Health officials hope Kansas residents comply with mask order

Wyandotte County reported 2,312 cumulative total cases at 1 p.m. Wednesday, and cumulative 83 deaths. It was an increase of 80 cases since Tuesday and one more death. (From UG COVID-19 webpage)

Dr. Lee Norman, Kansas secretary of health, said he hopes Kansas residents don’t look for ways to skirt a new mask order from Gov. Laura Kelly, but will comply with it.

The order is scheduled to go into effect on Friday, July 3.

Dr. Norman and doctors at the University of Kansas Health System news conference Wednesday morning discussed the new order.

Kansas has had hundreds of new COVID-19 cases this week, and currently has about 2,000 new cases every week.

The state reported a cumulative total of 14,990 COVID-19 cases on Wednesday morning, an increase of 547 cases since Monday. There were two additional deaths, for a cumulative total of 272.

Wyandotte County reported 2,312 cumulative total cases at 1 p.m. Wednesday, and cumulative 83 deaths. It was an increase of 80 cases since Tuesday and one more death.

The University of Kansas Health System reported 16 COVID-19 patients in the hospital on Wednesday morning, with three on ventilators. There was one less COVID-19 patient in the hospital since Tuesday, and one more patient on a ventilator. There had been some admissions and some discharges.

Discussing the new state mask order, Dr. Norman said enforcement of the state’s order is planned locally, with local municipalities and counties.

“Ideally people will comply with this willingly,” Dr. Norman said. “I think it’ll be a real struggle, honestly.”

With the legislature limiting the governor’s authority recently, the order will have to be approved by the State Finance Council, a group of legislative leaders meeting on Thursday.

He said they will have to wait until Thursday to see what the details of the governor’s executive order on masks will look like.

In the meantime, some parts of Kansas, including Wyandotte County, are already under a local mask order. The order here went into effect at 5 p.m. Tuesday. Residents are required to wear masks in public places. They also are required to continue social distancing and other measures such as washing their hands.

Johnson County currently doesn’t have a local mask ordinance, but the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to vote on whether to have a mask ordinance on Thursday, according to Dr. Joseph Lemaster, Johnson County health officer.

He said he supports mask-wearing and the Johnson County Health Department has been urging its residents to wear masks all along. Wearing masks of any sort, including homemade, will dramatically reduce the risk of COVID-19 in the population, he said.

There currently are petitions online urging Johnson County to adopt a mask ordinance.

Tracey Osborn Oltjen, president of the Overland Park Chamber of Commerce, said at the news conference that about 70 percent of the businesses there already require masks to be worn.

Dr. Norman said it is frustrating to public health leaders when residents don’t take the advice seriously to wear masks. Part of the problem has been inconsistent messaging, he said. Early, health officials were trying to preserve masks for first-responders and front-line workers and so did not advocate for masks.

Some people now are attacking the idea of wearing masks, when in reality what they are saying is the magnitude of the response is in excess to the risk to them, he said. There is a feeling on the part of some Kansas residents, perhaps those without many cases in their counties, that it is not a risk to them.

Dr. Norman said he has pointed out to people that those who work in nursing homes and meatpacking plants where there are outbreaks, then go home, and the disease could spread.

While the COVID-19 numbers of new cases in Kansas now are more among the 20 to 40-year-old groups, and there is less hospitalization, it is community spread, and it won’t remain in that age group long, he said.

“We cannot let our guard down,” he said.

Dr. Dana Hawkinson, medical director of infection control at the University of Kansas Health System, said masks act as a barrier, in case people are infected and do not know it. They reduce the spread of the disease to vulnerable and other populations, he said.

At the news conference, a video from Florida Atlantic University was shown that illustrated how droplets spread from a cough.

The droplets can spread six feet or more without any mask. The distance was much reduced with a mask.

A bandana is better than no mask at all. A stitched, pleated cotton mask worked better than a bandana for blocking droplets, Dr. Hawkinson said.

Masks do not reduce your oxygen, and surgeons have been using them for hours at a time, for years, and they are safe, he said. The virus has already been found in mountainous areas as well as in rural areas, he said.

“You are doing this for other people, so you don’t spread it to other people,” Dr. Hawkinson said.

The KU doctors’ news conference is at

The Wyandotte County mask order is at

A news release on the Wyandotte County mask order is at

The governor’s news release on mask-wearing is at

Wyandotte County now has posted an application for nonprofits, government agencies, school districts and businesses in Wyandotte County that want to apply for CARES Act funding. The web address is

For information on how to make an easy no-sew mask, visit

For more information about COVID-19 testing, including other sites, visit Residents also may call 3-1-1 for more information about testing.

The state’s COVID-19 test page is at

Residents may visit the UG COVID-19 website at or call 311 for more information.

Wyandotte County is currently under Phase 3. See

The state plan’s frequently asked questions page is at

The CDC’s COVID-19 web page is at

7 thoughts on “Health officials hope Kansas residents comply with mask order”

  1. It is quite apparent that numbers have risen due to the new reporting procedures of the CDC. The new reporting states:

    The new guidance expands case surveillance recommendations to include probable COVID-19 cases and deaths based on a number of criteria that were not previously counted. Here are the details:
    1. Quick tests that determine the presence of COVID-19 antibodies in the blood will be counted as positive cases, even without a prior positive diagnosis
    2. Patients with clinical and/or epidemiological evidence of the presence of COVID-19 will be counted as positive cases
    3. Cases in which there is “no other likely diagnosis” will be counted, even if there is no laboratory test performed

    Why, would you include “probable” and “no other likely diagnosis” into the data of known cases??
    I call BS on this one. While I don’t doubt the virus is still around, and people are susceptible to it, the totals are pure nonsense when they don’t accurately portray what is going on. These should only represent confirmed cases.

  2. Did Dr. Norman provide any studies that he is relying on for his conclusions about mask effectiveness in preventing community spread? I haven’t seen any.

      1. Thanks for the links. None of them related to community spread or the effectiveness on asymptomatic wearers. Mostly just lab studies. Wasn’t there anything more relevant?

        1. Here’s another assignment for you to read:

          Community Use Of Face Masks And COVID-19: Evidence From A Natural Experiment Of State Mandates In The US
          Wei Lyu and George L. Wehby

          “There is a significant decline in daily COVID-19 growth rate after mandating facial covers in public, with the effect increasing over time after signing the order.”

          A rapid systematic review of the efficacy of face masks and respirators against coronaviruses and other respiratory transmissible viruses for the community, healthcare workers and sick patients
          C. Raina MacIntyrea and Abrar Ahmad Chughtaib,

          “The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic.”

          Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus
          By Nina Bai

          “A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time.”

          “The latest forecast from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation suggests that 33,000 deaths could be avoided by October 1 if 95 percent of people wore masks in public.”


          Lack of COVID-19 transmission on an international flight
          Kevin L. Schwartz, Michelle Murti, Michael Finkelstein, Jerome A. Leis, Alanna Fitzgerald-Husek, Laura Bourns, Hamidah Meghani, Andrea Saunders, Vanessa Allen and Barbara Yaffe
          CMAJ April 14, 2020

          “In our investigation, transmission may have been mitigated by mild symptoms and masking during the flight.”

          Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

          Derek K Chu, MD
          Prof Elie A Akl, MD
          Stephanie Duda, MSc
          Karla Solo, MSc
          Sally Yaacoub, MPH
          Prof Holger J Schünemann, MD
          et al.

          Published:June 01, 2020 The Lancet

          “Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care setting.”

          “The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors.”

          1. Those are more relevant. Good find. Here are the 8 community studies in the NCBI article. Results point to handwashing, not masks.

            Cowling, 2008 preliminary, no results
            MacIntyre, 2009 low participation
            Cowling, 2009 Masks + Handwashing
            Aiello, 2010 Masks + Handwashing
            Aiello, 2012 Masks alone not protective
            Larson, 2010 Masks + Handwashing + Education
            Simmerman, 2011 No effect from masks
            Suess, 2012 Only household contacts (i.e. live together)

  3. Too many official opinions all over, and seems no one is in control. We should have stayed in Ph. 2 longer. So, who would or could make that decision?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *