Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-28; City Council; ; Administrative Enforcement of the Facial Covering Requirements of State and County Public Health OrdersITEM #11 - ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FACIAL COVERING REQUIREMENTS OF STATE AND COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS - Motion to adopt resolution failed – 2/2 (Hall, Blackburn – No). CITY COUNCIL Staff Report CA Review AF Meeting Date: July 28, 2020 To: Mayor and City Council From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager Staff Contact: Allegra Frost, Deputy City Attorney allegra.frost@carlsbad.ca, 760-573-1125 Subject: Administrative Enforcement of the Facial Covering Requirements of State and County Public Health Orders Recommended Action Consider adopting a resolution that would allow for the administrative enforcement of the San Diego County public health order, including the face-covering requirements. Executive Summary The City Council approved a minute motion at its July 14, 2020 meeting that directed staff to provide the council with administrative enforcement options for obtaining compliance with the state and county orders requiring people to wear facial coverings in certain situations. As staff noted in that meeting, criminal enforcement as a method of obtaining compliance with the facial covering requirement presents unique constitutional challenges. Because of these challenges, law enforcement agencies across California have preferred other methods, such as education and the distribution of complimentary face coverings, over criminal enforcement. Administrative enforcement, a method undertaken by a handful of Southern California cities, would allow the city to issue administrative citations, in accordance with Chapter 1.10 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, for violations of the facial covering requirement. This report explains how such enforcement could be enacted and implemented, the benefits to the public health it might provide, as well as the significant constitutional challenges that would remain. Discussion Background The health and safety of the public has been the city's highest priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. The city has followed California and San Diego County public health order and related protocols in making the difficult decisions involved in its response to this crisis. A major part of the city's efforts has been to encourage people to cover their faces with masks when they leave their homes and cannot maintain the physical distance required to slow the spread of this disease. City police officers, city staff and volunteers have done extensive education efforts and handed out more than 178,000 masks to community members and visitors, particularly along the beach, one of the city's most trafficked areas, and in group July 28, 2020 Item #11 Page 1 of 13 homes and to the homeless. The city has used its communications channels — its website, and social media platforms —to encourage and educate the public about the important of face covering. Staff have also put up signs at entrances to city property and are placing more than 100 banners, some in Spanish, at key points around the city in the public right of way to remind the public of the face-covering requirement. Despite the city's public education campaign, there have been complaints that some people are not wearing face coverings when required by the public health order. This has led some community members to call for enforcement of the public health order, not just education. To staff's knowledge, no law enforcement agency in San Diego County has cited or arrested anyone for violating the public health order by failing to wear a facial covering. Several other cities in California, including Beverly Hills, Calabasas, Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood, have authorized administrative enforcement of the face-covering requirement. Manhattan Beach has begun using a contractor to issue a limited number of administrative citations for violations of its face-covering requirement. Cities nationwide are grappling with the question of how to get people to comply with the public health orders that require facial coverings. Very few cities have issued citations because the requirements and the exceptions to the requirements make it difficult for officers to meet the legal standard necessary to stop and temporarily detain someone, as explained below. San Diego County Public Health Order's face-covering requirement The public health order states, "All persons two years of age or older who are present in the county shall have possession of a face covering when they leave their home or place of residence and shall wear the face covering as described and required in (the) California Department of Public Health Face Covering Guidance."1 The public health order requires everyone two years of age or older to wear a face covering in the following situations: • When inside of, or in line to enter, any indoor public space • When obtaining services from the healthcare sector • When waiting for or riding public transportation, in a taxi, a private car service, or a ride- sharing vehicle • While working, if the person is also: o Interacting in-person with any member of the public o In any space visited by members of the public o In any space where food is prepared or packaged for others o In common areas, such as hallways, stairways, elevators, and parking facilities o In any room or enclosed area where other people (except members of the person's household or residence) are present, when unable to physically distance • When driving or operating any public transportation or paratransit vehicle, taxi, or private car service or ride-sharing vehicle when passengers are present The state face covering protocols are available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/Guidance-for-Face- Coverings_06-18-2020.pdf July 28, 2020 Item #11 Page 2 of 13 • When outdoors in public spaces, if maintaining a physical distance of 6 feet from persons who are not members of the same household or residence is not feasible The public health order generally does not require a person to wear a face covering if the person is walking outdoors in a public place and maintaining a six-foot distance from others who are not in the person's household. This means seeing someone walking around outdoors without a face covering, whether alone or with others, is not, by itself, an indication that the person is failing to comply with the face-covering requirement. The public health order also exempts eight categories of people from the face-covering requirement. These include people: 1. Younger than 2, as noted above 2. With a medical condition, mental health condition, or disability that prevents wearing a face covering 3. Who are hearing impaired, or communicating with a person who is hearing impaired 4. For whom wearing a face covering would create a risk to the person related to their work, as determined by local, state, or federal regulators or workplace safety guidelines 5. Obtaining a service involving the nose or face for which temporary removal of the face covering is necessary to perform the service 6. Seated at a restaurant or other establishment that offers food or beverage service while eating or drinking, if they can maintain a distance of at least six feet away from persons who are not members of the same household or residence 7. Engaged in outdoor work or recreation such as swimming, walking, hiking, bicycling or running, when alone or with household members, and when they are able to maintain a distance of at least six feet from others 8. Who are incarcerated While some of these exemptions can be readily determined, others cannot, particularly the exemptions for medical conditions, mental health conditions, disabilities and outdoor recreation with household members. Consequently, even in situations in which the public health order might otherwise require a person to wear a face covering, such as in an indoor public place, the absence of a face covering is not necessarily a failure to comply with the public health order. The public health order authorizes police departments to enforce the order under California Government Code sections 26602 and 41601 and Health and Safety Code Section 101029. Violations of the public health order may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor with fines of up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to 90 days. July 28, 2020 Item #11 Page 3 of 13 Administrative enforcement In addition to criminal misdemeanor enforcement, the City Council may authorize administrative citations with accompanying fines for individuals and businesses who fail to comply with the requirements contained in the public health order. Administrative citations are similar to infractions, such as minor traffic violations, in the sense that the penalty is a fine and does not include incarceration. However, an administrative citation is processed within the city and does not go through the court system, so there is no court hearing and no impact on the person's criminal record. A city zoning violation is an example of an administrative citation. It comes with fines for failing to comply and continuing failure may result in increased fines or perhaps other sanctions, though not a jail or prison sentence. In Carlsbad, the city's authority and procedures for processing administrative citations are contained in Chapter 1.10 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. That chapter states that an enforcement officer who observes a violation of the municipal code may issue an administrative citation to the responsible party. Carlsbad Municipal Code section 1.10.080 states that the enforcement official will issue a notice of violation before issuing an administrative citation. However, the proposed resolution would allow the enforcement officer to immediately issue an administrative citation. The penalties would be $100 for the first violation, $200 for a second violation committed within one year of the first violation, and $500 for a third violation or subsequent violations committed within a year of the first violation. These penalties are established by section 1.10.100(A) of the Municipal Code, in accordance with the amounts authorized by California Government Code sections 36900(b)-(d) and 53069.4(a)(1). Failure to pay an administrative citation penalty results in late fees, which the city may collect by filing a civil action or other legal remedy. Anyone who receives an administrative citation may contest the citation by requesting an administrative hearing with an administrative hearing officer. The city has existing contracts in place with three administrative hearing officers, if they are needed. If the City Council chooses to authorize enforcement of the public health order using the city's administrative citation process, we recommend the city also develop internal procedures for issuing administrative citations. Benefits of administrative enforcement Administrative citations do not go onto a person's criminal history. They would also allow the city to avoid the backlog and partial shutdown currently impacting the courts because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The proposed resolution would also provide the city with another tool to help obtain compliance with the public health order. For example, the ability to issue administrative citations to businesses violating the public health order could be helpful in obtaining compliance, including when working in partnership with the county's Safe Reopening Compliance Team. Issues to consider Although the City Council has the authority to authorize administrative enforcement of the face-covering requirement, both criminal and administrative enforcement are complicated by significant legal and practical considerations. Notably, changing the nature of a citation from criminal to administrative does not avoid the constitutional issues discussed below. Tasking July 28, 2020 Item #11 Page 4 of 13 someone other than a police officer with administrative enforcement of the face-covering requirement would require further evaluation. An officer may initiate a consensual encounter by asking a person for information. However, for an officer to temporarily detain someone for investigative purposes or prevent them from leaving while a ticket is issued, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires the officer to have a reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in a crime. (See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)). Reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch or an unspecific suspicion. The officer must have a specific, articulable, and objective factual basis to believe the person stopped is engaged in a crime. (People v. Wells, 38 Cal. 4th 1078, 1083 (2006)). There is no clear dividing line between a consensual encounter and a temporary detention. A consensual encounter becomes a detention, which is subject to the Fourth Amendment, when a reasonable person would have believed they were not free to leave. (U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980)). The test is necessarily imprecise and assesses the officers conduct, taken as a whole. (Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 574 (1988)). When an officer issues a citation, the person is temporarily detained while the citation is issued. Therefore, if someone without a face covering does not voluntarily cooperate with the officer's requests, the officer would not be able to stop the person to investigate or issue a citation unless the officer can establish reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in a crime. In other words, the officer needs a specific, articulable and objective factual basis for believing that none of the exemptions apply before conducting an investigatory stop or a temporary detention. For example, if an officer observes a small group of people outdoors without face coverings, the officer could ask if they would be willing to answer some questions. However, if they say "no' or walk away, the officer could not stop them to ask any additional questions, unless the officer had a specific, articulable, and objective factual basis for believing they do not have a medical or mental health condition or disability that prevents them from wearing face coverings, are not hearing impaired or communicating with a person who is hearing impaired and are not members of the same household or residence. Aside from the Fourth Amendment restrictions, there are also privacy concerns to bear in mind: asking a suspected violator about a personal health issue could violate his or her medical privacy rights. There are also practical law enforcement issues to consider in enforcement of the face-covering requirement. Any time an officer detains someone for an investigation, there is always the risk of conflict and resistance. Any such contact has the potential to escalate into a situation where an officer needs to restrain the person or make an arrest. A public confrontation between an officer and someone refusing to wear a face covering could impair the productive relationship the Police Department has worked to build with the community and even result in injuries to a suspect or an officer. This does not mean that enforcement is impossible, but enforcement would likely require a unique set of facts. Proposed resolution The resolution offered for the council's consideration would find that an emergency order is necessary to protect the residents, visitors, and general public of Carlsbad to keep them safe and healthy and to slow the spread of COVID-19. (Exhibit 1) It would adopt the requirements of the public health order as regulations of the City of Carlsbad under section 6.04.100(A)(6)(a) of July 28, 2020 Item #11 Page 5 of 13 the Carlsbad Municipal Code, which defines the powers and duties of the director and assistant director of emergency services. Police could enforce the emergency order by issuing administrative citations in accordance with Chapter 1.10 of the municipal code, Administrative Code Enforcement Remedies, except that an officer would not have to issue a notice of violation before issuing an administrative citation. Fiscal Analysis The cost of implementing administrative enforcement of the face-covering requirement would depend on how many citations are issued and whether the persons cited appeal the citations. Next Steps If the City Council approves the resolution adopting the public health order requirements as City regulations, administrative enforcement would be another available method for obtaining compliance with the requirements of the public health order, including the face-covering requirements. Environmental Evaluation (CEQA) This action does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act under Public Resources Code section 21065 in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and therefore does not require environmental review. • Public Notification and Outreach Public notice of this item was posted in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and it was available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date. Exhibits 1. Resolution July 28, 2020 Item #11 Page 6 of 13 Exhibit 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ISSUING AN EMERGENCY ORDER MANDATING FACE COVERINGS FOR ALL PERSONS WITHIN CARLSBAD CITY LIMITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT SAN DIEGO COUNTY ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER AND EMERGENCY REGULATIONS AND THE MOST RECENT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH FACE COVERING GUIDANCE. WHEREAS, international, national, state, and local health and governmental authorities have declared a public health emergency due to an outbreak of a highly transmittable respiratory disease, referred to as COVID-19; and WHEREAS, COVID-19 symptoms include fever, cough, shortness of breath, nausea, loss of smell or taste and many other wide-ranging symptoms; and those who have been afflicted have experienced a wide spectrum of severity in symptoms ranging from asymptomatic to death; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2020, the San Diego County Health Officer declared a Local Health Emergency as a result of the spread of COVID-19, which was ratified by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on February 19, 2020; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California declared a state of emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for broader spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization began characterizing COVID-19 as a pandemic; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the President of the United States declared a national emergency as a result of the spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad passed a resolution ratifying a declaration of local emergency to provide the city with more flexibility and greater access to resources as it responds to the COVID-19 public health emergency; and WHEREAS, effective May 1, 2020, the San Diego County Health Order ("County Health Order") and all revised versions since this date have required, among other health and safety precautions, that "all persons two years old and older who are present in the county shall have possession of a face July 28, 2020 Item #11 Page 7 of 13 covering described in California Department of Public Health Face Covering Guidance issued on April 1, 2020, when they leave their home or place of residence and shall wear the face covering whenever they are in a business or within six feet of another person who is not a member of their family or household;" an exemption was made for persons with a medical or mental health condition or developmental disability that prevents wearing a face covering; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2020, the California State Public Health Officer issued an order that stated that COVID-19 continues to present a significant risk to the health of individuals throughout California, but consistent with Californians' mitigation efforts and other factors, determined that the statewide data supported the gradual movement of the entire state from Stage 1 to Stage 2 of California's Pandemic Resilience Roadmap, while authorizing local health jurisdictions to implement or continue more restrictive public health measures if warranted; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2020, the California Department of Health, while recognizing that COVID- 19 is still present in State communities and that maintaining physical distance, wearing face coverings in public, and washing hands frequently are more important than ever, announced the statewide opening of in-store retail shopping, under previously issued guidance and subject to approval by county public health departments, and issued guidelines for in-person protests and events designed for political expression; and public health measures if warranted; and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2020, the California Department of Public Health issued Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings mandating the use of cloth face coverings by the general public under specified circumstances when outside the home including when inside of, or in line to enter, any indoor space and while outdoors in public spaces when maintaining a physical distance of 6 feet from persons who are not members of the same household or residence is not feasible; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2020, in light of current rates of disease transmission in some counties and the need to reduce non-essential gatherings where mixing and disease spread occur, the California Department of Public Health ordered the closure in certain counties, including the surrounding counties of Los Angeles and Imperial, of bars, brewpubs, breweries, and pubs not offering sit-down, dine-in meals that had reopened in accordance with prior state and local guidance and reemphasized that alcohol can only be sold in such establishments in the same transaction as a meal; the San Diego 2 July 28, 2020 Item #11 Page 8 of 13 County Health Officer adopted such requirement in a revised County Health Order effective July 1, 2020 and; WHEREAS, on July 3, 2020, San Diego County was added to the state's coronavirus monitoring list, including 22 other counties across the state, due to a rise in reported COVID-19 case rates; and WHEREAS, the amended County Health Order effective July 15, 2020, further clarifies the county's face-covering requirement by ordering that "all persons two years of age or older who are present in the county shall have possession of a face covering when they leave their home or place of residence and shall wear the face covering as described and required in California Department of Public Health Face Covering Guidance issued on June 17, 2020, (available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Progra ms/CI D/DCDC/CDP H%20Docu ment%20Libra ry/COVI D19/G u ida nce- for-Face-Coverings 06-18-2020.pdf)"; and WHEREAS, the most recent County Health Order effective July 21, 2020, places a substantial restriction on the community in the interests of minimizing the spread of COVID-19 by prohibiting all public, charter and private schools from holding classes on the school campus and requiring that these schools instead conduct distance learning only as required by the state's Reopening In-Person Learning Framework for K-12 Schools in California, 2020-2021 School Year, as well as similar in-person learning restrictions for colleges and universities; and WHEREAS, the Carlsbad City Council, the Director of Emergency Services, and city staff including the Carlsbad Police Department have urged residents to follow the orders of the San Diego County Health Officer, including the requirements to stay home except to take care of essential needs or go to an essential place of business and limited other exceptions, the wearing of face coverings, social distancing, and avoidance of gatherings, among other precautions; and WHEREAS, despite the mandates of the County Health Orders, the efforts of the city to urge compliance, and the efforts of law enforcement to encourage voluntary compliance and the issuance of citations for select County Health Order violations that also violate the Carlsbad Municipal Code, many persons or businesses within the City of Carlsbad continue to fail to comply with the County Health Order, and particularly its requirements concerning the wearing of face coverings, thereby placing themselves and others at risk of contracting COVID-19; and 3 July 28, 2020 Item #11 Page 9 of 13 WHEREAS, the transmission of COVID-19 continues to increase in the State of California and particularly in San Diego County and the City of Carlsbad, and there is a significant risk of widespread transmission of COVID-19 into the County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad without the adoption of stricter measures to slow its spread; and WHEREAS, as of July 21, 2020 the City of Carlsbad has had a cumulative total of 395 confirmed cases of COVID-19, with an estimated 149 active cases; as of July 20, 2020, the County of San Diego has had a cumulative total of 24,135 confirmed cases of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, numerous and reputable scientific studies suggest that social distancing, avoidance of public or private gatherings (as defined in the most recent County Health Order), and the use of cloth face coverings by the public may help reduce COVID-19 disease transmission by reducing the release of infectious particles into the air when someone speaks, coughs, or sneezes, especially in the case of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic persons or those with mild symptoms who do not realize that they are infectious and contagious; and WHEREAS, California Government Code section 8634 empowers the City to promulgate orders and regulations necessary to provide for the protection of life and property during a local emergency, and Health and Safety Code section 120175.5 (b) provides that all governmental entities in the county shall take necessary measures within the governmental entity's control to ensure compliance with the County Health Order; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that in the interest of public health and safety, as affected by the emergency caused by the spread of COVID-19, it is necessary and prudent to adopt a local emergency order that mirrors that of the County of San Diego's most recent County Health Order with an option for local administrative enforcement as permitted by applicable law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby finds that an emergency order is necessary to protect the residents, visitors, and general public of Carlsbad in order to keep them safe and healthy and to slow the spread of COVID-19. 4 July 28, 2020 Item #11 Page 10 of 13 3. The definitions in the most recent County Health Order apply to the words and phrases used in this Order unless context dictates otherwise. 4. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby issues an Emergency Order mandating that all directives included in the most recent County Health Order, including references therein to the California Department of Public Health's Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings, and any subsequent amendments and successors thereto, are hereby adopted as rules and regulations of the City of Carlsbad pursuant to subsections 6.04.100(A)(6)(a) and 6.04.100(A)(6)(e) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 5. The Director of Emergency Services or designee may promulgate regulations to implement the provisions of this Order. No person shall fail to comply with any such regulation. 6. The Director of Emergency Services or designee is authorized to deputize additional persons to issue administrative citations for violations of this Order, as amended from time to time, pursuant to sections 1.10.010 and 1.10.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 7. The Director of Emergency Services or designee is authorized to enter into any contracts related to the enforcement of this Order, as amended from time to time. 8. Should the directives of the State's Face Covering Guidance, the County Health Order, this Order, or any regulations promulgated thereunder conflict, the stricter regulation shall apply. 9. Section 4 of this Order and any regulations promulgated under Section 5 of this Order shall be enforceable by: (a) the Carlsbad Police Department and any city officer or employee granted authority to issue written notices to appear pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section 1.08, to be enforced as a misdemeanor pursuant to Government Code sectipn 8665 or Carlsbad Municipal Code section 6.04.130; or (b) any enforcement officer as defined in Carlsbad Municipal Code section 1.10.010, through the issuance of an administrative citation under Carlsbad Municipal Code section 6.04.130, in accordance with Chapter 1.10 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The issuance of a Notice of Violation is not necessary prior to issuing an administrative citation, and all corrective July 28, 2020 Item #11 Page 11 of 13 actions shall be immediately required. Pursuant to section 1.10.100(A) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the amount of the administrative penalty for a violation of any provision of, or any regulations issued under, this Order shall be as authorized in California Government Code sections 36900(b)-(d) and 53069.4(a)(1). As of the date of this Order, these penalty amounts are $100 for the first violation; $200 for a second violation committed within one year for the first violation; and $500 for a third violation or subsequent violations committed within one year of the first violation. Each day or portion of a day that any person violates or continues to violate any provision of, or any regulations issued under, this Order constitutes a separate violation and may be charged and punished separately. 10. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section 1.10.110(B), the failure of any person to pay an administrative penalty or late fee within the time specified on the administrative citation without the filling of an appeal will result in the assessment of an additional late fee. The amount of the late fee is 100% of the total amount of the administrative penalty and will be assessed independent of whether the violation has subsequently been corrected. 11. This Order shall take effect immediately and, unless extended or expressly superseded by a duly enacted Ordinance of the City Council or by a further Order by the Director of Emergency Services shall remain in effect until 12. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Order is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Order. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Order, and any Supplement thereto, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the resolution would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. 6 July 28,2020 Item #11 Page 12 of 13 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of , 2020, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: MATT HALL, Mayor BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk (SEAL) 7 July 28, 2020 Item #11 Page 13 of 13 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: jamie harrison <jamieh66@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2020 8:58 AM To: City Clerk All Receive - Agenda Item # 1i Subject: Mask enforcement For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date JJ CA cc Good morning, Cm ACM DCM (3) - I am writing to you about the topic of mask enforcement that is on the schedule. I am a actual Carlsbad resident. While I do believe that wearing a mask when social distancing isn't possible is important I do not believe that let enforcement should be used to enforce it. There are many different reports out now that say that masks 90% of the population wear do nothing. That the mask actually need to be 2 ply and and have specific characteristics. Therefore enforcing the mask law makes it difficult, you would also need to check everyone's mask to see if it is two ply Or actually effective. Please do not use police to enforce mask rules. Jamie Harrison CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Fernando Granizo <fernandogranizojr@gmail.com > Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2020 10:23 AM To: City Clerk All Receive - Agenda Item # 1 i Subject: Council meeting: COVID-19 For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date --) 'I Dear councilmen: CM ACM , DCM (3) — 1. I am concerned that the mask mandate provides a false sense of security. The research is mixed at best. The public does not have N95 or better masks to provide an adequate level of protection. 2. The mask mandate treads on our freedoms. You will enforce mandates using the police. What happens if someone refuses to wear it? Fines? If they refuse to pay the fine? Arrest? Jail time? 3. I support helping our local business move outdoor to keep them operational. I hope that the city council has the wisdom and courage to stand up for truth and real science. Sincerely, Fernando Granizo M.S. Chemical Engineering Carlsbad, CA 92008 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Elisabeth Zuniga <elisabethzuniga@mac.com > Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2020 8:44 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Please read at council meeting To who it may concern, All Receive - Agenda Item # i For the Information of the: Clly COUNCIL Date 7 ) CC - CM --- ACM DCM (3) I am a Carlsbad resident and am terribly concerned about our city enforcing the wearing of facial coverings. The wearing of facial coverings should be treated as a recommendation. There are many of our residents who fall into the exempt category and should never be asked to wear one. I believe enforcing this mandate (it is not a law) is a violation of our personal liberties. Please consider this, Elisabeth Zuniga CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: City Council - Shauna Hurst <hurst.shauna@gmail.com > Saturday, July 25, 2020 1:10 PM City Clerk City Council Meeting - July 28th - Item #11 All Receive - Agenda Item # For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date CA - CC CM ACM (3) I strongly urge the Council to oppose Item 11 - Administrative Enforcement of Facial Coverings with the City of Carlsbad. The state and county have already mandated facial coverings for our state and county - WE DO NOT NEED OUR POLICE writing citations to enforce these orders. Let's keep life in Carlsbad rad by civilly asking citizens, businesses and visitors to do the right thing...but let's not make Carlsbad a police state. Shauna Hurst CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Kate C <kc171789@gmail.com > Monday, July 27, 2020 12:05 PM City Clerk Masks (please read at meeting) All Receive - Agenda Item # For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date CA CC -- CM -ACM -DCM (3) - Please enforce masks. As a young immunocompromised member of the community who has worked this entire pandemic the disrespect and disregard of others is insane. People can't respectfully understand the masks are here to help stop the spread and not "take away liberties". Those who refuse to wear a mask are putting citizens working for hours on end serving the public at risk. The virus will only get worse in our small town. Please help. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Athena Runner <athena.runner@gmail.com> Monday, July 27, 2020 3:00 PM Council Internet Email; City Clerk Scott Chadwick All Receive - Agenda Item # 1/ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date CM ----ACM -ciovi (3) - Agenda Item 11: Item 11 - Administrative Enforcement of Facial Coverings Dear Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tern Blackburn, Council Member Bhat-Patel, and Council Member Schumacher, Please vote NO on Agenda Item 11, the administrative enforcement of facial coverings within the City of Carlsbad. While acknowledging that wearing masks is the right thing to do at this time, asking our city police to detain and cite people who are not wearing masks will send a horrible message about Carlsbad and potentially violate the rights of Carlsbad residents and visitors to our city. The men and women of our police force work hard at positive community engagement and this will have a negative effect on that relationship, which could extend long after we are out of this pandemic. As Chief Gallucci said at the last city council meeting, detaining people without knowing for certain if they are willfully violating the health order puts police officers in an awkward and constitutionally questionable position. We are already under state and county health orders. We do not need an additional emergency order stating the same thing for Carlsbad. I request that the City of Carlsbad continue to seek compliance with the facial covering aspect of the existing health orders via education, not administrative enforcement. Please vote NO on Agenda Item 11 from a mask-wearing, 23-year resident of Carlsbad. Thank you. Best regards, Athena Runner 92011 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn All Receive - Agenda Item # II For the Information ot the: From: M. Curtin <mcurtin612@hotmail.com > CITY COUNCIL Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 7:30 AM Date V CA CC / -- To: Council Internet Email; City Clerk CM ACM DCM (3) Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item 11 - ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FACIAL COVERING REQUIREMENTS OF STATE AND COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS Even the City Clerk's time to place this item on the Agenda was a complete waste. Any time spent on discussing it at Council is also a complete waste of both Council members' and the viewing public's time. Please immediately vote NO and be done with this item that is more than sufficiently addressed at the County and State level. Mike Curtin Carlsbad, CA 92008 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Kelli Moors <moors.kelli@gmail.com > Tuesday, July 28, 2020 8:52 AM City Clerk Item #11 July 28 2020 Agenda Public Comment All Receive - Agenda Item # J / For the Information of the: CFY COUNCIL Date -7/ 3 C:CA CC CM -'ACM .-DCM (3) Dear Mayor and Council Members, I strongly support the adoption of a resolution to enforce the wearing of face coverings in the City of Carlsbad. The science is overwhelming, the public health order is clear, and the need is immediate. The City has done an admirable job of encouraging and educating Carlsbad residents about the need and direction on wearing masks. Results are mixed. I gave up my beloved walks along our seawall months ago, as it was apparent that the wearing of masks is inconsistent at best. I no longer feel comfortable strolling the downtown area, as sidewalks are crowded and many people are without face coverings. It appears that issuing citations and levying fines will be necessary to increase compliance. We already have leash laws, with the city personnel writing tickets to those who are caught violating these rules. I live near Agua Hedionda lagoon and frequently hear dog owners warning each other about the strict enforcement of leash rules and their firsthand experience of being ticketed. Hearing this, owners quickly snap leashes on their dogs. Please apply this lesson to our community's public health. Businesses have suffered, school campuses cannot open safely, and many of us have gone months without seeing friends and loved ones. It should be common sense and common courtesy to wear a mask, but perhaps the threat of a ticket and fine will make it common practice. Kelli Moors Carlsbad, CA 92008 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn All Paroivra . Acumnrla !tom ft i For the Information of the: From: RF Ames <rfannes@yahoo.com > CITY COUNCIL Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 4:55 PM Date CA -CC To: City Clerk CM ACM DCM (3) Subject: City Council Meeting Tuesday July 28, 2020 - Agenda Item #11 Attachments: Denis G. Rancourt PhD April 2020 Masks Don't Work A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy .pdf; Cloth Masks do not work.pdf Please read this statement into the record. RE: Agenda Item #11 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FACIAL COVERING REQUIREMENTS OF STATE & COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS My name is Russell Ames. A Carlsbad resident for 33 years, homeowner and business owner. How does the Carlsbad City Council intend to safely enforce a face mask mandate? Will the CPD be required to enforce and cite people for not wearing a face mask? Will the CPD also cite people for not properly wearing a face mask? Currently in several cities all over the United Sates law enforcement officers are under attack. I do not think it is a wise decision for the Carlsbad City Council to put our CPD in an unsafe (and unconstitutional) position by having them enforce mandatory face masks. It is also very possible Carlsbad City Council mandating face masks might encourage lawsuits that cost citizens large sums of money to litigate. It is also probable protests will erupt if the Carlsbad City Council mandates face masks. If San Diego County unelected bureaucrats want to mandate masks, why not have them enforce their mandate? According to some scientists Cloth Masks do not work, nor do Surgical Masks. Only N95 Respirator Masks theoretically work. Most people are not using the mask correctly. A lot of people reuse disposable masks over & over again. Disposable masks are supposed to be used only once. People constantly touch their face & mask rendering it ineffective. A lot of people walk around with the mask under their nose. It is impossible to mandate 100% of the people effectively use face masks. In place of a face mask mandate I suggest the city council develop a public awareness campaign to educate people on how to effectively use a face mask and how to properly disinfect/sanitize themselves. I have yet to hear one politician or bureaucrat talk about boosting our immune systems so we can naturally fight off viruses, diseases and even cancer. Face masks interfere with our immune systems function and interfere with our bodies natural defense mechanisms. I have spent many hours studying the pros & cons of the face mask and clearly there is not any scientific proof masks are doing anything to keep us safe from COVID-19. In my desire to educate myself on face masks I found this informative article written by Denis Rancourt, PhD, a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. This article includes several scientific studies and white paper links. The article is titled: Masks Don't Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy. Please include the attached pdf into the record of this council meeting. Link to article by Denis Rancourt, PhD. Masks Don't Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy. https://www.abqreport.com/single-post/2020/06/24/Masks-Don%E2%80%99t-Work-A-Review-of-Science- Relevant-to-COVID-19-Social-Policy 1 Respectfully, Russell Ames CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 2 1 Masks Don't Work A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy Denis G. Rancourt, PhD Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca ) Working report, published at Research Gate (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/D Rancourt) April 2020 Summary / Abstract Masks and respirators do not work. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles. Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (<2.5 lim), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle. The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history. 2 Review of the Medical Literature Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., "N95") does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness: Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) "Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial", American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417- 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002 N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. Cowling, B. et al. (2010) "Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review", Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. doi:10.1017/50950268809991658 https://www.cannbridge.org/corehournals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face- masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDEOAFCC6639CCC9D8BC05 None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein. bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence", Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x "There were 17 eligible studies.... None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection." Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 "We identified 6 clinical studies ... In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism." Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) "Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis", Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 "Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant"; as per Fig. 2c therein: Study rPPF. iirsi Control VRI RR (95'4 Macirityre 2011 N95 13/949 36.1 15/481 0.44 (0.21, 0.92) MacIntyre 2015 tiled 19/580 36.5 18/458 0.83 ((1.44. 1.57) Muclrityre• 2011 rued 13/492 27,4 15/481 0.85 (0.41, 1.761 Overall (I-squared = 4.6%, p = 0350) 0_70 (0.47, 1.03) 100.0 .025 .125 .25 .5 I 2 4 8 favours rPPE favours no rPPE Risk ratio Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824-833. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11645 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214 "Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons.... Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza." Long, Y. et al. (2020) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis", J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.comicloi/epdf/10.1111/iebm.12381 "A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% Cl 0.43-0.78). The 3 4 use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza." Conclusion Regarding that Masks Do Not Work No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below). Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit. Masks and respirators do not work. Precautionary Principle Turned on Its Head with Masks In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks. In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below). Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease and of Why Masks Do Not Work In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose. In addition to pandemics that can occur anytime, in the temperate latitudes there is an extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and that is caused by viruses. For 0.05 0.09 fa 0.08 ;75 0,07 o. o 0.06 ca ce —Observed P&I ratio —Predicted Baseline 2009 Pandemic 5 example, see the review of influenza by Paules and Subbarao (2017). This has been known for a long time, and the seasonal pattern is exceedingly regular. For example, see Figure 1 of Viboud (2010), which has "Weekly time series of the ratio of deaths from pneumonia and influenza to all deaths, based on the 122 cities surveillance in the US (blue line). The red line represents the expected baseline ratio in the absence of influenza activity," here: 122 cities weekly P&I mortality data 0 N rn **- o o o o C) o 0 0 0 N N ciSjc 6. C a :144 r::,4 a& U) U) U) GO (l) , ID .- cO (5) 0 0 Cr 0 0 0 0 0 'N .. NN 0. O. O. a a 41) Ccf;.!4!f U] CO CO LOI Date The seasonality of the phenomenon was largely not understood until a decade ago. Until recently, it was debated whether the pattern arose primarily because of seasonal change in virulence of the pathogens, or because of seasonal change in susceptibility of the host (such as from dry air causing tissue irritation, or diminished daylight causing vitamin deficiency or hormonal stress). For example, see Dowell (2001). In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens. Lowen et al. (2007) demonstrated the phenomenon of humidity-dependent airborne-virus virulence in actual disease transmission between guinea pigs, and discussed potential underlying mechanisms for the measured controlling effect of humidity. 6 The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased. Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity ("viable decay"), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets ("physical loss"): "Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical." The latter ("physical loss") seems more plausible to me, since humidity would have a universal physical effect of causing particle / droplet growth and sedimentation, and all tested viral pathogens have essentially the same humidity-driven "decay". Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how a virion (of all virus types) in a droplet would be molecularly or structurally attacked or damaged by an increase in ambient humidity. A "virion" is the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid. The actual mechanism of such humidity-driven intra-droplet "viable decay" of a virion has not been explained or studied. In any case, the explanation and model of Shaman et al. (2010) is not dependant on the particular mechanism of the humidity-driven decay of virions in aerosol / droplets. Shaman's quantitatively demonstrated model of seasonal regional viral epidemiology is valid for either mechanism (or combination of mechanisms), whether "viable decay" or "physical loss". The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic. In particular, Shaman's work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic's basic reproduction number (RO) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity. For a definition of RO, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): RO is "the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible." The average RO for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19-1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014). In fact, Shaman et al. showed that RO must be understood to seasonally vary between humid- summer values of just larger than "1" and dry-winter values typically as large as "4" (for example, see their Table 2). In other words, the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every year go from being intrinsically mildly contagious to 7 virulently contagious, due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration. Therefore, all the epidemiological mathematical modelling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent RO values, has a large likelihood of being of little value, on this basis alone. For studies about modelling and regarding mediation effects on the effective reproduction number, see Coburn (2009) and Tracht (2010). To put it simply, the "second wave" of an epidemic is not a consequence of human sin regarding mask wearing and hand shaking. Rather, the "second wave" is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity. If my view of the mechanism is correct (i.e., "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large RO) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air. Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Despres, 2012). It is not entirely unlikely that viruses can thereby be physically transported over inter-continental distances (e.g., Hammond, 1989). More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 p.m, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011): "Half of the 16 samples were positive, and their total virus concentrations ranged from 5800 to 37 000 genome copies m-3. On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 µm, which can remain suspended for hours. Modelling of virus concentrations indoors suggested a source strength of 1.6 ± 1.2 x 105 genome copies m-3 air h-1 and a deposition flux onto surfaces of 13 ± 7 genome copies M-2 h 1 by Brownian motion. Over 1 hour, the inhalation dose was estimated to be 30 ± 18 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50), adequate to induce infection. These results provide quantitative support for the idea that the aerosol route could be an important mode of influenza transmission." Such small particles (<2.5 p.m) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of 8 N95 (average pore size —0.3-0.51.1m) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks. For example, see Balazy et al. (2006). Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference. On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case. Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features: • most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibility • it is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the host • the 50%-probability MID ("TCID50") has variably been found to be in the range 100-1000 virions • there are typically 103-107 virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 lim — 10 im • the 50%-probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized droplet For further background: • A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993). • Zwart et al. (2009) provided the first laboratory proof, in a virus-insect system, that the action of a single virion can be sufficient to cause disease. • Baccam et al. (2006) calculated from empirical data that, with influenza A in humans, "we estimate that after a delay of —6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus and continue to do so for —5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is —11 h, and the half-life of free infectious virus is —3 h. We calculated the [in-body] basic reproductive number, Ro, which indicated that a single infected cell could produce —22 new productive infections." • Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed. All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. For example, such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008). Why There Can Never Be an Empirical Test of a Nation-Wide Mask-Wearing Policy As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias- free results: • Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity. • Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown. • Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviours; see Wada (2012). • The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits. • Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses. • Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors. • Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful. • Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions. • Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics. Unknown Aspects of Mask Wearing Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise: • Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others? 9 10 • Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask? • Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber? • What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask? • How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask? • What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing? • Are there negative social consequences to a masked society? • Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioural modification? • What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal? • Do the masks shed fibres or substances that are harmful when inhaled? Conclusion By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle. In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social- engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments. Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors. Otherwise, what is the point of publicly funded science? The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history. 11 Endnotes: Baccam, P. et al. (2006) "Kinetics of Influenza A Virus Infection in Humans", Journal of Virology Jul 2006, 80 (15) 7590-7599; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01623-05 https://ivi.asm.org/content/80/15/7590 Balazy et al. (2006) "Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?", American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 34, Issue 2, March 2006, Pages 51-57. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2005.08.018 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/clownload?doi=10.1.1.488.4644&rep=rep1&type=pdf Biggerstaff, M. et al. (2014) "Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature", BMC Infect Dis 14, 480 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-14-480 Brooke, C. B. et al. (2013) "Most Influenza A Virions Fail To Express at Least One Essential Viral Protein", Journal of Virology Feb 2013, 87 (6) 3155-3162; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.02284-12 https://ivi.asm.org/content/87/6/3155 Coburn, B. J. et al. (2009) "Modeling influenza epidemics and pandemics: insights into the future of swine flu (H1N1)", BMC Med 7, 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-7-30 Davies, A. et al. (2013) "Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic?", Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Available on CJO 2013 doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.43 http://journals.cambridge.ordabstract S1935789313000438 Despres, V. R. et al. (2012) "Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review", Tel/us B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 64:1, 15598, DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598 https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598 Dowell, S. F. (2001) "Seasonal variation in host susceptibility and cycles of certain infectious diseases", Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(3):369-374. doi:10.3201/eid0703.010301 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmaarticles/PMC2631809/ Hammond, G. W. et al. (1989) "Impact of Atmospheric Dispersion and Transport of Viral Aerosols on the Epidemiology of Influenza", Reviews of Infectious,Diseases, Volume 11, Issue 3, May 1989, Pages 494-497, https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/11.3.494 Haas, C.N. et al. (1993) "Risk Assessment of Virus in Drinking Water", Risk Analysis, 13: 545-552. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x https://doi.org/10.1111/1.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x 12 HealthKnowlege-UK (2020) "Charter la - Epidemiology: Epidemic theory (effective & basic reproduction numbers, epidemic thresholds) & techniques for analysis of infectious disease data (construction & use of epidemic curves, generation numbers, exceptional reporting & identification of significant clusters)", HealthKnowledge.org.uk, accessed on 2020-04-10. https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/research-methods/la- epidemiology/epidemic-theory Lai, A. C. K. et al. (2012) "Effectiveness of facemasks to reduce exposure hazards for airborne infections among general populations", J. R. Soc. Interface. 9938-948 http://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2011.0537 Leung, N.H.L. et al. (2020) "Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks", Nature Medicine (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2 Lowen, A. C. et al. (2007) "Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and Temperature", PLoS Pathog 3(10): e151. https://doi.org/10.1371/iournal.ppat.0030151 Paules, C. and Subbarao, S. (2017) "Influenza", Lancet, Seminar I Volume 390, ISSUE 10095, P697-708, August 12, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30129-0 Sande, van der, M. et al. (2008) "Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population", PLoS ONE 3(7): e2618. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002618 https://doi.org/10.1371/iournal.pone.0002618 Shaman, J. et al. (2010) "Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States", PLoS Biol 8(2): e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000316 Tracht, S. M. et al. (2010) "Mathematical Modeling of the Effectiveness of Facemasks in Reducing the Spread of Novel Influenza A (H1N1)", PLoS ONE 5(2): e9018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009018 https://doi.org/10.1371/iournal.pone.0009018 Viboud C. et al. (2010) "Preliminary Estimates of Mortality and Years of Life Lost Associated with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic in the US and Comparison with Past Influenza Seasons", PLoS Curr. 2010; 2:RRN1153. Published 2010 Mar 20. doi:10.1371/currents.rrn1153 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govipmcjarticles/PMC2843747/ Wada, K. et al. (2012) "Wearing face masks in public during the influenza season may reflect other positive hygiene practices in Japan", BMC Public Health 12, 1065 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-1065 13 Yang, W. et al. (2011) "Concentrations and size distributions of airborne influenza A viruses measured indoors at a health centre, a day-care centre and on aeroplanes", Journal of the Royal Society, Interface. 2011 Aug;8(61):1176-1184. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0686. https_://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2010.0686 Yezli, S., Otter, J.A. (2011) "Minimum Infective Dose of the Major Human Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Transmitted Through Food and the Environment", Food Environ Virol 3,1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12560-011-9056-7 Zwart, M. P. et al. (2009) "An experimental test of the independent action hypothesis in virus— insect pathosystems", Proc. R. Soc. B. 2762233-2242 http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0064 How does the Carlsbad City Council intend to safely enforce a face mask mandate? Will the CPD be required to enforce and cite people for not wearing a face mask? Will the CPD also cite people for not properly wearing a face mask? Currently in several cities all over the United Sates law enforcement officers are under attack. I do not think it is a wise decision for the Carlsbad City Council to put our CPD in an unsafe (and unconstitutional) position by having them enforce mandatory face masks. It is also very possible Carlsbad City Council mandating face masks might encourage lawsuits that cost citizens large sums of money to litigate. It is also probable protests will erupt if the Carlsbad City Council mandates face masks. If San Diego County unelected bureaucrats want to mandate masks, why not have them enforce their mandate? According to some scientists Cloth Masks do not work, nor do Surgical Masks. Only N95 Respirator Masks theoretically work. Most people are not using the mask correctly. A lot of people reuse disposable masks over & over again. Disposable masks are supposed to be used only once. People constantly touch their face & mask rendering it ineffective. A lot of people walk around with the mask under their nose. It is impossible to mandate 100% of the people effectively use face masks. In place of a face mask mandate I suggest the city council develop a public awareness campaign to educate people on how to effectively use a face mask and how to properly disinfect/sanitize themselves. I have yet to hear one politician or bureaucrat talk about boosting our immune systems so we can naturally fight off viruses, diseases and even cancer. Face masks interfere with our immune systems function and interfere with our bodies natural defense mechanisms. I have spent many hours studying the pros & cons of the face mask and clearly there is not any scientific proof masks are doing anything to keep us safe from COVID-19. In my desire to educate myself on face masks I found this informative article written by Denis Rancourt, PhD, a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. This article includes several scientific studies and white paper links. The article is titled: Masks Don't Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy. Please include the attached pdf into the record of this council meeting. Link to article by Denis Rancourt, PhD. Masks Don't Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy. https://vvww.abgreport.com/single-post/2020/06/24/Masks-Don%E2%80%99t-Work-A- Review-of-Science-Relevant-to-COVID-19-Social-Policy Respectfully, Russell Ames Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Heather Chalmers <heathernnchalmers@gmail.corn> All Receive - Agenda Item # i i Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 9:17 AM For the Information of the: To: City Clerk CITY COUNCIL Subject: Masks Date -?, -i-s?CA ,,- CC -- CM —ACM - DCM (3) Masks are creating divide amongst our city. The death rate of this virus no longer suggests a pandemic thus we should not be required to wear masks. The new case counts are unreliable and should not be a factor in this decision making process. Many people who do not expand their education on this matter only look to major news channels and all they know is what they want you to hear, and this has caused u due fear in many citizens and it needs to stop. These fearful citizens look at others who do not wear masks, those who have educated themselves past major news stations, as if we want to harm them thus creating this horrible divide. Please consider retracting this unconstitutional mandate, allowing citizens choice, for the good of our community. Thank you. —Heather Chalmers CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn All Receive - Agenda Item For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL LJdL I LL , From: Briana Corso <brianacorso@yahoo.com> CM ACM DCM (3) Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 9:21 AM To: Council Internet Email; City Clerk Subject: Item 11 - Administrative Enforcement of the Facial Covering Requirements of State and County Public Health Orders Mayor and City Council Members, Please pass the draft resolution that permits local administrative enforcement of the face covering mandate. Unfortunately, the outreach efforts by Carlsbad's law enforcement officers and public servants have been insufficient to change the behavior of our citizens. The Village and the seawall have become places that cause me and my family great consternation because the sidewalks are packed with people — shoulder to shoulder — and only a portion use face coverings. My children laugh at the large electronic "MASK REQUIRED" sign that is along Carlsbad Boulevard because they can see the dozens of noncompliant people that walk past it with no repercussions. While my children laugh at that situation, I feel anger because I know that their noncompliance just means that this pandemic will stretch out longer. Like everyone else, I want to return to my pre-pandemic life. This will only happen if we use all the tools at our disposal to push down these COVID numbers, including active enforcement of the face covering mandate. Regards, Briana Corso CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hilary P <hilarypaane@gmail.com > Tuesday, July 28, 2020 1:17 PM City Clerk Responsible Carlsbad Resident IMG_4212._jpg All Receive - Agenda Item # ; For the Information of the: 9TY COUNCIL Date Ti! ---- CC CM --ACM DCM (3) Please read before the city council meeting today at 3pm. Dear Honorable Mayor Hall and City Council, I want to address item #11 on the City Council Agenda today, Enforcement of Facial Coverings for all Carlsbad Residents. I believe the attached photo of Dr Fauci, The Director of Infectious Diseases, taken just last Friday, July 24th at the Nationals Baseball game with NO mask on clearly demonstrates the real science behind wearing a mask to stop the spread of Covid-19. Please keep the freedom of Carlsbad Residents alive and not have us all live in fear!!! This disease is not going anywhere anytime soon and we are all making individual efforts to mitigate the spread. As we all know and no one is willing to discuss, the second wave is a direct effect of the 1,000's of people protesting and rioting in the streets throughout California for the last several weeks. Evidence shows the biggest spike in Covid Spread in Los Angeles county is 40 and under. Do not penalize Carlsbad residents that have been acting responsibly and social distancing. Please vote NO on adopting resolution #11 on Facial Coverings. Thank you, Hilary paane CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Carlsbad City Council Members, Karen Annelio <karenamelio4@gmail.com> Tuesday, July 28, 2020 1:54 PM City Clerk Please vote No on resolution. #11 All Receive - Agenda Item # For the Information of the: CIFY_COU NCI L Date -701 `_n CA CC - CM = ACM -- DCM (3) Please keep the freedom of Carlsbad Residents alive and not have us all live in fear!!! This COVID19 disease is not going away anytime soon and we are all making individual efforts to mitigate the spread. We all seem pretty sure about it but, no one is willing to discuss the fact that the second wave is a direct effect of the 1,000's of people protesting and rioting in the streets throughout California for the last several weeks. Most citizens of CBad are co operating already with mask requests/requirements when entering businesses or stores. Evidence shows the biggest spike in Covid Spread in Los Angeles county is 40 and under. Please do not penalize Carlsbad residents that have been acting responsibly and social distancing. Please vote NO on adopting resolution #11 on Facial Coverings. Thank you, Karen& Frank Amelio Carlsbad 92011 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Jen Bray <jenteran03@aol.com > Tuesday, July 28, 2020 1:54 PM City Clerk Item 11: face covering enforcement All Receive - Agenda Item # For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date -71J ;CA ----CC CM - ACM DCM (3) -- Opposition to administrative enforcement of face coverings when these are suggestions and "guidance", specifically for outdoors when at the beach or exercising. I am fine with complying indoors to face masks. Please consider more education and encouragement versus more control and bigger government. Where will the funds come from to pay enforcers? Here is what the health order states. Note the words "suggest" and "could". There is scientific evidence to suggest the opposite as well. "How well do cloth face coverings work to prevent spread of COVID-19? There is scientific evidence to suggest that use of cloth face coverings by the public during a pandemic could help reduce disease transmission. Their primary role is to reduce the release of infectious particles into the air when someone speaks, coughs, or sneezes, including someone who has COVID-19 but feels well." Thank you, Joseph Enteran Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Steven_Julia Huff <stevenjulia1@gmail.com> Tuesday, July 28, 2020 10:46 AM City Clerk Wearing Masks All Receive - Agenda Item # / For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date CA COv CM --ACM DCM (3) My husband and I are Carlsbad residents for many years. We would like to see the proposed facial covering resolution be passed. Thanks, Steven and Julia Huff Carlsbad, CA CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Liam Ferguson <liampferguson@gmail.com> Tuesday, July 28, 2020 11:41 AM City Clerk; Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn City Council Meeting July 28th All Receive - Agenda Item fl 1/ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Date :=21-7 CA v CC CM --ACM DCM (3) — Please read before the city council meeting today at 3pnl. Dear Honorable Mayor Hall and City Council, I want to address item #11 on the City Council Agenda today, Enforcement of Facial Coverings for all Carlsbad Residents. I believe the attached photo of Dr Fauci, The Director of Infectious Diseases, taken just last Friday, July 24th at the Nationals Baseball game with NO mask on clearly demonstrates the real science behind wearing a mask to stop the spread of Covid-19. Please keep the freedom of Carlsbad Residents alive and not have us all live in fear!!! This disease is not going anywhere anytime soon and we are all making individual efforts to mitigate the spread. As we all know and no one is willing to discuss, the second wave is a direct effect of the 1,000's of people protesting and rioting in the streets throughout California for the last several weeks. Evidence shows the biggest spike in Covid Spread in Los Angeles county is 40 and under. Do not penalize Carlsbad residents that have been acting responsibly and social distancing. Please vote NO on adopting resolution #11 on Facial Coverings. Thank you, Liam Ferguson CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1