Board of Health Votes Indoor Mask Mandate

The Board of Health on Monday approved an indoor mask requirement applicable to “all indoor spaces open to the public,” effective at 12:01 a.m. Friday, August 27, 2021.

The mandate specifies houses of worship, fitness clubs, lodging, personal services, performance venues, and common space in multi-unit residential buildings. The board also voted to include schools, where it lacks jurisdiction, assuming that state and local education officials Tuesday will approve a mask mandate.

Monday’s vote was 4-1 to implement the requirement, with Dr. Ann Kiessling opposed.

Several board members pointed to an “exit strategy” built into the policy, based on county-wide transmission defined as “low” or “moderate.” Kiessling pushed for a local basis for relaxing the mandate.

Bedford’s case numbers and positivity rates are much lower than the county’s, but several board members pointed out that people come and go to and from the town all the time.

Kiessling said she opposed the policy because “none of these guidelines follow the science.  I think this is being done out of real fear, not real genuine thought.” Kiessling stated that the policy will harm the community more than the virus. “If we had one documented transmission in a business or school, this would be a different document for me. But we haven’t had one.”

Member Maureen Richichi pointed out that “there’s a lot that remains unknown and uncertain. The delta variant is still evolving and we are lacking full and conclusive data on Delta, breakthrough cases, long covid, the waning efficacy of current vaccines. Those questions make it prudent to consider this.”

Richichi acknowledged that there is “conflicting evidence” on how effective facial covering works, but “my research leads me to conclude that it can be successful especially when used with other strategies.” She stressed the importance of protecting vulnerable residents – young children, as well as adults who are medically compromised and can’t be safely vaccinated.

“I think a lot has to do with what’s happening around us,” said member Bea Brunkhorst. “People can accuse us of doing this out of fear but to me, this is lessons learned – how many times do we have to see it before we do something to limit our exposure?”

Kiessling particularly objected to requiring children older than two to wear masks indoors. The World Health Organization’s cutoff is age six, she said. “Do you want three-and four-year-olds wearing masks five or six hours a day? That’s not globally accepted.” But the guidelines of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend the two-year-old minimum, replied Heidi Porter, the town’s director of health and human services.

“There is a lot of uncertainty, but we do know that what was done previously helped,” observed member Susan Schwartz. “Masks are what people embraced when it was mandated. We saw numbers go down, not just for covid but for other illnesses as well.” Kiessling responded that broad-based testing was mainly responsible for the decline.

Richichi emphasized the importance of increased opportunities for testing, especially greater participation in pool testing in the schools, “It’s really important that we get that good testing data.”

Board Chair Anita Raj noted that restrictions very similar to the requirements approved Monday have been adopted in Arlington, Belmont, Lexington, Lincoln, Sudbury, and Winchester.

Mike Rosenberg can be reached at [email protected], or 781-983-1763