Those in court face unnecessary risk during pandemic
Ireceived a summons to in-person jury duty from the First District Court of New Mexico in late August. The term was beginning Oct. 2. The summons included a letter from the New Mexico Supreme Court summarizing the steps the court is taking for COVID-19.
I am 73 years old and have been careful about possible exposure to the virus. I am a mechanical engineer who has studied fluid and particle flow and air filtration. I have been following reports on social distancing and masks, flow and particle and filtration problems. I was concerned that service could place me at risk, and I studied the provisions described in the court’s letter. I was completely willing to serve remotely.
The court is screening for symptoms with questionnaires and temperature checks, requiring masks for all, and maintaining a minimum of 6 feet of spacing or using plexiglass partitions. I do not believe the screening is adequate to identify those who are asymptomatic, some 40 percent of those infected, and prevent them from entering the courtroom.
It has become understood that the asymptomatic are responsible for a large fraction of transmission, through aerosols produced by breathing and speaking. These aerosols consist of 1 micron particles, smaller than the 5 micron particles in the coughs and sneezes of the symptomatic. The larger particles are the basis for the 6-foot rule. The smaller aerosol particles can remain airborne for much farther than 6 feet, can be carried with air flows around partitions and through building ventilation systems. They also are more difficult to filter with masks. There is a growing appreciation that the 6-foot rule is inadequate.
Hence the court’s use of the 6-foot rule and partitions is not adequate protection, in my opinion. The only way to identify the asymptomatic is through testing for the virus. This is what is done by sports teams and careful universities. The court is not doing testing. Careful organizations also are enhancing ventilation systems with upgraded filters and sanitization. The court’s letter says nothing about courtroom ventilation.
Furthermore, the Department of Health’s “Policies for the Prevention and Control of COVID-19 In New Mexico, September 21, 2020,” states that all mass gatherings of 10 or more people in a single room are prohibited. In light of the increase in cases, the governor has reduced the number to five. The policy has an exclusion for public employees and officials, but I do not understand why they are not offered the same protection as the public. Nonetheless, the jury and other nongovernmental employees in a courtroom are members of the public and constitute a mass gathering.
Consequently, I do not believe the measures the court is taking are adequate to protect me and the others in a working courtroom from being exposed to the virus while spending the day there. I sent a letter to the court describing my concerns. Without explanation, I was dismissed from jury duty. I was relieved, but I do not believe the courts should be operating in person until the virus is under control. I believe all those in the courtrooms are being placed at unnecessary risk.