Health policies based on science and evidence, by Elmer Huerta

One of the most important knowledge in the control of the pandemic has been the recognition – albeit slow – that the main route of contagion of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) are the aerosols that pass from person to person through the respiratory tract.

It took months of stubborn insistence, and that those aerosols could be suspended in the air of closed rooms without ventilation. That in science is called a paradigm shift and involves the modification of the health policies.

It is very important to understand that the enactment of health policies, understood as regulations and provisions that affect the population and that are drawn up by health decision-makers (understood as politicians and includes the Minister of Health), must be guided by solid scientific evidence.

If it is accepted that thick droplets are the main route of transmission of the virus, then prevention policies will emphasize that it is enough to cover the nose and mouth with any type of mask (including cloth), and that deep and repeated cleaning of the surfaces where those thick droplets may have remained.

On the other hand, if it is accepted that aerosols are the main route of infection, regulate the capacity of people in closed places and promote the ventilation of spaces.

“The transfer of scientific evidence to create health policies has not been the most fluid during the pandemic.”

–Health policies–

Last week, the World Health Organization (WHO) held its first global summit on evidence and health policy (E2P) Global Summit on Evidence and Health Policy (E2P). In it, political leaders, health ministers and specialists in health policies agreed that In this sense, the speakers agreed that, for various reasons, the transfer of scientific evidence to create health policies has not been the most fluid during the pandemic.

-The surfaces-

Last week, researchers from the National Institute of Health (INS) prepublished a major study. Conceived in May 2020, it was conducted between November and December of the same year in the districts of San Martín de Porres, Villa El Salvador and San Juan de Lurigancho. In it, 2,055 surface samples were analyzed to search with a PCR test (similar to that of a swab) for the presence of the SARS-CoV-2.

Of the total samples, 960 were of foods prone to being touched by the public, the rest (1,095 samples) consisted of surfaces in markets, supermarkets, banks and public transport vehicles.

The results indicated that, of the 2,055 samples processed, only one was positive for SARS-CoV-2: the button of an ATM in San Martín de Porres. This single isolated virus was inoculated in Vero-81 cell culture to determine its viability and

In summary, the important INS study did not identify the new coronavirus on more than 2,000 surfaces of objects and food; Therefore, the public panic about contagion through surfaces – which led to disinfecting food, plastic bags and boxes from the market, and allowing themselves to be sprayed by alcohol on their clothes – has no scientific basis.

–Bureaucratic delay–

The point is – according to one of the researchers revealed to this columnist in a radio interview – that the 2,055 samples collected in November and December 2020 were processed in approximately two months, so in March of this year it was already known that zero samples they were positive.

The question is: why did they wait almost nine months to release the results of such an important investigation? In other words,

It is likely that this valuable information would have guided the public health policy, discouraging the disinfection of streets and markets, the spraying of alcohol on clothing and unnecessary footbaths, which were recently discouraged by the Ministry of Health (Minsa) in the last week of october.

In a recent WHO publication, The following are described: formal presentations at meetings, direct communication with decision-makers through health policy reports, traditional communication methods (newsletters and emails), and communication with interest groups or information networks. Apparently, none were used to transfer the evidence to decision makers, which prevented these findings from guiding a timely health policy, based on science and evidence.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER