City Councilmembers,
I note that Healthy Davis Together (HDT) is scheduled to end its public testing services at the end of this month. I am concerned about the timing of this closure during a large surge of Covid-19. The surge is not unexpected with masking reduction, public burnout and a highly-contagious variant. True that far less people are dying, but why shut down testing just as there is a huge upsurge in cases and a small uptick in deaths?
Last time the HDT program was slated for shutdown, I suggested rather than shutting down the program, start charging for testing, and allow for those testing to 'sponsor' more tests by paying for tests for others in need. I believe the community will respond generously. Many I have have spoken to are dismayed at the end of H.D.T testing, and would welcome the continuation of the program as a pay service. I encourage Council to push for this option.
I saw pictures of the previous (first live) City Council meeting in 'a local blog'. Great photos of all of you. But no one on the dais was wearing a mask. Photos of the audience showed a spattering of maskless and masked -- using cloth, surgical, N95. What is the mask policy? What is the message the Council wishes to send? Why the choice to have the first live meeting and not wear masks as we headed into a surge?
Society today -- supposedly compassionate towards marginalized peoples -- is being oddly cruel in dismissing that Covid-19 "only" kills the old and the sick. Are 'old' and 'sick' not marginalized groups that we should care for? Being that I will be 'old' soon (in the category where Covid-19 death is much more likely), I would prefer to live in a society that gives a crap.
I go to one business downtown and they require full N95 masking for all clients who enter. I go to another business wearing a mask and am taken to a closed office with a maskless woman who never even asks if I'd prefer she wore a mask. Many people seem done with Covid-19. Yet, I know more people who have contracted Covid-19 in the last two months than the previous two years. My pre-Covid-19 work building was just declared a 'severe outbreak location' for the first time in the pandemic. But apparently we are tired of Covid-19, so end the testing, end the masking?
Official health guidelines are insanely confusing. The County lists a state website that grades types of masks by their usefulness. N95 is 'very good', surgical is 'good', cloth is 'fair'. This is for a deadly virus.
Can you imagine if health officials used a similar system for prophylactics? Latex is 'very good', lambskin is 'good', a plastic baggie is 'fair' ? Of course for something non-fatal health officials are clear that the only way to protect one's self, and others, is to use a latex condom. But we teach that a cloth mask is a 'fair' option. As the concept of masks has changed from 'everyone helps everyone' to 'everyone for themselves', and all masks are widely available, it is paramount that the vulnerable public is guided to use only the most protective masks.
As well, home Covid-19 tests have proven to frequently give false negatives. This is worse than no tests at all, as people may visit an old and/or vulnerable family member with the false security of having taken an inadequate home test.
I recently learned that although HDT is shutting down, a "test -to-treat" facility is opening in Woodland, offering a same day full round of Paxlovid if one tests positive. I learned about this not from the City, but from the California Aggie. Will a "test-to-treat" facility be opening in Davis soon?
I urge the Council to: A) Wear masks at meetings while the surge continues; B) Continue Healthy Davis Together as a paid program allowing donations for the needy; C) Give a clear message as to where we are in the pandemic that considers a balance between business needs, healthy citizens, and vulnerable citizens; D) Give clear information about testing and treatment available to Davis residents beyond June 30.
Sincerely,
Alan C. Miller
District 3
I have aural nerve damage in one ear and so have had to, out of necessity, learn how sound affects the human body. Loud sounds can cause me splitting headaches emanating from the inside of the ear, severe ringing in the ears, internal ear pressure, disorientation, burning, aural misinterpretations, etc. Sound frequency, duration, distance, peak-volume and distortion all factor into the severity of an 'event' as I have come to know them.
Though dependent on particular circumstances, in general shorter bursts of loud sounds are more damaging than longer duration of softer sounds. That is why going with some sort of 'averaging' system would be a tragic mistake. This would ignore the very real damage done by peak sounds. My world-renowned ear doctor from Stanford Ear Clinic would back me up on this. He has coached me on how to live with my condition, which is not treatable.
My ear doctor explains that there is a 'threshold' level at which the noise becomes damaging to hearing (in my case, the threshold is much lower than those with a healthy ear). The PEAK noise is almost always the problem. Therefore, changing the city noise ordinance to consider some AVERAGE measurement as the standard is not only unwise, it is INSANE.
To give an example of how unwise this is, an example everyone can understand - consider train horns. A train horn -- at 100' in front of the horn -- ranges from 96 to 110 db. Even at the low end this is painfully loud, and on the high end can cause ear damage in just a few seconds. But, if you averaged the railroad noise around the tracks over a period of hours, it would show very low AVERAGE noise as over time there are few trains. The PEAK noise is when the damage is done; AVERAGING OVER TIME would FAIL to CATCH the DAMAGING peak sounds.
While I am more bothered by sound than those with healthy hearing, ear disease is rampant and hugely under-diagnosed in this country. There are many people with my condition and many other hearing diseases who are intolerant of various sound conditions. This is not just about an annoyance, it is at times debilitating.
Another thing to consider is that those close to a noise source suffer from the exposure repeatedly and over time. Those adjacent to noise sources are the people who must be considered paramount and above all else. Let's say a nightclub with sub-woofers goes in next door to someone's house. But ON AVERAGE less than 1% of the people in town even hear the noise. The standard must be on how the noise effects those adjacent, not on the fact that 99% of Davis voters never hear it. Another abominable use of 'average' exposure.
I urge the commission, the City, and the Council to retain current noise-ordinance formulas and standards, and reject any attempt to change the noise ordinance to be more allowing of harmful peak noise exposures.
Sincerely,
Alan C. Miller, District 3