covid pandemic mask rules are less understood day by day

Form of words:
a-
A+

sLondon Breed, a Francisco Mayor, sent an important but unintentional message last week when he was caught partying at a jam-packed jazz club, masked, violating his own mask mandate.

His excuse was incoherent; She said she was “feeling the soul,” enjoying the music and therefore not thinking of a mask.

But the more serious problem was his hypocrisy and lameness not so much rationally as the mixed and misleading messages sent by the rules themselves. Americans desperately need guidance that is consistent, fair, sustainable and backed by evidence. And they’re not getting it from public health officials or rule-makers who rely on them, even as the country leans toward a confused new normal with no end in sight to COVID-19. .

“We don’t need funny cops to come in and micromanage us and tell us what we should or shouldn’t do,” Breed said. She was making a good point! But as Charles CW Cook wrote in the National Review on Monday, he is the man who authorized the mask mandate. He’s a funny cop.

What we know from scientific observations is that some environments are more risky than others. Epidemiologists at one point used the term Three C’s to describe major risk factors: crowding, close contact, and closed spaces. The San Francisco club where the breed was caught may have had all three Cs glowing in neon signs.

His explanation after the fact made it clear that it was absurd to expect people to enjoy live music in clubs wearing “well-fitting” masks according to local regulations. Even the most enthusiastic maskers probably wear them about 20% of their time to a club, or a cocktail party, or similar event. Does it really help?

Not necessarily. There is scientific evidence to suggest that wearing a mask in such situations is mostly symbolic.

At the start of the pandemic, infectious disease physician Muge Sevic collected studies in which researchers performed contact tracing to find out how and where the virus was actually jumping from person to person. What the studies showed was that the virus spread indoors, and the more people spent indoors together, the more likely it was.

Duration is extremely important – it’s not just about a six-foot distance. The virus travels on tiny airborne particles, which quickly dilute outside but build up in indoor air. This would mean that spending three hours at a club mostly without a mask is far worse than spending 10 minutes completely unmasked at a convenience store grabbing a soda. Other studies showed that the risk skyrocketed during singing and the loud conversations people had in clubs and bars.

The San Francisco club required patrons to be vaccinated, but new data on the Delta version shows that it is possible for fully vaccinated people to get a mild or asymptomatic case and possibly transmit the virus to others. This can lead to more hospitalizations in children who have not yet been vaccinated, or the immunocompromised, who are not getting full protection from their vaccines.

At the same time, the prevention of Kovid has to be balanced with human needs. No one wants to live in a world where live music is banned. Enforcing some mask mandates may seem like a reasonable compromise.

But let’s not stumble into a future in which mask rules seem arbitrary, silly, or unfair. In San Francisco, marathon runners are required to wear a mask, although that kind of venue is far less risky than the club where Breed was caught partying. Maybe she likes music more than just running marathons.

The first step towards reshaping policy would be to agree on a goal. A pair of researchers from Harvard and Boston Universities recently wrote in the New York Times that there is a need to agree on the purpose of the COVID-19 rules and restrictions.

“It is in no one’s interest to sleep in the precarious masquerading and may increase distrust after an already very difficult year,” he wrote.

As risk-communication expert Peter Sandman wisely said at the start of the pandemic, science can tell us which activities are most risky, but it can’t tell us how much risk to accept. That is, a political decision by its very nature.

Science can help shape coherent policies that will achieve a goal once it is decided by the people. If the situation is really so dire that goals cannot be achieved without masking marathon runners, music lovers will have to adapt and enjoy live performances outside or in places where there is no alcohol so that people remain masked. fair is fair.

It may turn out that an additional vaccine shot will be enough to stem the tide of Delta cases, but scientists are still divided as to who should get them and whether it’s aimed at preventing people from being hospitalized, or all cases. have to cut. And the tangle of booster recommendations coming out of Washington is hopelessly confusing.

For a healthier new normal, we also need more information to help people navigate a world with less rigid rules. Many young, healthy people who have been vaccinated are not afraid of becoming seriously ill. It can happen, sure, but can be wiped out by brain cancer or a drunk driver. This is one of the many risks we face, but what makes the virus different is that we don’t want to pass the disease on to those who are more vulnerable than us.

That means we need to know if we are somewhere that wants to stay away from vulnerable people for a while, or get tested a couple of times. It’s important to know that clubs are a worse bet than a stroll on the beach. If the breed really wanted to do damage control, she could have promised to quarantine, or stay at home until she had some negative tests. Or she could have said she would reconsider her policy to be more reality-based in the long run. –bloomberg

Read also: The ‘no mask’ rules in the US just follow the science

subscribe our channel youtube And Wire