ReportWire

Tag: masks

  • ‘We have to stand with the community’: Montgomery Co. leaders introduce bills to limit immigration enforcement – WTOP News

    Montgomery County Council members Will Jawando and Kristin Mink are proposing bills to limit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement access to county facilities and bar the use of masks by law enforcement.

    Montgomery County Council members Will Jawando and Kristin Mink are proposing bills to limit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement access to county facilities and bar the use of masks by law enforcement.

    Mink is introducing the “County Values Act” which, she told WTOP, builds on existing state law.

    Referring to ICE’s ability to carry out enforcement at certain locations, she said the state’s existing legislation “established that a judicial warrant requirement must be used at certain sensitive locations which were defined by the state as places like schools, libraries, et cetera.”

    Mink’s bill expands on that state legislation to include the judicial warrant requirement at all county facilities, including recreation centers.

    Asked about the language in the bill that refers to nonpublic areas, Mink explained that would be any part of a county facility where residents are required to sign in to use a space, or to show ID to prove they’re a county resident and therefore have access to a space.

    For example, she said, at a recreation or aquatic facility, “to get into the pool area, there’s a process, right? That’s not just open for anybody to walk in.”

    “We need to make sure that all of our county staff know, that wherever they are, whatever building they’re in,” they do not need to let ICE agents or officers in without a judicial warrant, Mink said. “And they can get legal support on the phone right away to review that.”

    Mink said county council members have heard from residents — including U.S. citizens — who are concerned about immigration enforcement efforts in their neighborhoods.

    “We have to stand with the community,” she said. “In this moment, as a county, we have to be able to look back and say that we did every single thing that we could possibly do … from the terrorism that is being wrought upon us.”

    Mink’s bill would also deny ICE access to county parking garages, parking lots and county-owned vacant lots.

    Council member Jawando will also be introducing a bill — the “Unmask ICE Act” — that would prohibit law enforcement from wearing masks, with some exceptions.

    Law enforcement “are not to wear masks in our community,” Jawando said. “And our law enforcement already doesn’t wear masks, but this would be codifying that practice.”

    Asked about whether the ban on face coverings on agents and officers in law enforcement could stand up to legal challenge, Jawando said, “The state of California and … LA County passed this legislation. It’s being challenged by the Trump administration. I suspect they may challenge this one in court as well, and I’m happy to have that debate.”

    The bills will be introduced at Tuesday’s council session. The lawmakers plan a news conference later that day to discuss details and introduce supporters of the bills.

    WTOP has reached out to ICE for comment on the proposed legislation.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2026 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    Kate Ryan

    Source link

  • New California law banning officers, agents from covering their faces sparks enforcement debate

    California has become the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while on duty.Governor Gavin Newsom signed what sponsors have called the “No Secret Police Act” into law on Saturday.The law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, makes exceptions for the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed with the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity. The California Highway Patrol is also exempt. Officers who violate the law could face charges or lose their qualified immunity.The bill was a direct response to recent immigration raids in California, where federal agents wore masks while making arrests.”ICE. Unmask. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? You’re going to go out and you’re going to do enforcement. Provide an ID,” Newsom said Saturday at a news conference in Los Angeles.Right now, it’s not clear how or if state can enforce the ban on federal agents.Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X Saturday saying California has no jurisdiction over the federal government. “I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their identities,” he said in a post to X. As for local jurisdictions, Sgt. Amar Gandhi with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said lawmakers are creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”This will have no consequence to quite literally anybody. They have no jurisdiction over federal authorities. When is the last time you walked outside and saw a patrolman in a mask? It doesn’t happen,” he said. “It’s absolutely stupid and useless. This doesn’t affect anybody it’s intended to effect.”Advocacy groups like NorCal Resist said they are looking forward to learning about how the new law will be enforced. They sent a statement reading in part, “We are encouraged to see steps being taken to end these disturbing, secret police tactics that have created terror in our immigrant communities.”The White House also sent a statement to KCRA 3. It reads in part, “ICE officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families from being doxed. ICE officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities with the utmost professionalism. Anyone pointing the finger at law enforcement officers instead of the criminals are simply doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens.”Newsom signed the bill along with several others aimed at protecting California’s immigrant communities.The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. And it would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    California has become the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while on duty.

    Governor Gavin Newsom signed what sponsors have called the “No Secret Police Act” into law on Saturday.

    The law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, makes exceptions for the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed with the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity. The California Highway Patrol is also exempt.

    Officers who violate the law could face charges or lose their qualified immunity.

    The bill was a direct response to recent immigration raids in California, where federal agents wore masks while making arrests.

    “ICE. Unmask. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? You’re going to go out and you’re going to do enforcement. Provide an ID,” Newsom said Saturday at a news conference in Los Angeles.

    Right now, it’s not clear how or if state can enforce the ban on federal agents.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X Saturday saying California has no jurisdiction over the federal government.

    “I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their identities,” he said in a post to X.

    As for local jurisdictions, Sgt. Amar Gandhi with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said lawmakers are creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

    “This will have no consequence to quite literally anybody. They have no jurisdiction over federal authorities. When is the last time you walked outside and saw a patrolman in a mask? It doesn’t happen,” he said. “It’s absolutely stupid and useless. This doesn’t affect anybody it’s intended to effect.”

    Advocacy groups like NorCal Resist said they are looking forward to learning about how the new law will be enforced. They sent a statement reading in part, “We are encouraged to see steps being taken to end these disturbing, secret police tactics that have created terror in our immigrant communities.”

    The White House also sent a statement to KCRA 3. It reads in part, “ICE officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families from being doxed. ICE officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities with the utmost professionalism. Anyone pointing the finger at law enforcement officers instead of the criminals are simply doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens.”

    Newsom signed the bill along with several others aimed at protecting California’s immigrant communities.

    The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.

    The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. And it would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Source link

  • Fighting intensifies over California bill that tries to ban immigration officers from wearing masks

    As California faces a deadline Friday to pass new laws for the year, police groups in the state are turning up pressure against a bill that attempts to ban law enforcement at nearly every level in California from wearing face coverings in most situations. The bill, SB 627, was filed by two Democratic state senators in response to images of federal immigration raids in which officers have been seen wearing masks. The state legislation attempts to enforce the ban against federal officers, which critics say is not legally possible. Police groups, including the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the California Police Chiefs Association, on Monday warned that the bill was recently changed to take away qualified immunity, or the legal protections provided to police under state law, from officers who “knowingly and willfully” violate the ban. In a letter sent to all state lawmakers and Gov. Newsom’s office on Monday, PORAC warned it could push officers to second-guess themselves and potentially put public safety at risk. “Without these protections, an officer would potentially be subject to civil suits against them personally for actions they took in good faith and based on information available at the time. For example, if an officer acting in good faith and based on current information arrests the wrong person, they are given immunity from being sued personally. Any erosion of existing immunity protections strikes at the core protections necessary for officers to operate safely and securely in California,” PORAC officials wrote. The bill was also recently changed to exempt the California Highway Patrol from the measure. Opponents said the legislation will end up solely punishing local law enforcement agencies for the actions of federal officers. “It’s not local law enforcement that’s engaging in those tactics,” said Jason Salazar, the President of the California Police Chiefs Association. “Our officers are following the law through good law enforcement and trying to provide public safety to our communities. This bill makes it harder to do that.” “As long as law enforcement are following the law and the policies set by their departments, they’ll have nothing to worry about under SB 627,” said State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who wrote the proposal. “California has terrific law enforcement who are more than capable of following the policies set by their supervisors—all we’re asking is that they do so with regard to the extreme masking ICE and others have begun to deploy in recent months.” “They can pass all the laws they want. It’s more wishful thinking than an actual law,” U.S. Border Patrol’s El Centro Sector Chief, Gregory Bovino, told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala in a recent interview. Bovino said there has been a 1000% increase in federal officer assaults. “Whether they’re being doxxed or followed or whatever, I’m going to protect those agents, and face coverings make sense,” Bovino said. California’s U.S. Senator Alex Padilla has filed a proposal that would require federal immigration authorities to display legible identification during public-facing operations. It has been referred to the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee but is not yet scheduled for a hearing. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    As California faces a deadline Friday to pass new laws for the year, police groups in the state are turning up pressure against a bill that attempts to ban law enforcement at nearly every level in California from wearing face coverings in most situations.

    The bill, SB 627, was filed by two Democratic state senators in response to images of federal immigration raids in which officers have been seen wearing masks. The state legislation attempts to enforce the ban against federal officers, which critics say is not legally possible.

    Police groups, including the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the California Police Chiefs Association, on Monday warned that the bill was recently changed to take away qualified immunity, or the legal protections provided to police under state law, from officers who “knowingly and willfully” violate the ban.

    In a letter sent to all state lawmakers and Gov. Newsom’s office on Monday, PORAC warned it could push officers to second-guess themselves and potentially put public safety at risk.

    “Without these protections, an officer would potentially be subject to civil suits against them personally for actions they took in good faith and based on information available at the time. For example, if an officer acting in good faith and based on current information arrests the wrong person, they are given immunity from being sued personally. Any erosion of existing immunity protections strikes at the core protections necessary for officers to operate safely and securely in California,” PORAC officials wrote.

    The bill was also recently changed to exempt the California Highway Patrol from the measure. Opponents said the legislation will end up solely punishing local law enforcement agencies for the actions of federal officers.

    “It’s not local law enforcement that’s engaging in those tactics,” said Jason Salazar, the President of the California Police Chiefs Association. “Our officers are following the law through good law enforcement and trying to provide public safety to our communities. This bill makes it harder to do that.”

    “As long as law enforcement are following the law and the policies set by their departments, they’ll have nothing to worry about under SB 627,” said State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who wrote the proposal. “California has terrific law enforcement who are more than capable of following the policies set by their supervisors—all we’re asking is that they do so with regard to the extreme masking ICE and others have begun to deploy in recent months.”

    “They can pass all the laws they want. It’s more wishful thinking than an actual law,” U.S. Border Patrol’s El Centro Sector Chief, Gregory Bovino, told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala in a recent interview. Bovino said there has been a 1000% increase in federal officer assaults.

    “Whether they’re being doxxed or followed or whatever, I’m going to protect those agents, and face coverings make sense,” Bovino said.

    California’s U.S. Senator Alex Padilla has filed a proposal that would require federal immigration authorities to display legible identification during public-facing operations. It has been referred to the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee but is not yet scheduled for a hearing.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Source link

  • The Pandemic’s ‘Ghost Architecture’ Is Still Haunting Us

    The Pandemic’s ‘Ghost Architecture’ Is Still Haunting Us

    Last Friday, in a bathroom at the Newark airport, I encountered a phrase I hadn’t seen in a long time: Stop the spread. It accompanied an automatic hand-sanitizing station, which groaned weakly when I passed my hand beneath it, dispensing nothing. Presumably set up in the early pandemic, the sign and dispenser had long ago become relics. Basically everyone seemed to ignore them. Elsewhere in the terminal, I spotted prompts to maintain a safe distance and reduce overcrowding, while maskless passengers sat elbow-to-elbow in waiting areas and mobbed the gates.

    Beginning in 2020, COVID signage and equipment were everywhere. Stickers indicated how to stand six feet apart. Arrows on the grocery-store floor directed shopping-cart traffic. Plastic barriers enforced distancing. Masks required signs dotted store windows, before they were eventually replaced by softer pronouncements such as masks recommended and masks welcome. Such messages—some more helpful than others—became an unavoidable part of navigating pandemic life.

    Four years later, the coronavirus has not disappeared—but the health measures are gone, and so is most daily concern about the pandemic. Yet much of this COVID signage remains, impossible to miss even if the messages are ignored or outdated. In New York, where I live, notices linger in the doorways of apartment buildings and stores. A colleague in Woburn, Massachusetts, sent me a photo of a sign reminding park-goers to gather in groups of 10 or less; another, in Washington, D.C., showed me stickers on the floors of a bookstore and pier bearing faded reminders to stay six feet apart. “These are artifacts from another moment that none of us want to return to,” Eric Klinenberg, a sociologist at NYU and the author of 2020: One City, Seven People, and the Year Everything Changed, told me. All these fliers, signs, and stickers make up the “ghost architecture” of the pandemic, and they are still haunting America today.

    That some COVID signage persists makes sense, considering how much of it once existed. According to the COVID-19 Signage Archive, one store in Key West had a reminder to mask up during the initial Omicron wave: Do not wear it above chin or below nose. In the summer of 2021, a placard at a Houston grocery store indicated that the shopping carts had been “sanitizd.” And in November 2020, you could have stepped on a customized welcome mat in Washington, D.C., that read Thank you for practicing 6 ft social distancing. Eli Fessler, a software engineer who launched the crowdsourced archive in December 2020, wanted “to preserve some aspect of [COVID signage] because it felt so ephemeral,” he told me. The gallery now comprises nearly 4,000 photos of signs around the world, including submissions he received as recently as this past October: a keep safe distance sign in Incheon, South Korea.

    No doubt certain instances of ghost architecture can be attributed to forgetfulness, laziness, or apathy. Remnants of social-distancing stickers on some New York City sidewalks appear too tattered to bother scraping away; outdoor-dining sheds, elaborately constructed but now barely used, are a hassle to dismantle. A faded decal posted at a restaurant near my home in Manhattan depicts social-distancing guidelines for ordering takeout alcohol that haven’t been relevant since 2020. “There’s a very human side to this,” Fessler said. “We forget to take things down. We forget to update signs.”

    But not all of it can be chalked up to negligence. Signs taped to a door can be removed as easily as they are posted; plastic barriers can be taken down. Apart from the ease, ghost architecture should have disappeared by now because spotting it is never pleasant. Even in passing, the signs can awaken uncomfortable memories of the early pandemic. The country’s overarching response to the pandemic is what Klinenberg calls the “will not to know”—a conscious denial that COVID changed life in any meaningful way. Surely, then, some examples are left there on purpose, even if they evoke bad memories.

    When I recently encountered the masks required sign that’s still in the doorway of my local pizza shop, my mind flashed back to more distressing times: Remember when that was a thing? The sign awakened a nagging voice in my brain reminding me that I used to mask up and encourage others to do the same, filling me with guilt that I no longer do so. Perhaps the shop owner has felt something similar. Though uncomfortable, the signs may persist because taking them down requires engaging with their messages head-on, prompting a round of fraught self-examination: Do I no longer believe in masking? Why not? “We have to consciously and purposely say we no longer need this,” Klinenberg told me.

    Outdated signs are likely more prevalent in places that embraced public-health measures to begin with, namely bluer areas. “I would be surprised to see the same level of ghost architecture in Florida, Texas, or Alabama,” Klinenberg said. But ghost architecture seems to persist everywhere. A colleague sent a photo of a floor sticker in a Boise, Idaho, restaurant that continues to thank diners for practicing social distancing. These COVID callbacks are sometimes even virtual: An outdated website for a Miami Beach spa still encourages guests to physically distance and to “swipe your own credit card.”

    Most of all, the persistence of ghost architecture directly reflects the failure of public-health messaging to clearly state what measures were needed, and when. Much of the signage grew out of garbled communication in the first place: “Six feet” directives, for example, far outlasted the point when public-health experts knew it was a faulty benchmark for stopping transmission.

    The rollback of public-health precautions has been just as chaotic. Masking policy has vacillated wildly since the arrival of vaccines; although the federal COVID emergency declaration officially ended last May, there was no corresponding call to end public-health measures across the country. Instead, individual policies lapsed at different times in different states, and in some cases were setting-specific: California didn’t end its mask requirement for high-risk environments such as nursing homes until last April. Most people still don’t know how to think about COVID, Klinenberg said, and it’s easier to just leave things as they are.

    If these signs are the result of confusing COVID messaging, they are also adding to the problem. Prompts to wash or sanitize your hands are generally harmless. In other situations, however, ghost architecture can perpetuate misguided beliefs, such as thinking that keeping six feet apart is protective in a room full of unmasked people, or that masks alone are foolproof against COVID. To people who must still take precautions for health reasons, the fact that signs are still up, only to be ignored, can feel like a slap in the face. The downside to letting ghost architecture persist is that it sustains uncertainty about how to behave, during a pandemic or otherwise.

    The contradiction inherent in ghost architecture is that it both calls to mind the pandemic and reflects a widespread indifference to it. Maybe people don’t bother to take the signs down because they assume that nobody will follow them anyway, Fessler said. Avoidance and apathy are keeping them in place, and there’s not much reason to think that will change. At this rate, COVID’s ghost signage may follow the same trajectory as the defunct Cold War–era nuclear-fallout-shelter signs that lingered on New York City buildings for more than half a century, at once misleading observers and reminding them that the nuclear threat, though diminished, is still present.

    The signs I saw at the Newark airport seemed to me hopelessly obsolete, yet they still stoked unease about how little I think about COVID now, even though the virus is still far deadlier than the flu and other common respiratory illnesses. Passing another stop the spread hand-sanitizing station, I put my palm under the dispenser, expecting nothing. But this time, a dollop of gel squirted into my hand.

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • Philly’s health commissioner will step down after nearly three years on the job

    Philly’s health commissioner will step down after nearly three years on the job


    After more than two years serving as Philadelphia’s health commissioner, Dr. Cheryl Bettigole is resigning. Bettigole’s last day in the role will be Feb. 15.

    Mayor Cherelle Parker’s administration did not provide a reason for Bettigole’s resignation. Deputy health commissioner Frank A. Franklin will serve in the interim while a “nationwide search” for a successor commences.

    “Dr. Bettigole has served our City and citizens well as Health Commissioner, and we thank her for all her public service to Philadelphia,” said Parker. “The Health Department performs vital services for our residents, from primary care to vaccinations to alerting Philadelphia when communicable diseases are spreading, among many services, and we embrace its mission.”

    Bettigole officially took on the health commissioner position in November 2021 after her predecessor, Dr. Thomas Farley, was marred by a scandal. The scandal involved the mishandling of the human remains of victims in the 1985 MOVE bombing in West Philadelphia.

    The beginning of Bettigole’s tenure coincided with the surge of the delta variant of COVID-19. In April 2022, Bettigole announced the return of an indoor mask requirement, which Philly businesses and residents pushed back against in the form of a lawsuit. The city reversed the mandate a mere four days later.

    Other noteworthy initiatives under Bettigole include a five-year plan aimed at improving access to primary care and preparing for public health emergencies, and efforts to create models of care for displaced evacuees and migrants.

    “It has been an honor and a privilege to serve as health commissioner for the past 3 years,” said Bettigole. “I am immensely proud of the work that has taken place in the Health Department and am profoundly grateful for the professionalism, expertise, and dedication found within the employees who I was fortunate to serve with.”



    Chris Compendio

    Source link

  • The Big COVID Question for Hospitals This Fall

    The Big COVID Question for Hospitals This Fall

    Back in the spring, around the end of the COVID-19 public-health emergency, hospitals around the country underwent a change in dress code. The masks that staff had been wearing at work for more than three years vanished, in some places overnight. At UChicago Medicine, where masking policies softened at the end of May, Emily Landon, the executive medical director of infection prevention and control, fielded hate mail from colleagues, some chiding her for waiting too long to lift the requirement, others accusing her of imperiling the immunocompromised. At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, which did away with masking in April, ahead of many institutions, Tom Talbot, the chief hospital epidemiologist, was inundated with thank-yous. “People were ready; they were tired,” he told me. “They’d been asking for several months before that, ‘Can we not stop?’”

    But across hospitals and policies, infection-prevention experts shared one sentiment: They felt almost certain that the masks would need to return, likely by the end of the calendar year. The big question was exactly when.

    For some hospitals, the answer is now. In recent weeks, as COVID-19 hospitalizations have been rising nationwide, stricter masking requirements have returned to a smattering of hospitals in Massachusetts, California, and New York. But what’s happening around the country is hardly uniform. The coming respiratory-virus season will be the country’s first after the end of the public-health emergency—its first, since the arrival of COVID, without crisis-caliber funding set aside, routine tracking of community spread, and health-care precautions already in place. After years of fighting COVID in concert, hospitals are back to going it alone.

    A return to masking has a clear logic in hospitals. Sick patients come into close contact; medical procedures produce aerosols. “It’s a perfect storm for potential transmission of microbes,” Costi David Sifri, the director of hospital epidemiology at UVA Health, told me. Hospitals are on the front lines of disease response: They, more than nearly any other place, must prioritize protecting society’s vulnerable. And with one more deadly respiratory virus now in winter’s repertoire, precautions should logically increase in lockstep. But “there is no clear answer on how to do this right,” says Cameron Wolfe, an infectious-disease physician at Duke. Americans have already staked out their stances on masks, and now hospitals have to operate within those confines.


    When hospitals moved away from masking this spring, they each did so at their own pace—and settled on very different baselines. Like many other hospitals in Massachusetts, Brigham and Women’s Hospital dropped its mask mandate on May 12, the day the public-health emergency expired; “it was a noticeable difference, just walking around the hospital” that day, Meghan Baker, a hospital epidemiologist for both Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, told me. UVA Health, meanwhile, weaned staff off of universal masking over the course of about 10 weeks.

    Most masks at the Brigham are now donned on only a case-by-case basis: when a patient has active respiratory symptoms, say, or when a health-care worker has been recently sick or exposed to the coronavirus. Staff also still mask around the same subset of vulnerable patients that received extra protection before the pandemic, including bone-marrow-transplant patients and others who are highly immunocompromised, says Chanu Rhee, an associate hospital epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. UVA Health, meanwhile, is requiring masks for everyone in the hospital’s highest-risk areas—among them, certain intensive-care units, as well as cancer, transplant, and infusion wards. And although Brigham patients can always request that their providers mask, at UVA, all patients are asked upon admission whether they’d like hospital staff to mask.

    Nearly every expert I spoke with told me they expected that masks would at some point come back. But unlike the early days of the pandemic, “there is basically no guidance from the top now,” Saskia Popescu, an epidemiologist and infection-prevention expert at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, said. The CDC still has a webpage with advice on when to mask. Those recommendations are tailored to the general public, though—and don’t advise covering up until COVID hospital admissions go “way high, when the horse has well and truly left the barn,” Landon, at UChicago, told me. “In health care, we need to do something before that”—tamping down transmission prior to wards filling up.

    More specific advice could still emerge from the CDC, or individual state health departments. But going forward, the assumption is that “each hospital is supposed to have its own general plan,” Rhee told me. (I reached out to the CDC repeatedly about whether it might update its infection-prevention-guidance webpage for COVID—last retooled in May—but didn’t receive a response.)

    Which leaves hospitals with one of two possible paths. They could schedule a start to masking season, based on when they estimate cases might rise—or they could react to data as they come in, tying masking policies to transmission bumps. With SARS-CoV-2 still so unpredictable, many hospitals are opting for the latter. That also means defining a true case rise—“what I think everybody is struggling with right now,” Rhee said. There is no universal definition, still, for what constitutes a surge. And with more immunity layered over the population, fewer infections are resulting in severe disease and death—even, to a limited extent, long COVID—making numbers that might have triggered mitigations just a year or two ago now less urgent catalysts.

    Further clouding the forecast is the fact that much of the data that experts once relied on to monitor COVID in the community have faded away. In most parts of the country, COVID cases are no longer regularly tallied; people are either not testing, or testing only at home. Wastewater surveillance and systems that track all influenza-like illnesses could provide some support. But that’s not a whole lot to go on, especially in parts of the country such as Tennessee, where sewage isn’t as closely tracked, Tom Talbot, of Vanderbilt, told me.

    Some hospitals have turned instead to in-house stats. At Duke—which has adopted a mitigation policy that’s very similar to UVA’s—Wolfe has mulled pulling the more-masking lever when respiratory viruses account for 2 to 4 percent of emergency and urgent-care visits; at UVA, Sifri has considered taking action once 1 or 2 percent of employees call out sick, with the aim of staunching sickness and preserving staff. “It really doesn’t take much to have an impact on our ability to maintain operations,” Sifri told me. But “I don’t know if those are the right numbers.” Plus, internal metrics are now tricky for the same reasons they’ve gotten shaky elsewhere, says Xiaoyan Song, the chief infection-control officer at Children’s National Hospital, in Washington, D.C. Screening is no longer routine for patients, skewing positivity stats; even sniffly health-care workers, several experts told me, are now less eager to test and report.

    For hospitals that have maintained a more masky baseline, scenarios in which universal masking returns are a little easier to envision and enact. At UChicago Medicine, Landon and her colleagues have developed a color-coded system that begins at teal—masking for high-risk patients, patients who request masked care, and anyone with symptoms, plus masking in high-risk areas—and goes through everyone-mask-up-everywhere red; their team plans to meet weekly to assess the situation, based on a variety of community and internal metrics, and march their masking up or down. Wolfe, of Duke, told me that his hospital “wanted to reserve a little bit of extra masking quite intentionally,” so that any shift back toward stricter standards would feel like less of a shock: Habits are hard to break and then reform.

    Other hospitals that have been living mostly maskless for months, though, have a longer road back to universal masking, and staff members who might not be game for the trek. Should masks need to return at the Brigham or Dana-Farber, for instance, “I suspect the reaction will be mixed,” Baker told me. “So we really are trying to be judicious.” The hospital might try to preserve some maskless zones in offices and waiting rooms, for instance, or lower-risk rooms. And at Children’s National, which has also largely done away with masks, Song plans to follow the local health department’s lead. “Once D.C. Health requires hospitals to reimplement the universal-masking policy,” she told me, “we will be implementing it too.”

    Other mitigations are on the table. Several hospital epidemiologists told me they expected to reimplement some degree of asymptomatic screening for various viruses around the same time they reinstate masks. But measures such as visiting restrictions are a tougher call. Wolfe is reluctant to pull that lever before he absolutely has to: Going through a hospital stay alone is one of the “harder things for patients to endure.”


    A bespoke approach to hospital masking isn’t impractical. COVID waves won’t happen synchronously across communities, and so perhaps neither should policies. But hospitals that lack the resources to keep tabs on viral spread will likely be at a disadvantage, and Popescu told me she worries that “we’re going to see significant transmission” in the very institutions least equipped to handle such influx. Even the best-resourced places may hit stumbling blocks: Many are still reeling from three-plus years of crisis and are dealing with nursing shortages and worker burnout.

    Coordination hasn’t entirely gone away. In North Carolina, Duke is working with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University to shift policies in tandem; in Washington State, several regional health-care organizations have pledged to align their masking policies. And the Veterans Health Administration—where masking remains required in high-risk units—has developed a playbook for augmenting mitigations across its many facilities, which together make up the country’s largest integrated health-care system, says Shereef Elnahal, the undersecretary of Veterans Affairs for health. Still, institutions can struggle to move in sync: Attitudes on masking aren’t exactly universal across health-care providers, even within a hospital.

    The country’s experience with COVID has made hospitals that much more attuned to the impacts of infectious disease. Before the pandemic began, Talbot said, masking was a rarity in his hospital, even around high-risk patients; many employees would go on shifts sick. “We were pretty complacent about influenza,” he told me. “People could come to work and spread it.” Now hospital workers hold themselves to a stricter standard. At the same time, they have become intimately attuned to the drawbacks of constant masking: Some have complained that masks interfere with communication, especially for patients who are young or hard of hearing, or who have a language barrier. “I do think you lose a little bit of that personal bonding,” Talbot said. And prior to the lifting of universal masking at Vanderbilt, he said, some staff were telling him that one out of 10 times they’d ask a patient or family to mask, the exchange would “get antagonistic.”

    When lifting mandates, many of the hospital epidemiologists I spoke with were careful to message to colleagues that the situation was fluid: “We’re suspending universal masking temporarily,” as Landon put it to her colleagues. Still, she admits that she felt uncomfortable returning to a low-mask norm at all. (When she informally polled nearly two dozen other hospital epidemiologists around the country in the spring, most of them told her that they felt the same.) Health-care settings aren’t meant to look like the rest of the world; they are places where precautions are expected to go above and beyond. COVID’s arrival had cemented masks’ ability to stop respiratory spread in close quarters; removing them felt to Landon like pushing those data aside, and putting the onus on patients—particularly those already less likely to advocate for themselves—to account for their own protection.

    She can still imagine a United States in which a pandemic-era response solidified, as it has in several other countries, into a peacetime norm: where wearing masks would have remained as routine as donning gloves while drawing blood, a tangible symbol of pandemic lessons learned. Instead, many American hospitals will be entering their fourth COVID winter looking a lot like they did in early 2020—when the virus surprised us, when our defenses were down.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • Wildfire Masking Is Just Different

    Wildfire Masking Is Just Different

    Late last night, New Yorkers were served a public-health recommendation with a huge helping of déjà vu: “If you are an older adult or have heart or breathing problems and need to be outside,” city officials said in a statement, “wear a high-quality mask (e.g. N95 or KN95).”

    It was, in one sense, very familiar advice—and also very much not. This time, the threat isn’t viral, or infectious at all. Instead, masks are being urged as a precaution against the thick, choking plumes of smoke from Canada, where wildfires have been igniting for weeks. The latest swaths of the United States to come into the crosshairs are the Midwest, Ohio Valley, Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic.

    The situation is, in a word, bad. Yesterday, New Haven, Connecticut, logged its worst air-quality reading on record; in parts of New York and Pennsylvania, some towns have been shrouded in pollutants at levels the Environmental Protection Agency deems “hazardous”—the more severe designation on its list. It is, to put it lightly, an absolutely terrible time to go outside. And for those who “have to go outdoors,” says Linsey Marr, an environmental engineer at Virginia Tech, “I’d strongly recommend wearing a mask.”

    The masking advice might understandably spark some whiplash. For the majority of Americans, face coverings are still most saliently a COVID thing—a protective covering meant to be worn when engaging in risky gatherings indoors. Now, though, we’re having to flip the masking script: Right now, it’s outdoor air that we most want to guard our airways against. In more ways than one, the best masking practices in this moment will require snubbing some of our basest COVID-fighting instincts.

    The COVID masking mindset can, to be fair, still be helpful to game out the risks at play. Viral outbreaks and wildfires both introduce dangerous particles into the eyes and the airway; both can be blocked with the right barriers. The difference is the source: Pathogens travel primarily aboard people, making crowds and crummy indoor airflow some of the biggest risks; fires and their smoky, ashy by-products, meanwhile, can get stoked and moved about by the very outdoor winds we welcome during viral outbreaks. Conflagrations clog the air with all sorts of pollutants—among them, carbon monoxide, which can poison people by starving them of oxygen, and a class of chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that’s been linked to increased cancer risk. But the primary perils are the fine-particulate-matter components of soot, ash, and dust, fine enough to be borne over great distances until they reach an unsuspecting face.

    Once breathed in, these particles, which the EPA tracks by a metric known as PM2.5, can deposit deep in the airway and possibly even infiltrate the blood. The flecks irritate the moist membranes that line the nose, mouth, lungs, and eyes; they spark bouts of inflammation, triggering itching and irritation. Chronic exposure to them has been linked to heart and lung issues, and the risks are especially high for individuals with chronic medical conditions—burdens that concentrate among people of color and the poor—as well as for older adults and children.

    But N95s and many other high-quality masks have their roots in environmental health; they were designed specifically to filter out microscopic particulate matter that travels through the air. And they’re astoundingly good at their job. Jose-Luis Jimenez, an aerosol scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, recently put their performance to the test with an N95 strapped to his own face. Using an industry-standard test, he measured the particulate matter outside the mask, then checked how much made it through the device and into the space around his nose and mouth. Percentage-wise, he told me, “it removes 99.99 … I didn’t measure how many nines; it was working so well.” On broader scales, too, the protective math plays out: Well-fitting masks can curb smoke-related hospitalizations; studies back up their importance as a firefighting mainstay.

    The key, Jimenez told me, is choosing the right mask and getting it flush against your face. Experts in the field even get professionally fit-tested to avoid contamination infiltrating through any gaps. Surgical masks, cloth masks, or any other loose accessories that aren’t specifically designed to filter out tiny particles just won’t do the trick, though they’re still better than not covering up at all. (If that sounds familiar, it should; viral or smoky, “masks don’t care what the particle is,” Marr told me. “They care about the size.”)

    N95 masks aren’t perfect protectives either. They don’t shield the eyes, and they aren’t great at staving off carbon monoxide and the other gaseous pollutants that wildfires emit. (That’s for a reason: Allowing gas through masks is how we continue to breathe while wearing them.) But gases are volatile and quickly dissipate; for Americans hundreds or even thousands of miles from the source of the smoke, “it’s going to be the particulate matter that is most concerning to us,” Marr told me. Even in the parts of New York and Pennsylvania where PM2.5 has rocketed up to dangerous levels, the carbon-monoxide stats have remained low.

    Considering how dicey the discourse over masking has gotten, masking advice won’t necessarily be embraced by all. Less than a month after the official end of the United States’ COVID public-health emergency, people are fatigued by face coverings and other mitigations. And we’re fast entering the stretch of the year when having synthetic polymer fabrics strapped across your face can get downright miserable, especially in the humidity of northeastern heat. But when it comes to avoiding the harms of wildfire smoke, experts generally consider masks a second-line defense. The first priority is trying to minimize any exposure at all—which, for now, means staying indoors with the doors and windows tightly shut, especially for people at highest risk. Paula Olsiewski, an environmental-health researcher at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, also recommends running whatever air filters might be available; air conditioners, portable air cleaners, and DIY air filters all help.

    It’s also a good time, experts told me, to be mindful of the differences between filtration and ventilation, or increasing flow to turn over stale air. Both are crucial, sustainable interventions against respiratory viruses. But in the context of wildfires, excellent ventilation could actually increase harm, Jimenez told me, by allowing in excess smoke. For right now, stale indoor air—a classic COVID foe—is a smoke-avoider’s ally. The masks come in for anyone who must go outside in a part of the country where the air quality is bad—say, above an index of 150 or so.

    The move might feel especially counterintuitive for people who have long since stopped masking against COVID—or even ones who still do, simply because the rules don’t mesh. Through the flip-flopping guidance of mask everywhere to mask until you’re vaccinated to actually, mask after you’re vaccinated too to mask only indoors, Americans never hit much of a stable rhythm with the practice. The inertia may be especially powerful on the East Coast, which has largely been spared from the scourge of wildfires that’s constantly plaguing the West. (That puts the U.S. well behind other countries, especially in East Asia, where masking against viruses and pollutants indoors and out has long been commonplace; even in California, N95 and HEPA shortages aren’t anything new.)

    That said, our COVID-centric view on masking was always going to get a wake-up call. Wildfires—and viral outbreaks, for that matter—are expected to become more common going forward, even in regions that haven’t historically experienced them. And for all their weariness with COVID, Americans now have far more awareness of and, in many cases, access to masks than they did just a few years ago. The wildfires aren’t good news, but maybe a mask-friendly response to them can be. Smoke does, from a public-health perspective, have one thing going for it, Olsiewski told me: It is visible and ominous in ways that a microscopic virus is not. “People can see that their air is not clean,” she told me. It’ll take more than ash and haze to break through the divisiveness around masks. But a threat this obvious might at least forge a tiny crack.


    This story is part of the Atlantic Planet series supported by the HHMI Department of Science Education.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • Somehow, the Science on Masks Still Isn’t Settled

    Somehow, the Science on Masks Still Isn’t Settled

    For many Americans, wearing a mask has become a relic. But fighting about masks, it seems, has not.

    Masking has widely been seen as one of the best COVID precautions that people can take. Still, it has sparked ceaseless arguments: over mandates, what types of masks we should wear, and even how to wear them. A new review and meta-analysis of masking studies suggests that the detractors may have a point. The paper—a rigorous assessment of 78 studies—was published by Cochrane, an independent policy institution that has become well known for its reviews. The review’s authors found “little to no” evidence that masking at the population level reduced COVID infections, concluding that there is “uncertainty about the effects of face masks.” That result held when the researchers compared surgical masks with N95 masks, and when they compared surgical masks with nothing.

    On Twitter, longtime critics of masking and mandates held this up as the proof they’d long waited for. The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet, quoted a researcher who has called the analysis the “scientific nail in the coffin for mask mandates.” The vaccine skeptic Robert Malone used it to refute what he called “self-appointed ‘experts’” on masking. Some researchers weighed in with more nuanced interpretations, pointing out limitations in the review’s methods that made it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Even the CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, pushed back against the paper in a congressional testimony this week, citing its small sample size of COVID-specific studies. The argument is heated and technical, and probably won’t be resolved anytime soon. But the fact that the fight is ongoing makes clear that there still isn’t a firm answer to among the most crucial of pandemic questions: Just how effective are masks at stopping COVID?

    An important feature of Cochrane reviews is that they look only at “randomized controlled trials,” considered the gold standard for certain types of research because they compare the impact of one intervention with another while tightly controlling for biases and confounding variables. The trials considered in the review compared groups of people who masked with those who didn’t in an effort to estimate how effective masking is at blunting the spread of COVID in a general population. The population-level detail is important: It indicates uncertainty about whether requiring everyone to wear a mask makes a difference in viral spread. This is different from the impact of individual masking, which has been better researched. Doctors, after all, routinely mask when they’re around sick patients and do not seem to be infected more often than anyone else. “We have fairly decent evidence that masks can protect the wearer,” Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Brown University, told me. “Where I think it sort of falls apart is relating that to the population level.”

    The research on individual masking generally shows what we have come to expect: High-quality masks provide a physical barrier between the wearer and infectious particles, if worn correctly. For instance, in one study, N95 masks were shown to block 57 to 90 percent of particles, depending on how well they fit; cloth and surgical masks are less effective. The caveat is that much of that support came from laboratory research and observational studies, which don’t account for the messiness of real life.

    That the Cochrane review reasonably challenges the effectiveness of population-level masking doesn’t mean the findings of previous studies in support of masking are moot. A common theme among criticisms of the review is that it considered only a small number of studies by virtue of Cochrane’s standards; there just aren’t that many randomized controlled trials on COVID and masks. In fact, most of those included in the review are about the impact of masking on other respiratory illnesses, namely the flu. Although some similarities between the viruses are likely, Nuzzo explained on Twitter, COVID-specific trials would be ideal.

    The handful of trials in the review that focus on COVID don’t show strong support for masking. One, from Bangladesh, which looked at both cloth and surgical masks, found a 9 percent decrease in symptomatic cases in masked versus unmasked groups (and a reanalysis of that study found signs of bias in the way the data were collected and interpreted); another, from Denmark, suggested that surgical masks offered no statistically significant protection at all.

    Criticisms of the review posit that it might have come to a different conclusion if more and better-quality studies had been available. The paper’s authors acknowledge that the trials they considered were prone to bias and didn’t control for inconsistent adherence to the interventions. “The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect,” they concluded. If high-quality masks worn properly work well at an individual level, after all, then it stands to reason that  high-quality masks worn properly by many people in any situation should indeed provide some level of protection.

    Tom Jefferson, the review’s lead author, did not respond to a request for comment. But in a recent interview about the controversy, he stood by the practical implications of the new study. “There’s still no evidence that masks are effective during a pandemic,” he said.

    Squaring all of this uncertainty with the support for masking and mandates early in the pandemic is difficult. Evidence for it was scarce in the early days of the pandemic, Nuzzo acknowledged, but health officials had to act. Transmission was high, and the costs of masking were seen as low; it was not immediately clear how inconvenient and unmanageable masks could be, especially in settings such as schools. Mask mandates have largely expired in most places, but it doesn’t hurt most people to err on the side of caution. Nuzzo still wears a mask in high-risk environments. “Will that prevent me from ever getting COVID? No,” she said, but it reduces her risk—and that’s good enough.

    What is most frustrating about this masking uncertainty is that the pandemic has presented many opportunities for the U.S. to gather stronger data on the effects of population-level masking, but those studies have not happened. Masking policies were made on sound but limited data, and when decisions are made that way, “you need to continually assess whether those assumptions are correct,” Nuzzo said—much like how NASA collects huge amounts of data to prepare for all the things that could go wrong with a shuttle launch. Unfortunately, she said, “we don’t have Houston for the pandemic.”

    Obtaining stronger data is still possible, though it won’t be easy. A major challenge of studying the effect of population-level masking in the real world is that people aren’t good at wearing masks, which of course is a problem with the effectiveness of masks too. It would be straightforward enough if you could guarantee that participants wore their masks perfectly and consistently throughout the study period. But in the real world, masks fit poorly and slip off noses, and people are generally eager to take them off whenever possible.

    Ideally, the research needed to gather strong data—about masks, and other lingering pandemic questions—would be conducted through the government. The U.K., for example, has funded large randomized controlled trials of COVID drugs such as molnupiravir. So far, that doesn’t seem to have happened in the U.S.  None of the new studies on masking included in the Cochrane review were funded by the U.S. government. “The fact that we never as a country really set up studies to answer the most pressing questions is a failure,” said Nuzzo. What the CDC could do is organize and fund a research network to study COVID, much like the centers of excellence the agency has for fields such as food safety and tuberculosis.

    The window of opportunity hasn’t closed yet. The Cochrane review, for all of its controversy, is a reminder that more research on masking is needed, if only to address whether pro-mask policies warrant the rage they incite. You would think that the policy makers who encouraged masking would have made finding that support a priority. “If you’re going to burn your political capital, it’d be nice to have the evidence to say that it’s necessary,” Nuzzo said.

    At this point, even the strongest possible evidence is unlikely to change some people’s behavior, considering how politicized the mask debate has become. But as a country, the lack of conclusive evidence leaves us ill-prepared for the next viral outbreak—COVID or otherwise. The risk is still low, but bird flu is showing troubling signs that it could make the jump from animals to humans. If it does, should officials be telling everyone to mask up? That America has never amassed good evidence to show the effect of population-level masking for COVID, Nuzzo said, has been a missed opportunity. The best time to learn more about masking is before we are asked to do it again.

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • Should Everyone Be Masking Again?

    Should Everyone Be Masking Again?

    Winter is here, and so, once more, are mask mandates. After last winter’s crushing Omicron spike, much of America did away with masking requirements. But with cases once again on the rise and other respiratory illnesses such as RSV and influenza wreaking havoc, some scattered institutions have begun reinstating them. On Monday, one of Iowa’s largest health systems reissued its mandate for staff. That same day, the Oakland, California, city council voted unanimously to again require people to mask up in government buildings. A New Jersey school district revived its own mandate, and the Philadelphia school district announced that it would temporarily do the same after winter break.

    The reinstated mandates are by no means widespread, and that seems unlikely to change any time soon. But as we trudge into yet another pandemic winter, they do raise some questions. What role should masking play in winters to come? Is every winter going to be like this? Should we now consider the holiday season … masking season?

    These questions don’t have simple answers. Regardless of what public-health research tells us we should do, we’ve clearly seen throughout the pandemic that limits exist to what Americans will do. Predictably, the few recent mandates have elicited a good deal of aggrievement and derision from the anti-masking set. But even many Americans who diligently masked earlier in the pandemic seem to have lost their appetite for this sort of intervention as the pandemic has eased. In its most recent national survey of health behavior, the COVID States Project found that only about a quarter of Americans still mask when they go out, down from more than 80 percent at its peak. Some steadfast maskers have started feeling awkward: “I have personally felt like I get weird looks now wearing a mask,” Saskia Popescu, an epidemiologist at George Mason University, told me.

    Even so, masking remains one of the best and least obtrusive infection-prevention measures we have at our disposal. We haven’t yet been slammed this winter by another Omicronlike variant, but the pandemic is still here. COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are all rising nationally, possibly the signs of another wave. Kids have been hit especially hard by the unwelcome return of influenza, RSV, and other respiratory viruses. All of this is playing out against the backdrop of low COVID-19-booster uptake, leaving people more vulnerable to death and severe disease if they get infected.

    All of which is to say: If you’re only going to mask for a couple of months of the year, now is a good time. “Should people be masking? Absolutely yes, right now,” Seema Lakdawala, a flu-transmission expert at Emory University, told me. That doesn’t mean masking everywhere all the time. Lakdawala masks at the grocery store, at the office, and while using public transportation, but not when she goes out to dinner or attends parties. Those activities pose a risk of infection, but Lakdawala’s goal is to reduce her risk, not to minimize it at all costs. A strategy that prevents you from enjoying the things you love most is not sustainable.

    Both Lakdawala and Popescu were willing to go so far as to suggest that masking should indeed become a seasonal fixture—just like skiing and snowmen, only potentially lifesaving and politically radioactive. Even before the pandemic, influenza alone killed tens of thousands of Americans every year, and more masking, even if only in certain targeted settings, could go a long way toward reducing the toll. “If we could just say, Hey, from November to February, we should all just mask indoors,” Lakdawala said, that would do a lot of good. “The idea of the unknown and the perpetualness of two years of things coming on and off, and then the confusing CDC county-by-county guideline—it just sort of makes it harder for everybody than if we had a simple message.” Universal mandates or recommendations that people mask at small social gatherings are probably too much to ask, Lakdawala told me. Instead, she favors some limited, seasonal mandates, such as on public transportation or in schools dealing with viral surges.

    David Dowdy, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, is all for masking season, he told me, but he’d be more hesitant to resort to mandates. “It’s hard to impose mandates without a very strong public-health rationale,” he said, especially in our current, hyperpolarized climate. And although that rationale clearly existed for much of the past two crisis-ridden years, it’s less clear now. “COVID is no longer this public-health emergency, but it’s still killing thousands of people every week, hundreds a day … so it becomes a more challenging balancing act,” Dowdy said.

    Rather than requirements, he favors broad recommendations. The CDC, for instance, could suggest that during flu season, people should consider wearing masks in crowded indoor spaces, the same way it recommends that everyone old enough get a flu shot each year. (Although the agency has hardly updated its “Interim Guidance” on masks and the flu since 2004, Director Rochelle Walensky has encouraged people to mask up this winter.) Another strategy, Dowdy said, could be making masks more accessible to people, so that every time they enter a public indoor space, they have the option of grabbing an N95.

    The course of the pandemic has both demonstrated the efficacy of widespread masking and rendered that strategy so controversial in America as to be virtually impossible. The question now is how to negotiate those two realities. Whatever answer we come up with this year, the question will remain next year, and for years after that. The pandemic will fade, but the coronavirus, like the other surging viruses this winter, will continue to haunt us in one form or another. “These viruses are here,” Lakdawala said. “They’re not going anywhere.”

    Jacob Stern

    Source link

  • It’s Gotten Awkward to Wear a Mask

    It’s Gotten Awkward to Wear a Mask

    Last week, just a couple of hours into a house-sitting stint in Massachusetts for my cousin and his wife, I received from them a flummoxed text: “Dude,” it read. “We are the only people in masks.” Upon arriving at the airport, and then boarding their flight, they’d been shocked to find themselves virtually alone in wearing masks of any kind. On another trip they’d taken to Hawaii in July, they told me, long after coverings became optional on planes, some 80 percent of people on their flight had been masking up. This time, though? “We are like the odd man out.”

    Being outside of the current norm “does not bother us,” my cousin’s wife said in another text, despite stares from some of the other passengers. But the about-face my cousin and his wife identified does mark a new phase of the pandemic, even if it’s one that has long been playing out in fits and starts. Months after the vanishing of most masking mandates, mask wearing has been relegated to a sharply shrinking sector of society. It has become, once again, a peculiar thing to do.

    If you notice, no one’s wearing masks,” President Joe Biden declared last month on 60 Minutes. That’s an overstatement, but not by much: According to the COVID States Project, a large-scale national survey on pandemic-mitigation behaviors, the masking rate among Americans bounced between around 50 and 80 percent over the first two years of the pandemic. But since this past winter, it’s been in a slide; the project’s most recent data, collected in September, found that just 29 percent have been wearing masks outside the home. This trend may be long-standing on the population level, but for individuals—and particularly for those who still wear masks, such as my cousin and his wife—it can lead to moments of abrupt self-consciousness. “It feels like it’s something that now needs an explanation,” Fiona Lowenstein, a journalist and COVID long-hauler based in Los Angeles, told me. “It’s like showing up in a weird hat, and you have to explain why you’re wearing it.”

    Now that most Americans can access COVID vaccines and treatments that slash the risk of severe disease and death, plenty of people have made informed decisions to relax on masking—and feel totally at ease with their behavior while paying others’ little mind. Some are no longer masking all the time but will do so if it makes others feel more comfortable; others are still navigating new patterns, trying to stay flexible amid fluctuating risk. Saskia Popescu, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at George Mason University, told me that she’s now more likely to doff her mask while dining or working out indoors, but that she leaves it on when she travels. And when she does decide to cover up, she said, she’s “definitely felt like more of an outlier.”

    For some, like my cousin and his wife, that shift feels slightly jarring. For others, though, it feels more momentous. High-filtration masks are one of the few measures that can reliably tamp down on infection and transmission across populations, and they’re still embraced by many parents of newborns too young for vaccines, by people who are immunocompromised and those who care for them, and by those who want to minimize their risk of developing long COVID, which can’t be staved off by vaccines and treatments alone. Theresa Chapple-McGruder, the public-health director for Oak Park, Illinois, plans to keep her family masking at least until her baby son is old enough to receive his first COVID shots. In the meantime, though, they’ve certainly been feeling the pressure to conform. “People often tell me, ‘It’s okay, you can take your mask off here,’” Chapple-McGruder told me; teachers at the local elementary school have said similar things to her young daughters. Meghan McCoy, a former doctor in New Hampshire who takes immunosuppressive medications for psoriatic arthritis and has ME/CFS, has also been feeling “the pressure to take the mask off,” she told me—at her kid’s Girl Scout troop meetings, during trips to the eye doctor. “You can feel when you’re the only one doing something,” McCoy said. “It’s noticeable.”

    For Chapple-McGruder, McCoy, and plenty of others, the gradual decline in masking creates new challenges. For one thing, the rarer the practice, the tougher it is for still-masking individuals to minimize their exposures. “One-way masking is a lot less effective,” says Gabriel San Emeterio, a social worker at Hunter College who is living with HIV and ME/CFS. And the less common masking gets, the more conspicuous it becomes. “If most people met me, they wouldn’t know I was immunocompromised,” McCoy told me. “There’s no big sign on our foreheads that says ‘this person doesn’t have a functioning immune system.’” But now, she said, “masks have kind of become that sign.”

    Aparna Nair, a historian and disability scholar at the University of Oklahoma who has epilepsy, told me that she thinks masks are becoming somewhat analogous to wheelchairs, prosthetics, hearing aids, and her own seizure-alert dog, Charlie: visible tools and technologies that invite compassion, but also skepticism, condescension, and invasive questions. During a recent rideshare, she told me, her driver started ranting that her mask was unnecessary and ineffective—just part of a “conspiracy.” His tone was so angry, Nair said, that she began to be afraid. She tried to make him understand her situation: I’ve been chronically ill for three decades; I’d rather not fall sick; better to be safe than sorry. But she said that her driver seemed unswayed and continued to mutter furiously under his breath for the duration of the ride. Situations of that kind—where she has to litigate her right to wear a mask—have been getting more common, Nair told me.

    Masking has been weighed down with symbolic meaning since the start of the pandemic, with some calling it a sign of weakness and others a vehicle for state control. Americans have been violently attacked for wearing masks and also for not wearing them. But for a long time, these tensions were set against the backdrop of majority masking nationwide. Local mask mandates were in place, and most scientific experts wore and championed them in public. With many of those infrastructural supports and signals now gone, masking has rapidly become a minority behavior—and people who are still masking told me that that inversion only makes the tension worse.

    San Emeterio, who wears a vented respirator when they travel, recently experienced a round of heckling from a group of men at an airport, who started to stare, laugh, and point. Oh my god, look at what he’s wearing, San Emeterio recalls the strangers saying. “They clearly meant for me to hear it,” San Emeterio told me. “It didn’t make me feel great.” Alex Mawdsley, the 14-year-old son of an immunocompromised physician in Chicago, is one of just a handful of kids at his middle school who are still masking up. Since the start of the academic year, he’s been getting flak from several of his classmates “at least once a week,” he told me: “They’re like ‘You’re not gonna get COVID from me’ and ‘Why are you still wearing that? You don’t need it anymore.’”

    Alex’s mother, Emily Landon, told me she’s been shaken by the gawks and leers she now receives for masking. Even prior to the pandemic, and before she was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and began taking immunosuppressive drugs, she considered herself something of a hygiene stan; she always took care to step back from the sneezy and sniffy, and to wipe down tray tables on planes. “And it was never a big deal,” she said.

    It hasn’t helped that the donning of masks has been repeatedly linked to chaos and crisis—and their removal, to triumph. Early messaging about vaccines strongly implied that the casting away of masks could be a kind of post-immunization reward. In February, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky described masks as “the scarlet letter of this pandemic.” Two months later, when the administration lifted its requirements for masking on public transportation, passengers on planes ripped off their coverings mid-flight and cheered.

    To reclaim a mask-free version of “normalcy,” then, may seem like reverting to a past that was safer, more peaceful. The past few years “have been mentally and emotionally exhausting,” Linda Tropp, a social psychologist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, told me. Discarding masks may feel like jettisoning a bad memory, whereas clinging to them reminds people of an experience they desperately want to leave behind. For some members of the maskless majority, feeling like “the normal ones” again could even serve to legitimize insulting, dismissive, or aggressive behavior toward others, says Markus Kemmelmeier, a social psychologist at the University of Nevada at Reno.

    It’s unclear how the masking discourse might evolve from here. Kemmelmeier told me he’s optimistic that the vitriol will fade as people settle into a new chapter of their coexistence with COVID. Many others, though, aren’t so hopeful, given the way the situation has unfolded thus far. “There’s this feeling of being left behind while everyone else moves on,” Lowenstein, the Los Angeles journalist and long-hauler, told me. Lowenstein and others are now missing out on opportunities, they told me, that others are easily reintegrating back into their lives: social gatherings, doctor’s appointments, trips to visit family they haven’t seen in months or more than a year. “I’d feel like I could go on longer this way,” Lowenstein said, if more of society were in it together.

    Americans’ fraught relationship with masks “didn’t have to be like this,” Tropp told me—perhaps if the country had avoided politicizing the practice early on, perhaps if there had been more emphasis on collective acts of good. Other parts of the world, certainly, have weathered shifting masking norms with less strife. A couple of weeks ago, my mother got in touch with me from one such place: Taiwan, where she grew up. Masking was still quite common in public spaces, she told me in a text message, even where it wasn’t mandated. When I asked her why, she seemed almost surprised: Why not?

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • The Masks We’ll Wear in the Next Pandemic

    The Masks We’ll Wear in the Next Pandemic

    On one level, the world’s response to the coronavirus pandemic over the past two and half years was a major triumph for modern medicine. We developed COVID vaccines faster than we’d developed any vaccine in history, and began administering them just a year after the virus first infected humans. The vaccines turned out to work better than top public-health officials had dared hope. In tandem with antiviral treatments, they’ve drastically reduced the virus’s toll of severe illness and death, and helped hundreds of millions of Americans resume something approximating pre-pandemic life.

    And yet on another level, the pandemic has demonstrated the inadequacy of such pharmaceutical interventions. In the time it took vaccines to arrive, more than 300,000 people died of COVID-19 in America alone. Even since, waning immunity and the semi-regular emergence of new variants have made for an uneasy détente. Another 700,000 Americans have died over that period, vaccines and antivirals notwithstanding.

    For some pandemic-prevention experts, the takeaway here is that pharmaceutical interventions alone simply won’t cut it. Though shots and drugs may be essential to softening a virus’s blow once it arrives, they are by nature reactive rather than preventive. To guard against future pandemics, what we should focus on, some experts say, is attacking viruses where they’re most vulnerable, before pharmaceutical interventions are even necessary. Specifically, they argue, we should be focusing on the air we breathe. “We’ve dealt with a lot of variants, we’ve dealt with a lot of strains, we’ve dealt with other respiratory pathogens in the past,” Abraar Karan, an infectious-disease physician and global-health expert at Stanford, told me. “The one thing that’s stayed consistent is the route of transmission.” The most fearsome pandemics are airborne.

    Numerous overlapping efforts are under way to stave off future outbreaks by improving air quality. Many scientists have long advocated for overhauling the way we ventilate indoor spaces, which has the potential to transform our air in much the same way that the advent of sewer systems transformed our water. Some researchers are similarly enthusiastic about the promise of germicidal lighting. Retrofitting a nation’s worth of buildings with superior ventilation systems or germicidal lighting is likely a long-term mission, though, requiring large-scale institutional buy-in and probably a considerable amount of government funding. Meanwhile, a more niche subgroup has zeroed in on what is, at least in theory, a somewhat simpler undertaking: designing the perfect mask.

    Two and a half years into this pandemic, it’s hard to believe that the masks widely available to us today are pretty much the same masks that were available to us in January 2020. N95s, the gold standard as far as the average person is concerned, are quite good: They filter out at least 95 percent of .3-micron particles—hence N95—and are generally the masks of preference in hospitals. And yet, anyone who has worn one over the past two and a half years will know that, lucky as we are to have them, they are not the most comfortable. At a certain point, they start to hurt your ears or your nose or your whole face. When you finally unmask after a lengthy flight, you’re liable to look like a raccoon. Most existing N95s are not reusable, and although each individual mask is pretty cheap, the costs can add up over time. They impede communication, preventing people from seeing the wearer’s facial expressions or reading their lips. And because they require fit-testing, the efficacy for the average wearer probably falls well short of the advertised 95 percent. In 2009, the federal government published a report with 28 recommendations to improve masks for health-care workers. Few seem to have been taken.

    These shortcomings are part of what has made efforts to get people to wear masks an uphill battle. What’s more,Over the course of the pandemic, several new companies have submitted new mask designs to NIOSH, the federal agency tasked with certifying and regulating masks,. Few, if any, have so far been certified. The agency appears to be overworked and underfunded. In addition, Joe and Kim Rosenberg, who in the early stages of the pandemic launched a mask company that applied unsuccessfully for NIOSH approval, told me the certification process is somewhat circular: A successful application requires huge amounts of capital, which in turn require huge amounts of investment, but investors generally like to see data showing that the masks work as advertised in, say, a hospital, and masks cannot be tested in a hospital without prior NIOSH approval. (NIOSH did not respond to a request for comment.)

    New products aside, there do already exist masks that outperform standard N95s in one way or another. Elastomeric respirators are reusable masks that you outfit with replaceable filters. Depending on the filter you use, the mask can be as effective as an N95 or even more so. When equipped with HEPA-quality filters, elastomerics filter out 99.97 percent of particles. And they come in both half-facepiece versions (which cover the nose and mouth) and full-facepiece versions (which also cover the eyes). Another option are PAPRs, or powered air-purifying respirators—hooded, battery-powered masks that cover the wearer’s entire head and constantly blow HEPA-filtered air for the wearer to breathe.

    Given the challenges of persuading many Americans to wear even flimsy surgical masks during the past couple of years, though, the issues with these superior masks—the current models, at least—are probably disqualifying as far as widespread adoption would go in future outbreaks. Elastomerics generally are bulky, expensive, limit range of motion, obscure the mouth, and require fit testing to ensure efficacy. PAPRs have a transparent facepiece and in many cases don’t require fit testing, but they’re also bulky, currently cost more than $1,000 each, and, because they’re battery-powered, can be quite noisy. Neither, let me assure you, is the sort of thing you’d want to wear to the movie theater.

    The people who seem most fixated on improving masks are a hodgepodge of biologists, biosecurity experts, and others whose chief concern is not another COVID-like pandemic but something even more terrifying: a deliberate act of bioterrorism. In the apocalyptic scenarios that most worry them—which, to be clear, are speculative—bioterrorists release at least one highly transmissible pathogen with a lethality in the range of, say, 40 to 70 percent. (COVID’s is about 1 percent.) Because this would be a novel virus, we wouldn’t yet have vaccines or antivirals. The only way to avoid complete societal collapse would be to supply essential workers with PPE that they can be confident will provide infallible protection against infection—so-called perfect PPE. In such a scenario, N95s would be insufficient, Kevin Esvelt, an evolutionary biologist at MIT, told me: “70-percent-lethality virus, 95 percent protection—wouldn’t exactly fill me with confidence.”

    Existing masks that use HEPA filters may well be sufficiently protective in this worst-case scenario, but not even that is a given, Esvelt told me. Vaishnav Sunil, who runs the PPE project at Esvelt’s lab, thinks that PAPRs show the most promise, because they do not require fit testing. At the moment, the MIT team is surveying existing products to determine how to proceed. Their goal, ultimately, is to ensure that the country can distribute completely protective masks to every essential worker, which is firstly a problem of design and secondly a problem of logistics. The mask Esvelt’s team is looking for might already be out there, just selling for too high a price, in which case they’ll concentrate on bringing that price down. Or they might need to design something from scratch, in which case, at least initially, their work will mainly consist of new research. More likely, Sunil told me, they’ll identify the best available product and make modest adjustments to improve comfort, breathability, useability, and efficacy.

    Esvelt’s team is far from the only group exploring masking’s future. Last year, the federal government began soliciting submissions for a mask-design competition intended to spur technological development. The results were nothing if not creative: Among the 10 winning prototypes selected in the competition’s first phase were a semi-transparent mask, an origami mask, and a mask for babies with a pacifier on the inside.

    In the end, the questions of how much we should invest in improving masks and how we should actually improve them boil down to a deeper question about which possible future pandemic concerns you most. If your answer is a bioengineered attack, then naturally you’ll commit significant resources to perfecting efficacy and improving masks more generally, given that, in such a pandemic, masks may well be the only thing that can save us. If your answer is SARS-CoV-3, then you might worry less about efficacy and spend proportionally more on vaccines and antivirals. This is not a cheery choice to make. But it is an important one as we inch our way out of our current pandemic and toward whatever waits for us down the road.

    For the elderly and immunocompromised, super-effective masks could be useful even outside a worst-case scenario. But more traditional public-health experts, who don’t put as much stock in the possibility of a highly lethal, deliberate pandemic, are less concerned about perfecting efficacy for the general public. The greater gains, they say, will come not from marginally improving the efficacy of existing highly effective masks but from getting more people to wear highly effective masks in the first place. “It’s important to make masks easier for people to use, more comfortable and more effective,” Linsey Marr, an environmental engineer at Virginia Tech, told me. It wouldn’t hurt to make them a little more fashionable either, she said. Also important is reusability, Jassi Pannu, a fellow at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me, because in a pandemic stockpiles of single-use products will almost always run out.

    Stanford’s Karan envisions a world in which everyone in the country has their own elastomeric respirator—not, in most cases, for everyday use, but available when necessary. Rather than constantly replenishing your stock of reusable masks, you would simply swap out the filters in your elastomeric (or perhaps it will be a PAPR) every so often. The mask would be transparent, so that a friend could see your smile, and relatively comfortable, so that you could wear it all day without it cutting into your nose or pulling on your ears. When you came home at night, you would spend a few minutes disinfecting it.

    Karan’s vision might be a distant one. America’s tensions over masking throughout the pandemic give little reason to hope for any unified or universal uptake in future catastrophes. And even if that happened, everyone I spoke with agrees that masks alone are not a solution. They’re almost certainly the smallest part of the effort to ensure that the air we breathe is clean, to change the physical world to stop viral transmission before it happens. Even so, making and distributing millions of masks is almost certainly easier than installing superior ventilation systems or germicidal lighting in buildings across the country. Masks, if nothing else, are the low-hanging fruit. “We can deal with dirty water, and we can deal with cleaning surfaces,” Karan told me. “But when it comes to cleaning the air, we’re very, very far behind.”

    Jacob Stern

    Source link

  • MicroElectronicDesign Launches tinyLiDAR SafeDistance as ‘Masks Alone Cannot Stop the Pandemic’ (Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General)*

    MicroElectronicDesign Launches tinyLiDAR SafeDistance as ‘Masks Alone Cannot Stop the Pandemic’ (Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General)*

    tinyLiDAR SafeDistance is a New High-Tech Personal Tool that uses LiDAR to Maintain Proper Physical Distancing and Help Stop the Spread of COVID-19

    Press Release



    updated: Jul 28, 2020

    ​​​​​​​​​MicroElectronicDesign has created a new social distancing device called SafeDistance. This key fob size device quickly provides visual indication of the measured distance by the color of its LED. Like a traffic light, the device shows Green for 2m (6.6feet) or greater, Red for under 1m (3.3feet), and Yellow in between. Based on micropower Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology, it’s more accurate and lower cost than radio-based solutions such as Bluetooth and Ultra-Wide Band (UWB). The device is currently in the fundraising stage at Indiegogo with a short, fixed funding campaign. Visit https://igg.me/at/safedistance or www.safedist.me for more information.

    “It was heartbreaking to see families who were left devastated by the COVID-19 virus,” explains Dinesh Bhatia, Principal Design Engineer at MicroElectronicDesign. “With cases surging around the world we were obsessed and determined to create a personal device that would be affordable, easy to use and effective at improving physical distancing. The result is tinyLiDAR SafeDistance.”

    As Dr Tedros said: “Masks alone cannot stop the pandemic. Countries must continue to find, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact. Mask or no mask, there are proven things all of us can do to protect ourselves and others – keep your distance …”*

    “It’s just common sense,” continues Dinesh. “Staying more than 2m or 6.5feet away will dramatically reduce your chances of getting COVID. You can see this in the recent experimental results from Dr Davis.”

    Dr Richard Davis, who is the clinical microbiology lab director at Providence Sacred Heart Medical Center in Spokane, Washington, tweeted a series of photos that showcased two demonstrations aimed at understanding how effective face masks are at blocking respiratory droplets from an individual’s mouth, while also illustrating the importance of social distancing.

    “I set open bacteria culture plates 2, 4 and 6 feet away and coughed (hard) for ~15s. I repeated this without a mask,” Davis wrote.

    The pictures showed that standing two feet apart with no mask practically covered the Petri dish with bacteria. Davis’ respiratory droplets also managed to land on the dish at four feet away but were reduced to scarce amounts at six feet.

    “Having proof like this makes you wonder why people don’t take physical distancing seriously,” adds Dinesh. “Even if the correct markers are not in place, tinyLiDAR SafeDistance will enable you to maintain the proper safe physical distance by the mere press of a button. Our goal is to make this generally available as a standard tool to help stop the spread of COVID-19. We’re ready for production now and are looking for backers to join us in improving the state of physical distancing around the world.” 

    Reference:
    *https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—6-april-2020

    Media Contact:
    Sabeena Taharally
    Phone: 408-598-1657
    Email: info@microelectronicdesign.com
    https://www.safedist.me

    Source: MicroElectronicDesign, Inc.

    Source link