New COVID-19 surges have put many communities across the nation in a precarious position. The highly transmissible and evasive BA.5 subvariant is getting little resistance from populations that have largely abandoned basic precautions like mask-wearing that limited its spread.
While deaths and hospitalizations are lower thanks to the availability of vaccines and treatments, new risks are invited by ignoring what we have learned after two-plus years and 1 million deaths.
Despite the general apathy about masks, the threat of future variants that may have even greater ability to evade vaccines should compel us to tamp down the spread of the virus before the fall. State and local officials who defer to them could enact sensible measures to reduce transmission without pursuing broad mandates that many people would likely oppose. Reviving mask requirements in certain environments, such as public transportation, large indoor gatherings, certain school settings and workplaces, could reduce transmission without restricting public life.
The power to require such precautions largely lies with governors and the states’ departments of health. As an example, in California, Sacramento County Public Health Officer Dr. Olivia Kasirye said she would comply with a statewide mandate but has no plan to follow in the footsteps of Los Angeles County, where a new mask mandate could be ordered this week. California’s current guidance is simply a “strong recommendation” in favor of masking indoors.
Local health officers like Kasirye are hobbled by the politics of mandates, which she believes are likely to be widely flouted and become ineffective. Fewer individuals and businesses are willing to comply than in the early days of the pandemic, leaving us with an environment in which local public health officials look to state leaders for guidance — and receive little or none.
“We feel that continuing with the ‘strong recommendation’ … and being able to have a readily-available vaccine is the best option that we have right now,” Kasirye said. “Unless there’s a huge change in the number of cases or deaths or hospitalizations, we’re not anticipating that we will issue any such health order.”
In many parts of the U.S., the uptick in cases is comparable to the multiple waves that buckled hospitals before vaccines and effective treatments were readily available. At the same time, broader access to at-home testing means the number of publicly reported cases is likely an undercount. While the number of deaths and hospitalizations provide the best indicators for the dangers of the current surge, they shouldn’t be the only motivation for pursuing health measures.
Now, 28 months after the first stay-at-home orders, state leaders are reluctant to act because COVID-19 fatigue and pandemic politics have made public health orders controversial despite the risk of sickness, hardship and long-term symptoms.
The most effective way to get past this difficult period would be to accept some inconveniences and take precautions in high-transmission settings, giving us time to combat future mutations.
The obvious prescription may be odious to some, but if Americans refuse to use the best weapons we have to reduce transmission, we will keep prolonging this pandemic and inviting the virus to adapt faster than we can.
— Tribune News Service
