Author: SecondTry
Date: 2021-08-24 20:30
Fuzzy wrote:
> One of the problems with skipping the science on this -
> couldn't a person make a bell cover that was basically window
> screen or fishnet-stalkings and meet the ensemble's criteria?
No. And that's because the ensemble's criterion is to create the appearance of a solution to spreading germs. This only comes with the use of a standardized bell cover, that even if actually capable of allowing air to pass for E3 ![[E3]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/e3.gif) , but not infectious material, would be like the metaphorical "closing the windows but keeping the door wide open" in that--as has so many times been already stated--clarinet air passes through the next available hole: which is only the bell for full fingered notes.
> If so - then the rules are meaningless.
Pretty much correct: barring the actual mythical bell cover I described while the band played my premiere piece for clarinet entitled "themes in E3 and only E3" ..if you catch my drift.
If not, then what is
> the common, scientific, medical, measurable standard being
> applied to all of the commercial bell coverings?
There is none.
>
> I don't understand how bell covers can make medical claims
> without running afoul of the FDA in the US.
Bell cover manufacturers can make medical claims about their bell covers efficacy no differently than that baldness tonic reverser manufacturers can about their product: it's permissible (sadly) until you're caught.
>
> Sorry - got sidetracked: I guess the point of my post is
> actually to ask whether or not less restrictive homemade
> solutions could be used?
Of course they can, considering the whole dang lot of them is all but ineffective. The point is that allowing flexible in the remedy, and not portraying consistency in the "solution," creates optics that suggest the truth: that the solution is all but ineffective: consistent or not.
Instead of two layers of X material,
> maybe two layers of lighter Y material could be used
> instead...or one layer? What would the schools use as
> justification to deny one covering over the other?
>
Absolutely nothing--at least science based as even the rare effective bell cover only has efficacy, as stated, when playing E3 .
> It would make more sense to me if the schools/ensembles just
> said: you must buy (and use) brand X, Y, or Z in order to play
> in our ensemble. Seems odd to do that, but at least there
> would be some continuity.
Here's why that doesn't make sense. Because the bell cover solution is no solution at all, a school district that mandates a particular make and model of cover has only managed to more delusionally "drink the coolaid" that is bell covers prevent the spread of infection. Legally speaking, if no solution works here, and none does, a district that makes no specifications on gear is less on the hook.
An analogy, the diving school that mandates you use XYZ breathing regulator, worse, insists you buy it from them, is more on the hook for its catastrophic failure in a student than the school which lists acceptable manufacturer's gear to use on a dive, from which the student may pick their brand and seller.
>
> Fuzzy
> ;^)>>>
Post Edited (2021-08-24 20:35)
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
