Consider This from NPR - Q & A: Ethical Dilemmas And Disinfectants

Episode Date: April 25, 2020

A scientist and a philosopher answer listener questions on 'The National Conversation with All Things Considered,' NPR's nightly radio show about the coronavirus crisis. Excerpted here:- Aerobiologist Joshua Santarpia discusses disinfectants.- Professor David Chan talks through the day-to-day ethical dilemmas during the pandemic.If you have a question, you can share it at npr.org/nationalconversation, or tweet with the hashtag, #NPRConversation.We'll return with a regular episode of Coronavirus Daily on Monday.This episode was recorded and published as part of this podcast's former 'Coronavirus Daily' format.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

This is Coronavirus Daily. I'm Kelly McEvers. And today, an ethicist talks through the day-to-day moral dilemmas we all face during this pandemic. And a biologist tells us the best way to disinfect surfaces. Experts answer more of your questions in segments with my colleague Ari Shapiro on the radio show, The National Conversation with All Things Considered. Here's Ari. We know the best way to avoid getting sick is to stay home as much as possible. If you're one of the lucky people who can do your job from home, that's great. But even then, most of us have to interact with the outside world somehow. We venture out for important errands or get groceries and food from the outside. So many of you have asked us about how to disinfect the things

that could have been exposed to the virus. We called a biologist to answer your questions. And this conversation was recorded earlier in the week before President Trump made his comments about disinfectants. He has since said those remarks were meant to be sarcastic. Well, to answer your questions on safe, effective ways to disinfect your home, I spoke to researcher Joshua Santarpia. He studies microorganisms like the coronavirus at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

Thanks for joining us. Thank you. There is so much that we're still learning about how the coronavirus spreads. This question comes to us from listener Stephen Vining of Dayton, Ohio. NPR cited early research in March indicating the COVID-19 virus is viable for 24 hours on porous surfaces and up to three days on hard surfaces. Is there recent confirmation of or updates on those results? Close listener there. Has the scientific guidance changed or is our understanding still that 24 hours is more or less the lifespan of this virus on a surface like that? So there

hasn't been anything new since that time. A couple of caveats to that particular study that was done with virus in cell culture media, which isn't what comes out of you when you cough or sneeze or breathe or whatever. And so there may be some variation on that more or less, but it's in a different kind of particle, I guess. Further, I think that there's some ongoing work. A colleague of mine is actually working on this now, looking at factors like sunlight and higher temperatures and humidities that might actually change the way this virus survives on surfaces as well.

I was going to say that segues perfectly into our next question, which is about whether temperatures have an impact on the virus. So forgive me for interrupting, but let's listen to this question from Mike. Hi, this is Mike McCood from Frederick, Maryland. How does temperature affect the viability of the coronavirus? Will putting groceries in the refrigerator or freezer deactivate the virus? He's just teeing you right up there. You were about to say. Great. So based on what we know right now, I would say that higher temperatures and higher humidities are probably worse for this virus than the cold.

Just for a little perspective, you know, we keep the culture samples in refrigerators to help preserve their viability. So I wouldn't rely on your refrigerator to kill anything, but certainly hotter temperatures and more humid conditions are likely to more quickly inactivate the virus. You're actually teeing up our next question pretty well here, I promise. We didn't give you a preview, but here this one comes from Jane. Let's listen. Hello, this is Jane Rosemond, and I'm calling from North Carolina. I'd like to know if time in a hot car on a hot day will inactivate the coronavirus. For example, if you leave something like shoes,

mask, or clothing in your car when it's parked for a while, will the virus be inactivated? Is that a good tactic? I mean, so technically, that's probably true, right? I mean, even based on the previous study, you can leave things around for long enough and it'll die, and probably the heat will shorten that time. However, like, none of us could tell you how long that would take or how long it would take for it to be safe. We got similar questions about whether steam or UV light or other things could kill the virus. Are there any things we might not think of that science has shown might be promising? Lots of things are actually not that good for microorganisms. And for instance, the coronavirus being an envelope virus, it's not among the more robust microorganisms that we tend to work with. Envelope viruses are typically unstable, but this particular coronavirus and

some of its cousins are actually more stable, I think, than your average envelope virus. But things like UV are bad for virtually every microorganism, bacteria, and viruses alike, but it's very wavelength dependent. Let's go to our next caller. Hello, this is Nancy Wong. I'm calling from Reno, Nevada. Everyone says to wash hands with soap and water to protect from COVID-19 because it breaks up the lipids. What about other cleaning products that are technically not soap, like facial bars, dishwashing liquid, a teaspoon of bleach, and a quart of water. And if the bathroom ran out of soap, would a long, brisk hand washing with water be better than nothing?

What would you say about those non-soap cleansers? Are they useful? Basically, it's surfactants that break the envelope. I'm not familiar with that word, surfactants. What is that? I mean, I guess most of us call it soap. Okay. You know, I think when people think about soap, they think about actual hand soap or something like that. But really, there are all kinds of other surfactants used for other things, you know, like dish soap would be very effective. Certainly bleach, you know, like a 10% bleach solution is going to be quite a big sledgehammer for killing this virus. But I'm not sure how much of that you want to put on your hands for any period of time. You know, and the last part of that question,

certainly mechanical removal is better than no removal at all. You mean just rubbing your hands together underwater, even if there is no soap that you could use? Yeah, because at least you're still removing some of it. And of course, everyone knows hand sanitizer now these days, at least 70% alcohol does a good job. We have a question from Beth House of Woodland, California about whether the type of soap matters. Does the bacteria which causes coronavirus remain on bar soap after hand washing? And should we be using liquid soap instead? Does the virus remain on a bar of soap? Should you worry about picking

it up after someone else? I wouldn't think so. I mean, for the same reasons that we just talked about where surfactants can help destroy the envelope virus, the same thing would apply, right? Even if there was a virus that wasn't quite broken up, I think as soon as you started washing your hands, the likelihood is that it would be immersed and you would have disruption. We've got another question here about fabrics. Let's listen to this. Hi, this is Sarah Welton calling from Jackson County, Michigan. Is there a safe way to wash fabrics? What should I do about clothing and bedding that might have been exposed to the virus? We've heard about healthcare workers coming home and throwing their clothing directly in the washing machine. What guidance can you give us here? Yeah, I think that's a

pretty fair approach. We really don't know. In fact, I've been asked a lot lately by the healthcare workers at our hospital about what they might be taking home. And the best advice I can give is to one, be very careful. You don't want to, especially with something like bedding, you don't want to unintentionally aerosolize some of the virus that might still be on there. So, you know, if you carefully remove it and put it in the washing machine, hot water and soap, again, should be fine. All right. Aerobiologist Joshua Santarpia from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, thank you for this guidance today. Yeah, well, thank you for having me. This message comes from WISE, the app for doing things in other currencies.

Send, spend, or receive money internationally, and always get the real-time mid-market exchange rate with no hidden fees. Download the WISE app today or visit WISE.com. T's and C's apply. The coronavirus has tested almost every part of our lives, hospital systems, the economy, and our empathy. It has also tested our ethical framework, posing the kinds of moral quandaries that might be best solved by a philosopher. Well, in this segment, we have one. David Chan is professor and chair of the philosophy department at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, and he's here to answer some of your tough questions. Thanks for joining us. It's my pleasure. Before we get to listener questions, I'm curious, when you think about the pandemic,

do you see this as a kind of philosophical problem? It does seem like a moment where we all have to think seriously about the individual versus the whole, the collective, the community. Yes, I think it raises so many of the moral quandaries that we may come across in daily life, but we don't usually think it's very important to consult philosophers. But I think this time, we do have to think more deeply about some of these questions, and philosophers are there to help. Well, I'm glad you're here to help us. Let's get into it. Our first listener question comes from Sarah in Pennsylvania. I wonder how others are dealing with vices, both their own and others.

My elderly neighbor across the street asked me to go to the corner store for her to buy her a candy bar. I felt conflicted and made up an excuse why I could not, but she has already lost her foot to diabetes and is in poor health. She lives with her son, who does all the shopping. On the one hand, I want to help, and I don't want to judge others' decisions. On the other, I really couldn't justify it as an essential trip and don't want to contribute to someone's increased risk for health problems. How are others dealing with this, such as with shopping for elderly relatives who want cigarettes, alcohol, or unhealthy snacks? Wow, there is so much packed into that question. I don't even know where to begin. David Chan, what would you say about helping an elderly neighbor who can't go shopping on her own, but indulging in vices,

both for ourselves and for others? So I think that the questioner is asking whether it's useful or is helpful to support someone's bad choices. And I think the answer should be no, it's not helpful unless there's really something worse about not supporting a choice. So if helping can be done with little risk or no cost to yourself, then one has to consider whether one should be paternalistic. To be paternalistic is to act for someone else's good, to restrict their freedom for their own good. You shouldn't be eating candy bars. Right. So you could tell the neighbor that a candy bar is bad for her,

so you're not getting it. But doing it in a pandemic, I think, is rather insensitive, especially if she's feeling alone and helpless and you're telling her that. But I think what may be decisive in this situation is really the risk of going to the store. And I guess the questioner was saying that she made up an excuse. I would actually be honest about it. You can tell the neighbor truthfully that if there's something she needs, there's a real emergency, you are there to help. She can count on you. But otherwise, you just don't want to go out and risk catching the

virus. Okay, let's take this next question from Mickey in Chicago, which is about caregiving. I am in my late 50s and provide medical rides, shopping, and meal prep for a woman in her 70s with ALS and her physically challenged husband. My housemate landlord is in her early 80s. Does the essential nature of the caregiving outweigh the risk I bring to my housemate? Huh, so by helping one family, she risks harming someone else, and there are elderly people in both of

these. What should Mickey do here? Yeah, I think philosophers and philosophy students will immediately recognize this problem because this is an endearing ethical question, right? Is it more important to help others or to avoid harming others? Think of the trolley problem.

Some of your listeners might be familiar with it, having watched The Good Place. Is killing worse or letting someone die worse? Is it worse to harm someone or to not assist others? Many philosophers actually favor not harming or failing to help. As when you don't help, the harm is caused by someone or something else. Whereas if you do the harm, that's caused by you. So you would not help the elderly person who needs assistance because if you do help the elderly person who needs assistance, you might harm your 80-year-old housemate.

And if you do nothing, maybe some harm will befall someone, but it won't be your fault. Is that what you're saying? Yes, that's one way to think about it. But here's another problem, right? Philosophers also distinguish between harms that you intend and harms that you may know will happen, but you do not intend. So obviously you do not intend to get your housemate infected. So it may instead be morally better to help since it's kind of a side effect, right?

If your housemate got infected, it wasn't intended. So this you might recognize as a principle of double effect, but that's also a controversial principle. Some philosophers reject that. And another thing to consider is also what we call proportionality. Proportionality. You're right. Even the harm to your housemate is not intended.

It might really be too serious to ignore. So the risk of unintended harm is certainly something that you should count very strongly against going out to help the woman. I'm curious, Professor Chan, how common is it for you to be surrounded by all of these abstract philosophical questions in very real world terms every day in so many places? I mean, it feels to me like these abstract ideas have suddenly become frighteningly real in a way that they weren't before. But maybe you've seen them in the real world every day of your life, because that's the way you look at the world.

Yeah, as I was saying at the beginning, we don't think very hard about this in everyday life. But I think doctors will tell you, this is the kind of situation they think about all the time. And the other thing is on the battlefield, soldiers have to deal with such choices, right? Whether they should let someone die, whether they should unintentionally kill people. So these are actually very pertinent to our lives, even though we don't often think of it. We have a question from Lorraine in Philadelphia who is wondering about online shopping. And she says, are we putting employees at risk by buying things online or is it better for them to have the income and helping to keep some businesses going as well? Yeah, this is actually another question that we should ask in normal times, right? Because

really there's this sweatshop problem. We buy stuff because they're cheap, but they are produced through unethical and exploitative practices. And then we ask, but it's cheaper. And then we tell ourselves, of course, those people working in sweatshops, they need a job, so we are helping them. So this is quite similar. We are telling ourselves, well, we are helping those workers because at least they have a job.

But the fact is that if they're being asked to do this, you have to ask, don't they have a choice about not working during the pandemic? Shouldn't they be offered paid leave? And the enticement of sale prices is actually meant to overcome

your prick of conscience so that you don't think too hard about it. David Chan, thank you for thinking through these difficult questions and problems with us. We appreciate your joining us. It's my pleasure. Thank you. David Chan is professor and chair of the philosophy department at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. That's it for today. If you have a question, send it to us at npr.org slash nationalconversation.

You can also tweet with the hashtag NPR conversation. And tune in to the National Conversation with all things considered weekday evenings on your local public radio station. We will be back on Monday with a regular episode of Coronavirus Daily from NPR. I'm Kelly McEvers.