Embedded Files
On Re-opening Entertainment Facilities , May 8, 2020
Some relevant facts on the status quo;
A recent survey indicated several things that people were not planning to do in the near future - travel - going to the mall - going to movie theaters - and using public transportation.
Only 8% to 10% of employees of businesses with less than 500 workers are working from home.
Contrast this with larger companies such as Facebook, Apple, Twitter and Amazon which have asked that all employees who can should work from home.
These same larger companies have now asked most of their employees who can do so to work from home for the remainder of 2020.
The US economy is essentially split 50 -50 between small and large companies as to the number of employees and now, employment status.
Recent 'outlaw openings' have shown that there is demand for activities that can be well spaced outdoors such as hiking, or going to the beach. Commercial areas near these locations have shown pent up demand as well for 'outlaw openings' of bars and dining establishments.
We should note that most commercial kitchens are much like the meat processing facilities that are hot spots today and might face the same health issues - certainly care has to be taken when this business resumes.
When this pent up demand returns legally to these businesses it will be hard to hire and retain new employees - employers should try to keep present employees through the downturn.
Indications at this point are for a robust re-opening when it occurs.
In California a phased re-opening of some public spaces and a limited number of businesses starts today - mostly allowing only curb side service at this time.
History Does Repeat ?
The closest analogy we have to the present state of things is the Spanish Flu of 1918. There are a lot of striking coincidences. The advent of this Spanish Flu was hidden from the public. There was a war on - WWI - and there was censorship. There was initially no news of the spread in most of the world.
Indeed the reason it was called the 'Spanish Flu' was because it was a newspaper in Spain, a neutral country at the time, that first mentioned the outbreak in the press - the Spanish press being one that was not censored. Truth be told, the consensus is that the Spanish Flu actually started at a chicken farm in Kansas where a virus jumped species to human hosts. It was then spread worldwide by yanks traveling to the front lines in Europe.
The mandatory wearing face masks was also started during the Spanish Flu outbreak. As well, stay at home orders were in effect. The revolt we are seeing today challenging both of these mandates is exactly what happened in America during the 1918 event. There were anti-mask movements and large public protest gatherings, which were also outlawed at the time. The result was what was viewed then as a premature re-opening of public spaces and relaxation of mask wearing requirements. Ultimately this re-opening resulted in a large spike in new cases of the disease.
Another parallel with the Spanish Flu was the almost complete lack of medical solutions - much as we are seeing today. In 1918, hard as this is to believe, there were three main medical treatments for the flu; blood letting and the new wonder drug Aspirin - and at some point plasma therapy - which is in use today. It is been put forth that possibly as many people succumbed to Aspirin overdose as they did the flu. So masks, stay at home, social distancing, quarantine and primordial medical care - in 1918 - 2020? What eventually stopped the 1918 outbreak? A mutation of the virus which occurred without human intervention.
Recent Developments
Today there is a race for a vaccine among US and EU companies, and China is said to be past animal testing with a prospect - this just announced - but a vaccine is still a year away by most estimates. Israel is said to have developed an antibody treatment which is supposedly near deployment. A San Francisco based biotech firm Distributed Bio has another antibody therapeutic that is supposedly near deployment. Malaria fighting drugs have shown some promise in Italy and Spain as both prophylactics and therapeutics, but the US has not approved these treatments. At the moment in the US only an Ebola treatment has been approved for use as a partially effective therapeutic.
The flat-footed response of the U.S. medical establishment, excluding the front line professionals who met the crisis head-on risking, and in many cases losing their lives in emergency rooms and hospitals across the country, is quite astounding. From the very top; NIH, CDC, Home Land Security - down the bureaucracy situational awareness was totally absent. Indeed the swiftness and level of the financial response to this crisis was the level of action that was expected from the most expensive healthcare system in the world. Crickets. Conflicting health care advice. Lack of basic essential health care supplies. Befuddlement. This is what occurred, and is still in many cases occurring. It seems even now that there is a "old boys" network in place stymieing new ideas and treatments based on field experience in New York and Marseilles emergency rooms for vaccines and more expensive medications over cheaper effective methods and vitamins. Many antibody treatments based in new genetic methods and AI based drug formulation seem to be given short-shrift by the establishment over more corporate legacy approaches as well.
The U.S. medical establishment can be fairly viewed as being stuck in amber for 100 years. If doctors from 1919 were brought back to the present they would be totally familiar with the current state of affairs, although they might question the absence of blood letting, the basic treatment approach would essentially be the same as it was in 1918. The internet, supercomputers, pharmaceuticals, artificial intelligence and so on are basically absent in both time periods it would seem at first glance...
Private Security should play a role in the re-opening of every business. Protocols and procedures will be established and will need to be administered, a role a third party would best fill. Contact RAD for temporary help with your re-opening.
To Mask or not to Mask? June 1, 2020
For the time being the recommendation of the CDC, which may vary state to state, is that everyone wear a face mask when in public. This can be a simple cloth mask, a surgical mask or a makeshift covering. We are supposed to wear these coverings when in public at the store, on a walk, or in other common areas. This along with social distancing of six feet or more and frequent hand washing are the only recommendations in place at the moment for the entire country.
It seems not much of a burden to bear considering the state of affairs. Most people, some poles put the level of agreement with face masks at +/- 60% , agree and follow the recommendation. Medical analysis of droplet spread and air borne transmission rates show conclusively that wearing a mask cuts the risk factor of infection in half - approximately. Masks, according to research, are most effective at stopping the ejection of droplets, not the reception. That is to say a non-symptomatic spreader is about half as likely to infect you if you both have masks on.
There are other factors involved in infection rates as well including the duration of the exposure, short vs long; the shorter you are exposed the better, and the proximity, close vs far; this is not only distance apart but also how confined the space you are in is, so far apart in a wide open space is best, getting sneezed on in an elevator is worst. A new factor being explored is also the method and speed of the ejection of the droplets. A sneeze is worst, next a cough and next is yelling / singing. The louder someone is speaking, in a normal voice not yelling, is also a factor.
A new study in Japan has done some testing that shows the language being spoken is also a factor in droplet projection. For example the hard "P" in the American pronunciation of the word pen disperses more droplets than saying the same word in Japanese, which has the same "P" sound. Japanese researchers feel this pronunciation / language factor can explain the some of the difference in infection rates in different countries as some pronunciations produce more spread irregardless of the other factors involved.
Having said all this, some portions of the public feel that the Covid virus is simply a version of the flu. While some infected parties have little or no symptoms, or symptoms like a bad flu, research has shown that Covid is definitely not the flu. Covid 19, among other factors it has recently been discovered, has a distinct and dangerous clotting attribute that is simply not present in other corona viruses, and appears to be unique in general. So it is absolutely not a version of the flu, it has the potential to be more dangerous in a new way.
The recent revelations about how Covid is spread, how much exposure is required to get infected - and how badly infected, and the extreme complications indicate this is a real phenomenon. The fatality rates recently reported in Mexico and Brazil, which both have leadership that had denied the danger of the virus, indicate that public health measures cannot be ignored. Some contend that infection rates are naturally low and only the weakest fall prey to the virus, but the results in Brazil and Mexico simply belie this contention.
So as a security issue how does this all relate? First of all there are penalties for not following public health directives - businesses can lose their licence to operate, and violating individuals can be cited by the police.
In general as well, seek your legal counsel opinion on this specifically, mandatory wearing of a face covering could be considered a dress code and is allowable as a term of entry - as a coat and tie or shirt and shoes would be for example.
So a case study: You have a store and the public health and your business policy is that everyone entering the store must have a face covering. A person wants to enter without a face covering.
First of all your private security at the door should inform the party that a face covering is required to enter. This statement should be reinforced at the entrance by prominent and easy to comprehend signage that clearly states this policy. If you have a facility of any meaningful size you should have more than one security professional at the door - the larger the facility the more security. Of course your facility staff should all be complying with the policy visibly wearing face masks.
When the party approaches without a face covering the first step it to politely and in a friendly manner inform them of the face covering requirement. Pointing at the signage sating the policy at this time will reinforce the request subtly and effectively.
Nine times out of ten the party will simply comply politely, perhaps going to the car and returning with a face covering.
One in ten is likely to contest the requirement. Your security professionals your in a firm friendly manner inform the party that "unfortunately there are no exceptions to this requirement while at the same time moving into a position that would block the entrance in a non-threatening manner - that is to say - perhaps rising from a sitting position to a standing position near the doorway - in no way in a threatening or blocking manner. This use of body language is effective in most cases. An admonition that the party should just get a covering and come back and can enter with no problem should be made at this time. This should work in most cases.
After these steps if an individual insists on entering the security professional should engage in friendly conversation trying to persuade the individual to comply -" I would really appreciate your cooperation in this - I know it is an inconvenience..." as a stalling tactic. At the same time there should be a signal arranged, either a hand signal or perhaps a radio call, that will get management to your location. The manager should upon arrival stay back for a moment and evaluate the situation before getting involved. At this point management should take over the customer engagement as security stands nearby.
If at this point the customer insists on entering there is little that can be done other than, according to the facility policy, calling the police who could then take over. It is important to note that, according to your local and state laws and your personal or corporate legal counsel direction, in most cases you cannot physically stop a party from entering by touching or restraining them. You can however follow them and, seek your legal carousels advice on this, inform them that you are shooting video and do so with an iphone for example. In most states it is legal to shoot video in public spaces - you need to seek legal counsel on this for your specif location and use inside your facility.
There is little justification for the use of any kind of physical force in this situation. Unless the party without the face covering seriously physically assaulted someone you will likely not prevail in court. A shove would not likely justify use of force, you would need a serious offense such as being thrown to the ground or visible injury from a punch to justify a physical response.
That physical response would have to meet conditions - which you have to get from your lawyer specifically. You must try to escape first in some locations for example, and if you must defend yourself only the force necessary to stop the assault is justified.
These are legal issues which you and your staff need to be trained on before any actions can be contemplated - you must act within the law and you must have specific legal advice on this issue. You have no special rights in this situation - no judge or police officer will provide you with any consideration above the law. You may feel your actions are justified, but the law will decide what is to be done irregardless - you can be charged.
Needless to say no one should touch anyone, threaten anyone with physical harm - or do anything you don't want to see on Instagram.
Some Special Considerations At This Time
First of all when dealing with a person without a face covering at this time you need to keep your exposure to a minimum. Stay at least six feet away from the perpetrator. You may give the perpetrator a command to stay back - it is allowed and recommended. You may also command the perpetrator to lower their voice - it is allowed and recommended. The yelling would expose you to more virus partials. If the perpetrator were to spit on you - even without the present virus - this would be an assault and you should call the police.
Recently some parties have been using the Americans With Disabilities Act to justify not wearing a mask. Their claim would be that they have a medical condition that does not allow a mask. There is little you can do in this case unless there is an associated assault on your staff by this ADA claimant which would enable you to call the police on that assault.
Again specific legal advice is called for here, but in general you cannot ask for proof of any condition or even ask what the specif condition is - they may volunteer this information - many with authentic conditions do so without any request - automatically. If they are making a false claim of a disability they can face legal ramifications for that, but it is up to a legal authority to make that charge. If you challenge an individual's ADA claim and you are wrong you will likely face penalties under the ADA.
Another exemption would e that the person physically could not wear a mask. The idea here being a physical impairment, such as a hearing impaired individual needing to be able to read lips.
At this time your best approach is to have a clear policy and use signage to illiterate it - have your staff follow the policy - and use a subtle show of force for enforcement via professional security at your entrance - ask politely for compliance - and as a last resort for non-compliance -call the authorities and cooperate with them fully. They may or may not cite the perpetrator - it is their decision.
Private Security should play a role in the re-opening of every business. Protocols and procedures will be established and will need to be administered, a role a third party would best fill. Contact RAD for temporary help with your re-opening.
Google Sites
Report abuse