this:

• While not replacing the importance of social distancing and PPE, the WHO has recently acknowledged the potential for airborne transmission, particularly in poorly ventilated settings (side note... I think they did this related to some of the super spreader events months ago, but I'd have to dig back through the timeline)
• Indoor air quality is a complex issue, but the WHO should realize that many buildings can be classified as "poorly ventilated." This problem exists far beyond the examples they have been using, and creates a false perception in the public as to the quality of indoor environments. 
• Building environment professionals have been working to tackle this issue before Covid-19, but this creates an obvious sense of urgency as companies, schools, and governments attempt to reopen and reoccupy buildings.  
• We urge the World Health Organization (WHO) to work with built environment experts and recommend the adoption of indoor air contaminant control best practices in response.