Re-Opening Mass Responsibly

[PetraG]

A cloth mask does usually remind people to keep their hands away from their faces, including doing it without thinking after touching “high touch surfaces.”
The more hands that touch high-touch surfaces stay away from faces, the better.

 

[Usige]

How is that for fair? So again I will ask, if it is possible that it makes others safer, why would you not wear one?

I am not saying if people should or shouldn’t. As the CDC says it is something that can been done voluntarily. There is a reason that they do not go so far as recommending that they should be mandated. I am simply trying to be accurate that questioning their efficacy is not contradicting the CDC as they simply do not know if they provide any level of protection.

When I talked to a friend, who is an MD that has done infectious disease modeling for a number of health departments, she told me that they do not include wearing masks in their models because they have to assume 0% efficacy for homemade masks. On a scale of “they do nothing” to “your mask protects me” she said it is likely somewhere between the two extremes. She could not provide exact numbers, but said that noncertified nonmedical masks provide much less protection than many politicians make out. In her opinion masks are primarily a social engineering tool to remind people about social distancing and cannot be counted on to provide any level of medical protection. Some might, but the variables in composition and how they are worn simply make it impossible to say that mandating them will have a measurable impact.

 

[Usige]

Yes, the evidence shows that a typical mask mostly protects the public (everyone else) from the aerosols from coughing or loud speech.

Can you provide the study showing this? I am not doubting it, but talking to professionals they say that the cannot honestly say how it impacts spread. Masks might reduce aresols but the people I’ve talked to said that they had no verification that it reduces it in levels where they can recommend them as more of a “it likely doesn’t hurt”. I’m always open to seeing new evidence.

 

[otjm]

The government has no right to ask Churches to provide them with lists of attendees, for any reason.

Under what theory of law do you say this? Please provide a citation to case law or statutory law which forbids this.

“A record of the list of those who signed-up and attended each Mass must be maintained. In the
event of a COVID positive case, the parish must assist public officials with tracing and contacting
everyone who may have been exposed.”

For starters, the above quote is from the document and does not say that the government is requiring this; it says that in order to assist the government in reducing the spread of the virus, the list of those who were exposed to someone infected is to be provided to allow those exposed to react responsibly (as in, shelter in place).

When my brother and sister-in-law arrived back in the US from a ski trip in Europe, the CDC boarded the plane and took everyone’s temperature; no one was identified as infected, but they were all asked to shelter in place.

My brother and sister-in-law did as requested; within a week they both had the symptoms of the virus.

Due to the responsible actions of my brother and sister-in-law, they did not infect others. Due to the responsible request of the CDC, further spread of the virus was short-circuited.

This virus spreads like wild fire. Yes, we understand that the infection rate vs. the death rate skews towards the flu; but unlike the flu, this virus can cause lung damage even to those who are not hospitalized. And no one has any information that the lungs are going to self-heal.

Am I to presume that if you were exposed to someone with the virus without knowing it, that you would not want to be advised by tracing? And to take that a step further, if in that scenario you were infected, you would not want others who might have been infected by you to be notified?

 

[PetraG]

Can you provide the study showing this? I am not doubting it, but talking to professionals they say that the cannot honestly say how it impacts spread. Masks might reduce aresols but the people I’ve talked to said that they had no verification that it reduces it in levels where they can recommend them as more of a “it likely doesn’t hurt”. I’m always open to seeing new evidence.

Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza pandemic? - PubMed

Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Abstract​

OBJECTIVE:​

This study examined homemade masks as an alternative to commercial face masks.

METHODS:​

Several household materials were evaluated for the capacity to block bacterial and viral aerosols. Twenty-one healthy volunteers made their own face masks from cotton t-shirts; the masks were then tested for fit. The number of microorganisms isolated from coughs of healthy volunteers wearing their homemade mask, a surgical mask, or no mask was compared using several air-sampling techniques.

RESULTS:​

The median-fit factor of the homemade masks was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduced the number of microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than the homemade mask.

CONCLUSION:​

Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection.

 

[CilladeRoma]

The first ammendment of the US Constitution.
This is, arguably, an infringement on the free-expression of my religion. If you are going to track people in the name of “safety”, why not patrons of bars/restaurants, stores, gas stations, etc.

 

[PetraG]

This is totally unfair. I can object to government overreach and still have consideration for others.
The government has no right to ask Churches to provide them with lists of attendees, for any reason.
It is a very slippery slope, and I honestly cannot understand why so many people have no problem with it.

As far as I know, Oregon’s Gov. Kate Brown did not ask for this. I think it is done by Archbishop Sample’s authority and he chose to do it in order to protect his flock. He takes that duty very seriously. He is not giving lists to the government. He is requiring pastors to be ready to help the public health authorities in the event a pastor is informed he has had an infected person at one of his Masses.
I cannot understand why someone has a problem with that. The parish routinely has names and contact information of parishioners. This only makes it certain that non-parishioners could also be contacted (since not every parish will be in a position to hold even Masses as small as this.)

 

[otjm]

This is similar to what Sweden did, and I think it will be interesting to look at the statistics, when all is said and done, and see if their approach was correct.

Sweden now has a higher death rate than other northern European countries, but lower than France and Italy. And if you want a true accounting of the damages of the virus (which won’t be available for some time, if ever with any accuracy) then you will need to account not just for those who died, but also for those with permanent lung damage (as lung damage is a byproduct of the infection, and I don’t know anyone who is saying the lungs will self-heal).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

This is similar to what Sweden did, and I think it will be interesting to look at the statistics, when all is said and done, and see if their approach was correct.

Sweden now has a higher death rate than other northern European countries, but lower than France and Italy. And if you want a true accounting of the damages of the virus (which won’t be available for some time, if ever with any accuracy) then you will need to account not just for those who died, but also for those with permanent lung damage (as lung damage is a byproduct of the infection, and I don’t know anyone who is saying the lungs will self-heal).

Then maybe Sweden’s approach wasn’t the best one after all.

Actually, the countries that “did it right” were the various prosperous Asian democracies. But they had better testing capabilities than we did, and these are very intelligent countries where people generally do what they’re told, don’t take crazy risks with their health, don’t mind invasion of their privacy for the common good, and act in a spirit of unison and solidarity. The US is a little more fractious and free-wheeling than that.

 

[Usige]

Thanks I’ll read through it and discuss with my disease modeling friend.

 

[pnewton]

I think there are a lot of you that are missing a major point here. Ignorance and uncertainty are an argument in favor of wearing masks. If I shoot a gun up in the air on New Year’s Eve in a city. Chances are no one will be hurt. There is no evidence anyone will be hurt. Yet the mere possibility, when there is no downside to not shooting that gun, means it is reckless to do so. Until a downside to wearing masks is demonstrated, or evidence shows conclusively they do no good, there is only one prudent and charitable course to take. It is no coincidence those whose job is moral theology see the correct course so clearly.

 

[PetraG]

Then maybe Sweden’s approach wasn’t the best one after all.

Actually, the countries that “did it right” were the various prosperous Asian democracies. But they had better testing capabilities than we did, and these are very intelligent countries where people generally do what they’re told, don’t take crazy risks with their health, don’t mind invasion of their privacy for the common good, and act in a spirit of unison and solidarity. The US is a little more fractious and free-wheeling than that.

Everybody was dealing with floodwaters in the pitch dark using a flashlight. There was no good way to know when the water was an inch deep or several feet deep.

I can appreciate people who are concerned when emergencies are used to establish government overreach. In the context of this thread, though, the record-keeping requirement appears to have come from the Archbishop and serves his concern that there not be anyone attending these Masses that could not be easily reached if they had been exposed to a known carrier of the coronavirus.

The sooner we get our numbers down so that the clusters are small and far between, the sooner we can pack our churches and sing our hearts out together. Being able to gather on a small scale is something we want as soon as possible, but we want to balance that with working towards full scale assemblies.

 

[EXdrinker]

Merely being in a church building with someone who tests positive is no reason to self quarantine. This is inane.

“Hello, you were at the same mass as someone who tested positive. No, I cannot tell you who it was due to privacy concerns. Have a great day.”

I still social distanced and took several other precautions so my likelihood of having been exposed is nil. There is absolutely no reason to give this info.

 

[phil3]

I am not going back until there is a vaccine.

 

[PetraG]

Merely being in a church building with someone who tests positive is no reason to self quarantine. This is inane.

“Hello, you were at the same mass as someone who tested positive. No, I cannot tell you who it was due to privacy concerns. Have a great day.”

I still social distanced and took several other precautions so my likelihood of having been exposed is nil. There is absolutely no reason to give this info.

Did your precautions include PPE? You were indoors with other people who were talking loudly or even singing?
No, your likelihood of being exposed was not nil.

If you won’t give the information in advance, you are not to be admitted into the church. That is the Archbishop’s decision. He is doing the best that he can to re-open to some degree at least without being responsible for a cluster that nobody can trace. I think he understands that not everybody is going to agree. Some will think it wrong to have public Masses at all, whereas some will think it is wrong to comply with restrictions. It is his duty and authority to be the judge of that in our archdiocese.

If you’re the bishop somewhere else and you do something else, I’m sure he wouldn’t have a word to say about it.

 

[otjm]

The US is a little more fractious and free-wheeling than that.

Are you vying for the understatement of the week?

 

[otjm]

I am not going back until there is a vaccine.

On average, it takes 5 years to bring out an effective vaccine. Although there appear to be several companies who may be able to produce an effective vaccine, it will take either changes or waivers from the FDA to bring it out faster.

 

[Glennon_P]

it will take either changes or waivers from the FDA to bring it out faster.

I suspect those waivers will be forthcoming.

 

[pnewton]

otjm:

it will take either changes or waivers from the FDA to bring it out faster.

I suspect those waivers will be forthcoming.

Yes, they are shooting for early next year. What is average is not really relevant. The safeties that the FDA have in place become more of a balance of safety when a virus is this easily spread with the higher mortality rate.

 

[otjm]

The first amendment of the US Constitution.
This is, arguably, an infringement on the free-expression of my religion.

No, actually, it is not an infringement on your free expression of your right to practice religion. Nice try, though. It does not even rise to the level of de minimis, as it in no way prevents you from exercising your religion.

The State is not requiring this; the archbishop is requiring this. So you cannot say that the State is preventing anything. In addition, just as the right of free speech does not allow for yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater, determining who may have been exposed to the virus well can come within the exceptions for information as to who was exposed - although, as noted, this is not by State action but by the archbishop’s.

And if you want to try another direction, with proposed “privacy”, again, the archbishop is making this rule, not the State; in addition, as to your right to privacy, the State has a far more compelling right to provide for the safety of its other citizens… You are welcome to quote me any cases which say that someone with a contagious disease as a pre-eminent right to privacy, but I would recommend not spending too much time in your local law library.