Wayland Mask Mandate: Board Fails To Approve On Second Try
WAYLAND, MA — The effectiveness of masks is apparently still up for debate in Wayland after the Board of Health voted — for the second time in January — against a mask mandate this week.
Wayland stands out in the region on masks: Framingham, Marlborough and Natick have enacted mask mandates during the recent COVID-19 surge. Sudbury has had a mandate in effect since August.
The Wayland Board of Health first voted down a mandate over the first week in January, opting instead for a mask advisory. The board decided to take the issue on again after urging from the public and a board member.
Member Arnold Soslow, a physician in Wayland, called the board out for voting against the mandate previously, saying the town has empowered "cavalier spread and infections" without a mandate.
"It just blows me away," Soslow said during Wednesday's meeting. He then introduced a motion to implement a four-week mask mandate.
With only four of five members at the meeting — Robert Defrancesco was absent — the board deadlocked on the vote 2-2, with members Brian McNamara and Chair Dr. John Schuler voting no.
Before the vote, Dr. Sabrina Assoumou, a Wayland resident, infectious disease physician and Boston University professor, gave a wide-ranging presentation to the board about why mask mandates are a good tool to prevent COVID-19 infections.
Although mask mandates are not perfect, she said, they do influence behavior. According to the Centers for Disease Control, some masks can block up to 80 percent of droplets that carry coronavirus.
"Masking works," she said. "It prevents hospitalizations, it prevents deaths."
A few residents spoke before the meeting with sentiments on both sides.
Resident Caroline Owen, who works in holistic medicine, said mask mandates are illegal and warned Wayland could get sued, putting taxpayers on the hook for a legal defense. No other nearby towns — including Marlborough, Framingham, Sudbury and Natick — have been sued over mandates since the pandemic began.
"It's a violation of people's rights," Owen said.
Resident Susan Meyer said her husband is immunocompromised, and the lack of a Wayland mask mandate has made her hesitant to go out around town. She feels safer going to places like Framingham and Sudbury to shop because those communities have mandates.
"We're the only town where, when I go in the supermarket, I don't know if people are going to wear masks," she said.
Schuler said he previously voted against a mandate because the coronavirus situation is different than in 2020 when there were no vaccines, and there was a shortage of medical supplies. He also insinuated that cases are not that high in Wayland and are declining.
Public Health Director Julia Junhanns interjected with data from Wayland Public Schools (WPS) revealing about 50 new cases in each building over the last few weeks. There were more than 90 positive test results alone in the week of Jan. 13 to Jan. 19, according to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and there have been 507 cases total this school year, according to WPS.
McNamara continuously questioned the effectiveness of paper masks against the omicron variant. He also highlighted that Wayland's rate of cases is lower than in Sudbury, which has a mandate.
Assoumou said that looking at town-to-town data isn't a good representation of case spread, advising McNamara to look at aggregate data. She included data in her presentation showing that counties without mask mandates have higher COVID-19 spread than those with mandates.
Wayland does have a mask mandate in place inside municipal buildings. Both McNamara and Schuler were wearing masks during the meeting because they attended the meeting along with Junghanns in the town building.
This article originally appeared on the Wayland Patch
