Singing is more forceful projection than normal speech. Do you need a cite for that?
If you’re pushing air more forcefully through a mask, it’s likely that more of the little droplets in your exhalation that the virus hitches a ride on will get through your mask. Do you need a cite for that?
If I want to spit, do I need a cite to prove that wearing a mask would greatly reduce the amount of saliva that escapes? Some things are just self-evident.
That may or may not be true, but assuming that’s the case, accepted definition of social distancing has generally been around 6 feet.
I’ve got some news for you: the virus can travel through the air a lot farther than that.
Translation: The default recommendation of 6 feet as a standard definition of social distance is malarkey, and people are going to reopen restaurants, churches, and everything else thinking that they’re distancing themselves, and they’re going to end up in a graveyard because of what they don’t know.
The people in the Washington State church were singing, which projects droplets further than merely talking. Singing is somewhere between talking and coughing, but since it’s sustained, and since everyone’s doing it at the same time, it’s arguably the worst thing you can do.
This is not to say that you couldn’t, in theory, pull off small church gatherings with some extreme caution and really good preparation and precautions taken. The reality, however, is that very few people know how to pull this off because they just don’t understand how the virus is spread or how it is contained.
Your mom should assume that there will be people at church who are contagious and that the air will have contaminated droplets. Due to the fact that it’s an indoor space with the same group of people rebreathing the same air, it’s very likely for everyone to breathe each other’s air. In addition, each person in the congregation will not be striving for the same level of precautions, so she can’t count on others being as safe as possible. Even if people wear masks, there’s no consistency in mask or guarantee of proper mask usage. She should consider everyone as being maskless regardless of whether they have a mask or not.
Taking all that into consideration, your mom should take whatever precautions she needs to so that she can be safe in that environment. An improvised mask is not going to be sufficient. At a minimum she’ll need a surgical mask and wear it properly. If she wants to socialize with people, do so outside from a safe distance so that any contaminated droplets will be disbursed in the outside air. She should not socialize with people indoors as the air is stale and will be full of contaminated droplets.
Study published by the New England Journal of Medicine:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800?query=featured_coronavirus
Sorting this chart by state, Virginia is hardly on the downswing. I’d be concerned, and no way would I gather with others. I go to work, where everyone acts like we’re over this. Sorting the above chart to Illinois is eye opening.
It was almost certainly true given the timeline, and the data point therefore probably worthless to estimate the risk with social distancing.
It’s not remotely clear that it’s ‘malarkey’. There’s always going to be disagreement about it, especially if you don’t specify a confidence level. Far enough apart to never transmit the disease? But that’s not a realistic goal.
And the items in media for a long time about particles droplets traveling X distance or remaining airborne for Y time are not tied into an actual probability of enough of them to make somebody sick. It’s basically not ethically feasible to directly test the actual question.
Like I said before, if you attach no positive value to the activity in question and you could instead stay home alone, you’d stay home alone. But if the activity does have perceived value, 100% safety is no longer the goal and it’s actually pretty hard to say how far below 100% safety it is with varying assumptions of the precautions, also how big volume to floor area and how well ventilated an indoor space, and also the local prevalence of COVID which varies very widely.
The other empirical observation I’d give about general effectiveness of standard measures like 6’ and masks is in my town (in NJ right next to NY). The rate of new infections is now running around 10% of the early May peak. But it’s obvious and has been all along that not everybody follows 6’ distance or mask guidelines. Big gatherings indoors haven’t be held, but ‘malarkey’ and quotations of extreme possible distance for virus particles to travel far beyond 6’ implies the measures don’t work anywhere. But they clearly do work to a highly significant extent, if the infection rate can drop that much despite many people obviously not rigorously following them.
It’s just not clear actually whether strict adherence to 6’ and masks at indoor gatherings would be a significant risk. And ‘significant’ will also be defined by people for themselves, with work, and with meetings of religious or other organizations important to those people.
Unless I missed it, that link says nothing at all about singing.
See, whenever any tries this hard to be ignorant, they may as well just come right out and acknowledge that they don’t wear face protection in indoor public spaces. Because that’s really what they’re saying.
You’re making an assumption. A lot of people have made a lot of assumptions with COVID-19 that haven’t ended up too well.
Churches have authorities? Authority to do what? So let’s see if I’ve got this right: they feel safe enough (brave enough is more like it) to congregate in substantial numbers right in the middle of a pandemic, but they’re going to send someone home if one or two people show up without a mask? If half of them show up without a mask, are they going to cancel the service?
IME, that can happen, but it often doesn’t. Look at how many people are out in the open saying “Fuck it, I’ll wear a mask if I want, or not.” Remember: it took one - just one - asymptomatic carrier to cause a super outbreak in one church. 87% of people got infected.
That’s one question - one of many.
A better one is, is their ventilation?
Another one: do they have ventilation?
Do they plan to sing?
How will they enforce ‘the rules’? Are they really going to send people home? Are they going to suspend a service? I doubt it. By opening and having a service, it’s essentially saying “We’re opening in defiance of the risks associated with living in a pandemic.” It’s an act of optimism - and it’s delusional.
I agree. But you’re hoping that it’s just one person who ignores the rules. It’s a gamble - a gamble with the upside being that churchgoers don’t get infected for another week. But if they lose, they lose tens of thousands of dollars in medical expenses. And they just might end up going to heaven sooner than expected.
Here’s some relevant info: The Risks - Know Them - Avoid Them.
She summaries a few reports to give info on how people catch the virus. She says a minimum number of virus particles needed for an infection is about 1000. Different activities release different amounts of droplets which may contain the virus:
The droplets may contain multiple virus particles. A sneeze may have 200 million virus particles in the expelled droplets.
The more forceful the breath, the more droplets from the lower respiratory system are expelled. Since the lower respiratory system is where the CV19 virus is most plentiful, projecting your voice will release more virus particles than calm breathing.
She mentioned a Washington State choir where 45 of the 60 choir members got infected even though they took steps to ensure social distancing and no contact.
I would be a lot less concerned with the situation you’re outlining than just opening up a church randomly. They’re aiming for social distancing measures, seating people apart, in a larger area than usual, after two months of non-contact. It doesn’t sound like that’s the kind of church where people will feel pressured to go, or to get closer than is safe. It’s a baptist church, so there’s no shaking of hands or communion.
For your Mom, I assume she’s fairly old. Some of the other parishioners might be even older. There might come a point where they can’t go to church for non-corona reasons, and time is short to see people and make contact - non-physical.
TBH it sounds like a reasonable way to still be part of a faith community without being careless about transmitting diseases, and being part of a community, faith or otherwise, helps people’s mental health enormously.
We’ve known for decades that masks are less effective when the wearer is talking than when the wearer is silent. Here’s a 1961 study. There have been many more.
And yeah, singing is just talking melodically. :dubious:
I would wait a month before going back to any meeting of more than couple of family members no matter what the function. I believe we are going to see quite a few spikes two weeks after all these places “open up” and that people in high risk groups (such as your mom and myself) need to continue self isolation until we actually see data that shows the area is on the decline or new cases are virtually eradicated.
I live outside of Detroit and 95% the people here (except those idiots protesting in Lansing) wear mask when they go into a confined place. I went down to Ohio on Mothers days and observed that on 15% of the people at Walmart had mask on. I’m thinking your mom might live in a typical situation. Don’t let her risk it if you can.
I’m not citing that example as proof of anything, you are. Thus it’s you who need to show it’s actually comparable, rather than me have to show it’s not. And nobody is saying an indoor gathering without social distancing is safe. If the question is ‘should I worry my mom’s church is opening not doing anything different than they would have in May 2019?’ then we all know the answer, ‘yes’. The question here is what social distancing (plus masks if so) would do. So you need examples of bad outcomes with at least social distancing, as far as examples (it’s not beyond reason to try to theorize based on aerodyamics of particles, mask leakage etc, but that’s not actual epidemiological evidence, it doesn’t tell you anything really except risk isn’t zero).
Absolutely they do, but you’re missing the more basic point that people show up for a religious service as members of a community. It’s not even like trying to make tourists at a historic religious building wear or not wear this or that type of clothing. People with the attitude is ‘I’m checking this out but I’m the boss of me and I don’t care what these people want’, don’t show up as participants in a service, pretty much any religion. If the church authorities (just a catch all phrase to denote it might be an independent pastor in a one-off Protestant church, or my parish priest who also has to pay attention to what the archdiocese says, or various gradations in between, in synagogues, mosques etc also) affirmatively require spacing and masks that’s extremely likely to happen pretty uniformly among people who want to come to that gathering as part of a community. And if somehow people didn’t do it many places of worship would in fact cancel, so that’s really a follow on question, ‘my mom’s church started services, she says people aren’t distancing, what now?’. And of course she does not have to keep going or even stay the first time if so.
‘But what if she catches it in the time it takes her to realize the very first time that lots of people aren’t wearing masks or distancing!?!?’ That’s back 0% difference in risk from staying home being an appropriate standard if you put zero necessity or value on the added activity. The added risk is probably something, but it could be very small if it’s a big space and only a small % of people don’t wear masks, none near you, and there’s a perceived positive benefit to going.
But again I think you’re stuck on a mental model of it being a bunch of people coming to a place strictly as individuals with no perceived common interest or mutual responsibility except as ‘citizens’. That’s not the typically the case in a religious congregation. If the church authorities clearly say to wear masks highly likely virtually everyone will. If they aren’t clear about it, perhaps a meaningful % don’t…then you can leave.
Right, our church (ELCA Lutheran) trusts our pastors and Congregational leadership. They even trust our Bishop and Synodical leadership to a point. But if they don’t trust our Synod’s leadership, they go to their Pastor or Council President. If they don’t trust them, they end up going to a different church.
Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
I think trust is certainly part of it. But in fact, nobody knows for sure what IS “safe.” As someone said on the board somewhere, it’s a matter of risk assessment. And even with leadership you trust and consider well-informed, each person must assess their own risk and decide how much they can tolerate.
Oregon is currently fighting over whether the governor must re-open churches. My churchiest neighbors have regularly been sitting with friends and non-resident family in front of their house, about 2 feet apart. I’d estimate their cluster as 12 people at a minimum (they’ve also been within 3 feet of at least two working nurses, both of whose spouses have been within arm’s length of other neighbors and their children’s friends).