The coronavirus outbreak has shone a bright light on the use of experts and scientific advice?

Surely, before we shut down the entire society in response to the pandemic, we should check if there are engineering solutions that could help halt or slow the spread of the virus – from door handles that kill viruses to new ways of pressing lift buttons.

But is this using engineering expertise to its full capacity.

The obvious place to have engineering expertise would be on SAGE?

However, there’s a problem: it’s SAGE, not ESAGE or SEAGE, reflecting that science and engineering advice are both different and necessary.

The name hasn’t stopped SAGE from calling on engineering experts in the past.

SAGE for coronavirus comprises two groups, one which draws on the epidemiology of historic pandemic flu, and one that focuses on the social science of public health.

These groups feature experts across medicine, epidemiology, and social sciences only.

That sounds like an engineering challenge to me?

When we look at which countries have done relatively well in tackling the virus, there are signs of (computer) engineering at work.

No country, however, has managed to deploy engineering solutions in a way that also helps day-to-day life continue in some safe way.

I’m not an engineer or a virologist, but I study how science, technology, and engineering can be used in policy to change the world for the better.

Engineering solutions would have been especially effective early on during the outbreak before measures like lockdown were introduced.

When you look at the potential that engineering can bring to this in public health (preventive) rather than a medical (restorative) setting, it shows how much we’re actually missing.

It may be that these particular (disinfectant) solutions are not workable at scale, but the point is that engineers could probably come up with other design solutions that would work.

I work at the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Public Policy department at University College London?