The CDC and singing in church

[MercyA]

[Edited to hopefully remove politics. Some posters were bothered, and I acknowledge I skirted too close with this one. I apologize. FWIW, I think everyone did an awesome job with this discussion.]

Guidelines posted on the CDC website on May 26 included recommendations that religious communities “consider suspending or at least decreasing use of choir/musical ensembles and congregant singing....the act of singing may contribute to transmission of Covid-19, possibly through emission of aerosols.”

By May 27, that version was replaced by guidance that no longer included any reference to choirs or congregant singing and their risk for spreading Covid.

One article for reference: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/29/865324310/cdc-quickly-changed-its-guidance-on-limiting-choirs-at-religious-services

Given the current science, this doesn't make any sense at all to me. 

What is your congregation planning on doing?

Edited June 2, 2020 by MercyA

[Xahm]

Since I think the literal answer to this is highly political, I don't think it's going to be possible to answer this following the rules.

[Scarlett]

6 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Guidelines posted on the CDC website on May 26 included recommendations that religious communities “consider suspending or at least decreasing use of choir/musical ensembles and congregant singing....the act of singing may contribute to transmission of Covid-19, possibly through emission of aerosols.”

By May 27, that version was replaced by guidance that no longer included any reference to choirs or congregant singing and their risk for spreading Covid.

A federal official said the first version posted by the CDC was not approved by the White House. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/29/865324310/cdc-quickly-changed-its-guidance-on-limiting-choirs-at-religious-services

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/white-house-and-cdc-remove-coronavirus-warnings-about-choirs-in-faith-guidance/2020/05/28/5d9c526e-a117-11ea-9590-1858a893bd59_story.html

This doesn't make any sense at all to me. Since when is the White House in charge of information the CDC releases? 

I don’t know but it is very concerning to me since I did trust the guidance of the CDC. 

[MercyA]

Can we discuss whether or not our religious groups are planning to sing together?

My church opens in two weeks and I would be shocked beyond belief if there was any change at all in our congregational singing or if more than 5% of people will wear masks.

It sure would help to have clear and trustworthy guidance on this from the CDC! 

Edited June 1, 2020 by MercyA

[MercyA]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don’t know but it is very concerning to me since I did trust the guidance of the CDC. 

Same here. Not so much now.

My husband says the CDC has also been posting a fatality rate for Covid-19 which is far lower than the fatality rates being reported elsewhere. Many scientists have expressed concern.

Edited June 1, 2020 by MercyA

[Guest]

I agree with xahm. My more-general response to this would be this: it behooves us to make our decisions about what risks we are willing to accept for ourselves based on our own investigation and our own interpretation of risk. As I am listening to The Great Influenza on Audible, there were (according to author John Barry) numerous incidents throughout the pandemic where the public was mislead or totally lied to by their local, state and/or federal government and/or complicit media. I am not naive enough to think the same thing is no longer true now; the one thing in our favor now is that the public has access to information now and can assess our own risks based on that information. Nobody is making me go to church in person and accept singing corporately, so I’m not going to do so until I feel that risk has fallen to an acceptable level. 

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Can we discuss whether or not our religious groups are planning to sing together?

My church opens in two weeks and I would be shocked beyond belief if there was any change at all in our congregational singing or if more than 5% of people will wear masks. It sure would help to have guidance on this from the CDC! 

I don’t anticipate us opening anytime soon.  And I believe masks will be required when we do finally return.  Singing is a part of our worship, and a part that is precious to me but I won’t be going if there is going to be singing allowed.  

[Farrar]

Agreed with Xahm. The answer is literally politics. There's no way around it.

We should all be very suspicious of the CDC's official guidance at this point. There is always a political element to official government health guidelines, but these are new levels.

Because the issue has been made political, I worry that some churches will feel compelled to disregard scientific thinking on this question and feel like they have to sing because it aligns with their political leanings. And I think that would be really unfortunate.

[Scarlett]

5 hours ago, Quill said:

I agree with xahm. My more-general response to this would be this: it behooves us to make our decisions about what risks we are willing to accept for ourselves based on our own investigation and our own interpretation of risk. As I am listening to The Great Influenza on Audible, there were (according to author John Barry) numerous incidents throughout the pandemic where the public was mislead or totally lied to by their local, state and/or federal government and/or complicit media. I am not naive enough to think the same thing is no longer true now; the one thing in our favor now is that the public has access to information now and can assess our own risks based on that information. Nobody is making me go to church in person and accept singing corporately, so I’m not going to do so until I feel that risk has fallen to an acceptable level. 

Speaking of which, today the State of OK is no longer reporting deaths in counties with less than 20k people.  And no longer  cities where the deaths are.  Also, this sounds so crazy but the deaths from covid19 are going down, but the deaths from flu has increased in unheard of numbers for late May.  My friend who works in transcription for one of the big hospitals saw those figures and she said it doesn’t make sen to her.  I just feel like we can’t trust anyone,  

Edited to add---I need to clarify the deaths are being reported but not itemized by which low population county.  They are lumping them all together as 'other'.

Edited June 1, 2020 by Scarlett

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Can we discuss whether or not our religious groups are planning to sing together?

My church opens in two weeks and I would be shocked beyond belief if there was any change at all in our congregational singing or if more than 5% of people will wear masks. It sure would help to have guidance on this from the CDC! 

Yesterday, after my church’s online service, there was a “Visit the lobby” zoom option. I didn’t have any idea what this would entail but I joined the zoom anyway. There were only a tiny number of congregants attending and three of them were on staff at church. One of the questions posed to me was where my head is at as far as coming back to church in person. I responded with my reluctance and I specifically cited 1) touching (i.e., greeting handshakes, hugs, etc.); and 2) singing. Another congregant on the call answered the same way. 

Everything I can see leads me to believe my church is being quite cautious and is not at all rushing for in-person services. No doubt the fact that my pastor and his wife both recovered/are recovering from COVID has an influence. 

[Farrar]

8 minutes ago, Quill said:

I agree with xahm. My more-general response to this would be this: it behooves us to make our decisions about what risks we are willing to accept for ourselves based on our own investigation and our own interpretation of risk. As I am listening to The Great Influenza on Audible, there were (according to author John Barry) numerous incidents throughout the pandemic where the public was mislead or totally lied to by their local, state and/or federal government and/or complicit media. I am not naive enough to think the same thing is no longer true now; the one thing in our favor now is that the public has access to information now and can assess our own risks based on that information. Nobody is making me go to church in person and accept singing corporately, so I’m not going to do so until I feel that risk has fallen to an acceptable level. 

I hate to say this, but I think this is hugely problematic. I do think that's what needs to happen practically, but most people are not experts. We need experts to guide us. Every person thinking they know better than the experts because they read an article or two and listened to a podcast or watched Youtube is one of the biggest problems right now. While we all should evaluate information and check our sources and so forth and make decisions that are the best for us... it should also not be on us to figure out what to do in the absence of real guidelines. This is literally the job of our government. While they have made many missteps over the years, I have never seen anything like this where I find the advice of a scientific body to be so blatantly untrustworthy and politically motivated.

Edited June 1, 2020 by Farrar

[Farrar]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Speaking of which, today the State of OK is no longer reporting deaths in counties with less than 20k people.  And no longer  cities where the deaths are.  Also, this sounds so crazy but the deaths from covid19 are going down, but the deaths from flu has increased in unheard of numbers for late May.  My friend who works in transcription for one of the big hospitals saw those figures and she said it doesn’t make sen to her.  I just feel like we can’t trust anyone,  

There's a lot of number cooking going on to make political leaders look good.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I hate to say this, but I think this is hugely problematic. I do think that's what needs to happen practically, but most people are not experts. We need experts to guide us. Every person thinking they know better than the experts is one of the biggest problems right now. While we all should evaluate information and check our sources and so forth and make decisions that are the best for us... it should also not be on us to figure out what to do in the absence of real guidelines. This is literally the job of our government. While they have made many missteps over the years, I have never seen anything like this where I find the advice of a scientific body to be so blatantly untrustworthy and politically motivated.

Oh, I totally, emphatically agree! And it is extremely concerning to me what happens with people who simply can’t obtain good information. I think we already see that inequality among the higher cases and deaths in disadvantaged populations. I think it’s a travesty! But, that is my non-political response: caveat emptor. 

[Terabith]

I am a singer.  My husband is a singer.  We literally met in college choir.  We love singing in church.  

Singing in church in the midst of this pandemic is as safe as random unprotected sex in the 80's.  There are a lot of confusing things about this virus, but that evidence is crystal clear.   If church is singing, we will not be attending.

I cannot answer the question as asked, because the literal answer is political.  

[Matryoshka]

14 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Speaking of which, today the State of OK is no longer reporting deaths in counties with less than 20k people.  And no longer  cities where the deaths are.  Also, this sounds so crazy but the deaths from covid19 are going down, but the deaths from flu has increased in unheard of numbers for late May.  My friend who works in transcription for one of the big hospitals saw those figures and she said it doesn’t make sen to her.  I just feel like we can’t trust anyone,  

I think this goes back to: the answer is excess deaths.  Flu doesn't spike in May/June.

[PrincessMommy]

14 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I hate to say this, but I think this is hugely problematic. I do think that's what needs to happen practically, but most people are not experts. We need experts to guide us. Every person thinking they know better than the experts because they read an article or two and listened to a podcast or watched Youtube is one of the biggest problems right now. While we all should evaluate information and check our sources and so forth and make decisions that are the best for us... it should also not be on us to figure out what to do in the absence of real guidelines. This is literally the job of our government. While they have made many missteps over the years, I have never seen anything like this where I find the advice of a scientific body to be so blatantly untrustworthy and politically motivated.

I agree.   There are so many experts on both sides of this problem - who do you listen to??    Then we find ourselves in an echo chamber... it's frustrating for this non-expert.  

Even Plandemic had an "expert" or two in the movie.  

To the OP.  I would seriously mistrust anything coming from a gov't entity at this point  

We're still in the 10 and under meetings but I don't know what we're going to do.  Our services are 95% sung.  The sermon is the only thing not sung.   We're trying to figure out a solution.. it might involve a very small choir standing outside and piping it into the church.   No one inside church will sing and they will all wear masks.  

Edited June 1, 2020 by PrincessMommy

[Scarlett]

19 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

I think this goes back to: the answer is excess deaths.  Flu doesn't spike in May/June.

Exactly.  It is scary that the numbers are being jacked with in this manner.  

[Farrar]

11 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

I agree.   There are so many experts on both sides of this problem - who do you listen to??    Then we find ourselves in an echo chamber... it's frustrating for this non-expert.  

Even Plandemic had an "expert" or two in the movie.  

To the OP.  I would seriously mistrust anything coming from a gov't entity at this point  

We're still in the 10 and under meetings but I don't know what we're going to do.  Our services are 95% sung.  The sermon is the only thing not sung.   We're trying to figure out a solution.. it might involve a very small choir standing outside and piping it into the church.   No one inside church will sing and they will all wear masks.  

But this is why bodies like the CDC are so important - because their job is to bring together a multitude of different researchers and people working in the field and distill their evidence into guidelines for other scientists and the general public. It's not that one expert should rule the day - it's that independent groups should help figure out what the scientific consensus is. And that's why an expert like the Plandemic "experts" don't really fly. They are way, way far outside the consensus, even if the woman at the center had not faked her lab data. And it's also why we can't be the deciders. It takes experts to even know which experts to trust fully.

They don't always get it right. Scientific understanding evolves and a large body like the CDC can be slow to move. But that's different than this. It's their job to be our baseline so we can figure out who to trust for nuance or what is a disagreement by an expert vs. what is just out there. And now they can't really be trusted themselves.

I hope your church finds a solution.

[Pawz4me]

I would be extremely wary of singing or being around others who are singing. That's an easy decision for me given what we know for sure about Covid 19. I distrust just about everything coming out of the CDC right now. IMO Redfield was a very poor choice to be its head. And it should not be a politicized agency, but very unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case right now.

I decided a few weeks ago to start keeping up with the numbers for my state and immediate area myself. I think my state is mostly doing a decent job of reporting (at least as far as I can tell--how can any of us really know?), and I'm recording the daily numbers that are relevant to me. I'm generally supportive of the media, but this is one area where I've found the local media lacking. They're reporting the number of new cases daily, but aren't doing much of anything to put the numbers into perspective (percentage of increase from one week to the next, etc.). I'm not anywhere close to even an amateur statistician. I'm not a numbers person at all. But it seems if I want any usable info I need to compile it myself rather than rely on an outside source.

Edited June 1, 2020 by Pawz4me

[happi duck]

Our bishop has been great throughout this.  He has made the tough decisions promptly and clearly: Our church will not be singing or playing wind instruments, indoors or out.

As a congregation, we like our zoom services and we are keeping them for the long haul.  We are allowed back in our building with ten or less and masks.  Some small groups may meet but our main service is zoom.  Details on small meetings are being carefully thought  through.

Edited June 1, 2020 by happi duck
Clarity

[prairiewindmomma]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

Can we discuss whether or not our religious groups are planning to sing together?

My church opens in two weeks and I would be shocked beyond belief if there was any change at all in our congregational singing or if more than 5% of people will wear masks.

It sure would help to have clear and trustworthy guidance on this from the CDC! 

I think the evidence re: the safety of singing is also quite clear based on the studies done on various choirs. There are the post-event studies done as in the Washington choir (where people cleaned their hands, didn’t share music, etc.)  as well as studies shown on the volume of particles created by singing.

The guidance given by my church is supposedly very cautionary, but is not, IMO. Given our high risk factors, we won’t be back at re-opening. (We also aren’t eating in restaurants or doing things others feel comfortable doing.)

[Tenaj]

I thought I had conveyed the information on singing to our pastor pretty clearly and thought he was in agreement but we are planning on opening back up next week and I overheard my dh (the song leader) talking on the phone to the pastor and the plan seems to be a couple of hymns being sung and then the message.   Do you think that wearing masks would be effective to decrease the risk of singing?  

[Terabith]

6 minutes ago, JanOH said:

I thought I had conveyed the information on singing to our pastor pretty clearly and thought he was in agreement but we are planning on opening back up next week and I overheard my dh (the song leader) talking on the phone to the pastor and the plan seems to be a couple of hymns being sung and then the message.   Do you think that wearing masks would be effective to decrease the risk of singing?  

No.  Would lessen risk but still pretty high risk.  

[cintinative]

To answer the question about individual church plans:

Our church is planning on reopening on the 14th. Current plan includes: online signup, shortened service due to lack of nursery and pre-K worship, mask-wearing, social distancing between families, singing wearing masks (except for worship leaders and people speaking up front), families escorted out by row/family group, no congregating in the sanctuary or foyer, congregating outside with social distancing okay.  There will be a live stream for those who cannot/choose not to attend.

I am not planning on going back anytime soon. It seems like a very risky situation. My husband is not likely to agree so that is a big concern of mine. We already got into it about a vacation (see my other thread). I hate for us to be divided on this, but I am certainly not going while Ohio continues to struggle to even get testing numbers up.  

[TCB]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

Same here. Not so much now.

My husband says the CDC has also been posting a fatality rate for Covid-19 which is far lower than the fatality rates being reported elsewhere. Many scientists have expressed concern.

I have wondered about that myself. I would like to know what they base their numbers on but to be honest can't seem to muster up the energy to look through and try and find out.

[mumto2]

Our church had it’s fourth in person services since reopening yesterday.  The county has stayed reasonably low........think we had 14 active cases per hubby’s master chart at reopening and now have 28 as of yesterday, so doubled over five weeks.  No more deaths.  Plenty of free testing.  Btw, hubby is keeping records on several places where we have lived or have loved ones.......he is using the U.K. method of assuming the cases are active for 7 days in part because it was the only way at the start to keep his comparisons useful for our family.  
 

We have not attended in person and feel no pressure which I greatly appreciate.  We are happy with the online services for now.

My understanding is a large percentage including the minister preaching are wearing masks.  Our sanctuary is large, total current attendance is less than 100 at both services not including staff.  Average is 500 per service, although capacity is just under 1000.  No hand shaking etc.  Being dismissed by pew. All socializing is moved outside.

I have confirmed with the minister.......they are singing as pretty much normal.  Behind masks mostly ........but singing.  I love to sing at church services but that is the thing that will keep me home even after I am comfortable with going in the building.  I assume my family will start participating with Bible studies, small groups etc long before we return to in person worship.  Watching our numbers......

The church has committed to continuing online worship...... we already had the services online but they now putting together a very well done service during the week.  Our worship team constantly reminds everyone that staying home and watching is welcomed.  No pressure.  They really want everyone to feel comfortable.

We actually attended a drive thru party at the church last week for a family my kid’s were close to who was moving.   Dh and I sat in the car after we gave up and parked for our kids.  The kids got out and hung out with their friends for a half hour or so.  Everyone was great, distancing well done. etc.  No one bothered with masks as it was mid nineties and all outside............my kids were so very happy to have seen everyone in person.   People kept visiting Dh and I at the car........so we have spoken with most of the church staff in person now.  ETA........they stood outside the car, just to be clear.

Edited June 1, 2020 by mumto2

[frogger]

Our churchs are allowed to get together and sing.  I'm frustrated because we went from shutting down small businesses and creating mass unemployment to 500-600 people can sing together and have a nursury in the blink of an eye. My church is not that big but the local megachurch was meeting with singing and nursury and had that many.  They have seating for 2000 so obviously a large number still stayed home. Actually, it would seem the majority.

 

Consequently, our church has dropped it's zoom meeting since they are choosing to meet all together at the church so we are out in the cold. I may ask if I can get a small group together for people who don't want a large group singing together. They are probably open to the idea. 

 

Edited to add: they still post the sermon live etc. I was spoiled because we had small groups to check in with each other and pray and that went away. 

Edited June 1, 2020 by frogger

[frogger]

And in regards to the numbers, I do trust our state numbers. We have a 10% hospitalization rate. We've had too few deaths IMO to have it mean anything. With such small numbers it can just depend on who happens to get sick first but case fatality rate appears to be 2%. So obviously, infection fatality rate would be quite a bit less than that. 

[Anne]

I'm wondering if we could move singing to the end of the service rather than the beginning - that would allow anyone who felt uncomfortable to just skip out then, and also minimize the time that people spend sitting in the greater droplet load.

Any thoughts?  

[Scarlett]

5 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Oh no. Seriously? 

That's going to go badly. If there's really an uncontrolled outbreak, after a while, you can't hide it. 

They are still counting them....just putting them in a 'other' category.  And oddly our county now shows the death count to be 1 instead of 17 that it was last week.  

Edited to add- and if you live in one of those less than 20K counties I am sure you would like to know if there is an outbreak.

 

Edited June 1, 2020 by Scarlett

[mom2scouts]

My church is planning to open next week, but we do not plan to attend. All staff will be masked, they will have hand sanitizer for those entering or leaving, chairs have been replaced with vinyl folding chairs for easy cleaning, Sunday School and social areas will be closed off, chairs will be arranged in groups of 2-6 spread out around the room, they've asked for no physical contact or close talking, and they will clean between services. They ARE planning to have singing and it's a significant part of our worship services. They don't seem to expect many people to come back right away because with the reduced chairs and the dropping of one service, there's room for less than a third of normal attendees. I don't know that they've followed CDC guidelines at all and seem to be working only with the local health department. I would expect local health departments to use CDC guidelines though, right? I don't know anyone IRL who even seems to be aware of the risks of singing. If the CDC is changing guidelines for political reasons, I find that concerning.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

I looked at the Propublica site, and they said flu-like illness hospitalizations were going down in Oklahoma... do you know if they are not even counting them as flu-like? 

Counting Covid as flu like?  Not sure.  I looked up the flu stats and I don't see data from after May 9th or so.  I believe my friend was looking at numbers for mid to late May.  

[Happy2BaMom]

Yes, it's political. Extremely so at this point, which is most unfortunate & sadly not surprising given how polarized this country is.

You could not pay me enough to attend or be anywhere near any form of choir. The WA choir had 60 members attend a rehearsal where at least one person was obviously highly infectious (but apparently completely asymptomatic, based on accounts of those interviewed). Of those 60 members, 45 fell ill (of the 28 who got a test, all were + for Covid; the remaining 17, for a variety of reasons, didn't get tested, but were assumed + based on symptoms), and 2 died of it.

And I'm sad & sorry that this is the state of affairs. Music is one of the things that allows people to lift their spirits and join with their fellow humans in a joyful activity.

I'm curious....do the "excess deaths" have any explanation attached to them at all? Or is just a shoulder shrug as to why so many more people are dying?

As a side note & a PSA, I have an infectious disease specialist and long-time public health researcher in my contacts. He recently gave a friends-only webinar (due to the "highly charged environment" that speaking publicly involves). During that, two of his main points were that: 1) scientists' understanding of this virus is evolving at a rapid rate, but this virus has some "fantastically interesting random variability" that they can't pin down - e.g. why do some otherwise healthy people get *extremely* sick/die, why do some people have seemingly long-lasting effects, etc, and 2) scientists now believe the main means of transmission is airborne (this is probably not news to many of you), as the virus is able to encapsulate itself almost perfectly in microscopic "droplets" that emerge from talking/speaking (vs. surface transmission...yes, it can live on surfaces, but starts weakening as soon as it lands..and even though it can remain viable for up to a few days on various surfaces, he said it really is not much of a risk of transmission that way).

Singing expresses more droplets with more force, so more risk of infection (that's my takeaway, he didn't expressly say that). 

Anyway, he’s predicting a huge 2nd spike of serious illnesses and death, much worse than the first has been, come late summer / early fall. I sincerely hope he's wrong, but **please** for the sake of your families (& others) don't get complacent about this bug. Yes, we have to keep the economy going, but masks and social distancing really can (apparently) make a difference.

 

 

[katilac]

57 minutes ago, JanOH said:

 Do you think that wearing masks would be effective to decrease the risk of singing?  

Not enough, imo. This short interview summarizes why; unfortunately, "the characteristics that makes someone an effective singer are also traits that makes someone an effective aerosol generator." 

Would it potentially help? Yes, wearing masks is better than not wearing them, it will lessen the distance some droplets travel. But, because singing is such a high risk factor, I think it's unconscionable to deliberately expose people to the danger this early in the game. 

Ask them if they have prepared a statement for the press in case their singing results in another high-spread event. 

[katilac]

26 minutes ago, Anne said:

I'm wondering if we could move singing to the end of the service rather than the beginning - that would allow anyone who felt uncomfortable to just skip out then, and also minimize the time that people spend sitting in the greater droplet load.

Any thoughts?  

I agree with square-25: better than doing it at the beginning, much worse than not doing it at all. I know it seems like forever some days, but it's been such a short time since restrictions began, surely there doesn't have to be such a rush to return to a high-risk activity. 

6 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

 Anyway, he’s predicting a huge 2nd spike of serious illnesses and death, much worse than the first has been, come late summer / early fall.  

Would this be mostly because things will be opening up fully by then? 

[rebcoola]

With our governor's relaxing of  restrictions our church will be re-opening Sunday.  It will be outdoors with each family sitting in their own little space.  Masks are required the whole time.  They are planning to sing we have a worship leader and the congregation sings..  They are aware of the stuff on singing but seem to think masking for it is enough. 

[Happy2BaMom]

22 minutes ago, katilac said:

I agree with square-25: better than doing it at the beginning, much worse than not doing it at all. I know it seems like forever some days, but it's been such a short time since restrictions began, surely there doesn't have to be such a rush to return to a high-risk activity. 

Would this be mostly because things will be opening up fully by then? 

 

He in general is a very non-political person, and (like many scientists) loathe to even crawl into that realm, so he didn't specifically point to opening things up. He just referred to the difficulties of "gaining and keeping compliance" (with mask-wearing and social distancing) as more and more people resume more and more activities. And he emphasized the "function of statistical risk" when people are gathering, unmasked, in groups, anywhere.

This presentation was before all the protests and riots (I separate those activities, as they seemingly involve two very different groups of people). And, honestly, I can't even imagine what he's thinking/predicting now.

[mom2scouts]

37 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I'm actually not sure the likeliest time for a spike is in the fall. Some of the Southern states that are currently seeing cases growing slowly are 

a) opening up 

and 

b) about to move inside for the summer, into the recycled, air-conditioned air. 

I've lived in Texas. No one is outside in the summer in Texas. And Texas is not having cases drop as is. I'm scared to watch this. 

Interesting. I live in a state with long cold winters. People are starting to spend more time outdoors here just as things are opening up. Restaurants are opening their outdoor patios and keeping the indoor spaces closed. Fall will be a risk for us because that's when school/sports/activities get going and when people start spending more time indoors. It really is going to be area dependent.

[MercyA]

 

1 hour ago, TCB said:

I have wondered about that myself. I would like to know what they base their numbers on but to be honest can't seem to muster up the energy to look through and try and find out.

Re: the fatality rate specifically: my husband has been following this closely and says that the CDC has not been at all forthcoming about which studies they are using. From what he has seen, they have only publicly cited one Iranian study.

One article about their low estimates: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/22/860981956/scientists-say-new-lower-cdc-estimates-for-severity-of-covid-19-are-optimistic

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, Anne said:

I'm wondering if we could move singing to the end of the service rather than the beginning - that would allow anyone who felt uncomfortable to just skip out then, and also minimize the time that people spend sitting in the greater droplet load.

Any thoughts?  

Definitely better. Or sing outside, after service is over?

[ktgrok]

Mine has not said if there will be singing, although choirs are suspended. It is one of my main hang ups for going back. 

I'm hoping that the Bishop's stance on being as welcoming as possible to other Christians (hence his reasoning for requiring masks) will hold for singing as well. That if we want as many people as possible to feel safe attending, we should wear masks. Hopefully that same logic will work for singing. 

[Terabith]

The super large Catholic Church in our area, where my kids went to school for five years, opened two weeks ago.  There was a covid case reported today.  
 

I think there was singing.  

[Ali in OR]

Our small church has decisions like this made by the board of elders with the pastor. The three elders are all engineers--very logical, scientific, research-based decision-making kind of people. The one who recently retired is an excellent singer in regional choirs, and he spent a lot of time researching this issue. We will not be singing in our church, my guess is not until most people have a chance to get the vaccine. Not only is it a high-risk activity, pretty much our whole church is in the high-risk age category. We-re the young ones and we're in our fifties.

For me, a major turning point in my understanding of this pandemic was reading the news article about the Washington choir. That changed everything. With just the information coming out of China, there was a push to believe that this virus wasn't airborne or wasn't aerosolized. Wash your hands. Just reading that article, any logical thinking, scientific type of person would say the risk is breathing this thing in. No singing--that greatly boosts the odds of you breathing it in. And CDC was one group pushing the hand-washing and not warning about the breathing, so no, I don't automatically trust what they say. I like hearing what the epidemiologists say, like that Erin guy in MA.

[Happy2BaMom]

This was just forwarded to me:

Study: "Loud talking could leave coronavirus in the air for up to 14 minutes" (link to MIT Technology Review)

There's a few annoying pop-ups, so I'll reprint the summary here:

The news: Thousands of droplets from the mouths of people who are talking loudly can stay in the air for between eight and 14 minutes before disappearing, according to a new study. The research, conducted by a team with the US National Institutes of Health and published in PNAS Wednesday, could have significant impact on our understanding of covid-19 transmission.

What’s the point: Respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV-2 are transmitted either by direct contact or when the virus hitches a ride on tiny droplets released into the air by a carrier. That’s why coughing and sneezing are important. But speech can release thousands of oral fluid droplets into the air too, and the researchers were interested in seeing how many were produced and how long they could remain airborne.

The findings: The researchers asked people to repeat phrases and used sensitive lasers to visualize the droplets they produced, watching them decay in a closed, stagnant air environment. On the basis of previous studies of how much viral RNA can be found in oral fluids in the average covid-19 patient, the researchers estimate that a single minute of loud speaking generates at least 1,000 virus-containing droplets. Their observations suggest these droplets stay airborne for longer than eight minutes, and sometimes as long as 14 minutes.

Further info, including limits & implications, available through the link.

 

[DoraBora]

1 hour ago, Happy2BaMom said:

This was just forwarded to me:

Study: "Loud talking could leave coronavirus in the air for up to 14 minutes" (link to MIT Technology Review)

There's a few annoying pop-ups, so I'll reprint the summary here:

The news: Thousands of droplets from the mouths of people who are talking loudly can stay in the air for between eight and 14 minutes before disappearing, according to a new study. The research, conducted by a team with the US National Institutes of Health and published in PNAS Wednesday, could have significant impact on our understanding of covid-19 transmission.

What’s the point: Respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV-2 are transmitted either by direct contact or when the virus hitches a ride on tiny droplets released into the air by a carrier. That’s why coughing and sneezing are important. But speech can release thousands of oral fluid droplets into the air too, and the researchers were interested in seeing how many were produced and how long they could remain airborne.

The findings: The researchers asked people to repeat phrases and used sensitive lasers to visualize the droplets they produced, watching them decay in a closed, stagnant air environment. On the basis of previous studies of how much viral RNA can be found in oral fluids in the average covid-19 patient, the researchers estimate that a single minute of loud speaking generates at least 1,000 virus-containing droplets. Their observations suggest these droplets stay airborne for longer than eight minutes, and sometimes as long as 14 minutes.

Further info, including limits & implications, available through the link.

 

Well, there go the holiday gatherings with the extended fam.  🙃

[Starr]

I find the solution of, if it bothers you stay home, particularly sad in church. I feel like we should do our best to include all ages and stages. If this means giving up singing for a year or whatever it's the least we can do. We are asking the very people that kept the church going for many years before the rest of us arrived to now not participate. We are a church that sings, in a diocese that is still sorting out it's policy.For now we are still online.

[katilac]

13 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

Well, there go the holiday gatherings with the extended fam.  🙃

Right?? dh's family will live, mine will die, lol 

[DoraBora]

3 minutes ago, Starr said:

I find the solution of, if it bothers you stay home, particularly sad in church. I feel like we should do our best to include all ages and stages. If this means giving up singing for a year or whatever it's the least we can do. We are asking the very people that kept the church going for many years before the rest of us arrived to now not participate. We are a church that sings, in a diocese that is still sorting out it's policy.For now we are still online.

I agree.  For many people, the church is the only family they have.

[ktgrok]

47 minutes ago, Starr said:

I find the solution of, if it bothers you stay home, particularly sad in church. I feel like we should do our best to include all ages and stages. If this means giving up singing for a year or whatever it's the least we can do. We are asking the very people that kept the church going for many years before the rest of us arrived to now not participate. We are a church that sings, in a diocese that is still sorting out it's policy.For now we are still online.

Yes. That is the position of my Bishop. That is order to make sure people can attend - including people with health issues, or people that live with those with health issues, we need to be as safe as possible. He himself lives with his 95 yr old FIL and has said if people don't wear masks, he can't attend,  let alone preside, as he can't risk taking it back to his FIL. 

[katilac]

1 hour ago, WendyAndMilo said:

This is interesting because our services are almost entirely sung (the sermon and a couple of short prayers are not).  So for two hours, the choir and the priest (and the congregation, in my church) sing.  There is no church without singing.  I can't even imagine just speaking everything, although that wouldn't be any better because it would still be everyone doing it, I think.

It would be better because you aren't exhaling nearly as forcefully when you are talking versus singing.