HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_12_16 KGould_Response to BoH Meeting_2From:Kincaid Gould
To:Board of Health; jeffbocc
Subject:Re: Response to 12/16/2021 BOH Meeting
Date:Thursday, December 16, 2021 10:48:40 PM
ALERT:BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not openattachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
I would also like to thank you for updating the video for the last BOH Meeting. I'll let youknow if I have any more problems with it in the future
------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, December 16th, 2021 at 10:21 PM, Kincaid Gould<kincaidgould@protonmail.com> wrote:
Dear Board of Health,
In wake of today's Board of Health meeting, I feel compelled to respond to whatwas said in response to my comment.
First, I would like to clarify that I arrived under the impression that I would have
three minutes to make comment, not just two. This resulted in me editing myprepared document in the minutes before I was given my turn to speak. I
understand that the Board has the discretion to limit the amount of time dedicatedto public comment, but I do not understand why it was decided that that would
happen at this meeting. With only four comments, a maximum of 12 minuteswould have been allocated for comments. Cutting out four minutes (assuming
everybody used their full three minutes, which apparently would not havehappened, as some people didn't even use their full two minutes) would not save
all that much time. There was clearly not an unprecedentedly large number ofcommenters at the meeting, and given that you as panelists could see who was
providing public comment, it felt to me as though the intention was to limitcertain types of comments that were anticipated. Of course, this impression
cannot be substantiated, but seeing as you saved perhaps two minutes of time bylimiting comments today, that seems to be the most plausible conclusion I can
draw. If this is the case, it is understandably disturbing.
Second, Denis Stearns responded to the fact that I brought up that MMWRarticles are not from a peer-reviewed journal. Thank you, Vice-Chair Stearns, for
taking the time to respond to at least part of what I mentioned during mycomment.
The fact that MMWR is not a peer-reviewed publication, as was acknowledged, is
common knowledge. As was stated, this does not mean that the data that comesfrom these publications are necessarily flawed or unusable. (I would have
qualified the statement I made today had I had the full three minutes I anticipatedto reflect this.)
However, it is ironic that these are the only types of articles (in addition to one
JAMA Cardiology study mentioned at Monday's BOCC meeting) that Dr. Berryhas (at least recently) cited publicly, when she makes it clear that studies should
be peer-reviewed when we talk about COVID-19. (And to be clear, I do not agreewith this statement; all peer-reviewed studies lacked a peer review at some point,
and the fact that a study has not been peer-reviewed should not mean it cannot belooked at it.) And while not all MMWR publications are of poor quality, it should
be noted that not all MMWR publications are very good sources of information,either.
Take, for example, the MMWR article about two hairstylists which claimed to
show that masks are an effective tool to combat COVID-19. Perhaps this claim istrue; the study does not offer that evidence, despite the article's claims and the
CDC's endorsement of the study as evidence for that claim. The study is riddledwith fatal design flaws, flaws which bear a striking resemblance to those found in
the "study" (for lack of a better word) that I focused on during my publiccomment.
Here are some of the problems I've identified with that particular MMWR study:
“An investigation of a high-exposure event, in which 2 symptomatically illhair stylists interacted for an average of 15 minutes with each of 139clients during an 8-day period. Found that none of the 67 clients whosubsequently consented to an interview and testing developed infection.The stylists and all clients universally wore masks in the salon as requiredby local ordinance and company policy at the time.”
The CDC’s summary of this case (above) showing “evidence of maskeffectiveness” already has serious problems. First of all, we see the samplesize is significantly under-powered with only 139 people total. However,that’s being generous as fewer than half of them, only 48.2% or 67 people,consented to being tested for COVID-19 infection. Whether or not theother half of people present contracted COVID-19 (perhapsasymptomatically) was not identified in the study. All of those who weretested were given PCR tests. The authors of the study note: “With a viralincubation of 2-14 days, any COVID-19 PCR tests obtained from clientstoo early in their course of infection could return false-negative results.”Along with this comes the problem of false positives, which are possiblein the two hair stylists.
The study goes on to say that about one month after the study started, theresearchers attempted to interview all of the clients at the hair salon. Of the139, only 104 (74.8%) consented to be interviewed. Any informationabout the other 25.2% of people is unknown.
According to the study, two of these 104 interviewees said that they werenot wearing their mask the entire time—possibly suggesting that maskshad no effect on whether or not one contracted COVID-19 (though ofcourse, this is hardly evidence to suggest that masks don’t work). Thisbrings up the issue of the lack of a control group to measure against; ifeverybody was universally masking as the study claims (and then laterrefutes by saying that at least 2 of the clients were not masked the entiretime), there’s no way to tell if the masks were effective in preventing thespread of COVID-19 or not. It’s possible that if all of the clients wereunmasked, none of them would have been infected with COVID-19 either.
Another complication arises when we consider that 17 of the interviewees(16.3%) said that they had had “respiratory symptoms in the 90 dayspreceding their appointment” and that “none reported testing for ordiagnosis of COVID-19.” It is therefore quite possible that at least 17 ofthese individuals had already had and recovered from COVID-19 in thepast. Because COVID-19 can be asymptomatic in people, it’s also possiblethat some or all of the people who didn’t report respiratory symptomscould also have developed natural immunity to the virus. The fact that theclients were not interviewed until more than a month had passed sincetheir visit to the hair salon raises the question of how well theseindividuals were able to remember 90 days prior to their appointment. It’squite possible that some of the individuals who said that they hadn’t hadsymptoms actually may have had symptoms that were so minor that theyforgot about them; conducting these interviews more promptly would havebeen better practice.
The study goes on to say that masks were not the only preventive strategyemployed by the hair salon. Indeed, there was a “citywide ordinance [that]reduced maximum building waiting area seating to 25% of normalcapacity and recommended the use of face coverings… where physicaldistancing was not possible.” The study acknowledges that additionalprecautions “were likely important factors in preventing the spread ofSARS-CoV-2 during these interactions between clients and stylists.”
The researchers conclude that “A policy mandating the use of facecoverings was likely a contributing factor in preventing transmission ofSARS-CoV-2 during the close-contact interactions between stylists andclients.” Of course, given the above constraints on this study, it’s difficultto consider this study very weighty when we consider the criteria that Dr.Berry uses for evaluating scientific discourse.
You are all entitled to your own opinions, just as I am mine. But while you can"have Dr. Berry's back," as so many of you put it, you can at the same time holdher accountable for what she says. I am actually quite surprised by her failure todefend the science supporting the vaccine passports at today's meeting, as she hason several occasions over the past weeks vaunted this single instance as proof thatthe segregative system we have in place is a reason that "we are doing so well" inJefferson County. This claim continues to remain incongruous with Chair Dean'sstatement that local policy is not based on local data. I am similarly disappointedthat yet again nobody on the Board thought it appropriate to ask Dr. Berry todefend these claims after she chose not to respond.
Do the problems I have raised not merit concern? If they do, why has nobodyasked Dr. Berry for clarification about them, despite multiple chances to havedone so? If they don't, why hasn't Dr. Berry or anybody on the Board of Healthresponded to me with the reason(s) that they are not valid concerns?
Accountability seems to have flown out the window, and while I can't honestlysay that I'm surprised, I am disillusioned.
Sincerely,
Kincaid Gould