ABSTRACT
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented shutdown in social and economic activity, with the cultural sector particularly severely affected. Restrictions on musical performances have arisen from a perception that there is a significantly higher risk of aerosol production from singing than speaking, based upon high-profile examples of clusters of COVID-19 following choral rehearsals. However, comparing aerosol generation from different types of vocalization, including singing, across a range of volumes is a rapidly evolving area of research. Here, we measured aerosols from singing, speaking and breathing from a large cohort of 25 professional singers in a range of musical genres in a zero-background environment, allowing unequivocal attribution of aerosol production to specific vocalizations. We do not assess the relative volumes at which people speak and sing. However, both showed steep increases in mass concentration with increase in loudness (spanning a factor of 20–30 across the dynamic range measured, p < 0.001). At the quietest volume (50 to 60 dBA), neither singing (p = 0.19) nor speaking (p = 0.20) were significantly different to breathing. At the loudest volume (90 to 100 dBA), a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was observed between singing and speaking, but with singing only generating a factor of between 1.5 and 3.4 more aerosol mass. Guidelines for musical performances should be based on the loudness and duration of the vocalization, the number of participants and the environment in which the activity occurs, rather than the type of vocalization. Mitigations such as the use of amplification and increased attention to ventilation should be employed where practicable. Copyright © 2021 American Association for Aerosol Research. © 2021 American Association for Aerosol Research.
ABSTRACT
Since COVID-19 first emerged internationally, Australia has applied a number of public health measures to counter the disease' epidemiology. The public heath response has been effective in virus testing, diagnosing and treating patients with COVID-19. The imposed strict border restrictions and social distancing played a vital role in reducing positive cases via community transmission resulting in 'flattening of the curve'. Now is too soon to assess the impact of COVID-19 on people's mental health, as it will be determined by both short- and long-term consequences of exposure to stress, uncertainty, loss of control, loneliness and isolation. The authors explored cultural and societal influences on mental health during the current pandemic utilising Geert Hofstede's multidimensional construct of culture and determined psychological and cultural factors that foster resilience. We also reflected on the psychological impact of the pandemic on the individual and the group at large by utilising Michel Foucault' and Jacques Lacan' psychoanalytic theories. Remote Aboriginal Australian communities have been identified as a high-risk subpopulation in view of their unique vulnerabilities owing to their compromised health status, in addition to historical, systemic and cultural factors. Historically, Australia has prided itself in its multiculturalism; however, there has been evidence of an increase in racial microaggressions and xenophobia during this pandemic. Australia's model of cultural awareness will need to evolve, from reactionary to more reflective, post COVID-19 pandemic to best serve our multicultural, inclusive and integrated society.