Needham’s Board of Health will hold an emergency meeting tomorrow to adopt an Emergency Order/Regulation requiring the use of cloth face coverings to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
The proposal would require the use of cloth face coverings in a variety of setting including businesses, work sites, and government buildings. The use of cloth face coverings would likewise be mandated in commercial and residential building complexes. The requirement would apply to employees as well as to customers, visitors, and the general public.
Should Newton adopt the same rules?
Somerville just did
https://www.universalhub.com/2020/somerville-require-public-mask-use-starting
Over age 2 in Somerville! Certainly not wise for little kids riding a bike. Could easily slip and interfere with sight.
On the general concept, what might make sense in a densely settled area like Somerville probably is not necessary in less crowded settings.
Brookline did too: https://brooklinecovid19.com/2020/04/15/update-22-555-p-m-4-15-20-town-of-brookline-to-require-face-coverings-in-public-plus-covid-19-testing-available-for-pre-screened-individuals/
I really wish there were banners and signs all across the City that say:
“Stay Safe and Stay at Home. Wear Masks or Face Coverings out in public. Practice Social and Physical Distancing. Wash your hands. #StrongerTogetherApart”
On April 15, Attorney General Maura Healey’s office issued guidance advising municipalities on what they can and cannot do locally to protect public health during the coronavirus pandemic.
That set of guidance said that a municipality “can encourage people to wear face coverings in public on an advisory basis.”
Framingham said: “The AG opinion on this subject is comprised of one sentence in a guidance memo issued on April 15 and does not cite any law or case in support of the recommendation,” Petrini wrote. “While I have great respect for the opinions of the Attorney General and routinely give them weight in my analysis, this brief recommendation does not have the force of law of a statute or regulation.”
https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20200420/framingham-city-attorney-says-mandatory-face-mask-order-is-legal
There is extremely meager evidence of transmission in outdoor settings, particularly with social distancing in effect.
Important distinction between Needham and Somerville. From the post, Needham is not proposing requiring them outdoors. Somerville is. But Somerville is much denser than Needham
Needham seems to be focused on indoor settings, only. Somerville’s approach is much more expansive.
YES! Some social distancing practices need to be enforced with temp. regulations. It’s the only way we’re going to restart the economy safely. (And, I’m NOT a fan of regulation)
MH – My concern is that we’ll all be outside together: those who adhere to social distancing and those who don’t, and no one really knows if that stranger walking toward you in a village setting has been compliant.
As far as indoor settings, I definitely support requiring masks for a certain period of time, to be revisited periodically (monthly, perhaps). The community at all levels has made huge sacrifices up to this point not to take this relatively easy step.
Jane, I have heard of only one contact tracing study (preliminary, not peer reviewed) that identified two people who was likely infected outside, and that was through conversational interaction with a COVID-19 positive person:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058v1
Passing contact in an outdoor environment with at least one party attempting to maintain social distancing is simply not a known or observed path of infection.
The same study demonstrated that indoor environments pose greater risks of transmission. That’s likely where the biggest benefit for masks lies.
That’s what we know now, after a reasonable amount of international experience. Things do change and we learn. We should be prepared to change policy based on new observation and evidence.
Mike – I agree. But people in my age group take every precaution and appreciate it when others do as well.
I would like them for everyone outside, including walkers and joggers. Often times you can’t move six feet away into the street if a car is coming to avoid a jogger.
I wear one every time I leave my property – to the store or for a walk. It just seems like the polite and safe thing to do.
Once again reminding folks that just because many of us are able to wear face masks, doesn’t mean that all communities in Newton can feel comfortable doing the same.
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/04/08/black-men-fear-wearing-face-masks
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/09/masks-racial-profiling-walmart-coronavirus/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/07/black-men-coronavirus-masks-safety
NewtonMom, I appreciate that is your preference but some of us who are currently working in a hospital setting are wearing a mask 8-12 hours a day. When we get out of work, we want to breathe fresh air. Trust that based upon where we work, we exercise the utmost of caution. That includes wearing a mask when we take the T to work or go to the grocery store. And that means exercising situational awareness when we are outdoor and physically distancing.
So for those who are home most of the day and it isn’t a burden to opt to wear a mast on a daily walk, that’s great, but that isn’t everyone’s reality. If the City, or State or CDC came out and mandated the wearing of masks while outdoors, we would do that. But that isn’t the current situation.
That said, once everyone gets the green light to go back to work, daily mask wearing at work may be the new reality. And more will understand what that mean
No, for this reason: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/coronavirus-masks-racism-african-americans.html
I think people’s opinions on this are based on how sensitive they are to risk. I don’t think it makes sense legislate 100% out of home compliance. but I definitely want people wearing masks inside buildings.
I’d be happy with an inside a building requirement.
If you are within 15 feet of someone, you should have a mask on — inside or out. It a matter of common courtesy regardless of ordinances.
As Jane says, people are working very hard to keep themselves and their families safe, and don’t want to add any incremental risk, no matter how small.
I run on Comm Ave with a mask. I’ll take it off if there are no crowds.
FYI — I updated my new web app to include international data tonight.
http://app.jackprior.org
You can compare how we are doing at distancing vs. other countries. Countries with strict lockdowns are doing quantitatively better than us. We have peaked but are declining slowly (-5%/day). France, where they can’t leave their homes without some paperwork, is dropping at -9.5%. China dropped at -15%. That translates to an extra month for the same result.
Just because there is no definitive study does not mean that we shouldn’t take reasonable precautions that are based on what we actually do know about how the virus is transmitted. And when is this grand study supposed to take place, given our meager testing capacity and the fledgling nature of our contact-tracing effort? Wearing masks something we do for each other. My wife and I go for a walk every morning wearing masks and there isn’t a day when some entitled white suburban runner not wearing a mask tries to pass right by us on the sidewalk and I have to go stand in the middle of someone’s lawn to avoid that person’s wake of exhalation.
Wearing masks is an easy, low-hanging fruit thing that we do for each other. Studies do show that wearing a mask cuts the risk of your transmitting virus if you are asymptomatic. And there is no down side to doing so, perhaps aside from a tiny bit of physical and mental annoyance (and apparently in some alternate reality where the laws of gravity and physics don’t apply and masks fall upwards causing hapless bike-riding children to veer into traffic).
So please grow up. Please stop whining. Please stop acting like little entitled suburban preteens throwing tantrums because they don’t think the rules that apply to everyone else should apply to them. Take a little piece of cloth, sew some elastic on each end, put it over your mouth and nose, and send a message to the rest of us that you understand we are all in this together and that you actually care about someone besides yourself.
The idea behind face masks it to limit transmission from asymptomatic (healthy) people in places where social distancing is not possible (think crowded indoor locations such as grocery stores).
As a scientist, my view is that folks should wear face coverings when entering grocery stores, drug stores, and other businesses where maintaining 6-feet of social distance is not possible. If needed, this could easily be enforced by business owners when allowing entry (“no shoes no service”). The main purpose is to protect the heroes who are still working to maintain inventory, run the cash registers, and help provide essential services to all of us.
There is not much scientific basis for using face masks in open settings like parks or the sidewalk near your home where social distancing can easily be maintained. General lack of information and fear – all to common in America these days – appears to have driven folks to run toward masks similar to how they’ve run towards toilet paper.
When outdoors in shared, open space – please do everyone a favor and be sure to leave at least 6-foot distance between yourself and others. This should help meet the objectives of social distancing while also giving the more fearful greater peace of mind.
Let’s be mindful of trying to impose our individual views in a blanket way on others around us. Facts and good science are always important – especially at times like this.
Claire, I sympathize with you. Wearing a mask all day is as comfortable as wearing an itchy shirt for 8 hours.
However, I still feel most comfortable with everyone masked. The mask is supposed to protect others from getting the virus. It just is how I feel. And sometimes, people who are listening to their airpods, aren’t aware that they are going to cross into someone’s path, and either I have to jump into a street (hoping for no cars) or squish into the bushes.
I can’t tell if the person approaching is sick or a carrier. I am trying to keep myself safe, and by wearing a mask, trying to keep others safe, even if I am walking in my own neighborhood.
Jack, evidence does not support a strong connection between extreme lockdown (versus what we have) and a significant difference in the rate of decline of cases. A large number of other factors swamp it.
China and Paris have very different circumstances from us and likely even different mutations of the virus. They started protective measures at different stages of the pandemic from us. Both Paris and Wuhan had sharper peaks. They are likely to have steeper declines.
As the Governor said, we flattened the curve. Now we have a long flat curve to deal with.
Here is some information which may be relevant:
1. Until yesterday, the Attorney General had advised local governments that public masking was something about which they could advise. Yesterday, however, she advised in part:
“A municipality, through its Board of Health, can “use all possible care” to prevent the spread of infection, which may include issuing an order or reasonable regulations to require people to wear face coverings in public. G.L. c. 111, §§ 26-26C, 31, 104. However, the municipality should consider adopting appropriate exemptions for those persons for whom a mask may pose increased health concerns. As an alternative, a municipality may also encourage people to wear face coverings in public on an advisory basis.”
2. An example of tailored response for indoor use can be found in the town of Randolph, an order made even before the Attorney General clarified her advice: https://www.randolph-ma.gov/home/news/board-health-order-face-coverings.
3. As the Boston Globe reports this morning, Somerville will now require public masking for people over 2 years old, enforceable soon by fines: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/27/metro/somerville-launch-on-demand-coronavirus-testing-fines-people-who-dont-wear-masks/.
4. According to the same Globe story, Brookline, Cambridge, and Malden are all requiring some form of public masking.
5. A key issue as to what wise public health policy may be involves the risk of infection from those who are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic, and who can spread the disease when they have no apparent symptoms, as Somerville’s Mayor pointed out.
6. For information about the interval of several days that can occur between infection and symptoms, the remarks of Professor Buckee at recent forum of the Harvard School of Public health are instructive:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-news-and-resources/covid-19-where-do-we-go-from-here/.
7. I asked at the Council Programs and Services Committee discussion last week for Newton to consider what now to do about public masking, and renewed that request through the Finance Committee leadership at its meeting last night where additional funding for the City’s Covid-19 response was being discussed.
8. As a personal note, my wife Sally and I now wear masks she has made for us in public outings.
Covid-19 is more infectious than the common Flu… but still easily killed with some soap, warm water and a vigorous hand wash. It’s not some invincible, unkillable boogie (person). Seems like we’re focusing on what is most visible (masks) vs what is most proven and effective.
Avoid physical contact, maintain social distance, wash hands often, and keep hands away from nose and mouth. It must be more than periodic, but habitual and ingraind in our DNA. A mask may help to prevent some spray and halitosis, but ultimately provides a false sense of confidence and effectively useless if someone would otherwise not wash hands, or profusely rub their noses and mouths with dirty hands.
Fine with masks indoors, but outdoors (let alone being a solo driver in their own vehicle) is a bit overkill IMO.
I think masking in public indoor locations is likely where we are headed as a society for at least the medium term, even (and perhaps especially) as we start opening up more businesses.
Mandating outdoor masking outside of dense, persistent gatherings is a whole other issue.
Lisle, please explain the relationship between the jurisdiction of the Council’s Programs and Services Committee and that of the City’s Public Health Department. Can the former direct the latter to act on this matter? Or does the Department determine on its own what to do? And, in that regard, what scientific and technical support is available to each entity? We have some of the world’s public health experts living in the city. Have they been consulted by either body?
Thanks for the prior comments.
1. In my view, public masking, whether voluntary or required, is no substitute for hand washing, social distancing, and good hygiene as advised by the Center for Disease Control. It may help avoid inadvertent face-touching, but my understanding is that the recent advice, and later requirements, about public masking are a function of public masking’s potential to protect others from those of us who may not be symptomatic. At a recent press conference, Governor Baker pointed out that the estimates of the number of people infected but not (yet) symptomatic in proportion to those ill (or hospitalized) continues to increase, the most recent example being Chelsea. While many of us are trying to maintain social distances, it is sometimes difficult inside buildings, or when others pass us outside where room to maneuver is limited.
2. While the Programs and Services Committee has jurisdiction over public health, I am not sure of the capacity of the City Council to require specific action by Newton’s health authorities. Earlier, Mayor Fuller had pointed to the then advice of the Attorney General about local authority to advise the wearing of masks in public. Now that the Attorney General has clarified local authority to go further, I am sure that Mayor Fuller and her staff will be thinking through what wise policy for Newton should be, especially as surrounding communities adopt public masking requirements. She has access, in ways the City Council does not on its own, to the wealth of medical and public health expertise among Newton’s citizens who understand these issues best and can advise public officials if asked. I should note that Mayor Fuller has been very careful about private construction activity, so it seemed to me that the best course has been to raise this issue for her to reconsider, and then let her change Newton’s policy on public masking if and how she feels it makes sense in the Newton context.
3. In the meantime, all else I can do is to wear my own mask in outings as both a precaution and a public example of what I hope that we as citizens may be able to do to protect each other, in addition to social distancing and good hygiene, especially when economic activity begins again.
@NewtonMom “However, I still feel most comfortable with everyone masked”
I get that but establishing the rules based on what make some “most comfortable” is not the right criteria. We could speculate that the “some” are the minority given the representation that a large % of people aren’t wearing masks outdoors. The rules are made by health experts based on what the science says is needed to keep us safe. And right now that guidance, as far as the outdoors, is to socially distance and if you can’t to the wear a mask.
The analogy of the mask to an itchy sweater is flawed as the wearing of a mask at my job is the rule. The wearing of an itchy sweater is a choice. I could chose to change out of the sweater or I could choose to not wear it again. Just as I can choose to be highly cognizant of socially distancing as I chose not to wear a mask when it is not indicated.
As an aside, I overheard a group of Nurses and NPs speaking yesterday talking about whether they wear their mask outside. Not a single one said they did and they chuckled about people wearing them while driving. These are people who work on the the front line everyday risking their lives. I trust their judgment.
It is vitally important that decisions like whether to require masks outside are driven by data and science and not Newton Moms who “feel” one way or another. To date there is virtually no data supporting the spread of this virus out of doors.
For people that can safely lock themselves away for a year with no worry about employment or income, the next year is going going to feature a lot of decisions that will make them profoundly uncomfortable. It is fine as a society to understand and sympathize with this fear but it should not play a meaningful role in decision making.
@Ralph,
Try being a little more tolerant of others and a lot less snarky.
I too take a walk every morning, and there isn’t a day when a runner not wearing a mask tries to pass right by me on the sidewalk and I have to dart onto someone’s lawn to avoid that person’s cloud of exhalation. What is preventing them from running on the other side of the street? And why do they feel comfortable being in such close proximity to other people, for that matter? I’m baffled as to how anyone could anyone be so oblivious to all the guidelines about social distancing at this point.
Once the season timeline of May-August arrives it means warmer weather, warmer air, heat, sunshine, mugginess, blue skies, later sunsets and people are NOT going to sit inside all cooped up that is just NOT realistic/its NOT going to happen, at some point people are going to become frustrated, annoyed, cooped, patience will break. People will start exercising more, going outside more, going to national parks, state parks, local parks, people are going to start going to their beach front/ocean front/lake front/river front summer houses, boating, fishing, water tubing/water skiing, and stuff, having BBQ, telling you its NOT possible/NOT realistic/NOT healthy to keep people in their homes 24/7/365 from May-August
We seem to agree that we should all wear masks indoors except in our own homes and apartments, i.e. a private space with those who share our germ pool. I am so paranoid right now that when I go, wearing a mask, to the Waban post office (it is small) and see more than one customer being served, I wait outside. The disease spreads most easily when people share a limited air space.
The situation outside is different. When I go walking or biking, I have a mask on my chin and am prepared to place it over my nose and mouth if I end up in close quarters with strangers, i.e. on crowded paths in parks or on congested sidewalks. On the bicycle, I prefer not to use the mask because it fogs up my glasses! Once again, though, if it appears that circumstances place me closer to people, I slip the mask on.
As the weather warms, our often crowded outdoor spaces will become even more congested. For this reason, Bike Newton and other groups advocate an open street initiative to discourage all but local traffic on selected roadways throughout the Garden City. Wooden horses, for example, might be placed on the road, with gaps only cars moving slowly can pass through. Pedestrians and cyclists could then use those streets more freely to avoid the crowds and spread out- social distancing!
The measure is in limbo but deserves consideration, especially as temperatures rise and spring fever accelerates.
@TheWholeTruth – Use your real name in a public forum and then I might respond to you. No desire to engage with someone afraid to take responsibility for their words. I take full responsibility for mine.
@Bob Jampol – Bob, having the mask available to slip on when you pass close to someone else is a perfectly reasonable, responsible, and respectful thing to do. That’s really all anyone is or should be asking. So I thank you on behalf of a lot of people.
I also love the idea of more space for pedestrians and bikes on the roads. Let me know how I can support you on that.
I went for a run today along the Comm Ave carriage lane, making sure to keep at least 10 feet distant from others. I wouldn’t be able to run with a mask on, so I put the onus on myself to be the one to ensure distance, even if it means jumping up into a yard or crossing the street, which I do many times during a run.
Like others (Ralph and Laura J.) I’ve encountered runners who are less considerate. I’ve also seen many walkers in the same category, including people strolling down the center of the carriage lane (making distance on either side difficult); three people walking abreast along the carriage lane with distance between them, so the trio takes up the entire lane; people blithely walking on the left hand side; etc. And most walkers aren’t wearing masks either.
I’ll tell you, if we can’t master the “keep to the right” rule, we’re gonna have trouble with anything more complicated.
To the original question, I think masks inside buildings should be required at this point. Outside, it’s distancing first, mask second. And any rule around masks outside should explicitly address running, cycling, etc.
@Matt Lai – The mask mostly isn’t to protect you. It’s to protect others from you.
@Ralph,
Thanks for the reply.
Sincerely,
Pat Smith
Is that better?
You may have some very valid points, but they get lost in the snark. At least for me they do.
I’m not real interested in how you feel about screen names…many people on this blog use them and are well known for them. It does not make them less credible or less interesting to read. It’s all in the delivery of the comments…and I just felt you were pretty snarky.
I’m moving on now….have a great night.
It would be worthwhile to think about modes of enforcement for an outdoor mask requirement. One community I’ve read about has explicitly decided not to engage in fines or other punishments, but rather to use violations as an opportunity for education. Do people here favor that approach, or a more punitive approach? (I would favor the former, but, to be clear, I don’t think that an outdoor ordinance is warranted in this city.)
I absolutely would not be in favor of an ordinance to require a mask when outside.
Indoors, sure. As best as I can see people are already being conscientious about masks inside in public places.
I am not in favor of an outdoor mask requirement. I am wearing a mask in indoor settings but am using distance when walking outdoors. I am taking it upon myself to give others distance rather than forcing them to yield to me, I think if wearing outdoor masks is required you are going to many people taking it on themselves to enforce this policy. There are already too many people on Newton Nextdoor etc taking it upon themselves to chastise others. I don’t think this is what we need right now especially where as Craig said above the science doesn’t support it.
No, I don’t think this should be mandatory in Newton, but I do so for personal reasons. I don’t wear a mask when I’m in the house or working in the yard, but I put it on the minute I hit the sidewalk and street. I’ve read convincing back and forth comments from scientists in the media about whether the masks provide better protection for me or for people I might come close to. I’m in my 80 so I just want to play the odds as best I can for my benefit and for those I pass on the street. Wearing a mask is a very slight inconvenience at worst and it just might, ever so slightly, shift the odds to favor both me and others.
I do not intend to ingest bleach or other cleaning products to wad off the corona virus, but I’ve heard that a slug of Drano is great for an upset stomach. A lot of people are saying it. Some brilliant people. It may or may not be true, but a lot of people are saying it is. I hope they take a look at it.
I’m no expert, but I have had to do a lot of research on transmission of COVID-19 over the past month. Here’s what I have learned.
1. Wearing a mask is more about protecting others than about protecting you.
2. Even if you have tested negative for covid-19, it does not mean you cannot transmit the virus. There is a 15% chance it was a false negative. And, at best, it means you did not have the virus at the time you were tested. You could have it now, without even knowing it.
3. VP Pence–the head of the White House coronavirus task force–intentionally defied the Mayo Clinic’s mandatory requirement to wear a mask at the medical center. His excuse was that he recently tested negative. Don’t be Mike Pence. He’s a jerk.
4. While you are more likely to transmit the virus if you do not wear a mask indoors, you can still transmit the virus outdoors, particularly if you cannot maintain a safe distance from others. Crowded places, runners who don’t maintain a safe distance, and anyone without a mask who coughs can increase the likelihood of transmission. Why risk someone else’s life? See No. 3.
5. Did you know that Newton has an ordinance against spitting in the street? Similar ordinances and bylaws across the country were adopted because of the 1918-1919 Influenza pandemic. A temporary regulation that requires masks and/or maintaining a safe distance from others to protect others from getting COVID-19 seems like a small price to pay. And don’t spit in the street, either.
I don’t want any of you to go through what my family has been through. Wear a mask if you are out in public, or have one with you that you can put on if others are nearby. Don’t spit, and don’t be like Mike Pence.
A deadly pandemic is not about rugged individualism and freedom of choice. It is about responsible, collaborative behavior. It makes no sense to say “I’m the responsible one” and then argue against rules that apply to everyone, when only concerted cooperative action is what makes us all safer. In this sense the masks are sort of a metaphor for the argument of voluntary advisories vs mandated rules. The mask does a very poor job of protecting you from COVID-19, but it does a much better job at protecting the person you pass by in a supermarket or on a walking path. They only truly work if we wear them for each other. The rules that apply to everyone aren’t there for the responsible people, they’re there to protect the responsible people from the irresponsible ones
@Pat – More than 3,100 people in Massachusetts have died from COVID-19. That’s more than 9/11. Maybe snark isn’t our biggest issue here.
@Newton Highlands Mom
“No evidence of transmission outdoors” is definitely NOT what the available science says. Maybe find another source other than a guy who just uses his first name on a community blog?
Ralph, please cite your sources regarding outdoor transmission.
Here’s one way to think about the issue. I’m sure there are other ways, but let me throw up a straw man.
Thus far, we’ve had school closures, a dramatic reduction in play dates and other social events, limited access in essential shops like grocery stores and pharmacies, along with expectations of use of masks, closure of non-essential shops, and voluntary social distancing outside. This has achieved a slowdown in Covid cases in Newton (with the very tragic exceptions of the nursing homes.) It would be great to hear from public health experts (not those of us commenters!) whether they think an ordinance requiring outdoor masking would be likely to add incrementally to the rate of slowdown of disease transmittal. If there is a consensus among the experts, then we need to consider the point I raised earlier (on which no one has chosen to comment): How would we choose to enforce this new rule (by fine, punishment, or educational advice). Putting that all together, the city officials could then decide on a thoughtful approach.
I will keep my comment as short as possible since I have very little time and never know when one of the V14 bloggers will decide to delete my comment.
Newton should not require residents to wear masks outdoors because there is no scientific evidence proving that doing so prevents the transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and requiring masks outdoors may result in harm to some individuals who are forced into it.
TLDR (too long, didn’t read summary): wearing masks outdoors has not been proven to reduce transmission of the COVID-19 virus, therefore, requiring and encouraging Social Distancing outdoors (a minimum of 6 feet between individuals from different households) and encouraging the wearing of masks indoors only is a superior approach to reducing the spread of the virus.
I say this because, unlike certain commenters on this blog, I have background in science and I also have friends and relatives who are scientists, including some who work at The National Institutes of Health (NIH). I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain the science on this matter. Suffice it to say that there are many variables present in an outdoor environment, e.g. temperature, humidity, wind speed, altitude, differences in movement between walking, running and cycling, etc., which makes it difficult to test this scenario in a laboratory and extrapolate findings to all outdoor activities for all people. In other words, wearing a mask might make a slight difference in cases where one person is highly contagious and comes very close to another person who is susceptible to the virus. But, even this is theoretical, not proven. It is based on the idea that aerosolized coronavirus particles can linger in the air and will still be viable (infectious) to others in the vicinity. Keep in mind that such particles can pass through a homemade mask (not a N95 respirator mask); to what degree this happens varies by mask material, fit, and other factors. Bottom line: whether people can get infected with the COVID-19 virus in real-world outdoor settings is still *UNKNOWN*.
What is known is that it is difficult to exercise (even brisk walking) while wearing a mask. Even for the healthiest among us, the mask gets wet from breathing and perspiration, making it less antimicrobial and very uncomfortable. This is especially true for runners and bicyclists.
For bicyclists, in addition to making breathing difficult, a mask will make eyeglasses fog up, blocking the cyclist’s vision (many cyclists wear sports shields or sunglasses for eye protection even if they don’t require vision correction). Riding a bicycle while “blinded” by foggy glasses can lead to a serious crash, resulting in injury or even death. Who will be liable for injuries caused by forcing a cyclist to wear a mask at all times — The City of Newton?
Further, people with allergies or asthma may become symptomatic from wearing a mask. The former may have mucus from a runny nose pouring down the front of their face inside the mask, contaminating the mask and their face. This condition can be made worse if pollen accumulates on a sweaty mask. Should the allergy sufferer take off the mask to blow their nose? If so, how does this prevent them from coming into contact with the coronavirus or contaminating others if they are infected and don’t know it?
Various exercise factors including hot air temperature and pollen can trigger an asthma attack, and for anyone with breathing-related (lung) health problems, it is possible to develop serious medical symptoms from restricting air intake; this could potentially be caused by trying to breathe through fabric. Forcing people to take such risks, when they could achieve superior results by Social Distancing, makes no sense.
While I feel that I am wasting my proverbial breath explaining this, let me finish by saying that I previously cautioned the Newton City Council (and “environmental activist” Newton residents) last June (2019) *against* implementing a 10 cent bag fee, the goal of which was to force people to use reusable shopping bags. Here is what I wrote on June 25, 2019 on the V14 blog (https://village14.com/2019/06/21/city-council-to-discuss-10-cent-paper-bag-fee/#comment-99885):
“I do not think that forcing customers to bring their own bag, and charging a fee if they don’t, is a good idea.
First, it does not protect the environment. Second, it harms low income people by increasing their costs for shopping and disposing of their trash and recyclables. Third, it drives business away from brick and mortar stores. Fourth, it may have a negative impact on newspaper sales (due to the increased difficulty of paper recycling). *And finally, and most important to me, is that it creates a public health hazard.* Many people do not know that if you use reusable bags, they must be washed thoroughly on at least a weekly basis to avoid the buildup of harmful bacteria in the bags.… Further, since reusable bags will have to be carried around, especially by those who do not drive, they can pick up and harbor germs from unclean places, such as bathrooms. These germs can be spread to others when a customer puts contaminated bags in a shopping cart or on the checkout counter. *There have been reported cases of viruses being spread among a group of people who handled a contaminated shopping bag
You can read the rest of my comment, if you wish, however, the bottom line is that I warned the Newton City Council that forcing people to bring reusable bags into the stores was a *public health hazard* which could spread viruses among our population. I find it very interesting that Newton, the only City (or town) in our immediate vicinity with a bag fee, has had nearly twice as many people infected with COVID-19 as any of the adjacent towns — none of which forced people to bring reusable bags into their local stores.
It would be interesting to know how many Newton residents continued to use reusable shopping bags even when it became obvious that the coronavirus was spreading and would soon become a pandemic. According to some Newton grocery store employees I spoke to recently, their store had a hard time convincing customers to stop bringing reusable (contaminated!) bags into the store. Please note that many grocery store employees have been infected with the COVID-19 virus, and three (3) have died (in Massachusetts).
I think it was a mistake to impose a bag fee on consumers in Newton and see Public Health as the top priority. In fact, I believe that we saw a flattening of our curve in Newton in large measure due to the temporary repeal of the bag fee ordinance, which prohibited customers from bringing their own bags into the stores.
Newton passed an ordinance which jeopardized public health based on the beliefs of environmental activists, not sound scientific fact. I see a similar thing happening with the COVID-19 pandemic, the solution to which is being based on the feelings of a certain group of people, not sound scientific fact.
Let’s not make the same mistake with respect to *forcing* people to wear masks outdoors in Newton.
@Ubiety….so much for short comments.
@Ralph….this comment is snarky!
Ubiety, if your goal was to support your point with “sound scientific fact”, stopping before you got to the reusable bag part would have strengthened your argument.
There appears to be no study supporting the idea that COVID-19 has been spread through this manner. As for other diseases, there appears to be a single case of norovirus transmission tied to a reusable bag that contained food stored in a bathroom used by a sick high school soccer player in 2012 (like lots of us would think *that’s* a good idea). Norovirus is more contagious than COVID-19.
There are a couple of other papers on the subject, but nothing supporting the conjecture that reusable bags are a significant pathway of infection. To extrapolate that Newton’s infection rate relative to its neighbors is due to this factors is fully unsupported by facts, studies, or research.
Switching to disposable bags may be prudent right now for a number of reasons, but it isn’t strongly evidence-driven with respect to COVID-19.
Greenpeace has also written about industry groups have promoted fears about COVID-19 transmission through reusable shopping bags to advance their existing interests:
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new-research-shows-the-plastic-industry-is-exploiting-covid-19-to-attack-reusable-bags/
That doesn’t talk to the medical issues, but it explains in part why such scant research evidence has been amplified as much as it has.
@Mike Halle
Mike, I don’t have a lot of time to reply right now, and as was already mentioned, I wrote a longer comment than I intended. However, I stand by what I said in my previous comment because, while there are not specific studies on reusable bags, there are many studies about how viruses are transmitted which would lend credence to what I said.
If what I said was not true, then why is the primary method recommended to prevent contracting the COVID-19 virus “frequent handwashing for 20 seconds?”
Would anyone need to wash their hands if this coronavirus could not live on objects? And, if you read my original comment on the 10 cent bag fee (from June 2019), I explained in a little more detail how the lack of washing reusable bags allows extensive bacterial growth over a period of time which can then contaminate whatever is placed in the bag, before finding its way onto someone’s hands and into their mouth or nose or eyes by touching their face. Haven’t the authorities repeated this process to us enough times, yet?
Actually, there is a lot of well-established science supporting the idea that a reusable bag can be the source of passing a virus from one person to another because more than one person touches the bag in a short period of time, i.e. a customer, a cashier and then a bagger. If the bag is contaminated, then each of these people can get the virus on their hands, and if one of them touches their face, they can get infected. This is why reusable bags were temporarily banned, to help reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus from one person to another.
Finally, we have not and probably will not see studies done directly on reusable bags because science has become extremely *political* in recent years. And environmentalists (like other political groups), who are a dominant group in academia (where many scientists work) use (manipulate) science to promote their own political views. For scientists to challenge these major environmental groups, such as Greenpeace, would be analogous to committing career suicide, so there will be no studies contradicting the environmentalists’ beliefs and the public will be left engaging in dangerous and unhealthy practices out of ignorance. As sad as it is to say, environmental groups are every bit as bad as the (self-serving) industry groups. Therefore, we are unlikely to see the truth published in any major scientific journal, and we will simply have to think for ourselves, and fend for ourselves.
@Mike Halle
The absence of studies of a particular suspected or new phenomenon — or the fact that those studies may be ongoing but not completed yet — does not constitute “no evidence” that the phenomenon exists. “No evidence” would be if studies were actually completed and failed to find evidence. We base precautionary actions both on the available science and common sense, and if the science isn’t available yet, we have to rely more heavily on common sense to take prudent steps. Those steps may eventually prove not to be necessary, but if they are, it is better to have taken them than not. If you want to just blab on with silly contrarianism based on rhetorical dishonesty, be my guest. But I’m not going to waste my time engaging with it.
For those like Ralph who are interested in the Open Streets Initiative, it is on the docket tonight at the meeting of the Public Safety and Transportation Committee. Bike Newton supports this proposal, and you can check out its website at https://bikenewton.org/.
@Pat
People are dying. Focus.
@Ralph Ranalli – “So please grow up”, “.Please stop whining”, “if you just want to blab on …”
There’s no good reason you can’t have this same conversation, and make the same points, without needlessly insulting people. Please give it a try.
@Ubiety… what happened to short post? 😉
Good stuff man, and if I’m reading it right, the angst and anxiety around mask shaming far outweighs the actual risk (in an outdoor setting). If so, with you 100%
The Mayor’s email today included the following: “Some municipalities in the Commonwealth are requiring people to wear face coverings and are implementing fines for those who do not. An order or fine requiring face coverings will not be implemented in the City of Newton at this time. We will continue to monitor the medical advice from the CDC and MDPH and conditions here in Newton and will revisit this decision as things evolve with all aspects of public health continuing to be our focus.”
As quoted by the Globe today, Mayor Walsh would like masks to be worn while exercising in Boston.
~~~~~~~~
At his news conference, Walsh said he wanted to send a special message to runners and cyclists that they should wear masks.
“Even though you’re exercising, you need to be wearing a face covering when you’re exercising,” he said.“This is not considerate to the people around you, and I understand why it’s making people angry. It’s sending the message that you’re not necessarily concerned about them and the community,” he said. “This is a precaution we all have to take to protect each other.”
@Jerry Reilly
By all means Jerry, if you’d like to have some nice civil chit chat, let’s discuss which Red Sox World Series win was the most satisfying, or the relative merits of our respective favorite colors. I’m a navy blue man myself.
COVID-19, however, is a life-or-death issue, and this is a public forum. Actions which are advocated for here have real-world consequences. So I will continue to call our arguments which I consider to be false, absurd, or selfishly motivated when I believe they raise the chance of even one person needlessly getting sick or dying. And please don’t conflate strong criticism of an argument with a personal attack — all people are created equal, but arguments are not.
If that makes you uncomfortable, well, like I said, there’s always the Sox.
So Ralph, it seems like you’re saying that it’s ok to be disagreeable while disagreeing when you know that you are right and the other person’s argument is shite.
Waltham will begin requiring all people over the age of five to wear masks “in any public space or common areas, indoors or outdoors.” Goes into effect May 1.
https://www.city.waltham.ma.us/sites/walthamma/files/news/public_health_order.pdf
“ALL PERSONS (RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, VISITORS) OVER THE AGE OF FIVE ARE REQUIRED TO COVER
THEIR FACES AND NOSES WITH A CLEAN MASK,
SCARF, OR OTHER FACIAL COVERINGS IN ANY
PUBLIC SPACE OR COMMON AREAS, INDOORS OR OUTDOORS.
THIS ORDER APPLIES TO ANY BUSINESS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
THIS ORDER ALSO APPLIES TO COMMON AREAS IN RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS SUCH AS ENTRANCES, PUBLIC HALLWAYS AND ELEVATORS.
Dan, as I read this, it isn’t clear that this applies to public open spaces. There is a blanket statement, but then it specifically calls out what it applies to. Not sure if it was intentionally vague or just poorly written.
It says it applies to “businesses open to the public” and “common areas in residential and commercial building . As such I would see it applying to the outdoor garden area and parking lots at Russo’s or Home Depot, but not the sidewalk in front of or across the street from those businesses
Claire — I had typed a nice response that agreed with your interpretation (though hating that we had to interpret an order like this, as it should have been more clearly worded). And I was ready to agree that, based on the second half of the order, this looks like it does not include public, open space.
But…. someone responded to the City of Waltham’s tweet of the order, asking for some clarity. The City’s response:
“Joggers, cyclists, and pedestrians must adhere to this order as well.”
So this seems to mean outdoors. Why this wasn’t put in the order itself, I don’t know. Leave it to interpretation, then wonder why no one is following it properly.
I found this excerpt from Needham’s emergency order very straightforward and on point:
“This Emergency Order does not require or recommend the wearing of a face covering in outdoor settings when a safe distance (minimum of six feet) between other persons is observed.
Nothing in this order is intended to encourage residents to act as an enforcement
authority for the Town of Needham. Residents should not take it upon themselves to approach people in violation of this order. Residents are urged to focus solely on their personal and family compliance with this order.”
Claire, completely agree. Pretty insightful writer.