Christian, Please Wear a Face Mask: Part 1

The science doesn’t allow for this to be a gray area.

Since I can tell by the comments that some didn’t even read the article much less click on any of the links I provided to the research, I am posting a study that was published yesterday (you can find it below). The science is clear, wearing masks reduces the spread. Ergo, wearing masks combined with other measures allows for those who are high risk to rejoin the physical gatherings of churches. Refusing to do so communicates to those who are high risk that they are not worth the effort. I have heard this privately from several people who are high risk and who are deeply wounded by their church families’ refusal to listen to and adhere to the science.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/27/science.abc6197

Science also tells me that it’d be safer if I rode my bicycle everywhere. It also tells me that my refusal to do so tells other people I’m fine with potentially killing them by losing control of my vehicle. It tells them they’re not worth the effort. If I loved my neighbors, I’d be willing to make that sacrifice. So would you. If it saves just one life, it’s worth it. What would Jesus do? He’d ride a bike.

My exasperation with this whole thing is not whether masks “save lives.” It’s whether the government response (local, state and federal) is appropriate to the threat. Why is this issue prompting such draconian edicts? We are we, as a society, willing to accept enormous risks in the course of everyday life, but we’ve decided that this issue is worth the nuclear option? Masks forever. Probably more lockdown in the Fall, etc.

Why? This is why I believe the entire approach is simply stupid.

[John E.]

The science doesn’t allow for this to be a gray area.

Since I can tell by the comments that some didn’t even read the article much less click on any of the links I provided to the research, I am posting a study that was published yesterday (you can find it below).

John, that’s not a study. It’s a paper. It is full of “estimated,” “could be,” and “supposed” and the like. It really proves nothing. It does say that virii travel by aerosol. No mask will be effective against that unless it is an N95 mask. Cloth masks and even surgical masks will not stop aerosols. They might reduce droplets, but that is about it. If you are sneezing and coughing you shouldn’t be out, period. Stay home.

But really, don’t pass this paper off as a study. It just isn’t one. They offer no evidence, no trials, no records of how many subjects involved. It’s nothing. Doesn’t say anything that wasn’t already supposed any number of places elsewhere. It isn’t a study.

But really, don’t pass this paper off as a study. It just isn’t one. They offer no evidence, no trials, no records of how many subjects involved.

It is technically not a study, but I’m pretty sure it cites several. I haven’t had a chance to click all the links, and it’s not convenient on a phone… But one should check out the footnotes before dismissing it’s value as evidence.

References and Notes

↵

L. Morawska,

J. Cao

, Environ. Int. 139, 105730(2020).doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105730pmid:32294574

CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

↵

E. L. Anderson,

P. Turnham,

J. R. Griffin,

C. C.Clarke

, Risk Anal. 40, 902 (2020).doi:10.1111/risa.13500pmid:32356927

CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

↵

S. Asadi,

N. Bouvier,

A. S. Wexler,

W. D.Ristenpart

, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 54, 635 (2020).doi:10.1080/02786826.2020.1749229

CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵

R. Tellier,

Y. Li,

B. J. Cowling,

J. W. Tang

, BMC Infect. Dis. 19, 101 (2019). doi:10.1186/s12879-019-3707-ypmid:30704406

CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

↵

R. Mittal,

R. Ni,

J.-H. Seo

, J. Fluid Mech. (2020).doi:10.1017/jfm.2020.330

CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵

H. Chu et al

., Clin. Infect. Dis. ciaa410 (2020).doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa410pmid:32270184

CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

↵

X. He et al

., Nat. Med. 26, 672 (2020).doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0869-5pmid:32296168

CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

↵

Y. Liu et al

., Nature (2020). doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2271-3pmid:32340022

CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

↵

V. Stadnytskyi,

C. E. Bax,

A. Bax,

P. Anfinrud

, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 202006874 (2020).doi:10.1073/pnas.2006874117pmid:32404416

Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar

↵

G. Buonanno,

L. Stabile,

L. Morawska

, Environ. Int. 141, 105794 (2020).doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105794pmid:32416374

CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

↵

E. Conticini,

B. Frediani,

D. Caro

, Environ. Pollut.261, 114465 (2020).doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114465pmid:32268945

CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

↵

N. H. L. Leung et al

., Nat. Med. 26, 676 (2020).doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2pmid:32371934

CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

↵

J. F.-W. Chan et al

., Clin. Infect. Dis. ciaa325(2020). doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa325pmid:32215622

CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

↵

A. Konda et al

., ACS Nano (2020).doi:10.1021/acsnano.0c03252pmid:32329337

CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

↵

C. C. Leung,

T. H. Lam,

K. K. Cheng

, Lancet 395,945 (2020). doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30520-1pmid:32142626

Based on what I saw in a recent jury trial, the linked article appears to be a meta-analysis where the authors didn’t do the in-the-field legwork, but rather tried to identify the relevant field studies and then correlate and analyze the data and findings in a meaningful way. One of those meta-analyses was looking back at decades-old foundational studies, just like this article appears to cite studies done way back in the 30s.

(My jury trial pertained to diesel exhaust and benzene exposure for a railroad worker; there are studies within various industries and for various chemicals that were then correlated into meta-analyses that were themselves considered evidence in the trial.)

No conclusions are drawn, it’s all “could be” and “might be”

And again, though it links other works, it really cites no data.

From what I’ve been able to find (admittedly not an exhaustive search), there are very few studies on the effectiveness of lower grade masks (i.e. cloth or even surgical). The results that I have seen are inconclusive, although the cloth masks seem to be next to useless from what little I could gather. They may catch some droplets if you cough but will not have much effect on aerosol distribution.

Anyway, you can generally find competing studies with opposite conclusions. Science is rarely settled, it seems.

Here’s the recommendation for masks, direct from the WHO website. The first item on the list is particularly interesting:

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-…

When and how to wear medical masks to protect against coronavirus?

• If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
• Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
• Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
• If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.

Here’s the recommendation for masks, direct from the WHO website. The first item on the list is particularly interesting:

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-f…(link is external)

When and how to wear medical masks to protect against coronavirus?

If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.

As one of my friends on Facebook said, conservatives will suddenly start liking the WHO again.

To further complicate the matter, the study John sited that supported mask use, but was said to not support mask use has conflicting statements in it. That is one of the reasons why people say that the science is not settled. In other words, the scientific study has evidence in it that can go either way, but then comes to a definitive conclusion at the end. These sorts of studies if read in their entirety only make people more skeptical of conclusion based on science.

I am actually surprised how few people actually understand some of the basics of science. For example, a few years ago we went to a children’s science fair and only a couple of the students even had a control for their projects. It was a great teaching opportunity for our kids. A few months ago, I read a news article on hydroxiclorqine. It told that it was no more effective than traditional treatment in the headline. Upon reading the article we found that the “traditional treatment” they were comparing it to was a new drug that had also shown promise as a new treatment. In other words, they were comparing 2 potential treatments with no control group and calling it a definite scientific conclusion. (a true control in this situation would have been to give no drugs). The point is that coming to definite scientific conclusions is not as simple as many make it out to be.

We as Christians need to be careful about shaming one another over “science.” Sadly it seems to have become somewhat of a trend recently.

I don’t expect “definitive” research on this until long after it’s too late to matter. What we have, though, is a need for inductive reasoning and a best-judgment estimate of probability.

It’s pretty clear that masks have helped slow the spread of other viruses in the past. It’s improbable that SARS-CoV-2 is different, though not impossible.

But the research is really all in the “testing to see if common sense is accurate” category, because the common sense is obvious on this. It’s like hand washing… low-cost, high potential benefit. If the benefit is not 100% certain, so what?

So I go back to the simple reasoning of my earlier comment, with some refinements…

• Cost of wearing a mask where a lot of people are gathered: negligible
• Potential benefit of wearing a mask in these places: enormous

Revisiting my real world field research

As COVID cases are rising steeply in our county, everyone is relaxing more on the mask front. Human nature. We are idiots. In their defense, it’s possible that testing is increasing here also, I’m pretty sure. But I haven’t yet found data to compare the increased testing rate locally to the increased confirmed infection rate. I suspect we’ve been pretty steady on the testing rate through May, but in that same period confirmed cases have not exactly spiked, but are up sharply.

The company I work for is rolling out its back-to-the-office plan. A lot of work and thought went into it. Very cautious. [details removed]

Both businesses and churches have to think about the liability risks of gathering in physical spaces.

Office rules like that are why I plan to work from home indefinitely until people are allowed to act like people again. Ridiculous.

[Larry]

If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.

As one of my friends on Facebook said, conservatives will suddenly start liking the WHO again.

I posted this not to put the WHO up against the CDC (apparently, they disagree on this right now), or to point out that one is right and one is wrong, but to note that this issue is hardly as cut and dried as people want to make it. It’s just as easy to say “the science is not settled” as “the science is settled,” but in this case, we have competing supposedly competent authorities. Which should be believed by those of us who are not epidemiologists?

My personal policy is a little different from Aaron’s, but not altogether dissimilar. I wear a mask when required, and I would do so voluntarily around people who are at risk (if I needed to see them personally at all). I don’t know anyone with Covid, so that doesn’t directly apply. In public where most aren’t wearing them anyway, I’m willing to take my own risks as someone who is healthy and not coughing or sneezing. That behavior has been the same since the beginning of the epidemic, and hasn’t changed simply due to new headlines.

[Aaron Blumer]

The company I work for is rolling out its back-to-the-office plan. A lot of work and thought went into it. Very cautious. Lots of cleaning. 50% occupancy at a time in separate teams, with 4 days in office followed by 10 out. Includes wearing masks around the office when not in our cubes/individual work spaces.

As I mentioned above, my company’s policy is very similar. We are, however, only at 25% capacity (everyone works one week out of 4), and like you, I’m required to wear a mask when not at my desk. We also get our temperature taken upon entrance to the office. It seems a little much, but that’s the way things are right now. Unlike Tyler, I don’t have the option to always work from home. On the weeks that each of the four groups is in the office, we are expected to be there, not at home (obviously not if we are sick or have been around those with Covid).

Both businesses and churches have to think about the liability risks of gathering in physical spaces.

Whatever my personal feelings on masks, as part of my church’s leadership, we are having to carefully evaluate moving back into our building. We have a few people who are comfortable with our outdoor worship services who aren’t yet ready to come if we meet inside. Once we do meet inside, our facility is large enough to hold our entire congregation even if we distance families. However, there’s still cleaning and other items to consider. There will be many things to think about over the coming weeks. We have people who don’t want to come back yet at all, and those who think we should never have closed. We won’t be able to make everyone happy, we’ll just have to do the best we can (and yes, that includes thinking about legal liability).

Dave, My point on the WHO was the humor of the conservatives who have hated the WHO and wanting to defund them now liking the WHO becuase of this.

I am imagining Abbot and Costello joining this conversation.

Abbot: WHO is saying not to wear a mask.

Costello: I don’t know who is saying not to wear a mask, but Dr. Fouchy now says we should wear one.

Abbot: No, WHO says we should wear one and so did Dr. Fouchy before he said not to.

Costello: So now Fouchy says we shouldn’t wear two masks? But who says we don’t need to wear one mask?

Abbot: WHO says we don’t need to wear a mask and Fouchy says we only need to wear one.

Costello: I know Fouchy said we need to wear one, but he also said we don’t need to wear one so does that mean he is the one that said we don’t need to wear one?

Abbot: No, WHO says we don’t need to wear one.

Costello: We know who says we don’t need to wear one. It was Dr Fouchy.

Abbot: No, Dr. Fouchy says we do need to wear one. WHO says we do not need to wear one.

Costello: So is it 2 masks or 2 people saying we don’t need to wear one? So who is the other guy?

Abbot: There is no other guy. It is the WHO.

Costello: I didn’t know Pete Townshend was still alive.