Jump to content

Menu

The CDC and singing in church


MercyA
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours 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.

Of course, this makes so much sense.  Because if a church community isn't about serving the most vulnerable, what is it about?  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, WendyAndMilo said:

Even with everyone in the church speaking at the same time? (50-80 people, standing roughly 1-2' away from each other)

Wait, what? One to two feet away from each other? Are you talking about the future or right now? 

Getting back to the specific point, yes, I think singing would be worse than speaking, just as speaking is worse than just breathing. You can see the dangers of singing in this link and this one and many others; here are a few relevant bits: 

  • "Singers are at high risk for transmission for COVID-19, because of the amount of aerosols they have the potential to generate." 
  • Because you often sing from the diaphragm, "they can actually generate much more aerosols which can spread further."
  • “Evidence shows that during singing, the virus drops appear to fly particularly far” 

I have said again and again on the various Covid threads that reasonable people can disagree, but I cannot see a large number of people singing for two hours as a reasonable decision right now. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like I can barely think of anything to say anymore that doesn't sound political.   But I will try.  I believe that if you search any reputable science-based site, they will agree that singing involves a forced breath that is more apt to spread germs.  I'm not familiar with what you discussed regarding CDC guidelines being changed.  That's troubling.  I certainly get that different parts of the country might be able to meet and sing earlier than other parts -- depending on their Covid numbers, but still, omitting the risk of singing from guidelines altogether?  Wow.

I suppose I'm coming from a perspective of living in an inner-city neighborhood in a region that has high numbers and whose hospital beds are reaching capacity, so I'm sure that will color my opinion as well.  Our church is meeting online, and I can't even imagine when it will meet in person again.  I love singing though!  (Or at least hearing others sing!  :))  I do understand how that's an important part of music, really.  I don't have any answers, just musing.

Edited by J-rap
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CDC is a public agency charged with protecting the nation's health.  If they are providing America's churches anything less than the most accurate and up-to-date information that they have, then they are doing a terrible disservice to churchgoing Americans.  I sincerely hope that that is not what they are doing.

My understanding is that the CDC issues guidance, not actual laws, so it's hard to imagine any constitutional implications.

FWIW, most American synagogues are still closed but a few are experimenting with opening in an extremely limited way (very small, socially distanced groups; masks; no singing; plastic partitions.). The umbrella organizations for all the major denominations have each issued official guidance stressing that anything approaching normal communal religious life is not resuming for a very long time.  

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry this may be a bit off topic but does anyone know if and how much less the risk of spreading droplets is when breathing out your nose rather than your mouth? As others have, I’ve seen people with a mask over their mouth but not nose and I wondered if it might provide some protection after all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours 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.  

We hired three singers plus our organist to sing a polyphonic Mass setting so the congregation won’t sing.  No opening, offertory, or closing hymns.  They are spaced out up front over on the side by the organ.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best information is coming from virologists who study coronaviruses. From what I've read and listened to, currently it is probably best not to be singing close to one another in a choir. This is a new virus and it takes time to learn about it. Mom2mthj's church has found a good compromise. Maybe instead of having everyone sing, the church could have individual members of the choir sing at safe distances from each other and the congregation.

Several people in my complex caught Covid. Two went by ambulance this weekend. Another just returned after being hospitalized for over a month. She came home yesterday and can only take a few hunched-over steps at a time before needing someone to lean on. The recovery for some is taking a very long time. It's not just the elderly who are affected. Healthy teens have been on the mend only to die suddenly from strokes. This is a weird virus that isn't fully understand yet so, when possible, being reasonably cautious is a prudent measure that is worth the effort or sacrifice.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mom2mthj said:

We hired three singers plus our organist to sing a polyphonic Mass setting so the congregation won’t sing.  No opening, offertory, or closing hymns.  They are spaced out up front over on the side by the organ.

we don't have an organ but we do have a choir loft.   I just don't think the loft will work for a choir as it's at the back of the church.   The way it is working now is that there are 6 singers (we're still in 10 and under for meetings) and they are spaced out in line facing forward and near the front of the church (but 30 or so feet from the priest).   Everything is sung a-capella - which I guess is good because we don't have to compete with and organ or other instruments.  That means we don't belt it out.  

We're probably going to utilize the loft for non-singing members and give congregants more space to spread out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2020 at 9:11 AM, 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! 

My church added an early Low Mass. No out-loud responses, no congregational singing, no choir, Father prays facing away from the congregation and distributes no-contact Communion. One can mutter one's rosary prayers or Acts of Offering into one's mask in peace. And it's at a golden hour when the Saturday night tear gas has dissipated, but all the revelers are still sleeping off the excitement.

Edited by Violet Crown
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Violet Crown said:

My church added an early Low Mass. No out-loud responses, no congregational singing, no choir, Father prays facing away from the congregation and distributes no-contact Communion. One can mutter one's rosary prayers or Acts of Offering into one's mask in peace. And it's at a golden hour when the Saturday night tear gas has dissipated, but all the revelers are still sleeping off the excitement.

Ok, I need to know, now is a no contact communion done?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Our diocese's instructions are that only ordinary ministers of communion should distribute the sacrament, unless a priest or deacon is vulnerable and an extraordinary minister takes the role to protect him.  

Parishioners are to wear masks for the whole service, the celebrant can remove his when saying mask, but then replaces it and sanitizes his hand before distributing it.  Recipients line up, 6 feet apart, although family members can be closer than that.  Approach the priest with your hands out.  Priest places the host in the hands without touching, and the congregant steps 6 feet away (I assume this is all marked out, but we haven't actually opened so I don't know that anyone's seen it), removes mask, quickly consumes host, and replaces the mask.  If a priest accidentally touches someone on the hand, they should step away and resanitize their hands before resuming.  Receiving on the tongue is discouraged, but someone needs to receive on the tongue, the priest should take care not to touch them, and immediately sanitize his hands. 

No blessings are given out at the communion rail, children old enough to stay in the pew but young enough not to receive should stay in the pew, as should anyone else not taking communion.  A general blessing will be given to everyone at the end. 

Only the host will be given out, except in cases of severe celiac, in which case parishioners should reach out in advance and a separate chalice of wine will be consecrated, so that they aren't sharing the one the priest drank from.  

No ministers such as altar servers, or lay readers, other than one cantor who should be distanced from the congregation, wear a mask (it doesn't actually say this, but it says the only person excused from the obligation to wear a mask is the celebrant, and only while he's actually celebrating), and use new or different music so that people don't automatically join in.  

yes, that is the plan for ours too...wasn't sure if that is what she meant by "no contact".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

I feel like I've seen you post both about Catholicism and Episcopalianism.  Which denomination are you seeing use the same plan?   I'm curious because I was raised Episcopalian but am now Catholic, and taking communion in just one kind is one of the things that has been hard for me to adjust to in Catholicism, I don't remember ever seeing it in an Episcopal church. 

Sorry, that's the plan in the Catholic parish. The episcopal one has no plan yet, they have no opening date yet. 

I was raised in the Episcopal Church, converted to Catholicism, and am for various reasons attending an Episcopal church. All parishes, of either denomination, have had weekly communion. Kneeling at the altar rail for the Episcopal parishes, in the Catholic parishes it has always been standing and then walking away. 

 

Edited by Ktgrok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ktgrok said:

Unless that is wine in that squirt gun, that won't work for communion 🙂

It could be adapted- wine in squirt gun, communion wafer frisbees? (sorry - I saw the picture earlier and the incongruity made me giggle)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Ok, I need to know, how is a no contact communion done?

The communicant stays still and steady at the rail, head slightly tilted back, eyes closed, mouth open, tongue slightly out. Father holds the Host between his bent index finger and thumb. Thumb slides Host forward, onto the tongue, without fingers getting near the tongue or lips. Never had a priest who was trained for the Old Rite touch me. Byzantine Rite priests likewise are highly accurate.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, mumto2 said:

Apparently our Presbyterian church will be using premade communion kits.  Assuming something like these.   
http://www.celebratecommunion.com/prefilled-communion-cups.html

I have an M.Div from a seminary (although I didn't get ordained after a disastrous internship with a schizophrenic pastor), so I'm in a bunch of seminary and clergy groups.  Lots of churches are planning to use these, but they are very problematic because they are almost impossible to open and invariably spill.  

I think receiving in one kind (which is completely valid in the Episcopal church as well, if not as commonly practiced), is a far better plan.  

I think there really needs to be NO music, not just new or unfamiliar music.  For one thing, we have a long history of training people to try to learn new music.  For another, even just a few people singing is not great, from an aerosolized virus perspective.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Interesting, I've never been at an Episcopal service where just one is offered.  I've know people who just took one kind, due to celiac or alcoholism or something.  

To be clear, I think they're referring to things like the Kyrie, not hymns.  I am hoping that one of the parishes that is open will live stream a mass, because I am having trouble visualizing it.  Not that we'll go no matter what I see, our family is a long way from setting foot in a church.

Yeah, I've never been somewhere when just one is offered.  But often there are rubrics about how receiving in one kind is valid.  I think the pandemic may change this.  Offering just the Body (except for arranged ahead of time allergies or celiac) would be safer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I've been thinking about what a choir or congregation could do in place of singing. How about humming? Weirdly enough, nitric oxide produced in your nasal passages will increase 15 to 20 fold simply by humming. Nitric oxide is a building block of nitroglycerin which relaxes blood vessels and in turn, increases blood and oxygen.

This explains how nitric oxide produced by humming can treat chronic rhinosinusitis, CRS, (and lessen cardiac arrhythmias!):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987705006328

Quote

By humming 60–120 times four times per day (with a session at bedtime), CRS symptoms were essentially eliminated in 4 days. Coincidentally, the subject’s cardiac arrhythmias (PACs) were greatly lessened. It is hypothesized that strong, prolonged humming increased endogenous nasal NO production, thus eliminating CRS by antifungal means.

 

A short article about the importance of nitric oxide and  the health of heart and blood vessels. It doesn't mention humming but the above article does.

https://www.clevelandheartlab.com/blog/nurturing-nitric-oxide-heart-healthy-chemical-blood-vessels/
 

Quote

Unlike breathing through your mouth, nose breathing helps release nitric oxide, a chemical that expands your blood vessels, lowers blood pressure and has an all-over calming effect. ...

Nitric oxide is vital for a healthy cardiovascular system, but deep breathing is just a start. Produced by the endothelium—the lining of the blood vessels—this chemical is highly responsive to healthy heart habits like regular exercise and low cholesterol.  Lowering cholesterol levels helps increase nitric oxide.  These lifestyle measures turn the nitric oxide spigots on, expanding blood vessels and increasing blood flow while curbing the build-up of plaque. (Nitric oxide is the basis for the use of nitroglycerin in treating the heart condition, angina.)

 

Covid is looking more like it's also targeting the lining of arteries and veins. Nitric oxide can help to counter the damage that the virus could cause if you catch it. Therefore, I think you all should be humming! 

Edited by BeachGal
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Violet Crown said:

The communicant stays still and steady at the rail, head slightly tilted back, eyes closed, mouth open, tongue slightly out. Father holds the Host between his bent index finger and thumb. Thumb slides Host forward, onto the tongue, without fingers getting near the tongue or lips. Never had a priest who was trained for the Old Rite touch me. Byzantine Rite priests likewise are highly accurate.

Ah, I was thinking some thing where the priest doesn't touch it, hence the confusion. 

4 hours ago, Terabith said:

Yeah, I've never been somewhere when just one is offered.  But often there are rubrics about how receiving in one kind is valid.  I think the pandemic may change this.  Offering just the Body (except for arranged ahead of time allergies or celiac) would be safer.  

The Episcopal church allows gluten free communion wafers (my parish has them for my son). The Catholic Church has ones that are technically "low gluten" but do meet the under however many parts per million that is required for a gluten free label. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Ah, I was thinking some thing where the priest doesn't touch it, hence the confusion. 

The Episcopal church allows gluten free communion wafers (my parish has them for my son). The Catholic Church has ones that are technically "low gluten" but do meet the under however many parts per million that is required for a gluten free label. 

Yeah, the Episcopal church makes reasonable compromises for celiacs.  People with a true wheat allergy have a bigger issue with Communion, but they're definitely more flexible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Receiving on the tongue is discouraged, but someone needs to receive on the tongue, the priest should take care not to touch them, and immediately sanitize his hands. 

 

I find this idea of hands being less likely to touch interesting, since I have often had extraordinary communion ministers touch me if I had to receive by hand.

By tongue, however, I've never been touched by a priest. I will move lines to get to a priest usually to receive so that I don't put a "regular person" through that as they aren't trained and usually grimace in a way that does not help my concentration on the event "at hand." (ha...ha...)

7 hours ago, Violet Crown said:

The communicant stays still and steady at the rail, head slightly tilted back, eyes closed, mouth open, tongue slightly out. Father holds the Host between his bent index finger and thumb. Thumb slides Host forward, onto the tongue, without fingers getting near the tongue or lips. Never had a priest who was trained for the Old Rite touch me. Byzantine Rite priests likewise are highly accurate.

Regardless of rite I guess I have been very lucky with my priests, though I was taught how to receive by an Old Rite priest and also attended a Byzantine church for a while, so perhaps I'm more trained in how to receive that way, and that makes a difference? Never thought about it before.

 

eta: but I do understand that since the priest's hand can be breathed on when receiving on the tongue, that is the issue, not necessarily the touching. 

Edited by Moonhawk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CuriousMomof3 said:

I don't think it's that hands are more likely to touch when you receive on the tongue, it's that to receive on the tongue you need to remove your mask, and you're breathing all over the priest's or deacon's hand.  So, he needs to sanitize before touching the next host.  

 

I guess was editing while you were typing. 🙂 

Yes, that makes sense, it's just that I've seen this brought up before pre-Covid and have always been a bit puzzled by it. There is one deacon at my current parish that huffs and rolls his eyes and refused to give the Eucharist on the tongue (I mean, I was shocked and embarassed so just accepted by hand, idk if he would have actually refused if I had stayed in the other position much longer). I just go to a different line now (well, pre-Covid).

Later I heard a teacher tell the kids that we receive by hand now "because it is easier to stay clean." Which, idk, have you seen kids' hands? lol

Anyway, this is a tangent, that isn't really relevant. One of my specialties 😉 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CuriousMomof3 said:

I love irrelevant tangents.

I know our diocese is suggesting hand sanitizer at the entrance, so  hopefully those kids' hands will be cleaner?

I guess from my perspective, if I take communion by hand, and my hands are dirty or have germs, I'm putting myself at risk.  But if I take communion from my priest by tongue, and I have covid or flu, I'm putting my beloved priest at risk.  Like so many priests, ours isn't a young man, and if I can protect him in some way, then I will.  Having said that, I'm not going to church at all.  

 

Right, I'm not disagreeing that it is for the greater good in the current climate.

But it's just been something that was being edged in (from my perspective) before any of this ever happened. But at the same time, I was often touched by Eucharistic ministers, so it seemed a bit incongruous to be told it was the safer option when they are potentially accidentally touching 50 different people, and passing stuff along down the line. I can't say I generally wash my hands before sitting down at church unless I had to go to the bathroom first. 

But, as your plan stated, the priest will be taking extra precautions about touching so that point is moot as well. 

Hopefully the hand sanitizer will make a difference yes. Okay, another tangent: I saw a little girl drink out of the holy water once 😱  since then I've always had a small hesitation before dipping my finger tips in, lol. She was cute though. So, the hand sanitizer certainly can't hurt!

We will not be attending for the immediate future, either, so this is all academic to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

and you're breathing all over the priest's or deacon's hand.

Not my experience in the Old Rite. It's done much faster than receiving on the tongue in the New Rite. The priest isn't holding the Host in front of the communicant before placing it on the tongue; the communicant doesn't say "Amen" (or anything else); and (in my own experience) you instinctively hold your breath for that brief second that Father passes in front of you and places the Host on your tongue. If the communicant is "breathing all over the priest's hand," you're both doing it wrong.

But for the reason you mention, I wouldn't receive Communion at all right now in the New Rite.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Violet Crown said:

Not my experience in the Old Rite. It's done much faster than receiving on the tongue in the New Rite. The priest isn't holding the Host in front of the communicant before placing it on the tongue; the communicant doesn't say "Amen" (or anything else); and (in my own experience) you instinctively hold your breath for that brief second that Father passes in front of you and places the Host on your tongue. If the communicant is "breathing all over the priest's hand," you're both doing it wrong.

But for the reason you mention, I wouldn't receive Communion at all right now in the New Rite.

I've been wondering why Communion in the hand is considered better in these COVID times. The thought of the recipient breathing on the priest's hands hadn't occurred to me. I think this poster hit the nail on the head. Now, I've never been trained in receiving in the Old Rite. I didn't attend an Old Rite Mass until an adult, and learned all on my own (observation, reading). But, now upon pondering this, I realize I do hold my breath. 

FWIW, I generally prefer to receive on the tongue, no matter the rite of the Mass. I will say that only rarely has a priest touched my tongue... Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist are a completely different story. When they realize what you want, it's like they freeze and then bungle it up. Oh well. It's a moot point now, as we are not currently attending Mass. 

One of the reasons is I want to observe a live Mass first, to see what's going on with singing. Singing might be my line, regardless of official edicts.

ETA: I certainly would be willing to receive in the hand to protect a priest. But the thought of that being a reason in our parish makes me smile, as our priest is young, really, really young. And yes, I know, age isn't the only risk factor. Elderly priests were mentioned though, which made me smile thinking of our priest.

Edited by barnwife
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our church governing body recently sent out a letter suggesting that congregations prepare for being closed to in-person large gatherings through the end of the year at least, and possibly well into 2021. I'm sad about the situation, but understand where they're coming from. We had been changing some of our practices starting in February--no more joining hands to sing--but this is tough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

But even if your priest is young and stays asymptomatic or gets mild symptoms and recovers well, he's putting everyone he ministers to at risk.  

Oh, I know. I just couldn't figure out why receiving by the mouth was so much worse. To me, hands are super germy. I don't want my consecrated Host to touch hands any more than necessary. It's going to end up in my mouth anyway, you know? I just hadn't thought about people breathing on the priest because...I don't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Unfortunately, I think it's going to be a long time before anyone in our family get to take communion in a church.  I think our diocese is doing a good job of opening cautiously, but I think the risk is still too high for us.  

One thing I would love to see, and haven't seen, is a plan for distribution of communion to the homebound.  My FIL, who lives with us, is an Extraordinary Minister, so I'm hoping we can find a way to make that work.  It would mean a lot to one of my kids, even though of course he is covered by the dispensation.  

I know in our diocese, they haven't opened Communion to the homebound yet, except in cases of Viaticum. I am in your boat, though, in that I don't think we will be receiving in church anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

But would you really hold your breath the whole time you walked up from 6 feet away, received, and walked away? 

Well, exactly right. Again, one reason why I would refrain from communing in the New Rite. More reasons to have the priest be the one who goes from communicant to (spaced) communicant, rather than a line of people moving up to him. I pull down my mask immediately beforehand, and replace it as Father flits on to the next communicant. 

Maybe this could be one of those "mutual enrichment" things between the two Rites?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

I feel as though so much of this depends on the traffic pattern at the individual church.  

Have you been back to church since things shut down?  We aren't open yet here, although some churches on the other side of diocese are, so all this is speculation from me.  If you've been, I'd love to know how it worked.  

I have, several times. It works like I described, except instead of communicants going forward to the rail, we're all spaced apart in alternating pews (one family per pew), and Father moves between the pews, so only he is "in motion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

I'm having trouble imagining this.  If I'm in the pew with my family, assuming we aren't in the front row, how does Father get to the people beyond the first person?  Is he walking down the space where the people in the empty pew would put their feet?  So, he's passing close behind the people in front's back?  

Wish I could draw a picture! 🙂 So we're in alternating pews. Everyone is kneeling, whether receiving or not. He passes from left to right in front of the first pew, pausing if someone is indicating that they're communing. He goes around the occupied pew and right to left through the unoccupied pew, communing those in pew three. And so on, to the back of the church. Since everyone kneels until he returns to the sanctuary, he's not particularly close to the backs of those he's just communed (and also they're facing away from him). So Father is reasonably away from us, except when actually communing us; and nobody is getting up to stand in line or pass each other to and from the altar rail. Which is quite nice, as I imagine having the whole congregation on their feet and walking back and forth, rather than all continuing to kneel quietly where they are, is more of a virus threat.

Did this make sense?

 

Edited by Violet Crown
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

I can picture it now.  Thank you.  I can't really picture how it will happen in our church.  I hope they livestream some services.  Maybe I'll look and see if I can find a service from a church that is open on the other side of our diocese.  

It's really hard, not being able to get to Mass, no matter how reasonable the reason. I hope yours opens up soon, with arrangements that keep everyone safe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Skippy said:

I saw this news today regarding a German study. 

https://slippedisc.com/2020/05/two-munich-scientists-pronounce-singing-to-be-covid-safe/

I am not advocating that this study means singing is safe. I just saw it and thought someone might want to look into it. 

It would be nice if this is true. Our church has been having in person meetings for a couple of weeks but with reduced numbers. This Sunday it sounds like they are going back to pretty much normal. Even the Sunday school group for retired/older adults is starting back in person. Usual childcare type things starting back. Their concession to the virus - there will be stickers available at the door that you can stick on your shirt saying if you are social distancing and don’t want to be hugged! I so hope that the church is somehow phenomenally lucky and doesn’t end up with any bad outcomes.

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Skippy said:

I saw this news today regarding a German study. 

https://slippedisc.com/2020/05/two-munich-scientists-pronounce-singing-to-be-covid-safe/

I am not advocating that this study means singing is safe. I just saw it and thought someone might want to look into it. 

I hope this is true!  Now sitting back down to watch.......

@TCB If someone had told me six months ago I would think social distancing stickers might be something I would consider wearing I would not have believed it!

My safety conscious church is loosening to a level that worries me greatly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mumto2 said:

I hope this is true!  Now sitting back down to watch.......

@TCB If someone had told me six months ago I would think social distancing stickers might be something I would consider wearing I would not have believed it!

My safety conscious church is loosening to a level that worries me greatly.

 

Not sure how big the stickers are but I’ve been wondering how close people are going to have to get to be able to read the wearer’s preference!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skippy said:

I saw this news today regarding a German study. 

https://slippedisc.com/2020/05/two-munich-scientists-pronounce-singing-to-be-covid-safe/

I am not advocating that this study means singing is safe. I just saw it and thought someone might want to look into it. 

 

This was linked in the comments as a counter. FYI. https://www.middleclassartist.com/post/nats-panel-of-experts-lays-out-sobering-future-for-singers-no-vaccine-no-safe-public-singing?fbclid=IwAR0O7WgGKVYvulFrkuARUlbOdcCFzFJoA8Ws2qW89Ftm7P7P_nuGpurdBGo&postId=5eb20e9e3309a500179c30ce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Skippy said:

I saw this news today regarding a German study. 

https://slippedisc.com/2020/05/two-munich-scientists-pronounce-singing-to-be-covid-safe/

I am not advocating that this study means singing is safe. I just saw it and thought someone might want to look into it. 

Yeah, I can't figure this out. I mean, we've SEEN video of droplets going farther. And more to the point, in a choir of 60 people, how would 45 catch it if the infected person only sprayed droplets 18 inches out? It just defies logic, and everything we've seen about how far droplets go so far. I mean, how on earth would this be spreading if the virus during singing goes less than 18 inches, and during speaking less than that? And that assumes no air movement as well I guess, from air conditioning,fans, etc? I mean, we have people on busses, in office buildings, restaurants, etc much farther away than 18 inches who are getting exposed. 

Seriously, how often do people have their faces less than 18 inches apart? And yet, how many have caught this? It makes no sense. I wish it did. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I asked, my Episcopal parish said no singing at the 7:45 service, some singing at the 10:15. Then the music director added this:

St. Michael's Episcopal Church, Orlando Katie: the 4 singers and I have been wearing, for the past two Sundays, a mask that I have modified to make singing possible. The main problem with singing is not the actual singing, as a mask will greatly mitigate any air droplets that might escape, the problem is when you breathe in. Taking a "singer's breath". i.e. a BIG one, you find the mask flattens itself against your mouth like an octopus! This, in and of itself, will probably prevent most folks from singing. However, if you do want to sing, I would suggest keeping the volume down, and experiment with breathing in with the mask you are wearing - see how strong you can do that before it collapses on to your mouth. Once you have found that out, I would say singing would be fine - keeping the volume down, therefore not expelling so much air - it would bring the activity in line with speaking - which we do every day wearing masks, to others who are wearing masks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Yeah, I can't figure this out. I mean, we've SEEN video of droplets going farther. And more to the point, in a choir of 60 people, how would 45 catch it if the infected person only sprayed droplets 18 inches out? It just defies logic, and everything we've seen about how far droplets go so far. I mean, how on earth would this be spreading if the virus during singing goes less than 18 inches, and during speaking less than that? And that assumes no air movement as well I guess, from air conditioning,fans, etc? I mean, we have people on busses, in office buildings, restaurants, etc much farther away than 18 inches who are getting exposed. 

Seriously, how often do people have their faces less than 18 inches apart? And yet, how many have caught this? It makes no sense. I wish it did. 

From lots of studies I've seen, just breathing and talking normally droplets go farther than 18 inches.  I'm taking that study with a boulder of salt.  It makes absolutely no sense based on every single other study I've seen.  The Oregon choir is a real-life example of how in real life it doesn't seem to work that way.  Unfortunately.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seasider too said:

So if I am reading this right, the reply you got is based on not science, but singer personal experimentation?

It seems, although the pastor said that the music director has been researching this. I will not be going to the 10:15, for sure. 

(they do require EVERYONE to wear masks)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our church went back to live services today. We did not attend, but watched online. It looked to be well attended although there is far less capacity than usual and they did sing as much as normal. I looked at information for another local church that we attended many years ago. They were the last to shut down and have a much smaller, mostly elderly congregation. They've decided not to open until Fall and their bishop has forbidden singing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  This article from Church Times talks about the German study that was posted above as well as some other research.  It also gives more info about the infamous Washington Choir.

Quote

An investigation by the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention, however, established that Skagit Valley choir members were sitting six to ten inches from one another, and sharing snacks and stacking chairs together, and that 19 members with “probable symptoms” were never tested.

A statement that “emission of aerosols” was related to “loudness of vocalisation” was a footnote to one of its studies, which fed into an existing debate about whether the virus was transmissible through small, light aerosol particles as well as the heavier and larger droplets.

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/5-june/news/uk/singing-might-not-be-so-great-a-risk-after-all?#.XtmKZmT5i8c.facebook

 

Once again - more research needs to be done instead of knee-jerk reactions.

Edited by PrincessMommy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

  This article from Church Times talks about the German study that was posted above as well as some other research.  It also gives more info about the infamous Washington Choir.

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/5-june/news/uk/singing-might-not-be-so-great-a-risk-after-all?#.XtmKZmT5i8c.facebook

 

Once again - more research needs to be done instead of knee-jerk reactions.

 

I'm so confused about this. The article says that members with probable symptoms were not tested, but the CDC report says, "No choir member reported having had symptoms at the March 3 practice." and "the 19 choir members classified as having probable cases did not seek testing to confirm their illness."

Am I misreading the churchtimes article?? Because it sounded like they were saying people went to the practice with probable cases and that is not how the CDC report is reading. The CDC is reporting that 19 people did not get testing after the practice even though their symptoms may have indicated COVID.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2020 at 2:12 PM, Violet Crown said:

Well, exactly right. Again, one reason why I would refrain from communing in the New Rite. More reasons to have the priest be the one who goes from communicant to (spaced) communicant, rather than a line of people moving up to him. I pull down my mask immediately beforehand, and replace it as Father flits on to the next communicant. 

Maybe this could be one of those "mutual enrichment" things between the two Rites?

Another problem with the keep your mask on while receiving the Body of Christ in the hand is the very increased likelihood of dropping the Body of Christ on the ground while trying to remove a mask, not to mention the increased likelihood of someone with evil intentions of taking it with them instead of consuming it when no one is watching.  Also, when kneeling to receive on the tongue you are still and even if you don’t hold your breath you are no where even close to his face.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cintinative said:

 

I'm so confused about this. The article says that members with probable symptoms were not tested, but the CDC report says, "No choir member reported having had symptoms at the March 3 practice." and "the 19 choir members classified as having probable cases did not seek testing to confirm their illness."

Am I misreading the churchtimes article?? Because it sounded like they were saying people went to the practice with probable cases and that is not how the CDC report is reading. The CDC is reporting that 19 people did not get testing after the practice even though their symptoms may have indicated COVID.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm

I'm confused about what you're confused about 😄   Is this the portion you are referring to? :

Quote

Stories about the danger of transmitting the coronavirus through singing have proliferated since the widely reported outbreak of Covid-19 in Washington State, where 53 of the 61 members of the Skagit Valley Chorale fell ill after rehearsals on 3 and 10 March, immediately before lockdown measures. The incident was subsequently correlated with two other “super-spreader” events involving choirs in Amsterdam and Berlin (News, 29 May).

 

I think here it is saying that only 53 members attended those choir practices.  

I didn't think the article was saying that people attended the practices being sick (or thinking they were sick with something).  I remember that one article I read a while ago stated that no one coughed or seemed sick at the choir practice.   The CT article is the first one I've read that references 2 different practices, so I don't know what's up with that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...