# Microphones and face shields



## Jon Majors (Jul 22, 2020)

I am reluctantly running audio for a school musical in early August. Actors will have B3 microphones, and the director is requiring them to wear face shields. What kind of issues will I have with the microphones and face shields, besides the obvious?


----------



## Sarabande11 (Jul 22, 2020)

I’m also currently involved in prepping for a summer teen production with body mics and masks (and hopefully a lot of social distancing on stage and in the audience). We’ve done some trials so far, and much of it has to do with where you plan on mounting the element. No matter what, you will be dealing with some amount of noise from the mask, rustling as well as the likelihood of the element and the mask connecting and making noises unpredictably.

On top of that, obviously, the mask is going to restrict/muffle the sound the actor produces. Having the mic near the ear or further back on the cheek with less available headroom opens you up to more likelihood of feedback, among other things. Using a boom or getting the mic on top of the mask somehow, and therefore moving it closer to the person’s mouth, is what we’ve been toying with. We’re actually having the kids use mic clips to secure it to the edge of their masks on the exterior so the element is actually right near the edge of their mouths inside the mask. Putting it inside the mask exposes the element to too much possible contact noise between face and mask.

We’re also making them exclusively handle their mics themselves as much as possible, to limit our mic technician’s exposure as much as possible - luckily the way we are doing this production is allowing for this.

I hope some of this gives you some good ideas. Keep safe and good luck!


----------



## jkowtko (Jul 22, 2020)

Sounds like forehead mounting is out ... I imagine that would sound literally like they have a helmet on. Since B3s are omni, my first inclination is to get them as close to the mouth as possible for best GBF, use the shield to your advantage if possible for mounting the mic in front of the mouth, keep the mic element as far away from the reflective surface of the shield as possible, maybe add a bit of sound damping (cloth) between the mic element and the shield. 

Unless someone has done this before and knows what sounds best, I suggest spending a bit of time having the actor hold the mic head in various places under the shield and sound check until you find the *right* spot for your equipment. You might have to do this for each actor as well.

On the mic channel EQ I imagine you're going to have to attenuate the low end quite a bit.

Good luck, and let us know what you find!


----------



## macsound (Jul 22, 2020)

Depending on your ultimate placement, you're kind of putting the mic into a tunnel between the body and the mask. So your EQ will need to include actor plus face shield resonance/ reflection in whatever position you put it.

Also thinking about the curvature of the face shield kind of like a football sideline parabolic reflector, you'll probably gain some gain. Careful with that.

Hopefully the resonant frequency of the lav facing into the face shield is consistent from actor to actor, something like the frequency you EQ out for people who like to cup a 58. 
So you could send all the Lavs to one group to do EQ instead of dealing with it on every single input.

And yes, please do share what works. I'm sure we will all end up doing this at some point.
Also if you figure out how to not get the lighting to cast a glare off the face shields, feel free to share that too. I'm sure also something we will all have to deal with.


----------



## What Rigger? (Jul 22, 2020)

Jon Majors said:


> I am reluctantly running audio for a school musical in early August. Actors will have B3 microphones, and the director is requiring them to wear face shields. What kind of issues will I have with the microphones and face shields, besides the obvious?


I'm gonna go ahead and say the obvious: stay super on top of what the school/district is really going to do. It seems like everyday more districts are putting the kibosh on everything in-person. In light of what could be a human cost, the frustration of doing a whole lot of work for nothing pales in comparison...but save whatever brain cells you can by keeping an eye on the administration.


----------



## FMEng (Jul 22, 2020)

I hate to rain on the parade, but face shields have been proven ineffective by themselves because they do noting to suppress the aerosol cloud. Masks are more effective, but doing a play now is stupid, even if some "authority" allows it. If it were me, I wouldn't participate.


----------



## Colin (Jul 23, 2020)

Jon Majors said:


> the director is requiring them to wear face shields



I don't know any school play director with the expertise or authority to make that call.


----------



## TimMc (Jul 23, 2020)

Arrrgg. These are the kind of things that give me heartburn. Not so much the audio side but the director thinking he/she/they is an infection control expert.

I'll deal with audio... The semi-enclosed space between the shield and face will have it's own resonant frequency that will exacerbate some frequencies and attenuate others (comb filtering). As for mic placement - none will negate the resonance but some may be more forgiving than others. One thing I might be inclined to try is to mount the mic element to the inside of the shield, off center, and use the combination as a kind of "PZM". It's still gonna sound weird.

Coronavirus - I think the director is ill-advised to attempt a musical right now, especially if he/she/they consider a face shield to be an effective means of infection control. Shields, masks, hygienic practices, distancing, etc are all part of a "system" of transmission control. Individually they are not fully effective but when combined, present a more efficacious package. If I were the principal or headmaster of this school, I'd want some review from a Local Authority assessing the risk to actors, crew, and audience.... students, teachers, parents and adult volunteers... presented by various interactions, distances and exposure times. And how are multi-touch items like mics & transmitter packs going to be hygienically swapped? How will they be cleaned before and after each use, and how will that be tracked? Who will do it and what legal liability do they incur?


----------



## JD (Jul 23, 2020)

As Tim pointed out, mount the mic to the inside of the face shield. You will have a resonance problem no matter what, but you should be able to minimize that with EQ. 

Also pointed out was that masks are ineffective and that school districts (as well as anybody trying to put any event together) can turn on a dime and cancel the whole thing, so I would not invest time outside of planing out what you _would_ do. 

I am looking at an outdoor choir rehearsal this next week and mic'ing the director. I believe this will be a mask event although I know they also have a supply of face shields they bought before the reports came out. Plan is to spread the choir members out 6 feet and with masks on a parking lot. The idea is to simply see if this low a density can function as a choir, or if the distance and masks kill the ability of anyone to actually hear anything.


----------



## FMEng (Jul 24, 2020)

Choirs are considered high risk, even with a mask outdoors. It's the volume of air emitted.


----------



## BCAP (Jul 25, 2020)

Face shields? Plastic face shields?

This is just my opinion. I could be wrong so feel free to disagree...

I personally think you are gonna get comb filtering effects with an omnidirectional lav mic like the B3 placed inside a face shield. The end result might sound thin, phas-ey, or unusual. There might be lack of low end. It could also sound "boxy" or "tinny" depending on the filtration effect. I doubt this will be avoidable if you cannot move away from face shields.

If you've ever tried to mic someone wearing a motorcycle helmet when the microphone cannot be right next to the lips... same thing. The microphone will pick up a variety of different reflections off different surfaces inside that cavity between the face and helmet and the signal at the microphone represents the sum of different direct and reflected paths of the signal back to the microphone - some versions of the signal with various very tiny delays. This will result in frequency cancelations (and resonances) when all the acoustic signals are combined at the microphone diaphragm. Whether they are severe enough to count for you or not - and what the specific character of impact on the sound is hard to tell. I think it would depend on experimentation. 

You might be able to combat resonance issues with EQ, but I'm not so sure it would be easy to identify the cancelations or do anything about those.

I wish you best of luck.


----------



## BCAP (Jul 25, 2020)

TimMc said:


> And how are multi-touch items like mics & transmitter packs going to be hygienically swapped? How will they be cleaned before and after each use, and how will that be tracked? Who will do it and what legal liability do they incur?



I asked the same question of some colleagues and someone suggested UV light as one way to sanitize certain items - at the least, headworn mics. I think it's a good idea but certain plastics - urethanes, foams, etc. break down in UV light.


----------



## BCAP (Jul 25, 2020)

I'm sure I'm not putting forth anything someone else hasn't already thought of here, but there are a number of different ideas I've heard tossed around about safely doing musical productions in COVID-19. Some of them are pretty interesting but most of them involve offline-recording or videotaping (or both) a certain amount of content for the show. Maybe they record the pit orchestra offline and everyone sings to the recorded track. In some cases it's been suggested the chorus could also be recorded individually (audio) one at a time onto those tracks - leaving only the leads to speak and sing their parts live, etc. Other times what was suggested was an onstage video projection screen available for the production to cut down on the number of chorus singing onstage. Seems unusual at first... but maybe those ideas are something to consider.

One positive - video and audio technology is quite advanced now and conveniently available. If all of this had happened several decades earlier it would be a different story.

Instead of a 100% live production, perhaps your school might be convinced to consider a hybrid recorded/live solution?


----------



## JimOC_1 (Jul 25, 2020)

Why contribute to putting people in danger?

Fwiw. My situation is different because I’m a volunteer. I do a significant amount of the advertising for the fundraising events put on by the different organizations at my Church. I was stunned to hear talk of continuing with the normal Oktoberfest, BBQ, Christmas Bazaar, and more. So last week I sent around an email pulling my participation in all of that until we are all vaccinated (November 2021?). Essentially taking away my basketball and going home, not a popular move. People are just too valuable to put at risk.

And No, 6 ft is not adequate for people projecting voices or exercising.

getting down off the soap box now


----------



## TimMc (Jul 25, 2020)

BCAP said:


> I asked the same question of some colleagues and someone suggested UV light as one way to sanitize certain items - at the least, headworn mics. I think it's a good idea but certain plastics - urethanes, foams, etc. break down in UV light.



Yeah, and when Shure, Sennheiser, DPA, PointSource Audio and Countryman can tell me how much UV-C I can expose their products to, and how many times before durability or performance is compromised, I might try it. There are a couple of shops doing it now but without guidance from manufacturers and those shops are big enough that if a bunch of SM58s get damaged it's not the end of the world.

The main issue here, as I see it, is people not qualified to be giving advice are doing so. My personal issue with UV-C: how do you know it did its job? With quarternary ammoniums, phenyl phenols, isopropyl alcohol, hydrogen peroxide (even soap and water) - known products using testable concentrations and verified contact (wet) time will yield known results. Some products cannot be easily or safely cleaned with liquids or certain cleansers and for those, perhaps UV-C is a suitable decontaminate but before I use it I want the device or gear manufacturer to tell me I can safely do.

I'm on a panel that is proposed for the AES Convention's live audio track and our focus is 'coping with covid' and what getting back to work in live audio is likely to entail. Cleaning of multi-touch items like microphones of all types, belt pack transmitters and IEM receivers, intercom headsets, handsets and belt packs, stands, mixing consoles, down to how infection control impacts how we handle equipment, direct crew, and interface with talent. I suspect by the time the convention comes around a good bit of the materials and practices stuff will be more common knowledge. Right now the plan is for each panelist to give a 5 minutes presentation on an aspect of the pandemic and how we audio professionals might deal with the issues presented.


----------



## What Rigger? (Jul 25, 2020)

Colin said:


> I don't know any school play director with the expertise or authority to make that call.


Welcome to education. This happens a lot.


----------



## BCAP (Jul 26, 2020)

TimMc said:


> The main issue here, as I see it, is people not qualified to be giving advice are doing so. My personal issue with UV-C: how do you know it did its job? With quarternary ammoniums, phenyl phenols, isopropyl alcohol, hydrogen peroxide (even soap and water) - known products using testable concentrations and verified contact (wet) time will yield known results. Some products cannot be easily or safely cleaned with liquids or certain cleansers and for those, perhaps UV-C is a suitable decontaminate but before I use it I want the device or gear manufacturer to tell me I can safely do.




I think that's wise. I plan to do the same. BTW I am not qualified to be giving advice on sanitization of equipment, my primary reason in bringing up UV light was to explain that someone had suggested it to me but I had some concern with it. Hoping nobody takes my comment as a recommendation. . I look forward to the AES panel.


----------



## Colin (Jul 26, 2020)

What Rigger? said:


> Welcome to education. This happens a lot.



Been there for 15 years. Any claimed or perceived qualification or authority tends to vanish when turd meets fan.


----------



## TimMc (Jul 26, 2020)

BCAP said:


> I think that's wise. I plan to do the same. BTW I am not qualified to be giving advice on sanitization of equipment, my primary reason in bringing up UV light was to explain that someone had suggested it to me but I had some concern with it. Hoping nobody takes my comment as a recommendation. . I look forward to the AES panel.



Note that I'm not being critical of you or your post, but of the suggestions you were given by well intentioned, but uninformed people.

{personal soapbox} I suspect a great deal of cleanliness and sanitation are conflated, confused, and presumed to be difficult (biologically) and requiring esoteric, high tech solutions. Pfft. Balderdash, Bah Humbug, etc. Common, food-grade sanitizers are likely adequate when used according to directions. For example I have some Kirkland (Costco) brand sanitizing wipes. They use a double-quat ammonium (0.28% by weight) as the chemical basis and the package instructions for *cleaning* require a wet surface for at least 15 seconds. For *sanitation* the instructions call for a 3 minute, continuously wet application. Which is good enough? Ask a public health person... Is it safe for the equipment or device being cleaned/sanitized? Ask the manufacturer. Bonus give-away: *many* equipment manufacturers are liking 70% isopropyl as being least-injurious to their equipment when used as indicated in guidance.

My point is that for *most* objects used by audio people, casts, crews, and pit musicians... cleaning does not require spending money on equipment and materials of unusual natures or technologies. The chemicals needed are likely already in use in the school or theater so there is little re-training, no new MSD sheets to issue to workers or volunteers, no new storage or handling requirements... 
{/personal soapbox}


----------



## teqniqal (Jul 29, 2020)

The point many 'amateur virologists' miss is that a virus is NOT a germ. A virus has a fatty lipid shell protecting it. You need SOAP to break down that shell to kill a virus, NOT hand sanitizer. Use the right tool for the job! Surgeons don't scrub for a surgery with hand sanitizer -- they scrub with soap.


----------



## TimMc (Jul 29, 2020)

teqniqal said:


> The point many 'amateur virologists' miss is that a virus is NOT a germ. A virus has a fatty lipid shell protecting it. You need SOAP to break down that shell to kill a virus, NOT hand sanitizer. Use the right tool for the job! Surgeons don't scrub for a surgery with hand sanitizer -- they scrub with soap.


Yep, breaking down that outer lipid layer is a key to disabling the virus.


----------



## JimOC_1 (Jul 29, 2020)

teqniqal said:


> The point many 'amateur virologists' miss is that a virus is NOT a germ. A virus has a fatty lipid shell protecting it. You need SOAP to break down that shell to kill a virus, NOT hand sanitizer. Use the right tool for the job! Surgeons don't scrub for a surgery with hand sanitizer -- they scrub with soap.


Hi *teqniqal,*
In case you did not see this on another thread.

This link lists agents that should kill the virus just by contact.



*  List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) | US EPA  *
Search EPA’s list of registered disinfectants for use against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the novel coronavirus (COVID-19).
www.epa.gov

A more direct info is coming out slowly.


*  EPA approves first surface disinfectant products tested on the SARS-CoV-2 virus | US EPA  *
EPA News Release: EPA approves first surface disinfectant products tested on the SARS-CoV-2 virus
www.epa.gov
From an ARP news letter "Lysol cleaning products have proven effective in killing the novel coronavirus on hard surfaces, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced.
Lysol Disinfectant Spray and Lysol Disinfectant Max Cover Mist received approval Monday from the federal agency for their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. They are the first surface disinfectant products to receive such approval; the EPA said it expects more will follow."

Fortunatly sanitizer does kill the virus. Your information seems to need an update.


----------



## Colin (Jul 29, 2020)

We should get this right.

I have no citations, though surely I could go get some. Maybe later. I _almost_ majored in biology - does that count?

Not all viruses have a "fatty lipid shell" or envelope, though the one in question does. The envelope has these important characteristics and impacts:

- It makes the virus more infectious, because the envelope is in part made from components of host cell membranes - a disguise.
- In enveloped viruses, the structures that allow the virus to attach to a cell and infect it are component to the envelope. Compromise the envelope and the virus is no longer infectious. Non-enveloped viruses, lacking this weakness, are actually tougher to "deactivate". SARS-CoV2 is delicate by comparison.
- Soap is not the only thing that compromises a virus envelope. Several other substances and environmental factors do it too, including alcohol. But any old soap does a good job, and washing correctly with soap and running water actually removes a lot of viruses down a drain rather than just spreading them around our hands while we rub some arbitrary amount of sanitizer around while maybe missing some spots.

Surgical scrub isn't plain old soap. It's antiseptic - iodine and so forth. Please don't do home surgery with your bar of Dove.

DO WHAT REAL SCIENTISTS SAY.


----------



## Joe Moore (Jul 29, 2020)

I am not going down the rabbit hole of should you be doing a live production, enough opinions are out there. I would try rigging the mic in the costume aimed at the thoracic cavity. You will lose again but should get clear sound without the face shield issues. You can rig on undergarments that are not subject to costume change. I know it is not a lav mic but I have tried it in certain circumstances with success.


----------



## Starr T. (Jul 30, 2020)

Nothing much to add to all the tech wizdom above...just wondering how one finds info on disinfecting/ cleaning mics between users?


----------



## TimMc (Jul 30, 2020)

Starr T. said:


> Nothing much to add to all the tech wizdom above...just wondering how one finds info on disinfecting/ cleaning mics between users?



There will likely be an Audio Engineering Society convention panel on "coping with Covid" and cleaning hardware is one of the topics. In fact the panel has a Zoom meeting in about 2 hours...

Shure just updated their guidance on cleaning (3 days ago). DPA has guidance. PointSource guidance will be forthcoming if it's not already available. AKG is kind of vague, as is Sennheiser (so far anyway, we're working with them).

The April 8, 2020 webinar at www.practicalshow.tech (use the Archive tab to find) has a presentation by Denise Woodward of IATSE Local 16, and she provided the info she had amassed at that time. I know Denise has edited and updated her findings but I'm not sure the downloadable assets have been updated by PST. The big take-away - DPA cleaning varies with the type of mic. Miniature mics should not have alcohol, solvents of any kind, or most chemicals used on the mic cable as they will strip the plasticizers from the outer jacket and cause the cable to become intermittent and fail. DPA recommends... wait for it.... olive oil. Yummy! Our actors will smell like pasta and salads which may be an improvement! The mic element itself can be cleaned with with isopropyl (they have guidance on this).

For most hard surface items the use of 70% isopropyl alcohol (the 'prep pads' the nurse uses before giving an injection are perfect). The manufacturers won't tell you how long to leave it wet (that's up to you figure out, but we'll have some guidance in the AES panel that can be traced back to health authorities), but what you don't want is to have liquids running into the device. Remember that the important parts are those touched and handled by other persons... Some of the guidance the panel has received is that consoles will not tolerate frequent cleaning and 'wet' cleaning is discouraged.

Finally, so far the biology is indicating that infectious levels of virus do not survive on surfaces for as long as previously thought. If an item is not used for several days and is otherwise clean and free of debris, gunk and soil, the item is likely safe to re-use. That may not sit will with some parents, teachers, students, or administrators so a certain amount of 'sanitation dog and pony show' may be necessary to assuage them.


----------



## rphilip (Jul 30, 2020)

TimMc said:


> Shure just updated their guidance on cleaning (3 days ago).


Do you have the link to this, I see something they updated on 7/22 but not on the 26th or 27th.

Shure Cleaning 7/22


----------



## TimMc (Jul 30, 2020)

rphilip said:


> Do you have the link to this, I see something they updated on 7/22 but not on the 26th or 27th.
> 
> Shure Cleaning 7/22


That's the updated guidance. The notice hit my in box 3 days ago.... 

DPA has similar guidance with a short video on cleaning their miniature mics. Countryman has no guidance on their website yet but I suspect it will be forthcoming as another member of the AES panel has received email guidance. Can't share it here as it's part of the "deliverables" package for the AES convention but I expect Countryman will have it posted. We're also soliciting guidance for IEM receivers and body pack transmitters (updated guidance from Shure, working on Sennheiser). Lectrosonics has guidance. Also we're working with console manufacturers, intercom manfacturers (Reidel and Clear-Com have guidance up now) and other high-touch, multi-user items.


----------



## egilson1 (Jul 31, 2020)

If you check the CDC they state that it’s not the soap that is important but it’s the running water that washes away the virus. This is the reason many third world countries are having issues as they don’t have ample running water.

“Using soap to wash hands is more effective than using water alone because the surfactants in soap lift soil and microbes from skin, and people tend to scrub hands more thoroughly when using soap, which further removes germs.

To date, studies have shown that there is no added health benefit for consumers (this does not include professionals in the healthcare setting) using soaps containing antibacterial ingredients compared with using plain soap”

So running your microphone elements under the tap should do the trick.


----------



## BCAP (Jul 31, 2020)

Forget cleaning the equipment, let's clean the actors!! Dunking them in whiskey before the performance might help....


----------



## TimMc (Jul 31, 2020)

BCAP said:


> Forget cleaning the equipment, let's clean the actors!! Dunking them in whiskey before the performance might help....



If you do that, they'll be licking each other...


----------



## jtweigandt (Aug 1, 2020)

teqniqal said:


> The point many 'amateur virologists' miss is that a virus is NOT a germ. A virus has a fatty lipid shell protecting it. You need SOAP to break down that shell to kill a virus, NOT hand sanitizer. Use the right tool for the job! Surgeons don't scrub for a surgery with hand sanitizer -- they scrub with soap.


Actually.. surgeons scrub with whatever to remove the big chunks.. but after years and years of relying on iodine, it turns out the best final application is 70% alcohol for quick knockdown mixed with some chlorhexidine for sustained action of stuff coming up from the deep layers of skin.. Avigard by 3m is the product. And hand sanitizer is highly effective against a variety of viruses as well as bacteria. Turns out 70% is about the sweet spot. higher percentage doesn’t have enough water to disrupt the structure once the solvent action of the alcohol disrupts the outer “shell” So 90% alcohol is worse than 70%. I’m not an amateur virologist, just a practicing DVM trying to stay on top of this. And yes.. plain soap is both anti viral and somewhat anti bacterial in addition to it’s plain old mechanical cleaning properties.


----------



## Starr T. (Aug 6, 2020)

As usual, an interesting SHOW here folks! Educational & entertaining...
Thanks!


----------



## Joe Moore (Aug 6, 2020)

Perhaps we should just buy some inexpensive head rigs and consider them attendance prizes for the actors or pitch them at the end of the run after an alcohol bath. You choose the type of alcohol.


----------



## Darin (Aug 8, 2020)

FWIW, I just saw a set of photos from a local production that was attempting to use face shields, and you can tell right away that they are a problem. In at least half of the shots, the way people's heads are turned or positioned makes the shield completely useless. 

I know people are impatient about getting back to live performance, but this seems so completely irresponsible to try. At my university, we are having no live performances until (at least) 2021. Even if we wanted to try, we are under a "no more than 10 people at a gathering" rule, which means a show with 5 actors and an SM would allow all of 4 audience members to attend


----------



## macsound (Aug 11, 2020)

I agree that people have somehow forgotten that these guidelines are to keep us all safe. Just because a local city, county or state lifts the strictness, doesn't mean everyone should flood to their local hotspot to engage in maskless activities. 
That's my greatest gripe with outdoor restaurants is how much more unsafe they've made the entire street because it's now just a big clump of people yelling, talking, laughing and eating, all without masks for hours on end.


----------



## FMEng (Aug 11, 2020)

There is no such thing as safe right now. Some activities are safer than others, but just because something is allowed, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Everything that is open now is done as a compromise. There is inherent risk in being around people from outside your household, whether it's inside, outside, a big crowd, a small group, young or old. Stay home to stay safe, wear a mask, wash your hands.


----------



## JonCarter (Aug 11, 2020)

I think a lot of the virus business is overblown media hype to sell newspapers. A lot of us of a certain age and older lived through a polio epidemic every summer (just stay away from the swimming pool) a flu epidemic every winter (just stay away from people coughing) and who remembers how many others. Everybody had measles, chicken pox, whooping cough, German measles and a few others and the world wasn't stopped because of them. Yes, the covid virus can be serious, but so can a lot of other things. I've heard that to date this year, more people have died from heart attacks and other coronary diseases than have died from the virus. Have we stopped the world because of that? Let's get back to normal before we totally ruin the economy!


----------



## macsound (Aug 11, 2020)

While it's true, many more people die from things besides covid, many of those causes of death are either genetic or completely out of people's individual control.

Covid, by contrast, can be very easily tamped down by wearing a mask, washing your hands and avoiding spending time with anyone outside your household. 
By denying those truths, going out for haircuts, dinner and socialization, the US has had a massive upswing in infection and death whereas 2-3 months ago, we had relatively low infection rates when everyone was staying home.


----------



## jtweigandt (Aug 12, 2020)

Somebody raised the point that the covid deaths over the first 4 months were the equivalent of 50 airliners crashing per week.
If that were happening.. there would be groundings, congressional action, and national outrage. I for one am really tired (as a Veterinarian)
of people trying to equate this with the flu or even polio. Flu, measles etc for the most part are not transmitted by asymptomatic people.
Some estimates for Covid are as high as 40% of transmission is coming from asymptomatic/presymptomatic people 
The morbidity and mortality, along with the transmission rates under close prolonged contact with
an apparently healthy person are relatively unprecedented. I personally know 5 people who have had this. One is dead, so I am rather
humorless on this topic.


----------



## almorton (Aug 12, 2020)

I saw a piece that said to think of it like HIV - initially it was thought to only affect a very small specific part of society then we realised that that wasn't correct, and as we began to understand how it spread, suddenly the idea of unprotected sex with a stranger was like contemplating suicide. So mask up when you're with strangers (i.e. not your immediate family). 

Similarly, we may have to consider that, like HIV, we _cannot _eradicate it or vaccinate against it, we may only be able to control it and, like HIV, getting to that stage may take 10 or 20 years of research. Meantime, unprotected activities remain off menu.


----------



## TimMc (Aug 12, 2020)

And we have effective anti retroviral treatment for HIV although it took 15 years. There is currently no virus-level treatment for SARS CoV2.


----------



## bobgaggle (Aug 12, 2020)

The real question is whether or not people should be allowed to make their own risk assessment about their own lives. The whole "haircut" arguments and protests boil down to the conflict between who knows what's best for you? You or the government? One side says if you want to risk catching covid in the process of going about your life, that's your choice. The other side says we must all do as we're told on any particular day by the current experts, in order to preserve even just one life.

So we're talking about whether or not we should have live performances. Granted, businesses are worried about the potential onslaught of lawsuits if someone gets sick at their venue, so take that into account. Anyone who buys a ticket to a show assumes the risks of attending that show. Mass shootings have not stopped live performance. Some venues put up metal detectors, some do pat downs, some just do bag searches, some implement keycard access for backstage areas, some develop emergency response plans, some do nothing. Where are the cries that these measures aren't 100% effective and therefore we should suspend all live performance until we are assured that no one can get their hands on a black gun anymore? I haven't heard anyone talk like that, and before covid, tickets kept selling. We put up signs that warn patrons of strobe lights and gunshot sound effects, why can we not also post our covid procedures and allow the patron to decide whether its good enough or not?

We do what we can to take reasonable measures to ensure safety. If an audience member is uncomfortable with the environment or protocols in place, they can choose not to attend or buy the ticket in the first place. Nothing in this world is without risk, why are we not able to choose for ourselves how much risk we're willing to tolerate?


----------



## jtweigandt (Aug 12, 2020)

Fortunately HIV (retroviruses) are a tougher nut to crack.. They are RNA strands that incorporate into you by reverse transcription into DNA that actually becomes part of your Genome.
Corona is much more conventional.. Hijacks then kills the cell. There are persistant forms of corona in cats that hide in the background for years, but we have much more reason to be optimistic
about a vaccine for corona than one for HIV. We do have a vaccine for Feline Leukemia Virus.. which is a retrovirus.. so it is theoretically possible even for HIV. But in cats they had the luxury of actual challenge studies, rather than field population/exposure studies. But really shouldn't compare the difficulty with an HIV vaccine
with the liklihood of a successful corona vaccine.


----------



## jtweigandt (Aug 12, 2020)

bobgaggle said:


> The real question is whether or not people should be allowed to make their own risk assessment about their own lives. The whole "haircut" arguments and protests boil down to the conflict between who knows what's best for you? You or the government? One side says if you want to risk catching covid in the process of going about your life, that's your choice. The other side says we must all do as we're told on any particular day by the current experts, in order to preserve even just one life.



I could agree with personal risk assessment, if this was not a disease that you can spread to 100 others before you know you are sick. The nature of the beast negates the "personal choice" argument. So maybe if you go to the theater, and then have to self isolate for 14 days, I could be onboard.


----------



## TimMc (Aug 12, 2020)

jtweigandt said:


> Fortunately HIV (retroviruses) are a tougher nut to crack.. They are RNA strands that incorporate into you by reverse transcription into DNA that actually becomes part of your Genome.
> Corona is much more conventional.. Hijacks then kills the cell. There are persistant forms of corona in cats that hide in the background for years, but we have much more reason to be optimistic
> about a vaccine for corona than one for HIV. We do have a vaccine for Feline Leukemia Virus.. which is a retrovirus.. so it is theoretically possible even for HIV. But in cats they had the luxury of actual challenge studies, rather than field population/exposure studies. But really shouldn't compare the difficulty with an HIV vaccine
> with the liklihood of a successful corona vaccine.



Maybe I didn't phrase things correctly - I'm saying that HIV comparisons are valid for the first 10 years or so of HIV in the population... we had no actual treatment that affected the virus itself (remember the first 3 or 4 pill treatment protocols?). Protection was by not doing things known to transmit. That's where we are right now with SARS-CoV-2.


----------



## TimMc (Aug 12, 2020)

bobgaggle said:


> The real question is whether or not people should be allowed to make their own risk assessment about their own lives. The whole "haircut" arguments and protests boil down to the conflict between who knows what's best for you? You or the government? One side says if you want to risk catching covid in the process of going about your life, that's your choice. The other side says we must all do as we're told on any particular day by the current experts, in order to preserve even just one life.
> 
> So we're talking about whether or not we should have live performances. Granted, businesses are worried about the potential onslaught of lawsuits if someone gets sick at their venue, so take that into account. Anyone who buys a ticket to a show assumes the risks of attending that show. Mass shootings have not stopped live performance. Some venues put up metal detectors, some do pat downs, some just do bag searches, some implement keycard access for backstage areas, some develop emergency response plans, some do nothing. Where are the cries that these measures aren't 100% effective and therefore we should suspend all live performance until we are assured that no one can get their hands on a black gun anymore? I haven't heard anyone talk like that, and before covid, tickets kept selling. We put up signs that warn patrons of strobe lights and gunshot sound effects, why can we not also post our covid procedures and allow the patron to decide whether its good enough or not?
> 
> We do what we can to take reasonable measures to ensure safety. If an audience member is uncomfortable with the environment or protocols in place, they can choose not to attend or buy the ticket in the first place. Nothing in this world is without risk, why are we not able to choose for ourselves how much risk we're willing to tolerate?



With infectious disease you remove the power of choice from others. This is why public health is a 'superior right' to individual rights. We can cite case law and court decisions if you want to get into the weeds of public policy.

As for @JonCarter those other causes of death are not highly contagious diseases. If you have cancer, it's not because someone coughed on you. If you have heart disease, it's not from a contagious virus. If you die in a car wreck, it's not because an outside genetic material strand invaded your cells.

The "Spanish" flu pandemic ended about 100 years ago. We've squandered those deaths by ignoring the biological and human behavior lessons of our ancestors.

That's all I can write without instigating moderator intervention and sending this thread even further off its topic.


----------



## FMEng (Aug 12, 2020)

For those that think their individual rights absolve them of having to wear a mask, let me ask two questions:

1. Why do we test and license drivers?
2. Why is assault against the law?


----------



## almorton (Aug 12, 2020)

jtweigandt said:


> So maybe if you go to the theater, and then have to self isolate for 14 days, I could be onboard.


Perhaps if it was buy a ticket for a show then quarantine for 14 days to make sure you're not infectious , go to the show, then isolate for a further 14 days in case anyone at the show didn't quarantine propelry an you're now infectious. Rinse, repeat.


----------



## macsound (Aug 12, 2020)

jtweigandt said:


> I could agree with personal risk assessment, if this was not a disease that you can spread to 100 others before you know you are sick. The nature of the beast negates the "personal choice" argument. So maybe if you go to the theater, and then have to self isolate for 14 days, I could be onboard.


The entire argument about choice is also negating the employees. _You_ can go get a haircut or see a show and self isolate for 14 days but the barber and or performers will be at work again tomorrow. 
Kind of like the smoking indoors argument. It wasn't about the patrons who could choose weather or not they wanted to eat at a restaurant that allowed smoking inside, it was to save the staff who were smoking 20 packs a day of 2nd hand smoke.

I really feel for the service community because they're at risk as these restaurants and businesses reopen. When people were picking up food to go, atleast both parties were wearing masks. When they're taking an order from 2 tables that are 6' apart, they're within the overlap from multiple tables, all patrons not wearing masks. They don't have a choice because they need to make money and the government told businesses it was ok to open. 
I'm very thankful cities are fining restaurants and bars for allowing too many people in and ignoring social distance rules.


----------



## FMEng (Aug 12, 2020)

I like the smoking analogy. Taking it a step further, have you ever noticed how far a smoker's exhale carries in a room? The same thing happens to the smaller aerosols of people's breath, and those carry the virus.


----------



## tmcgow1 (Aug 18, 2020)

Jon Majors said:


> I am reluctantly running audio for a school musical in early August. Actors will have B3 microphones, and the director is requiring them to wear face shields. What kind of issues will I have with the microphones and face shields, besides the obvious?



Experiment with placing the mics on the lapel or costume, not in the head/face area if wearing shields. Easier to control q and eq outside the shield as well as maintain some level of covid control.
Assign every performer their own mic, batteries, body pack sleeves, safety pins, etc. Teach them everything about them and don't, dont, come in contact with it during the production. Consider purchasing lots of disposable covers for all mics.

In addition to germicide protocols, we use UVC for 1 hour upon leaving the building for all tech gear, console no matter how minor the touching is. No chance of my school district (CCSD) allowing wearing shields as they dont provide any protection. We have mask requirement inside buildings in Nevada. This semester is a wash with 100% remote classes here at LVA. If you must proceed, you are putting yourself at personal contamination risk.


----------

