Hey, all you organizers
HARD DATA:
On the issue of masks required OR optional, here is some actually
useful, vaguely understandable data, published by NEJM, New England
Journal of Medicine. NEJM (Nee-gem) is one of the world premiere
medical journals.
Since I'm interpreting this, my creds are an SB, MIT in physics, and an
engineer in medical devices. I do numbers. And I'm on the committee
for the Thursday Night Dance at Scout House in Concord MA.
Attached is a summary sheet for a NEJM article on lifting the mask
mandate in Boston public schools. My hypothesis -- opinion -- is that a
contra dance is comparable to packing a bunch of kids into a school.
You'll want to view the PDF to see what I'm talking about.
The UPPER RIGHT GRAPH, the important lines are the lower three lines --
two red and one blue. The red lines are the case rates 2 and 3 weeks
AFTER lifting the mask mandate. The blue line is the case rate for
schools NOT lifting the mask mandate. By engineering standards, the two
red lines peak about 50% higher than the blue line.
In the RESULTS paragraph on the left, last sentence: "One third of the
Covid-19 cases that occurred..." This is another way of expressing a
50% increase.
Do masks PREVENT Covid? We all know they don't. Neither do vaxes and
boosters. What they do is stack the ODDS in favor of individuals and
COMMUNITIES not getting Covid.
I strongly believe that stacking the odds is the responsible way to go.
I do NOT believe in basing policies on surveys of dancer preferences.
Mac Sloan
On 23/01/07 5:56 PM, Laura Alexander wrote:
> Hi Mac,
>
> My understanding of transmission risk is based on information from
> mainstream epidemiologists, not surveys. As a scientist not working in
> epidemiology, I'm curious for expert information and seek it out.
> Believe it or not, I still think our position is appropriate and
> responsible. I'm aware of these studies and the information you shared,
> but thank you for mentioning them. I'm happy to continue this
> conversation offline, but I'd hope you refrain from making assumptions
> in the future about what people understand.
>
> Laura
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 3:27 PM Walker Sloan <sloan@medevelop.com
> <mailto:sloan@medevelop.com>> wrote:
>
>
> "Our understanding on transmission risks..." Surveys reflect
> preferences, not science.
>
> Science: In Nov '22, per the CDC, bivalent boosted people had 1/3rd
> the
> chance of testing positive. This means that requiring bivalent
> boosters
> will dramatically cut the number of positives dancing in your hall.
>
> See attachment. Light green box at the bottom.
>
> With XBB.1.5 this number has yet to be determine. But odds are there
> will be a good effect.
>
> Do vaxes prevent Covid? No, but the odds of Covid producing a bad
> outcome in vaxed and boosted people go WAY down: Testing positive,
> transmitting, hospitalization, death -- WAY down.
>
> Holding dances for unvaxed people not only endangers them, but ALSO the
> folks they go home to and go to work with.
>
> Holding unvaxed or vax-optional dances prolongs the pandemic.
> Regardless of surveys or understandings.
>
> Mac Sloan
>
> On 23/01/07 2:07 PM, Laura Alexander wrote:
> > Arden contra (in Delaware) has a policy that's very similar to
> > Montelier's, and for the same reasons. We surveyed this fall and
> dropped
> > our vaccine requirement, and we'll survey our community again this
> > month. Without a significant change to our understanding on
> transmission
> > risk difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, we won't
> > consider re-excluding unvaccinated people. If it's not safe
> enough to
> > dance for community conditions and hospitals, we'll postpone dances.
> >
> > Whole policy:
> >
> > - vaccines strongly encouraged
> > - masks required
> > - hall with excellent ventilation
> > - contact tracing with mandatory info collection, system run by a
> > responsible person outside the community, announced at the dance
> and in
> > a follow-up email
> > - announcement that if anyone feels sick after the dance, we
> expect them
> > to get tested ASAP
> > - rapid tests available to those without access
> >
> > Thankfully we haven't had any known transmission yet since
> restarting in
> > March 2022. We average around 40 attendees per dance.
> >
> > I agree with Julian, I hope every local area has a space that's
> > taking all precautions available, and it also makes sense to me
> to have
> > mask-optional dances if there is no foreseeable change to covid risk.
> >
> > Thanks for the thread, everyone - it's useful to see what other
> dances
> > are doing.
> > Laura Alexander
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 12:13 AM Walker Sloan via Organizers
> > <organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> > <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>>> wrote:
> >
> > Another pebble in the pond --
> >
> > * Current booster verified
> > * N95, KN95, KF94 required
> > * Request cases to be reported back to the organizers
> > * Emails collected to report cases anonymously to the community
> > * Max venue ventilation -- cold drafts this time of year in
> the North
> >
> > NONE of these is sufficient to prevent Covid. ALL of them
> help reduce
> > transmission.
> >
> > None of us organizers volunteered to be public health
> officials. And
> > certainly not protocol cops. But it makes sense for us to
> STACK THE
> > ODDS as high as possible in favor of COMMUNITY health.
> >
> > Maximizing community safety takes precedence over individual
> preference.
> >
> > That's the most responsible way to organize a dance. Not
> just for the
> > benefit of our dancers, but also for the greater community in
> which all
> > of our dancers live.
> >
> > Mac Sloan
> > Thursday Night Dance, Concord Scout House, MA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Walker Sloan
> > sloan@medevelop.com <mailto:sloan@medevelop.com>
> <mailto:sloan@medevelop.com <mailto:sloan@medevelop.com>>
> >
> > On 23/01/06 11:18 PM, Julian Blechner via Organizers wrote:
> > > Question for anyone with the "you will alienate someone" or
> > "everyone
> > > has a different level of risk" mindset:
> > > In other areas of life, do you consider someone's personal
> > preference
> > > (like not wearing a mask) the same as someone's health
> needs (like
> > > having a health condition, or a family member who does)?
> > >
> > > Like, how is this "both sides have a preference" narrative any
> > different
> > > from able-bodied people being like "Oh, well, I just don't
> like
> > > handicapped ramps, I prefer steps"?
> > > I'm not asking to be mean or rude. I genuinely would love an
> > explanation.
> > >
> > > I think there actually _is_ a way to please most people,
> and not
> > just
> > > disregard people with medical conditions (or family with
> them).
> > > That is - making sure no area's dances are all mask-optional.
> > > There's a big difference between an area having _some_
> mask-optional
> > > dances, sure, but if they're _all_ mask-optional.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Julian Blechner
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 5:56 PM John and/or Jan Bloom via
> Organizers
> > > <organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> > <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
> > > <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> > <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > As Alan said, whatever you do you will alienate someone.
> > >
> > > What I did with the Brunswick ECD was to ask all of
> the dancers
> > > - would you dance if masks were required
> > > - would you dance if masks were optional
> > > and so on.
> > >
> > > Then I picked the rules that maximized the number of
> dancers.
> > >
> > > I realize that this is harder for Contra, where you
> have a lot of
> > > dancers that you can't ask, including potential future
> dancers.
> > > But in my case it seemed like the right way to do it.
> > >
> > > John Bloom
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Organizers mailing list --
> organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> > <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
> > > <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> > <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>>>
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to
> > > organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net>
> > <mailto:organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net>>
> > > <mailto:organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net>
> > <mailto:organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net>>>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Organizers mailing list --
> organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> > <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to
> > organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net>
> > <mailto:organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Organizers mailing list -- organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> > <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
> > To unsubscribe send an email to
> > organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net>
> > <mailto:organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
> <mailto:organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net>>
> >
> _______________________________________________
Organizers mailing list -- organizers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to organizers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net