Should We Keep Wearing Masks?

I found this interesting.

https://time.com/5952051/masks-after-pandemic-ends/

APRIL 2, 2021 10:42 AM EDT

 

Riding the New York City subway during cold and flu season used to test your stomach. The woman next to you was coughing. The guy behind her was sneezing. Somebody was always fishing for a tissue.

That’s a distant memory now. The subway is far emptier, for one thing—and with the riders onboard almost universally wearing masks, the chorus of sniffles and coughs has been silenced. During the pandemic, the need for that policy is clear. But should the masks stay even after COVID-19 is gone?

Before vaccines began rolling out to the general public, masks were among the only tools available for containing SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. And they seem to have done their job. A mask both provides the wearer a physical barrier against germs, and prevents them from exhaling potentially infectious droplets into the atmosphere, ideally cutting down on the amount of circulating virus that can infect others, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says. Areas that implemented mask mandates saw statistically significant declines in COVID-19 case counts and deaths within 20 days, according to agency data.

Masks are “minimally invasive, safe, cheap, effective,” says Raina MacIntyre, a professor of global biosecurity at Australia’s University of New South Wales who has studied face masks since long before the pandemic.

They’re also controversial. While masks clearly have more benefits than drawbacks during the pandemic, their post-pandemic future is less certain. Dr. John Conly, an infectious disease physician at Canada’s University of Calgary who has also studied masks, says he wouldn’t support masking after the pandemic ends, given downsides like discomfort and difficulty communicating.

The U.S. public seems likely to agree. With the steady thrum of anti-mask sentiment in the U.S., it’s highly unlikely that they will continue to be a ubiquitous sight after the pandemic ends. But there are certain settings—while riding a packed subway, for example, or when visiting a loved one in the hospital—where an extra layer of protection might make sense even after the pandemic era. Like COVID-19 itself, masks likely won’t be our constant reality, but they may not fade away completely, either.

Before the world knew about COVID-19, masking was already common in many Asian countries. Particularly after the SARS outbreak in the early 2000s, face masks became a regular sight in Hong Kong, Japan and other parts of Eastern Asia, where people often wore them to protect themselves and others during cold and flu season. So when COVID-19 hit, people in those countries generally were very much willing to mask up.

In the U.S., the sell has been a bit harder. Most people rarely, if ever, masked prior to March 2020. Health officials actually discouraged the public from doing so in the early months of the pandemic, citing uncertain data about masks’ efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 and the need to preserve scarce personal protective equipment for health care workers. Even after health officials reversed course and began encouraging fabric masks in public, former President Donald Trump repeatedly downplayed masks’ importance.

As the pandemic went on, scientific consensus shifted to be strongly in favor of masks, and many states and cities mandated their use in public. And while masks are certainly not perfect—some particles can still pass through—the data suggest that they’ve helped curtail the spread not just of COVID-19, but other diseases, too.

During the 2019-2020 flu season, at least 24,000 people in the U.S. died from the influenza virus. It’s too soon to know exactly how many people will die from the flu during the 2020-2021 season, but it will almost surely be a much lower number. Fewer than 500 people in the U.S.—and just one child—had died from the flu as of April 1, according to CDC data. Traditional flu season won’t end until May, but flu death rates would have to increase astronomically to match last year’s full season toll.

Masks aren’t solely responsible for that precipitous drop. More people got vaccinated against the flu during this season compared to usual ones, as the CDC issued desperate warnings to stave off a “twindemic” of influenza and COVID-19. Social distancing and remote work and school kept people away from strangers’ germs. And many people have been hyper-conscious of hand-washing and other hygiene during the pandemic.

Masks are only one piece of that “bundled approach,” and it’s hard to tease out exactly how much of a role they played, says Conly, who co-authored a November 2020 Cochrane Review analysis of respiratory disease prevention tools. After analyzing nine prior studies on non-N95 medical masks, Conly and his colleagues found little evidence to suggest they’d prevent the wearer from catching influenza or a flu-like illness. A controversial and much-publicized March 2021 study out of Denmark also concluded that surgical masks did not significantly reduce the wearer’s chances of contracting COVID-19.

But there are two issues at play when it comes to masks. One is whether they protect the wearer from disease. All along, experts have known cloth and surgical masks don’t block all pathogens. They likely provide some protection for the wearer, but they are not an impenetrable barrier, as the above two studies confirm.

The second issue, which is harder to measure, is what’s called “source control.” Masks do seem to be quite good at trapping many of the respiratory droplets exhaled by the wearer, preventing them from getting out into the atmosphere where they could infect others. If everyone wears a mask, there’s simply less virus floating around, which theoretically translates to fewer sicknesses.

Reducing the amount of virus in shared environments is a crucial aspect of pandemic response. And because COVID-19 can be spread asymptomatically, meaning anyone could be unknowingly carrying the virus and passing it to others, everyone should be doing what they can to avoid spreading it.

The equation is a little more complex in the post-pandemic future. Once we are not living with the constant threat of a dangerous disease, the downsides of masking—annoyance, stunted communication, acne, potentially even small amounts of microplastic inhalation—may outweigh the source control benefits, Conly says. “The balance of the evidence would suggest this is not a good thing to do,” Conly says.

MacIntyre disagrees. It likely wouldn’t make sense to wear a mask 24/7 once COVID-19 is contained, but she says masking is easy and safe enough to justify it in high-impact settings, like public transit, long-term care facilities and hospitals.

Once the pandemic ends, mask wearing wouldn’t even have to be mandatory or universal to make a difference. Right now, with COVID-19 spreading as readily as it, each person who refuses to wear a mask in public is potentially endangering those around them. But in a post-COVID future, each person who chooses to wear a mask would be doing a little something extra to keep themselves and those around them healthy, MacIntyre says. It would be particularly logical for people to wear masks during cold and flu season, when there’s quite a bit of disease going around.

That’s assuming cold and flu seasons would continue to exist in their current forms, however, which may not be guaranteed if masks stick around. Australia is an instructive example. Rates of the childhood disease respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) plummeted there last winter—usually the dominant season for RSV—when most people were staying home and wearing masks. But as the country got COVID-19 under control and reopened for its summer season, Australia experienced an off-season surge of RSV even beyond what would be expected during a normal winter.

The surge may have been the cost of an earlier RSV-free season, says Dr. Richard Malley, an infectious diseases physician at Boston Children’s Hospital. Human immunity is layered. While exposure to a virus or bacteria can get someone sick, it also often helps prepare their immune system for its next brush with that pathogen. (Many vaccines work in roughly the same way: by introducing a weakened virus or bacteria into the body, so it knows how to respond if it encounters the real thing.)

A normal RSV season would get plenty of people sick, but it would also build up community-wide immunity in preparation for next year’s season. Without that cyclical exposure, immunity likely began to wane over the winter months—so when people encountered RSV in the summer, their bodies weren’t prepared for it and they got sick, Malley explains.

Year-round masking could also change disease patterns in the U.S., Malley says. Instead of defined disease seasons, viruses could circulate and spread at more uniform levels all year round. That could turn out to be a good thing, if it meant less disease overall. But it’s not entirely clear what would happen if continuous mask-wearing reduced exposure to routine pathogens enough that some kids were not exposed to common viruses or bacteria until later in life. For certain diseases that strike kids harder than adults, that delay could be beneficial, even lifesaving. But it could also alter the way kids naturally build immunity to certain pathogens over time.

“That would be, in a way, a national experiment,” Malley says. “In the case of coronavirus, because of the impact this virus has had on our society, it goes without saying that social distancing and masking measures are absolutely the way to go. But for the long term, that’s a much more difficult question.”

At this point, though, Malley doubts most people would even be willing to wear masks frequently without the immediate threat of a pandemic and the mask mandates that came with it. “We can’t even get [some] people to do it in the midst of the pandemic,” Malley notes. “They’ve been lifesaving, but they do symbolize, to some extent, the restrictions that have been placed on all of us.”

There are some lessons from the pandemic that may catch on, even if masks once again fade to the provenance of Halloween costumes. Never before has the American public been so attuned to how diseases spread, and the potential consequences when they do. Malley hopes that consciousness, and conscientiousness, will outlast the pandemic, encouraging people to keep washing their hands, getting vaccines and staying home from work or school even if they think they only have “the sniffles.”

“Something we’ve been telling people for years,” he says, “may finally sink in.”

Microsoft aligning Office and Windows release terminology

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/office-365-blog/a-new-wave-of-innovation-to-help-it-modernize-servicing-of/ba-p/1380733

Many of you have been looking for ways to bring the latest capabilities to your users to stay the most productive and secure. Customers who have switched to a faster update cadence, tell us about higher end-user satisfaction as they benefit from many capabilities and improvements as soon as they are available. The current worldwide environment has triggered an unprecedented acceleration in digital transformation, prompting IT to support companywide transitions to remote work without affecting productivity. Recent enhancements to popular collaboration capabilities such as Comments, While you were away, and @mentions have proven particularly useful, as the demand for real-time collaboration grows. To help you bring the latest capabilities like these and others to your users faster, we recommend customers choose Current Channel as their update cadence for servicing Microsoft 365 Apps for enterprise.*

We recognize that to manage more complex environments, you need extra tools and more time to validate new features without additional burden on IT. To support these requirements, we are releasing a whole new set of capabilities throughout the year. Based on a modern management approach, we’re focusing this wave of innovation on delivering servicing predictability, additional tools to manage the health of your environments, and a more efficient issue resolution process.** Today, we start by announcing the general availability of the new Monthly Enterprise Channel and a few other changes that modernize the way you service Microsoft 365 Apps, as you deliver the latest productivity value to your businesses.

New Monthly Enterprise Channel

As an IT admin, you can control how often the users in your organization get new Microsoft 365 Apps features by specifying the update channel. Before today, some of our customers have opted for less frequent updates due to the unpredictable nature and network stress of a faster cadence. The new Monthly Enterprise Channel is designed to alleviate many of those concerns and reduce the burden on IT. Choosing this update channel will allow you to offer your company the latest productivity features, like real-time collaboration, the latest reliability and performance improvements, and security updates on a predictable, once-a-month cadence. All updates will be delivered as one package on the second Tuesday of each month, which we call “Patch Tuesday.”

Because all Monthly Enterprise Channel updates are shipped once a month, you will benefit from both low interruption and the ability to optimize network utilization for your enterprise. Capabilities like Delivery Optimization are already available to help you optimize bandwidth when downloading new bits, as well as regular updates.

To help you better manage changes while moving to a faster cadence, Monthly Enterprise Channel will be offering additional capabilities to advance the health of your environment and  a more transparent and faster issue resolution process. To learn more about the new update channel and how it is different from other existing update channels, read this article.

Microsoft 365 Admin Center.pngMicrosoft 365 admin center experience for setting up Monthly Enterprise Channel (new channel names will appear on June 9th).

Streamlining names for existing channels for Microsoft 365 Apps

As we introduce the new channel and our servicing model keeps evolving, we are renaming the existing update channels (Insider, Monthly, and Semi-Annual) to help you make better decisions about the servicing strategy for your organization. This change only applies to those of you running Microsoft 365 Apps on Windows devices. You will have an option to choose among Current, Monthly, or Semi-Annual channels. Testing channels will now be called Preview, instead of Targeted. While the Insider program remains, we will use Beta Channel as the new name for the channel designed for our early adopter/insider audience. Learn more about new update channel names in this article.

New names Recommended use
Beta Channel For early adopters, IT Pros, and developers who join the Insider community to get access to the earliest build
Current Channel (Preview) For enterprises to have early access to the upcoming Current Channel release and for fans or early adopters who want early access but also more stability
Current Channel To provide your end users with the most current Office features and latest security value as soon as they are ready
Monthly Enterprise Channel For customers who need the latest features on a predictable monthly cadence
Semi-Annual Enterprise Channel (Preview) For enterprises to preview the experience for the upcoming Semi-Annual Enterprise Channel release
Semi-Annual Enterprise Channel For select devices in your organization where extensive testing is needed before rolling out new Office features (e.g., to comply with regulatory, governmental, or other organizational requirements)

Changing default update channel setting for new tenants to Current Channel 

Along with the new capabilities to help you better service Microsoft 365 Apps, new tenants installing Microsoft 365 Apps will be defaulted to Current Channel. This update channel delivers feature updates as soon as they are production-ready and is fully compliant and supported. Feature updates, additional security updates, quality updates, and bug fixes are delivered about two or three times a month. This update channel is recommended for broad deployment across organizations of any size, including educational institutions. This change will start rolling out on June 9, 2020. There is no change to the default update channel setting for existing tenants.

Regardless of where you are in your cloud journey, your company looks to you for guidance on how to stay streamlined, cost-effective, and secure. This is only the beginning of the innovation wave offering you modern options to manage client app software, as you make your business competitive and productive.

Join us on May 27 at 9 AM PT for a live Ask Microsoft Anything session. We’d love to answer any questions you have about deploying Microsoft 365 Apps.

Thank you for your continuous feedback. Visit UserVoice to send us your ideas.

Ask us questions in our dedicated Tech Community space,*** watch new episodes on our Deployment Insider channel to learn more and explore the Office Insider program to give your users access to early features before deploying more broadly.

*Previously known as Office 365 ProPlus.

**Additional capabilities are shipping later this year.

***Previously known as the Office 365 ProPlus community space.

Expecting Students to Play It Safe if Colleges Reopen Is a Fantasy

Those of us that work in higher Ed may be doomed in the fall.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/opinion/coronavirus-college-safe.html

 

Opinion | Expecting Students to Play It Safe if Colleges Reopen Is a Fantasy – The New York Times

Expecting Students to Play It Safe if Colleges Reopen Is a Fantasy

Safety plans border on delusional and could lead to outbreaks of Covid-19 among students, faculty and staff.

By Laurence Steinberg

Dr. Steinberg is a professor of psychology at Temple University and the author of “Age of Opportunity: Lessons From the New Science of Adolescence.”

June 15, 2020

A number of American colleges and universities have decided to bring students back to campus this fall, believing they can diminish the risk of coronavirus transmission if everyone wears masks, uses hand sanitizer and social distances. Some schools also plan to reconfigure dorms to create family-sized clusters of uninfected students, who could socialize in relative safety, if only with their suite mates.

These plans are so unrealistically optimistic that they border on delusional and could lead to outbreaks of Covid-19 among students, faculty and staff.

My skepticism about the strategies under consideration is not based on videos of college students frolicking on Florida’s beaches when they were explicitly told to avoid large gatherings. Rather, it comes from more than 40 years teaching and researching young people.

Most types of risky behavior — reckless driving, criminal activity, fighting, unsafe sex and binge drinking, to name just a few — peak during the late teens and early 20s. Moreover, interventions designed to diminish risk-taking in this age group, such as attempts to squelch binge drinking on campus, have an underwhelming track record. There is little reason to think that the approaches proposed to mitigate transmission of the coronavirus among college students will fare any better. A series of studies that compare the ways in which young people and adults think and make decisions about risk-taking confirms this.

The late-adolescent peak in risky behavior has been found pretty much around the world. Although risky behavior is more common in some countries than others, the heightened risk-taking characteristic of adolescents, relative to adults, is more or less universal. My colleagues and I recently completed a study of more than 5,000 people between the ages of 10 and 30 from 11 different countries (including both Western and non-Western ones). Respondents answered a series of questions about the extent to which they had engaged in various types of risk-taking. Consistent with large-scale epidemiological studies, we found a peak in risk-taking somewhere between age 20 and 24 in virtually every country.

Our team has also conducted experiments in which we test participants on various risk-taking tasks under controlled conditions, which allows us to rule out any age differences in real-world risk-taking that might be caused by environmental factors, such as opportunity or cultural norms. As in our survey studies, risk-taking peaked during adolescence. Other studies, using different samples, have reached similar conclusions.

We’ve also conducted a series of experiments designed to identify just what it is about college-age individuals that accounts for their relatively greater propensity to take risks. Three factors appear to be most important.

First, this is the age at which we are most sensitive and responsive to the potential rewards of a risky choice, relative to the potential costs. College-age people are just as good as their elders at perceiving these benefits and dangers, but compared with older people, those who are college-aged give more weight to the potential gains. They are especially drawn to short-term rewards.

Second, college-aged people have more trouble exercising self-control than do those in their late 20s and beyond, an age difference that is amplified when people are emotionally aroused. Under calm conditions, college-age individuals can control their impulses as well as their elders, but when they are emotionally aroused, they evince the poor self-control of teenagers.

Finally, college-age people show more activation of the brain’s reward regions and are more likely to take risks when they are with their peers than when they are alone. There are no such effects of peers among people who are past their mid-20s.

Not all adolescents are risk-takers, of course, and not all adults are risk-averse. But it’s hard to think of an age during which risky behavior is more common and harder to deter than between 18 and 24, and people in this age make up about three-fourths of full-time American undergraduates.

And, in case it’s been a long time since you were in college, let me remind you that there is no shortage of rewarding temptations, emotional arousal or unsupervised peer groups on the typical college campus. It’s one of those perfect storms — people who are inclined to take risks in a setting that provides ample temptation to do so.

My pessimistic prediction is that the college and university reopening strategies under consideration will work for a few weeks before their effectiveness fizzles out. By then, many students will have become cavalier about wearing masks and sanitizing their hands. They will ignore social distancing guidelines when they want to hug old friends they run into on the way to class. They will venture out of their “families” and begin partying in their hallways with classmates from other clusters, and soon after, with those who live on other floors, in other dorms, or off campus. They will get drunk and hang out and hook up with people they don’t know well. And infections on campus — not only among students, but among the adults who come into contact with them — will begin to increase.

At that point, college administrators will find themselves in a very dicey situation, with few good options.

I look forward to a time when we are able to return to campus and in-person teaching. But a thorough discussion of whether, when and how we reopen our colleges and universities must be informed by what developmental science has taught us about how adolescents and young adults think. As someone who is well-versed in this literature, I will ask to teach remotely for the time being.

Laurence Steinberg is a professor of psychology at Temple University and the author of “Age of Opportunity: Lessons From the New Science of Adolescence.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We?d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here?s our email: [email protected].

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Load more