By Robin G. Jordan
Allen White offers some good advice in his article, “When Should Groups Meet in Person.” This article is an expanded version of two comments that I posted in response to his article on the Church Leaders web site. In addition to being applicable to small groups, I believe that his advice may also be applicable to very small congregations such as those of cell churches, home fellowships, and micro-churches.
I would add to his recommendations that a small group leader before holding an in-person meeting should thoroughly acquaint himself with the views of the small group members on the pandemic, including its seriousness and the need for precautionary measures, and what precautionary measures they themselves have been taking. It only takes one person who dismisses the seriousness of the pandemic and does not wear a face mask or observe other precautionary measures to infect with a virus a group of individuals who are observing these measures.
The small group leader also needs to acquaint himself with the views of the other members of the household with whom each small group member lives. On the BBC News web site there have been several good articles about "social bubbles" and "social bubbling." These terms describe a approach to expanding contacts outside the immediate members of a household, which has been pioneered in New Zealand. While an in-person small group meeting is not the same as a "social bubble," a number of the precautions that are recommended in picking an individual or household to form a "social bubble" with are applicable to such a meeting. Before a small group leader holds an in-person meeting, he or she needs to determine if all the participants are "safe." They are not going to expose the other members of the small group and their households to the COVID-19 coronavirus through their attitudes and actions or the attitudes and actions of members of their households.
Forming a "social bubble" with someone who ignores public health guidelines or with a household in which one or more members ignores such guidelines is likely to be disastrous. Holding in-person small group meetings with one more individuals that who ignore such guidelines or who are members of a household in which one or more members ignores them is also likely to be disastrous.
I would also add that in-person small group meetings should be held outdoors, preferably in a breezy space. One study showed that small outdoor gatherings in which the participants wore face masks and maintained a distance of six feet (two meters) or more between themselves were the least likely gatherings for the transmission of the COVID-19 coronavirus. If they are held indoors, they should be held in a large, open space, doors and windows open, and ventilated by electric fans. What is critical is that the air in the room should circulate and prevent the formation of a concentration of COVID-19 coronavirus particles should one or more members of the small group have the virus.
The longer an individual breathes COVID-19 coronavirus particles, the more likely he or she will become infected with the virus. To reduce the risk of exposure, the length of in-person small groups meetings should be kept short. They should not be allowed to run past the time the meeting is scheduled to conclude. Long meetings increase the risk of exposure.
I would further add that all who attend the in-person small group meeting should be required to wear face masks with no exceptions, not just before and after the meeting but throughout it. It is unfortunate that the wearing of face masks has become controversial in the United States.
A number of individuals on Facebook and other social media platforms appear to have dedicated their waking hours to the spreading of all kind of false and inaccurate information about face masks. The reaction of some members of the public to face masks as consequence borders on the irrational. Face mask, however, serve two purposes. They reduce the number of COVID-19 coronavirus particles that the wearer inhales. Most importantly, they reduce the number of particles that the wearer exhales.
While we might like to believe that people act with the best interest of others in mind, in reality that is often far from the case. The first confirmed case of the COVID-19 coronavirus in my county was someone who was tested positive for the virus and advised to self-isolate. However, this person decided to go ahead with a planned visit to a relative in the county because he was not feeling sick. During that visit he attended his relative's church and exposed about 100 people to the virus. The relative was the second confirmed COVID-19 case in the county.
While a small group leader may ask anyone who is sick not to attend the meeting in person but to participate online, he may not get 100% cooperation. Small group members who are unable to wear a face mask for legitimate reasons or who refuse to wear one should be asked to not attend the meeting in person but to participate online. If they do show up for the meeting, they should be turned away. All small group members should be advised that this will happen ahead of the meeting. They should not be allowed to jeopardize the health and safety of the other small group members. Human nature being what it is, small group leaders should be prepared to deal with small group members who may choose to test this requirement.
The use of toilets before, during, or after a in-person small group meeting during the COVID-19 coronavirus presents a unique problem. One study of the transmission of the virus in hospitals found that bathrooms had the highest concentration of COVID-19 virus particles. This was attributed to three factors--the size of the bathroom, poor ventilation, and the shedding of COVID-19 coronavirus particles by those infected with the virus when they urinate or defecate. A more recent study has drawn attention to the problem of "toilet plumes," columns of air containing virus particles which occur when a toilet is flushed with the lid open. As a result of these studies it is recommended that whoever hosts an in-person small group meeting should take steps to ensure that the bathroom is adequately ventilated, that those who attend the meeting are instructed to put down the lid of the toilet before flushing, and that the bathroom is decontaminated after each use. The decontamination of the bathroom should not be left to the person who uses the toilet and the failure of any small group member to close the toilet lid should be brought to the attention of the whole group. Carelessness should not be overlooked or ignored.
The built-in ceiling fans typically found in bathrooms may not be adequate for ventilating the bathroom. Exhausting the air of the bathroom to the exterior of the building with a window fan and leaving the door of the bathroom open with the occupant screened from view may be the best approach to ventilating the bathroom. Small groups leaders will need to size up the bathroom that will be used and determine the best method of ventilating it.
Small group leaders should closely monitor the number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the community or communities in which the small group members live and work and in the region and the state. Only if the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths has consistently dropped over an extended period of time should they consider holding in-person meetings. If the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths begin to rise again, they should discontinue the in-person meetings. It is much safer to suspend in-person meetings during such an uptick than it is to keep holding meetings, hoping that the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths will go down. With each rise in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, the infection rate goes up. The likelihood of someone becoming infected with the virus is much higher.
Only when Americans as a nation takes the COVID-19 pandemic with the seriousness that the outbreak of a dangerous, highly infectious respiratory disease warrants will the United States begin to see a light at the end of the tunnel, not an imagined light but a real one. The present administration and the federal government could be doing a great deal more to educate the American public about the need for face masks and other precautionary measures to contain and suppress the pandemic and taking other steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus.
To observers outside of the United States, in Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere it appears that the United States has given up the fight against the virus and is letting it go unchecked. There is a very real danger that the United States, if it emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic, will emerge as a much weaker nation.
Those who truly wish to preserve the nation’s standing in the world may need to give serious consideration to replacing the present administration. Having vacillated between denying the seriousness of the pandemic and maintaining in the face of surges in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths that the worst of the pandemic is past, one is prompted to wonder what the present administration will do if it retains the White House.
Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in The Peter Principle, published in 1969, made the observation that “people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their ‘level of incompetence’: employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.” People may avoid reaching their level of incompetence in one of two ways—by engaging in what Peter and Hull described as “creative incompetence” and preventing their promotion. Or they may switch to a new hierarchy in which they may continue to rise without reaching their level of incompetency. People may also switch to a new hierarchy where they immediately reach a level where they are no longer competent.
Among the conclusions that can be drawn from Peter and Hull’s observation is that because a individual is successful in his positions in one hierarchy, it does not follow that he will be successful in positions in another hierarchy. One often hears the argument that a high executive position in government needs a businessman but their observations show the weakness of that argument. Someone may be competent in business but incompetent in government. They require different skill sets.
While President Trump’s success as a businessman is open to question due to the string of bankruptcies in which he was involved, he did enjoy a measure of success as a showman—as a promoter of beauty pageants and a reality show star, for which he deserves credit. During serious pandemic like the COVID-19 pandemic the United States, however, needs a chief executive in the White House with a different skill set from a showman, someone who will bring the country together in the fight against the COVID-19 coronavirus.
Whether it is an accurate impression, President Trump gives the impression that he has written off the hundreds of thousands of people who will become seriously ill and even die as a result of his pursuit of the re-invigoration of the US economy, which he sees as necessary to his successful re-election. The past occasions on which he has shown a lack of empathy for other people reinforce this impression.
Some readers may disagree with this analysis. I, however, believe that it is a credible assessment of our current situation in the United States. It also has bearing upon whether small groups should hold in-person meetings and under what circumstances.
Denominations, church networks, judicatories, churches, and small groups are going to have to look out for themselves and each other as long as politics and economics determines what goes into the Centers for Disease Control guidelines and state and local reopening policies. The kind of accurate, reliable information that they need to make the right decisions in reopening church buildings and holding in-person services and gatherings, including small group meetings, may not be available from these sources. What information is available may be incomplete and may reflect the priorities of the present administration or a particular state or local government. COVID-19 denialism is not limited to posters on Facebook and other social media platforms.
It is my belief that these organizations need to develop their own sources of accurate, reliable information, based upon the latest, trustworthy research into the transmission of the COVID-19 coronavirus and the best precautionary methods for preventing its transmission. They also need to develop their own programs to educate people about the transmission of the virus and the best transmission prevention precautionary methods.
No comments:
Post a Comment