The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02172021_Huenke_double mask evidence_ResponseFrom:Tom Locke To:Annette Huenke Cc:Vicki Kirkpatrick; Karen Abbott; Liz Anderson Subject:Re: this morning"s BOCC meeting Date:Wednesday, February 17, 2021 2:50:41 PM Attachments:MMWR Masking.pdfscience-of-masking-full.pdf Ms. Huenke, All science-based information has elements of uncertainty and is subject to challenge and, hopefully, increasing reliability. This is how the scientific method works. I agree it is wrong to pathologize dissent or to marginalize unwelcome voices. Just as there is science, which seeks to establish the true nature of things, there is also pseudoscience, which perverts that process by selectively citing supporting information while ignoring or distorting non-supporting information. It can be difficult for the general public to distinguish between the two. The COVID-19 pandemic is the worst public health crisis that the U.S. has faced in the past 100 years. It's management has been seriously compromised by those who embraced and promoted "alternative facts" to support their views that non-pharmacological mitigations like masking, distancing, and restricted gatherings are a fundamental violation of human rights. The Great Barrington Declaration and the ongoing pseudoscientific opposition to mask use are examples of this phenomenon and pit individual liberty against public health. The CDC reliably estimates that 59% of SARS-CoV-2 infections are transmitted by asymptomatic cases (35% presymptomatic, 24% never symptomatic). Universal masking is the only viable strategy to interrupt this transmission pathway and has a growing evidentiary base. Attached are some additional links from recent CDC publications. Based on what we currently know, the refusal to wear masks in public settings at times of high COVID-19 prevalence is truly sociopathic -- antisocial behavior characterized by the willful disregard of the welfare of others. It is also illegal. I do not think it is not too much to ask to prevent a potentially lethal infection in someone else. I am sorry that you took personal offense at my statement that "no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic denialism and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs." In this statement I am referring to the well recognized phenomena of the "unpersuadable" (The Unpersuadables: Adventures with the Enemies of Science by Will Storr (goodreads.com)), those who reject scientific information because it is in conflict with their fundamental, non-rational worldview. No amount of information will change the mind of someone who is unpersuadable. This worldview drives the "anti-vaxxer" movement and has been dramatically amplified by the ubiquity of social media and the ability of people to curate their own reality by selective exposure to only those facts that support their worldview. I am always happy to consider alternative views but have come to recognize the futility of arguing with those who only seek the confirmation of their own beliefs. My prime responsibility as the county health officer is to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in this community and to reduce morbidity and mortality to the greatest extent feasible. This battle is very real and we deal with individuals and families who lives are profoundly disrupted by this pandemic every day. As a nation we have paid a terrible price for pandemic denialism -- a very high death rate (currently at 485,000) and a case rate (27 million) far in excess of what a country with our resources and technology could have achieved. These are not just harmless differences of opinion, they have real world consequences. You cite Dr. Anthony Fauci, a distinguished infectious disease specialist, but you do so out of context. In other public statements he has supported masking, including improved mask design and the benefits of "double masking". Double masking is not a panacea for the problem of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but is one more option. The takeaway from the CDC information and similar research to date is that people should use high quality masks and use them in situations where asymptomatic transmission can occur. If we fail, once again, to make reasonable personal sacrifices for the common good, it is likely that SARS-CoV-2 variants will spread faster than vaccination efforts can suppress them, necessitating renewed school and business closures. While your comments to the Boards of Health and County Commissioners are always welcome, I am unable to continue to respond personally to your statements due to time limitations. I regard the CDC as an authoritative source of information, especially under the leadership of the Biden administration and refer you to their various websites and publications for the latest research on the topics you are interested in. Sincerely, Tom Locke, MD, MPH Jefferson County Health Officer From: Annette Huenke <amh@olympus.net> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 5:45 PM To: Tom Locke Cc: Karen Abbott; Vicki Kirkpatrick; Board of Health Subject: re: this morning's BOCC meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Ad hominem attacks are unbecoming a man in your position, Dr. Locke, and says a lot more about you than it does about those you are eager to insult. Pathologizing dissent is not a new tactic for marginalizing unwelcome voices. So-called ‘witches’ were similarly outed in their communities and burned at the stake for such digressions. The strategy was perhaps perfected by the Soviets in the mid-twentieth century, deployed against anyone who deviated from the official narrative. For ten months now a handful of concerned citizen researchers have been highlighting bona fide studies from reputable sources to broaden the perspective of local policy makers. Those sources include the CDC, WHO and top scientists and universities around the globe. Last Monday you stated publicly that “there is a lot of evidence” to support double-masking. ‘A lot of evidence’ turns out to be a NIH ‘commentary’ that purports to "summarize the evidence on face masks for Covid-19 from both the infectious diseases and physical science viewpoints.” Similar to the ‘evidence review’ you provided the board on May 21st last year, this one manages to summarize evidence that supports the goals of its funders while ignoring the plethora of research that does not. It is a text book example of cherry-picking. “A lot of evidence" for double-masking is actually several small mechanistic experiments conducted with manikins. Manikins don’t breathe. Employing the tired "it would be unethical” trope, in this case to deny proper PPE to a control group, rings hollow when we know full well that there is a sizable portion of the population that can’t or won’t wear masks. In an AFT Fireside Chat on January 28th, just over two weeks ago, Anthony Fauci said “There’s no evidence that indicates that that [2 masks] is going to make a difference. And that is why the CDC has not changed their recommendation.” He’d advised double-masking shortly before that, surely aware that this ‘commentary’ was soon to be released. You have steadfastly rejected the research we’ve supplied that demonstrates known harms from masking. You haven’t expressed real concern about improper use and care of the masks you relentlessly promote. Sadly, you’re now encouraging people to further reduce their oxygen supply and increase their own carbon dioxide intake. You and your colleagues do not have a corner on valid science. You are not all-knowing, all- seeing, infallible. Thousands of experts with credentials that exceed yours, John Wiesman’s and Anthony Fauci’s disagree with you. That they are being censored and you are not is the reveal. Censorship is employed by authorities to conceal the truth. I offer you a table turned — "no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic" propaganda "and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs.” Annette Huenke On Feb 8, 2021, at 4:13 PM, Tom Locke <tlocke@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: The rationale for double masking (spun polypropylene inner mask, two layer cotton outer) is based on an enhanced mechanical filtration effect (extra layers) and an electrostatic charge being generated (triboelectric effect) by dissimilar fabrics. CDC is conducting comparative studies of masking efficacy but this will likely be confined to filtration measures. "Hard data" (epidemiological studies demonstrating decreased transmission and/or acquisition of infection) are much more difficult and raise ethical concerns (re: control groups use of substandard or no PPE). And no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic denialism and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs. Tom Locke, MD, MPH Jefferson County Health Officer ________________________________________ From: Annette Huenke <amh@olympus.net> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 12:23 PM To: Board of Health Subject: Resending to include Dr. Locke: re: this morning's BOCC meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Good afternoon, all. This morning Dr. Locke said that “there is a lot of evidence” to support double- masking. Kindly provide that evidence in a reply to this email at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Annette Huenke ***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56*** <face mask evidence.pdf>