Month: March 2020

The World Health Organization Classified Video Game Addiction as a Disorder. Now It’s Telling People to Play Video Games.

Last year, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially classified video game addiction as a mental disorder. The classification is for people who demonstrate impaired ability to control their game playing and an “increasing priority given to gaming to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other life interests and daily activities,” despite “the occurrence of negative consequences.”

But now, with much of the global economy shuttered due to a pandemic, and health experts issuing increasingly strenuous recommendations for people to avoid leaving the house whenever possible, the WHO is encouraging people to stay home—and play video games. 

The WHO is supporting a game industry initiative dubbed #PlayApartTogether, which is designed both to encourage people to play video games and to educate them about social distancing practices designed to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus. The initiative, according to USA Today, is backed by a roll call of major industry players, including Activision Blizzard, Riot Games, Unity Technologies, Amazon, Twitch, and YouTube Gaming. 

There’s nothing inherently contradictory about the WHO’s messaging, but it does serve as a reminder that gaming has social and health benefits. Although video games have become far more popular in recent years, they are still sometimes subject to a cultural stigma, a perception that they are time-wasters at best, socially corrosive at worst. That stigma has been around for as long as I can remember, from the early 1990s congressional hearings on violence in games like Mortal Kombat to the continuing efforts by politicians and pundits to tie acts of real-world violence to playing video games—despite the persistent lack of evidence. 

On the contrary, there is some evidence that video games can have health benefits, particularly when it comes to managing chronic pain. Multiple studies over the years have found that video games can help reduce physical pain and mental distress, control anxiety, and assist with trauma recovery. The reason why is simple: Games keep you engaged and focused on virtual tasks—and in the process, they distract you from what hurts, or from what nags at your mind. Today, with millions of Americans newly out of work, and many more stuck in an indefinite state of quasi-lockdown, it’s unfortunately probable that there are a lot of anxious, distressed people out there. Video games won’t solve their underlying problems. But they can distract them from those problems for a little while. 

As I have written previously, many of today’s games also serve another purpose as well, one that’s increasingly valuable at a time when we’ve all been unexpectedly forced to become shut-ins: They connect you with other people. Multiplayer online games are joint activities for competitive and cooperative play, and some seem to act as much like social networks as anything else. 

As for me, I’ve spent several recent evenings playing Doom Eternal, a high-energy, tactically complex, grindhouse throwback to the pulpy shooters of the 1990s. (If nothing else, its existence today, more than 25 years after Congress first took an interest in game violence, nearly all of which have seen declines in youth violence, suggests how misplaced the worries of the political class were.) And I’ve continued to plug away at Borderlands 3, which is currently serving up a smorgasbord of typically rare legendary weapons. Someday soon, I’ll probably play Control. At least once a day, I’ve thought it’s a real shame that Cyberpunk 2077, which is exactly the sort of gigantic, immersive game seemingly built for a nation of unexpected shut-ins, was pushed back from its original April release date. 

What I’ve gained from these games hasn’t changed, but now, perhaps, it’s more valuable than ever: a break from the world, and a break from myself. Gamers have always understood the value of a little social distance.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Uvwzt6
via IFTTT

Fifth Circuit Temporarily Stays Order Blocking Texas Coronavirus-Related Abortion Restrictions,

Before DENNIS, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: IT IS ORDERED that the district court’s order of March 30, 2020 is TEMPORARILY STAYED until further order of this court to allow this court sufficient time to consider petitioners’ emergency motion for stay and petition for writ of mandamus.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs-respondents be directed to file a response to the emergency motion for stay no later than Wednesday, April 1, 2020, at 8:00 a.m. Any reply by petitioners is due no later than Wednesday, April 1, 2020, at 8:00 p.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs-respondents be directed to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus no later than Thursday, April 2, 2020, at 8 p.m. Any reply by petitioners is due no later than Friday, April 3, 2020, at 5 p.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the filing of an amicus brief by States, Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia, is allowed.

JAMES L. DENNIS, Circuit Judge, dissenting: A federal judge has already concluded that irreparable harm would flow from allowing the Executive Order to prohibit abortions during this critical time. I would deny the stay. Moreover, I write separately to make clear that, per the Executive Order, “any procedure that, if performed in accordance with the commonly accepted standard of clinical practice, would not deplete the hospital capacity or the personal protective equipment needed to cope with the COVID-19 disaster” is exempt.

You can see the district court decision and stay briefing here, and my thoughts on the underlying question here. (Recall that the restrictions are part of a general restriction on “non-essential” surgeries and procedures.) Thanks to Josh Blackman for the pointer.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Uul1X0
via IFTTT

Not Even COVID-19 Can Shake New Jersey’s Fear of Letting Drivers Pump Their Own Gas

Some regulations have been relaxed or waived during the COVID-19 outbreak while others are being enforced with a renewed enthusiasm. Few things illustrate this dichotomy better than the polar opposite ways in which Oregon and New Jersey are handling self-service gas pumps.

Oregon has decided to loosen its restrictions on pumping your own gas. By contrast, New Jersey—the only other state to prohibit motorists from handling gas nozzles—is doubling down on its ban.

On Saturday, Oregon Fire Marshall Jim Walker announced that for the next two weeks the state would suspend some of its self-service gas regulations to cope with staff shortages and assist in social distancing measures.

“During this unprecedented time of state emergency, we need to ensure that critical supply lines for fuels and other basic services remain uninterrupted,” said Walker in a press release.

In 2015 and 2017, the Oregon legislature passed modest bills allowing gas stations in rural counties to offer self-service. But a 2019 bill that would have allowed gas stations statewide to designate up to 25 percent of their pumps as self-service went down to defeat.

The state’s new rules are hardly laissez faire. Gas stations are required to come up with a social distancing policy and to have an attendant on hand to ensure that any motorists who do pump their own gas comply with it.

Oregon gas stations may only offer unsupervised self-service—the norm in 48 states—if they operate for less than 10 consecutive hours per day and post signs explaining proper fuel pump handling. They must also document that there are no employees available to watch over drivers gassing up and prove that they’ve gone through a State Fire Marshall audit.

The Oregonian reports that lobbyists for the Oregon Fuel Association asked for the changes to deal with mounting staff shortages at the state’s gas stations.

The conditions Oregon has placed on this already marginal deregulation might seem silly. But they are preferable to the approach taken in New Jersey.

The Garden State has steadfastly refused to reform a decades-old state law that allows only state-certified gas station employees to operate fuel pumps. Not even a global pandemic, it seems, will force the state to change course.

“We have no plans to turn our gas stations into self-serve at this time,” said Gov. Phil Murphy (D). “Please DO NOT pump your own gas.”

The state’s official Twitter account also addressed the controversy, making an ostensibly hilarious reference to the fact that repeat violators of the self-service ban can be fined up to $500.

Meanwhile, fears that gas station pumps are a major source of COVID-19 transmission have themselves gone viral on social media. USA Today and Snopes have investigated this claim, finding it to be half-true. Both publications conclude that yes, you can pick up COVID-19 from surfaces, but no, gas station pumps are not more likely to spread the virus than other public, plastic surfaces.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention maintains “it may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

That would suggest that full-service gas stations, which require drivers to interact with gas station staff, are more likely to spread COVID-19 than self-service outlets.

To be sure, the risk that motorists might pick up the virus from handling pumps isn’t zero, but it could be mitigated by drivers wearing gloves or gas station staff sanitizing handles.

Which makes Oregon’s limited move to self-service a smart public health decision, as well as a marginal win for liberty. By maintaining its full-service mandate, New Jersey has characteristically chosen to be a less healthy and less free place.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2WWGg5r
via IFTTT

Zoom Conversation Tonight, 8 pm Pacific, with Michael, Will, Orin, and Me—Come Watch and Ask Questions

My cobloggers Michael Abramowicz, Will Baude, Orin Kerr, and I will enjoy a couple of drinks and talk about what’s been going on—perhaps about constitutional law in time of epidemics, force majeure clauses in contracts, distance learning and teaching and how much of it might continue after all this is over, or, basically, whatever else we feel like talking about on a Tuesday night. We’d love it if you join the Zoom session, at https://ucla.zoom.us/s/9706282095, and ask questions via chat. (If it’s too late for you where you live, we expect that we’ll record the session and post the video online.)

We have no idea how well this will work technically, though so far Zoom has been good to us. But “it is an experiment, as all life is an experiment,” and if we screw up this time, we’ll try to do better the next.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Uvsh4Y
via IFTTT

UC Tells Students “Do Not” Say “Chinese Virus” (And “Do Not Allow” Others To Say It Either)

UC Tells Students “Do Not” Say “Chinese Virus” (And “Do Not Allow” Others To Say It Either)

Authored by Arik Schneider via CampusReform.org,

The Council of Chief Diversity Officers at the University of California released a “guidance document” to announce “supportive positive and inclusive campus climates during the COVID-19 crisis.”

The list begins by telling students to “reject racism, sexism, xenophobia and all hateful or intolerant speech, both in person and online,” and to “Be an ‘up-stander,’ and discourage others from engaging in such behavior.”

“Do not use terms such as ‘Chinese Virus’ or other terms which cast either intentional or unintentional projections of hatred toward Asian communities, and do not allow the use of these terms by others,” the university tells students and faculty, insisting that all members of the campus community refer to the virus as only “COVID-19” OR “coronavirus” in all “oral and written communications.”

Officials from all UC campuses signed the guidance document, which functions as an instruction sheet for all faculty, students, and staff.

“While certain concerns of bigotry directed towards persons of Asian descent might be warranted, this UC policy implicitly attributes a malicious motive to those who refer to the coronavirus as the ‘Chinese virus’ and that is laughable,” External VP of the UC Berkeley College Republicans Rudra Reddy told Campus Reform.

“The Chinese government has actively contributed to the spread of this deadly virus by obscuring information about the outbreak and spreading devious rumors trying to assign blame to the American military,” Reddy added.

“They deserve to be called out for their role in this crisis and the UC system should not play along with their propaganda campaign to designate calls for accountability as racism.”

A graduate student from UC Santa Barbara who asked to remain anonymous said, “the fact that the UC system found it a reasonable expenditure of time to put together a ‘guidance document’ is a waste. This pandering to the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] is an attack on the mission and values of the University.”

A spokeswoman for the University of California told Campus Reform in an emailed statement, “at the University of California we put our Principles of Community into practice by fostering inclusion and respect to all, regardless of background. UC embraces freedom of speech and robust discussions. This commitment does not prevent us from speaking our core values. UC actively denounces and discourages xenophobia (prejudicial actions against people from other countries), bigotry and racism. Our guidance is consistent with our principles and values.”

As Jonathan Turley adds, it is chilling to see a public university encouraging students to stop others from referring to the “Chinese” or “Wuhan” virus. This remains a point of political debate. Many, including members of Congress continue to use this term because of its origins. Moreover, many object that China has lied about the origins of the virus and arrested scientists who tried to tell the world about its dangers. It is political speech.

We have been discussing the erosion of free speech on campuses with rising speech codes and ambiguous rules barring “microaggressions.”  A small percentage of students and faculty often push for such speech codes and regulation.  However, it is often difficult for students and faculty to object at the risk of being called intolerant or microaggressors.  We discussed previously a Gallup poll confirming that most students feel that they are no longer able to speak freely at college due to this minority of speech intolerant students and faculty. Ninety percent of Pomona students said that they did not feel free to speak openly or freely. It is an indictment of not just Pomona but many of our colleges. Nine out of ten students said that “the campus climate prevents them from saying something others might find offensive.” Nearly two-thirds of faculty feel the same.  Seventy-five percent of conservative and moderate students strongly agree that the school climate hinders their free expression.  Notably, that is “nearly 2.5 times higher than very liberal students.”

The guidelines issued by UC reflects a view that diversity allows for the silencing of others who hold opposing political views. Many view the reference to the Chinese virus as a statement of its origins and no more prejudicial than the Spanish Flu. I have previously stated that I find the use of the Chinese virus to be gratuitous and unscientific. Yet, while I use coronavirus as the term, I agree with others that we need to resist the global effort of China to bury its responsibility in concealing the facts of the outbreak, including barring disclosure during the early critical months of the outbreak.


Tyler Durden

Tue, 03/31/2020 – 14:06

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2JvdP6U Tyler Durden

‘No Confidence’: Problems Found In Dozens More FBI Spy Warrants

‘No Confidence’: Problems Found In Dozens More FBI Spy Warrants

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz notified FBI Director Christopher Wray on Monday that he “did not have confidence” that the agency was providing appropriate supporting documentation to back up assertions, after violations were found following a review of more than two dozens Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications, according to a publicly released memo.

“As a result of our audit work to date and as described below, we do not have confidence that the FBI has executed its Woods Procedures in compliance with FBI policy,” wrote Horowitz in a Management Advisory Memorandum addressed to Way.

“Specifically, the Woods Procedures mandate compiling supporting documentation for each fact in the FISA application. Adherence to the Woods Procedures should result in such documentation as a means toward achievement of the FBI’s policy that FISA applications be ‘scrupulously accurate.’“

Horowitz discovered these additional problems after visiting eight FBI field offices and reviewing a selected sample of 29 FISA applications that were tied to both counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations between October 2014 and September 2019. 

Horowitz said he chose broaden his review of FISA applications following the release of a sprawling report in December that found “fundamental and serious errors in the agents’ conduct” as it related to the Woods Procedures.

That report, which was particularly focused on the wiretap warrant FBI officials sought to surveil former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, identified numerous occasions where federal officials did not include the documentation to back up their assertions. –The Hill

“As a result of these findings, in December 2019, my office initiated an audit to examine more broadly the FBI’s execution of, and compliance with, its Woods Procedures relating to U.S. Persons covering the period from October 2014 to September 2019,” reads Horowitz’s letter. 

That said, Horowitz did not make a determination as to whether the identified issues had a material impact on the entire surveillance application.

“During this initial review, we have not made judgments about whether the errors or concerns we identified were material. Also, we do not speculate as to whether the potential errors would have influenced the decision to file the application or the FISC’s decision to approve the FISA application.”


Tyler Durden

Tue, 03/31/2020 – 13:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3atBuAm Tyler Durden

Fifth Circuit Temporarily Stays Order Blocking Texas Coronavirus-Related Abortion Restrictions,

Before DENNIS, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: IT IS ORDERED that the district court’s order of March 30, 2020 is TEMPORARILY STAYED until further order of this court to allow this court sufficient time to consider petitioners’ emergency motion for stay and petition for writ of mandamus.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs-respondents be directed to file a response to the emergency motion for stay no later than Wednesday, April 1, 2020, at 8:00 a.m. Any reply by petitioners is due no later than Wednesday, April 1, 2020, at 8:00 p.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs-respondents be directed to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus no later than Thursday, April 2, 2020, at 8 p.m. Any reply by petitioners is due no later than Friday, April 3, 2020, at 5 p.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the filing of an amicus brief by States, Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia, is allowed.

JAMES L. DENNIS, Circuit Judge, dissenting: A federal judge has already concluded that irreparable harm would flow from allowing the Executive Order to prohibit abortions during this critical time. I would deny the stay. Moreover, I write separately to make clear that, per the Executive Order, “any procedure that, if performed in accordance with
the commonly accepted standard of clinical practice, would not deplete the
hospital capacity or the personal protective equipment needed to cope with the
COVID-19 disaster” is exempt.

You can see the district court decision and stay briefing here, and my thoughts on the underlying question here.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Uul1X0
via IFTTT

Not Even COVID-19 Can Shake New Jersey’s Fear of Letting Drivers Pump Their Own Gas

Some regulations have been relaxed or waived during the COVID-19 outbreak while others are being enforced with a renewed enthusiasm. Few things illustrate this dichotomy better than the polar opposite ways in which Oregon and New Jersey are handling self-service gas pumps.

Oregon has decided to loosen its restrictions on pumping your own gas. By contrast, New Jersey—the only other state to prohibit motorists from handling gas nozzles—is doubling down on its ban.

On Saturday, Oregon Fire Marshall Jim Walker announced that for the next two weeks the state would suspend some of its self-service gas regulations to cope with staff shortages and assist in social distancing measures.

“During this unprecedented time of state emergency, we need to ensure that critical supply lines for fuels and other basic services remain uninterrupted,” said Walker in a press release.

In 2015 and 2017, the Oregon legislature passed modest bills allowing gas stations in rural counties to offer self-service. But a 2019 bill that would have allowed gas stations statewide to designate up to 25 percent of their pumps as self-service went down to defeat.

The state’s new rules are hardly laissez faire. Gas stations are required to come up with a social distancing policy and to have an attendant on hand to ensure that any motorists who do pump their own gas comply with it.

Oregon gas stations may only offer unsupervised self-service—the norm in 48 states—if they operate for less than 10 consecutive hours per day and post signs explaining proper fuel pump handling. They must also document that there are no employees available to watch over drivers gassing up and prove that they’ve gone through a State Fire Marshall audit.

The Oregonian reports that lobbyists for the Oregon Fuel Association asked for the changes to deal with mounting staff shortages at the state’s gas stations.

The conditions Oregon has placed on this already marginal deregulation might seem silly. But they are preferable to the approach taken in New Jersey.

The Garden State has steadfastly refused to reform a decades-old state law that allows only state-certified gas station employees to operate fuel pumps. Not even a global pandemic, it seems, will force the state to change course.

“We have no plans to turn our gas stations into self-serve at this time,” said Gov. Phil Murphy (D). “Please DO NOT pump your own gas.”

The state’s official Twitter account also addressed the controversy, making an ostensibly hilarious reference to the fact that repeat violators of the self-service ban can be fined up to $500.

Meanwhile, fears that gas station pumps are a major source of COVID-19 transmission have themselves gone viral on social media. USA Today and Snopes have investigated this claim, finding it to be half-true. Both publications conclude that yes, you can pick up COVID-19 from surfaces, but no, gas station pumps are not more likely to spread the virus than other public, plastic surfaces.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention maintains “it may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

That would suggest that full-service gas stations, which require drivers to interact with gas station staff, are more likely to spread COVID-19 than self-service outlets.

To be sure, the risk that motorists might pick up the virus from handling pumps isn’t zero, but it could be mitigated by drivers wearing gloves or gas station staff sanitizing handles.

Which makes Oregon’s limited move to self-service a smart public health decision, as well as a marginal win for liberty. By maintaining its full-service mandate, New Jersey has characteristically chosen to be a less healthy and less free place.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2WWGg5r
via IFTTT

Zoom Conversation Tonight, 8 pm Pacific, with Michael, Will, Orin, and Me—Come Watch and Ask Questions

My cobloggers Michael Abramowicz, Will Baude, Orin Kerr, and I will enjoy a couple of drinks and talk about what’s been going on—perhaps about constitutional law in time of epidemics, force majeure clauses in contracts, distance learning and teaching and how much of it might continue after all this is over, or, basically, whatever else we feel like talking about on a Tuesday night. We’d love it if you join the Zoom session, at https://ucla.zoom.us/s/9706282095, and ask questions via chat. (If it’s too late for you where you live, we expect that we’ll record the session and post the video online.)

We have no idea how well this will work technically, though so far Zoom has been good to us. But “it is an experiment, as all life is an experiment,” and if we screw up this time, we’ll try to do better the next.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Uvsh4Y
via IFTTT

Health Care Workers Need Masks (and the Rest of Us Need Them, Too)

“Everyone at this point is kind of on their own, making ready for being able to reuse―especially masks―but also things like gowns and plastic sheets to be able to keep our barriers when we’re doing difficult procedures with patients,” says Case Newsom, an emergency medicine doctor based in Denver. 

Doctors around the country are running dangerously low on N95 masks, which protocol says they should wear and then dispose of every time they walk out of an infected patient’s room. So they’re reusing the same masks repeatedly and learning to sew their own surgical masks.

“My colleagues on the East Coast…are facing significant shortages,” says Newsom. “So they’re busy at work creating UV decontamination ovens on their own because those are expensive and difficult to come by, but easy enough to produce.” 

The federal government estimates that medical professionals will need 3.5 billion masks if the worst-case projections come true. The U.S. currently had about 1 percent of that number on hand at the beginning of March.

Charities and major corporations have donated masks to hospitals, and manufacturers like Honeywell and 3M have stepped up production.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has asked President Donald Trump to use the Defense Production Act to force companies to start making masks.

And yet official channels likely won’t come close to meeting the needs of health care workers, so some technologists are taking matters into their own hands. But will government officials adhere to existing regulations and slow down these efforts? And if mask production increased to serve the entire population, could it hasten the end of the extreme social distancing crippling our economy?

Matt Chisholm is a spokesperson for the Open PPE Project, which is developing a protocol for the production of N95 masks, which experts believe provide fairly reliable protection against COVID-19.

They’re planning to open their own factory in Michigan and to develop a manufacturing blueprint that anyone can use.

“Some of the early challenges we’ve seen are [from] the regulatory state,” says Chisholm. 

Masks require Food and Drug Administration approval for sale to medical facilities, though the agency indicated an increased willingness to approve emergency use authorizations in late March.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), regulates filtration mask factories. According to Chisholm, an official with the agency told his team that it will take 45 to 90 days to get approval for a new mask production facility

“That obviously poses some challenges for the current crisis,” says Chisholm. “You could theoretically end up with 45 to 90 days’ worth of supplies that are in a warehouse instead of out on the frontline saving lives. So we see that as a problem.” 

Chisholm suggests accrediting universities that have the testing capabilities to certify the effectiveness of the masks.

Meanwhile, 3D-printing enthusiasts are sidestepping regulatory approval altogether by teaching people how to make their own masks.

The DIY mask approach has taken off in the Czech Republic in particular, where surgical mask sewing efforts are being coordinated over the internet by people providing instructions and tips, as well as mapping facilities and areas where masks are most needed.

“The CDC is stating that we’re to be using bandanas if it comes down to it,” says Newsom. “I understand that it’s not a perfect solution. But, that being said, anything, I think, would be better than the sort of last resort of [healthcare workers] having to [make] their own.” 

And some say that ubiquitous mask-wearing could make it safer to end extreme social distancing.

But public health agencies have issued conflicting information about their efficacy.

On February 29, the Surgeon General urged the public to stop buying masks, claiming they’re ineffective at stopping the transmission of COVID-19 and could even increase one’s likelihood of catching it. The CDC and World Health Organization have recommended mask-wearing only for those displaying symptoms or for those who are in direct contact with infected individuals.

But critics say this is inaccurate and that public health officials may have purposely spread misinformation to discourage people from running out and buying masks, making it even harder for doctors, nurses, and first responders to obtain them.

Mask-wearing is widespread in Hong Kong and Taiwan, which seem to have better controlled COVID-19 without prolonged lockdowns. Hong Kong’s public health officials have called for mask-wearing on public transit and in the workplace.

There’s some evidence that masks help stop the spread of the flu.

And though strong evidence that face masks prevent respiratory infections is still “scarce” due to a lack of rigorous study, according to a March 2020 paper published in The Lancet, there is a chance that “community transmission might be reduced if everyone…wear[s] face masks.”

“We should prioritize the health care workers,” says Oxford researcher Elaine Fong, who co-authored the paper. “But that should not be the rationale for telling the public that face masks [are] not effective.”

Fong says that with increasing evidence that people showing no symptoms of COVID-19 can transmit the virus, wider adoption of masks in public spaces would be prudent.

“In Asian countries, it’s more likely to be a civic duty for people to wear a face mask,” says Fong. “We think that a universal face masks policy during a pandemic could help reduce the stigmatization of people [who choose] to wear face masks, if the supply permits.”

The Open PPE Project’s priority is producing N95 masks for medical workers at the moment.

“I’m probably not in a place to speculate on the role masks will play beyond medical personnel [right now],” says Chisholm. “We weren’t prepared for this, and we need to get back to good and make sure we can arm our frontline personnel with the equipment they need. We also have to be ready for what any pandemic in the future could good bring and manufacturing readiness could really help that.”

And Newsom asks that anyone with extra N95 masks or other essential medical gear donate them to medical professionals to help adjust to this new reality.

“It’s the nature of our work that we are touching patients that have respiratory problems and we really would benefit from those masks in our hands,” says Newsom. “I’m literally witnessing colleagues of mine learning how to hunker down and do protective measures. I mean, but I didn’t learn any of that in my residency…The fact that this is all happening [at the] point of care when the need arises goes to show the level of unpreparedness.”

Produced by Zach Weissmueller, additional graphics by Josh Swain

Music: “Environmental Disaster Zone,” “Trees in the Wind,” and “Call Me” by Daniel Birch licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. 

Photos: medical workers putting on protective gear, Eddie Siguenza/Us Army/ZUMA Press/Newscom; worker delivering masks, Ron Adar/Zuma Press/Newscom; doctor putting on mask, Sara Eshleman/U.S. Navy/Zuma Press/Newscom; social distancing outside Whole Foods, Richard B. Levine/Newscom; masks on public transit in Hong Kong, Tang Yan/Zuma Press/Newscom; masks at airport in Hong Kong, May James/SOPA Images/Sipa USA/Newscom; Andrew Cuomo Giving Presser, SteveSands/NewYorkNewswire/MEGA/Newscom; ID 173833922 © Sopone Nawoot | Dreamstime.com

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2JpUW5j
via IFTTT