What are the alternatives?
Using the FridoTech Pro Far-UVC to sanitise an area has a number of advantages
Works in real time in occupied spaces, inactivating viruses as they are aerosolised
Safe to human skin and eyes
Dosing controlled to comply with international regulation
Not dependent on unpredictable air flows
Robust proven science
The devices is visually prominent to reassure people that they are being protected
Whilst alternatives are a useful part of the sanitisation mix, they do have significant limitations…
Physical Cleaning
Expensive and time consuming
Ineffective against aerosolised virus
Pulmonary irritant - affecting person cleaning and chronic lung disease passengers - asthma/copd
Fomite transmission not proven for Covid
Areas are immediately reinfected once an infected person enters and breathes.
HEPA filters
Only useful in very small occupied spaces with rapid turnover of air, such as airplane cabins
Rapid degradation of filtering ability and unable to predict when it is not effective
Does not work in real time, so still have active virus in the air not being removed.
Dependant on unpredictable airflows in enclosed environments
HVAC units with 254nm UV lighting inside
Only active against virus as it passes over bulb. Does not inactivate in real time.
Dependant on unpredictable airflow in enclosed environments
254nm autonomous lighting units
Has to be used in unoccupied spaces as is harmful to skin and human eyes
Area immediately reinfected once occupied by an infected person
Ion emitting systems
Dependant on airflows around rooms: this is unpredictable
Passive systems such as wearing of masks
People are non compliant.
Variable efficacy
Not enforceable
Vaccinations
Have to trust paperwork presented to board ship
Evidence that they reduce transmission, rather than just severity of symptoms, is unclear
Waning immunity
Not effective against noravirus
Not effective against influenza
Partial omicron efficacy