Gov. Lamont needs to roll back capacity limits now

The following is an opinion piece.

How do I start this piece? By praising our governor for not groping his underlings, Cuomo style? For focusing first on nursing home residents with the vaccine rollout, thereby nearly eliminating Covid deaths there? Ok, tick those boxes. But let's move on to the meat of the story.

Governor Ned Lamont has foolishly opened up the state. Mask-schmask. If a restaurant is open to 100 percent capacity, that is a lot of aerosols spewed over the course of a 20-minute meal. And if your neighbors are like mine, they are sitting to chat another 20 minutes, maskless, before departing. Pity the poor restaurant staff who must serve them, only with the aim of running home to feed their families, terrified that Covid has infected their aprons.

Then there are the gyms. Why can't people just exercise like I do, by taking long walks in our beautiful state? It's gorgeous out there - any season, frankly, but especially now. Let's not put the onus on the gym-goer, though, who may or may not understand the science of this pernicious disease.

We are at war. Covid-19 is winning because of human behavior, governmental stupidity and ego, and variants. We cannot change human behavior but we should at least expect our leaders to lead, to follow the science and not flout it. Yet, Governor Lamont has gone against scientific experts by saying sure, as of March 19, no need for capacity limits at Joe's Bar-b-que. Here are some numbers for you: On March 19, according to The New York Times, our state had 1,207 new cases and a seven-day average of 873. April 9 we had 1,807 new cases and seven-day average of 1,090. Our prevalence of B117, which is 60 percent more deadly, is, as of April 10, 2021, 39.2 percent of our cases. Yes, the death rate has gone down, as it has nationwide, but these cases mean more illness - sometimes what is called "Long Covid" - for dozens of sufferers.

If I were 20 and knew I could hang out with my friends at any restaurant in town, I might do it - unless my mother, father, or scientist uncle shook me to my senses. That is what we need to do with our own governor, who obviously cares more about pleasing the restaurant interests than human beings.

Last June I wrote an article in which I highlighted a Texas A&M study as well as a University of Cambridge research report that looked at person-to-person transmission. Researchers found that mask wearing not only helped the rate of infection, but reduced what is called the "R" number, the average number of people who will be infected by someone with COVID-19. That number needs to stay below 1 to slow the virus' spread.

"“…[M]asks have a role to play in reducing the spread of coronavirus, especially if more people wear them,” the lead author of the University of Cambridge study, Richard Stutt, told TheDoctor, adding, “masks can provide significant benefits even if they are not perfect.”

The Cambridge study found that if people wear masks whenever they are in public it is twice as effective at reducing the “R” number than if masks are only worn after symptoms appear.

Across the Pond, researchers from Texas A&M University, California Institute of Technology and the University of California, San Diego found that not wearing a face mask profoundly increases one's chances of being infected by SARS Co-V-2:

“Our results clearly show that airborne transmission via respiratory aerosols represents the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19,” said researcher Renyi Zhang, Texas A&M Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and the Harold J. Haynes Chair in the College of Geosciences in a statement. “…[W]e calculated that over 66,000 infections were prevented by using a face mask in little over a month in New York City. We conclude that wearing a face mask in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent inter-human transmission.”

Now, that is all well and good but you may be asking yourself, what does this have to do with reopenings and 100 percent capacity limits? First, then, when was the last time you ate with your mask on? Point made. Second, capacity limits do lead to less transmission, as shown in another study, out of Stanford and Northwestern, which I wrote about for the same publication:

In Connecticut, for example, Governor Ned Lamont started reopening from Phase 1, when restaurants could only serve outdoors and were restricted to 50 percent capacity, to allowing up to 50 percent to dine indoors, to this past July allowing up to 75 percent indoor dining capacity. After this occurred, a steady spike in cases ensued, and as of November 15, the Nutmeg State has rolled back to what is called Phase 2.1, allowing only 50 percent to dine indoors.

Further, superspreader locations or events account for a majority of infections, as shown by cell phone tracking - with 10 percent of one major city's locations accounting for an average of 80 percent of its infections. The very nature of congregating at a gym, house of worship, Joe's Diner or anywhere means we are putting ourselves at risk. Remember the basic tenets of Dr. Fauci - social distancing, mask-wearing, hand washing. Lamont's opening modus operandi seems to be 'go eat out, social distance as much as possible, wear a mask (except when you eat) and support the restaurant business!'

No one wants to support the restaurant business more than I. I have worked at restaurants - Denny's and Friendly's right here in Connecticut. It is tough work. We relied on tips. I can only imagine the anguish the servers, managers and owners have been going through - which means Lamont needs to step it up with subsidies to restaurant workers to allow them to stay home until we are out of the woods.

That day will not happen as long as it's a free-for-all at our gyms and restaurants.

Laurie Wiegler