It's weird because back in October the head of LA County Health Department gave a briefing where she said that contact tracing shows that 15% of COVID cases are due to outdoor dining.
Then the the board of supervisors asked her more specific questions about the data when they were preparing the latest lockdown order. Instead of reiterating or expanding on what she said before, she walked back her claims and said there was no specific data about the spread of COVID due to outdoor dining.
There is no specific data because measuring is basically impossible. You´d need to control for all variables in a situation like that and that just cant be done or at least wont be doable any time soon.
This is all just an emotional reaction based on what you consider to be probable. It isnt based in science or data, it´s based in hypotheticals.
That's absolutely not true. Contact tracing is a thing. Most of the restaurants I've patronized in L.A. this year required a contact name / number before being seated for tracing purposes.
Contact tracing can work and NZ has had success, mostly meeting its “80% traced in 3 days” target. However the system cost is something like NZ$70m and can handle up to 1000 cases daily. Doing this for 225k cases per day seems almost insurmountable from way down here.
Which only tells you who was there at any given time. And I doubt that data is correct, we had multiple cases where people lied on the forms. And then you still don't know where they caught it. It only tells officials who to call. They is always a huge margin of error. And that is when contact tracing is working at scale. German authorities basically gave up on it because there are too many cases.
That's insane. Here in Nashville, TN I have NEVER been required to give my personal information to visit to a restaurant or bar. At what point do the people of California start to wake up about big brother, destruction of freedoms, and government control? I am so happy I left San Francisco in 2018.
Utah bars scan the dotcode on dyrovers licenses, so even if you are just there for music or friends, a record might be kept. That was well before 2020.
From outside the US, this attitude is impossible to understand when there's 9/11 worth of horrible, miserable, lonely deaths each and every day.
It's so strange. After 9/11, Americans completely remade their society and started a series of pointless, losing wars. But COVID has killed a hundred times as many, seriously injured god knows how many more, and people just go on about "big brother, destruction of freedoms, and government control".
That's what's "insane" to me - a major, deadly pandemic that the world's richest country refuses to deal with due to clinical paranoia.
I'm in the Bay Area and I have never been asked for contact info for outdoor dining. Apparently restaurants are supposed to ask people who dine indoors.
I've dined outdoors at about 10 different restaurants in the past couple months, but only one has asked for contact details (they just immediately entered me into their reservations app). So agree that this does not seem to be a widespread practice.
Back in October the LA County Health Department lied. Apparently the actual number is less than 4%.
> The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health admitted during a Board of Supervisor's meeting Tuesday that there is no hard scientific evidence linking the recent COVID-19 surge to back up their move to shut down outdoor dining.
It's really strange to me, that we have a vaccine, but we don't have real, deep insight into where transmission really do take place. What public transport for example where people usually don't talk. What about workplace meeting rooms. I would want money spent on researching transmission pathways in depth.
They do have such investigations in South Korea, Taiwan, and similar places with low spread and competent leadership.
In the US community spread is far too out of control and contact tracing is far too underfunded to get anywhere close to comprehensive data about this.
There have been some useful small case investigations published by the US CDC.
Its rather simple, fill out a form for every patient admitted to ICU. Were you wearing a mask? how diligently? were you going outside? how often? where? Add random check by scanning peoples social media profile photos to see if they lied.
Instead we dont even know what percentage of hospitalized actually used masks, something super basic and easy to check.
> Its rather simple, fill out a form for every patient admitted to ICU.
With all due respect, it's like you've never met Americans. People wouldn't cooperate if asked to, and the hospitals can't afford to hire the people it would take to process the forms.
The primary question to ask in America is always this: "Can an investor make money out of this?"
> California Health and Human Services Agency Secretary Mark Ghaly on Tuesday acknowledged the state’s regional prohibition on outdoor dining has more to do with preventing gatherings and limiting movement than the activity itself. “The decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that — turning to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options instead — really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people at home, not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining,” he said at a press briefing.
> "By failing to weigh the benefits of an outdoor dining restriction against its costs, the County acted arbitrarily and its decision lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate end," wrote Judge James C. Chalfant.
In what sense is there a lack of a rational relationship between "restricting outdoor activity" and "reducing mass gathering" here? Whether or not the approach is ultimately a good one, the reasoning behind it seems pretty rational and simple to understand: they're restricting outdoor activity to reduce people's incentives to gather and reduce COVID-19's chances of spreading (which seems like a pretty legitimate end). What am I missing?
The judge only struck down the county's ban on outdoor dining. The state-determined ban Ghaly was commenting on, which prohibits outdoor dining in the county based on specific metrics indicating ICUs are at risk of overload, is separate and still in effect.
(One might point out that this is a very strange legal technicality, and... yeah, kinda.)
This seems strange at this moment, where one ban has been struck down but not the other. But within a few weeks the state ban will likely also be challenged.
Even though the trial court judge's ruling in the first case isn't binding precedent in a subsequent case (only higher courts can create binding precedent), it will nonetheless carry some weight as the state decides whether to back down.
Anyway these bans have a tendency to turn into some idiotic measures race where authorities compete on ‘toughness’, of course preferably applying it in situations where someone else bears the costs.
Striking down poor local rules helps against that.
When you sue the county, that does not make the state a party to the lawsuit, even if the state is doing something similar. That's not a technicality; it's really fundamental to how lawsuits work.
The county was asked by the court to submit evidence of their claim that outdoor dining contributed to cases, relative to other allowed forms of gathering, and failed to do so. It sounds as though the county could have prevailed if they had been able to demonstrate that closing outdoor dining kept people home in a way that prevented cases, relative to closing other businesses.
Why any more proof than an "it's simple" shrug is required apparently has to do with the limits of emergency powers. They are apparently not able to make any arbitrary pronouncements.
If the county was right that closing outdoor restaurants in particular was one of the more important measures to rule, then they have cost lives--or will cost lives if the state's measures expire--by failing to successfully argue the case. They knew that this was coming their way.
I think the most troubling thing I've seen throughout this entire pandemic is just how many people think they should be allowed to dictate what others do. It's a proposition completely at odds with freedom.
The erosion of the idea of personal responsibility in favor of the idea social responsibility. Combined with a complete and utter disregard for the livelihoods of the millions of people impacted by these decisions.
That is before we even consider the long term health consequences of what we're doing to people. Stress kills, too.
I also feel (perhaps cynically) that banning is a good thing as a taxpaying citizen. Ban it, get the rule on the books but don't actually actively enforce it.
It highly limits the state's liability if it does turn out late next year that outdoor gatherings due increase probabilities. Otherwise the state is on the hook for unlimited lawsuits related to criminal negligence for giving improper guidance which lead to loss of life.
Its just like jaywalking rules. Its rarely enforced but prevents lawsuits in the event there is a fatality.
The government cannot have "liability" for action or inaction because of sovereign immunity. No private person can sue the state without the state's permission.
The rule is default deny. There is legislation that allows you to sue the government in specific, narrow circumstances, but nothing really relevant to this situation. I'm sure someone will try anyway, but the suit will certainly be dismissed.
They aren't restricting all outdoor activity- banning outdoor dining puts an arbitrary burden on restaurants that didn't exist elsewhere.
For example, see the Pineapple Hill video (or whatever the place was called). In this case, the restaurant was forced to shut down, while a film crew set up their catering right across the street from her.
Here, the state determined the entertainment industry to be "essential workers", rather than the county, but the basic point stands.
It wasn't even across the street. Same parking lot. The city or county attempted to justify it by saying film production staff are tested regularly (can't make this up!)
Is that not significant though? All of the people eating together in one setting are tested multiple times per week and screened each day. All of the people eating on the other patio have no oversight of testing and screening. Whether I agree with it or not, I can't deny those are very different risk profiles.
No you wouldn't. A different testing regime and day-to-day tracking easily meets the rational-basis standard for discrimination based on objectively different conditions.
(Layman here, take everything with a truckload of salt.)
I'm actually not sure they're "very" different risk profiles, though it isn't unreasonable to assume that before you analyze the situation further. My reason is that contagiousness peaks around 2-3 days before symptoms appear, and the false negative rate for a test is 100% just 4 days before symptoms appear. [1]
Now consider that tests themselves normally take around 3 days to come back. That means if you find out your test results just 1 day before symptoms appear, they'll be based on your viral load from three days prior, where (as mentioned above) the test would've had a ~100% chance of producing a false negative! (Things improve a little for a 2-day turnaround, not that much.) In other news, the only time you can really expect useful results is on (or after) the day of symptoms... at which point you would already be staying home.
I do see 2 places where this argument breaks down:
- For asymptomatic carriers. I don't know what the rates are like, but asymptomatic people won't know to stay home without a test, so tests would seem to have some value there for the purpose of making public gathering safer. However, intuitively, I wouldn't expect it to be a game-changer—I'd only expect it to stretch the runway a little bit (say, get you a few extra days/weeks), but you'd still be back at square 1 having to shut things down afterward.
- For people who aren't cautious and would go out to dine even amidst symptoms, but wouldn't go if they test positive. Which seems ironic because you could say reckless behavior here would (in some sense) seem to create a positive feedback loop justifying more reckless behavior. That not only seems like a questionable way to justify public policy, but it also seems to suffer from the same problem as the last item: it'd only delay the inevitable by a few days/weeks.
- For rapid tests (< 1 day, preferably < 1 hour). I don't expect rapid tests will be available to the masses for everyday activities.
So, at least on my end, with traditional testing that takes 2-3 days to come back, it's entirely plausible (and moreover, likely) to me that testing has low utility for these particular purposes. But I would love to hear an expert's explanation that takes all these factors (and more) into account.
Beyond the regular testing, I imagine the contact tracing would be easier for a production set than a restaurant.
Are diners in American restaurants required to register name and contact details before entering? We have that in South Australia (takes a few seconds via QR code), and we currently have no active cases state-wide.
Last time, they showed a list of particular hot spots (bus stops, shopping centres, schools) and asked if we'd been at any of those locations recently. Though I imagine there wouldn't be much of the US right now that isn't some level of hot spot!
I would feel a lot better about outdoor dining if I knew that the people at the table 2 feet away were being tested 3x per week and that I'd hear about it if they tested positive in the next few days
Where are the spit tests? 36-48 hours for PCR results isn't practical for the kind of testing regime needed for restaurants, and bars.
Gyms, shops, shopping malls are open. No testing and no limits.
States have a legal and ethical pubic health obligation. They're also on the hook financially via lost sales taxes and medicaid costs. Each covid case is bad for states. But they can't pay businesses to close. And they federal government won't pay even though they could.
A 10 minute spit test would make this allot more doable.
Wow, I haven't seen that anywhere. The closest I've seen is the places that cram all the tables together under a giant test. Here in LA the inspectors found that about 80% of restaurants weren't following guidelines for things like table distance
But they are tested regularly. Each production is also supposed to have a dedicated person to handle Covid-19 compliance with final authority on such matters and separation/segmentation of bubbles/zones for those that closely or without masks and the rest of production.
http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/docs/...
They're in essence, supposed to work in as much of a bubble as they can whereas you cannot say the same about a restaurant. It's an unfortunate situation, but they really are quite different.
I'd argue that there is a substantial difference - if the staff of a film production (or any business, really) are already working on-site together, then them also eating lunch together does not create additional "connections" like a dining place that's open to the general public does.
The policy goal is to minimize the number of people you meet. You meet your household, if you have to work non-remotely, then you meet some coworkers (preferably a limited amount and always the same, separating a company in teams/"bubbles") and ideally that's it - it makes all sense that places where you'd be eating together with random strangers should be restricted much more than work lunches where outsiders are excluded.
Maybe the restaurants should be in the catering business then instead of running a business that requires people to take their masks off in proximity to other people in public.
They aren’t restricting all outdoor activity. They are restricting one form of outdoor activity while allowing others. There is one group (restaurants) that is inordinately harmed by this restriction.
For instance, I walked by the Presidio parade grounds in SF this past Sunday. Plenty of people were picnicking on the grass there. They were eating and drinking without masks while social distancing. It’s basically a restaurant level risk without the restaurant.
That activity is allowed but outdoor dining isn’t.
Another example. I went to downtown Burlingame the week before to get my phone fixed. There was a lot of outdoor dining but more interestingly there were many people walking or standing around with masks down while sipping drinks. Those sidewalks don’t permit 6 ft social distancing.
That is still not restricted but outdoor dining a few feet away would be.
These restrictions don’t make much sense. The problem is that the behavior that is causing most of the spread is something that they cannot effectively ban without massive policing.
I've been seeing people packed in quite densely in many outdoor dining setups; other than the fact that they're outside there seems no risk awareness at all. It's very unfair to restaurants that do make an effort to limit table sizes and space people out as much as possible.
The problem with this virus is that most people aren’t going to die from it. Therefore, from a self interest standpoint, those least vulnerable don’t feel that they should make a sacrifice for those more vulnerable.
Similarly, the economic effects aren’t being felt evenly.
I think more and more people have come to this realization.
If you are poor and likely to get it, then why shouldn’t you give it to the rich? Likewise if you are rich, you aren’t feeling the economic effects and may be for lockdowns. If you are a teen why should you be inconvenienced by masks? I think we are seeing both play out.
most people don't project the consequences of their decisions out that far. "I want to spend time with friends" does not lead to "this may cause me difficulty in finding a job later on" because the causal relationship is systemic and related to the independent decisions of many actors, not their own singular decision.
Maybe it was earlier in the summer. But, as the weather has grown colder, many restaurants have gradually enclosed their "outdoor dining" areas to the point that they're practically indoors again.
It is different, because people standing in line on the sidewalk are generally maintaining an approximate 6 foot distance (unless they're from the same household). I'm talking about (some) restaurants arranging people with only 1-2 feet of separation between diners. Plus people standing in single file are going to circulate air differently to people sitting abreast of each other, as well as wearing rather than doffing masks. Also, sit down meals tend to last at least 20-30 minutes, and I have not spent that much time in line on the sidewalk for anything during COVID - perhaps once back in March when social distancing was first being figured out, but definitely not since.
Yea, if anyone has actually seen these schemes restaurant owners have come up with, especially as the weather gets cold: It's a joke. Four clear vinyl walls and a ceiling. It is essentially indoor dining but in a parking lot. You're not fooling anyone. They're obviously designed to comply with the exact letter of the law, not its spirit or intention. When I look at them and the people in them sitting shoulder to shoulder, all I can think of is "super-spreader". I'm shocked that they were allowed to operate in this way.
Also, the "but other businesses..." argument fails to recognize that dining is a special case activity: The nature of eating food requires you to be unmasked and using your mouth. It's not the same as shopping for clothes.
> Presidio parade grounds in SF this past Sunday. Plenty of people were picnicking on the grass there.
If they are from the same household and keeping their distance from people in other households this is entirely fine. It’s relatively low risk if outdoors, especially someplace relatively windy.
If they are from different households and crowding together eating then they are technically violating SF’s local health orders. Enforcement is difficult of course.
> Burlingame [...] many people walking or standing around with masks down while sipping drinks [...] That is still not restricted
I would guess that these people are violating their local health orders (they certainly would be in SF), but again it’s a lot harder to enforce this one than shutting down restaurants.
You’re missing the main point of the judge’s decision, which is that this strategy doesn’t factor in the severe pain caused to people’s financial livelihoods.
I’m trying to figure out the point in human history where the well-being of individuals or industries was prioritized over the well-being of the entire population.
Someone’s financial livelihood should not be more important than a population’s health.
The state has never given us an end in sight. It is a perpetual lockdown and they decide when it’s over. That’s arbitrary and capricious, and it should be overturned. At what point do you lose so much liberty that you say enough is enough?
Well that's too bad, isn't it? We don't have an end in sight because morons didn't take the first lockdown seriously and its almost 2021 with the number of new cases increasing daily.
Whether or not you agree with the judge's reasoning:
> "By failing to weigh the benefits of an outdoor dining restriction against its costs, the County acted arbitrarily and its decision lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate end," wrote Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant in a tentative ruling issued Tuesday to a legal challenge from the California Restaurant Association.
Why is the judge trying to evaluate the object-level claim by the state? Isn't the legal question here simply one of authority? Is there some kind of standard in the emergency powers law that says they have to meet some scientific-evidentiary threshold?
The authority cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The authority is for a specific emergency health purpose, therefore these (otherwise illegal) restrictions which are being imposed under that specific authority must be justified.
The law is written that basically emergency powers are granted during a public health emergency, but the emergency powers can only be exercised in relation to the actual emergency. IE Gov Newsom can't declare a state of emergency for COVID, and then force everyone to get TDAP shots (even though it would be beneficial to public health overall), and he can't force everyone to wear two left shoes if science and reason don't support that helping in the emergency(even if he is personally convinced wearing two left shoes will protect you from COVID). So I believe it is that language in the law that the judge is using to question if the measures are actually associated with the public health emergency.
CDPH (California Department of Public Health) has powers related to communicable disease control that are independent of an emergency proclamation. For example, whenever the public health is menaced, CDPH has the authority to control and regulate the actions of local health officials. At all times, CDPH has the authority to take measures necessary to ascertain the nature of a reported disease and prevent its spread. This could include orders for isolation, quarantine or “social distancing.” CDPH also has specific authority to quarantine, isolate, inspect, and disinfect persons, animals, houses, rooms, other property, places, cities, or localities, whenever in its judgment the action is necessary to protect or preserve the public health. Therefore, it is possible that CDPH may exercise these powers in addition to the roles and responsibilities assigned under the ESA and the SEP
Those are not emergency powers. Those are normal public health powers.
These policies in California are analogous to abstinence-only sex education.
Everyone knows California's policies are unrealistic -- people are going to gather. Instead of telling people how to do it safely, and how to minimize risk, the government is taking the impossible approach of telling people not to do it at all, and taking away venues where it is relatively low-risk to do so.
Even though the government cannot ban highly risky gatherings in private homes (because law enforcement is not on board with that), it has decided to ban lower-risk gatherings such as outdoor dining anyway. This is not a rational scientific approach, but rather an attempt to stick to unrealistic abstinence-only messaging. That attempt to stay on message is costing people their jobs and their businesses despite having little public health benefit.
When people see public health orders being unrealistic and inconsistent, they stop respecting them.
> Everyone knows California's policies are unrealistic -- people are going to gather.
Governments can drastically reduce contacts between people, and doing so reverses the growth of the epidemic. This has been done in many countries now.
The most obvious example is China, which essentially eradicated the virus months ago, but even European countries have had success with lockdowns. For example, take a look at the graph of new cases in France: [1]. Case numbers were growing exponentially in October. The French government implemented a lockdown on 30 October. About one week later, the number of new cases began to rapidly decline. A recent relaxation in the lockdown (beginning 1 December) has caused the decline to stop, and new case numbers are now approximately constant at 20% of peak level of a month ago.
For the US, an equivalent effect would be reducing new case numbers from 200k/day now to 40k/day in one month. The US could do this, and it would save hundreds of thousands of lives over the next few months.
> Governments can drastically reduce contacts between people, and doing so reverses the growth of the epidemic.
But doing so has costs and epidemiology is not, nor should it be, the only consideration. The US could enforce speed limits of 25 mph everywhere and effectively eradicate motor vehicle deaths. Could enforce limits on sugar intake and reduce heart disease deaths. But of course these seem fairly absurd propositions. The fervor of COVID reporting makes such measures seem reasonable.
It reminds me a bit of Bostrom’s vulnerable world hypothesis, in which he imagines scenarios could arise (in that case due to technological progress) where the only way to prevent a rogue bad actor from accomplishing mass destruction is “turn-key totalitarianism” where freedoms are subsumed to allow the government to address the threat. And there are situations where this seems the only pragmatic response, for instance if technology was discovered that allowed an individual to easily and cheaply produce an explosion akin to a nuclear weapon.
But COVID does not seem such a scenario to many. And yet what many others are asking for here is turn-key totalitarianism. Is that really favorable here to more vulnerable populations being at higher risk? Do we really want to just maximize age expectancy and reduce deaths as a guiding function of society? I don’t think so, but that is the implicit claim within, and it's why it's hard to enact in practice.
> And yet what many others are asking for here is turn-key totalitarianism
Ah, America. This attitude is why the US is the world leader in COVID-19, and things are only getting worse.
Very soon there will be days with 5000 Americans dead, 300,000 new infections, and God knows how many people crippled for life, and yet I'm sure people will still be going on about "totalitarianism" and fiercely resisting any public health measures.
You seem to have missed the point entirely and opted to just regurgitate numbers to plug into the guiding function I explicitly questioned.
What is the number of deaths it takes for you to think the government should take whatever action necessary to prevent it? Is it 1? 100? 1000? When does reduction in deaths become more important than other considerations?
This isn't some minor inconvenience. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in the US, and hundreds of thousands more will die in the coming months. Healthcare systems across the country are at the breaking point, ICU beds are going to start running out, and we're going to see some pretty brutal triage in hospitals.
Many countries have now taken action to suppress the epidemic. The US could do the same.
Your elected government telling you that you can't go to a restaurant during a pandemic isn't "turn-key totalitarianism." What kind of a self-centered society do we live in, in which people would rather see hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens die than close down restaurants for a month?
Neither is shutting down economic activity for a significant period of time.
> people would rather see hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens die than close down restaurants for a month
What a ridiculously dishonest way to frame it. This is just political punditry at work. Restaurants closing for a month also has real people attached to it. People who lose their livelihood and don't have an ample safety net to keep them afloat. And of course it's not just restaurants, shutdowns impact many businesses in many ways, and those impact people in many other ways. And, as pointed out in the article here, it's highly questionable whether an action like this would save significant life.
> Your elected government telling you that you can't go to a restaurant during a pandemic isn't "turn-key totalitarianism."
But it is. I certainly agree it's not full-scale totalitarianism, but it is an authoritarian action in the face of a threat (which like I said reminds me of the kind of turn-key totalitarianism Bostrom mentions in the vulnerable world hypothesis). China was as successful as it was in such measures because it is inherently authoritarian, the US has been less successful because it isn't, and has deep-rooted propaganda against it. Should we wish the US was more ready to allow the government to take authoritarian action? What if the virus was 20x more deadly? What if it was 0.5x as deadly? Where do we say it's ok for the government to exert control? This is of course not a new, nor a readily decided or agreed upon, question.
Look, all told I'm not really sure what the right answer is here. Maybe we actually should be less hostile toward authoritarian actions in general for the good of society as a whole. Maybe China is actually closer to the optimal model, I don't know, I could make some compelling points (to those open to hear them) in either direction.
My main point here is just that the calculus shouldn't just be which actions reduce new cases and deaths the most, and indeed that isn't the calculus for many people, hence the resistance and difficulty in implementation. In reality the equation is and should be very complicated and nuanced, taking actions and reactions of various actors into account.
It's a direct and honest way to put it. Which would you prefer?
Should the US lock down and save hundreds of thousands of lives, or would you rather keep restaurants open? It's easy to muse about hypothetical questions about how many people should die before the government should act, but this is too serious an issue for sophistry. There are consequences here.
> Restaurants closing for a month also has real people attached to it. People who lose their livelihood and don't have an ample safety net to keep them afloat.
Restaurants can be compensated. Their employees and customers will be safer for it.
> it is an authoritarian action
There's nothing authoritarian about it. It's a reasonable, rational response to a health crisis taken by a democratically elected government. It's just as "authoritarian" as mandating seatbelts or childhood vaccinations.
> China was as successful as it was in such measures because it is inherently authoritarian, the US has been less successful because it isn't, and has deep-rooted propaganda against it.
And that goes for authoritarian New Zealand and Australia too, I suppose? Populations in highly democratic countries will actually support strong lockdown measures if they believe they will be effective and if the government compensates people financially. The President of the US has been whipping up opposition to any rational public health measures, from face masks to lockdowns. That doesn't help for public acceptance of rational measures. But if it truly is impossible to gain public support for lockdowns in the US, then something is deeply wrong with American society.
> Should the US lock down and save hundreds of thousands of lives, or would you rather keep restaurants open?
How about restaurants stay open and there is little to no additional loss of life?
> It's easy to muse about hypothetical questions about how many people should die before the government should act
This isn't hypothetical. We're seeing it play out and the difficulty you're having is that people disagree with you about that number and you appear to be unable to understand why.
> Restaurants can be compensated.
Oh geez why didn't I or LA or the US think of that? Alright then, pack it in problem solved, let's just make sure everyone's compensated.
Of course were it that simple few would have a problem with the sacrifice, and a much more convincing argument could be made that it would be better for society as a whole to lock down.
> There's nothing authoritarian about it.
Nothing? There's nothing authoritarian about the government imposing a lockdown? Are you somehow of the notion that "democratically elected" governments cannot be authoritarian in any way? I'm struggling to understand your perspective here.
> It's just as "authoritarian" as mandating seatbelts or childhood vaccinations.
Absolutely (well, for the sake of argument, I wouldn't argue mandating seatbelts is on the same level as shutting down restaurants but for our purposes here let's say we're on the same page). We always make tradeoffs of this kind all the time to be sure. Few want anarchy (the opposite of authoritarianism). It's again why the "hypothetical" question is important to understanding why people disagree with you. Where do we draw the line?
> And that goes for authoritarian New Zealand and Australia too, I suppose?
Moreso than the US? Most definitely. Less than China? Of course. Australia and NZ benefit from largely homogenous cultures and low population density that allow them to better handle such things. Singapore would likely have been a better counter-example.
> Populations in highly democratic countries will actually support strong lockdown measures if they believe they will be effective and if the government compensates people financially.
Sure, except none of your conditionals there actually get bourn out. Many people question the effectiveness (again not just of reducing cases, but on providing a net positive impact to society) and in the US stimulus measures haven't been nearly precise enough to find themselves to the right hands.
> But if it truly is impossible to gain public support for lockdowns in the US, then something is deeply wrong with American society
Rephrased: "If American society cannot widely support the action I think is correct, there is something deeply wrong with American society." There is something deeply wrong with American society, but it is thinking like that.
> How about restaurants stay open and there is little to no additional loss of life?
That's a disingenuous answer. There's an obvious choice here. The virus spreads through social contact, so what's needed to reduce spread and save lives is a sharp reduction in contacts between people. Closing places where people gather socially is a key component in any rational plan to reduce spread of the virus.
> Oh geez why didn't I or LA or the US think of that? Alright then, pack it in problem solved, let's just make sure everyone's compensated.
It is simple, and many countries have done it. I currently live in one that is doing precisely this - closing businesses and compensating them. The lockdown has reduced transmission without causing major financial hardships.
> Australia and NZ benefit from largely homogenous cultures
Australia and New Zealand are extremely diverse immigrant nations. They're very similar to the US in that regard.
> There's nothing authoritarian about the government imposing a lockdown?
There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it. If the government were cynically using emergency powers to suppress political opponents, I would call that authoritarian. But in an actual public health emergency, a democratic government implementing rational, effective public health measures allowed by law is not "authoritarian."
> Sure, except none of your conditionals there actually get bourn out. Many people question the effectiveness (again not just of reducing cases, but on providing a net positive impact to society) and in the US stimulus measures haven't been nearly precise enough to find themselves to the right hands.
First off, lockdowns are effective, so if people question them on that basis, they're simply misinformed, or they have a strong interest in preventing a lockdown. The latter is the reason why the president of the US has militated against lockdowns. His #1 priority is the stock market, and if a few hundred thousand Americans have to die so the DJIA can break 30k, he really doesn't care. And he's not the only one who thinks that way, which is why there's so much FUD around public health measures.
If there were a rational government that would explain the situation and the necessary measures, I believe there would be a majority in favor of a lockdown. And in fact, this spring, an overwhelming majority of Americans did favor lockdown measures (around 80%). Since then, it's become a highly partisan issue. Support among Democrats has remained high, but it's plummeted among Republicans. I think Trump's vocal opposition to public health measures had a lot to do with that. Even basic measures like wearing a mask are now partisan.
> It is simple, and many countries have done it. I currently live in one that is doing precisely this - closing businesses and compensating them.
It's not simple. Even in your country, or any other country that has done this effectively, I promise you it is not simple. There are sacrifices being made, whether you can see them now or not. And just because it has been executed well in one country and economy does not mean it can just be universally applied without issue.
In any case, I'm absolutely all for such compensation, I'm just not under the delusion that it's easy to achieve.
> There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it.
You've apparently just conjured up your own notion of what authoritarian means to select cases. I'm not going to argue semantics. Suffice to say, this is more governmental control than many people are willing to relinquish.
> Australia and New Zealand are extremely diverse immigrant nations. They're very similar to the US in that regard.
Neither are anywhere remotely close to the diversity of the US. The major cities are to be sure cosmopolitan as they are around the world, the general populous is not.
> There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it.
You've conjured your own meaning of authoritarian here to apparently require specific political opposition oppression. This is not correct, but I'm also not interested in arguing semantics. Suffice to say many view lockdown as more interventionist than ideal in their government.
> First off, lockdowns are effective
I will refer you back to my original post and the very first sentence I responded to you with, as well as the parenthetical you replied to here. They are effective in reducing cases. This is not the only factor at play.
> And in fact, this spring, an overwhelming majority of Americans did favor lockdown measures (around 80%).
Indeed, when the world as a whole locked down together. Since that time is has become partisan as you said, and also highly questioned whether the costs were worth it.
A democratically elected government implements the only rational response to a public health crisis, with broad public support, and consistent with the laws of the country. Calling that "authoritarian" is just a scare tactic, as if it's the first step on the slippery slope to tyranny. I'm sorry you can't go eat at a restaurant. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake. Just chill at home for a month. It's possible for the government to compensate people, while keeping minimal services open.
Well, we've managed to go several replies deep here and not get through at all to one another as far as I can tell. I see your position and think it's delusional and partisan. You either can't see mine or are being intentionally dishonest (I suspect a bit of both).
As I mentioned before, I'm not sure exactly what the right answer is here. I'm just sure it's more complicated than your pulpit would suggest.
I don't what partisanship has to do with anything here. This is just an extremely important issue. You're arguing for a position that will lead to hundreds of thousands more deaths within months. That may seen like the nuanced, "complicated" position to you, but to me, it looks like fiddling while Rome burns.
Like I said, you're either not understanding the position I've given or are deliberately being dishonest in your representation of it. Maybe it's my fault for communicating it poorly, though that seems unlikely. Rather it seems more likely you're intent on misrepresenting it as a matter of partisan rhetoric. I do doubt you're completely aware of your partisan slant here, after all your just on the righteous side of saving lives. But your talking points and misunderstanding and characterization of mine are all too predictable along those fault lines.
> people would rather see hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens die than close down restaurants for a month
There is no evidence that closing outdoor dining would save that many lives. If such evidence existed, LA surely would have shown it to the court.
People aren't mad that they can't go to restaurants anymore -- they are mad that they are losing their jobs and their businesses as a direct result of government action for which the government cannot provide any public health justification, while they watch the government allow far riskier activities to continue.
We don't have time right now to run randomized controlled trials, while the number of cases continues to rise rapidly and hospitals fill up. Exactly how dangerous each activity is is difficult to know. We have to apply reasoning to what we know about the transmission mechanisms and people's social behaviors. People sit across from one another without masks for long periods of time at restaurants, and they're social meeting points. It's entirely reasonable to assume they're a likely location for transmission.
The basic point is that at the moment, most public life has to be shut down, so that R drops below 1 and new cases decrease. Restaurants are very low down on the list of essential services that need to be kept running in order for society to function. We can temporarily shut down restaurants and compensate them for their losses.
> We don't have time right now to run randomized controlled trials, while the number of cases continues to rise rapidly and hospitals fill up. Exactly how dangerous each activity is is difficult to know.
We have data on various types of activities now. LA's own data showed outdoor dining only being responsible for 4% of the spread, for example. It's hard to justify draconian measures for such a drop in the bucket.
> We can temporarily shut down restaurants and compensate them for their losses.
For how long? California can't just print money. (The Federal government can, but that's a different problem altogether.)
It's one of many things that will have to close down. Every business will argue that it should be an exception, that there's not enough evidence (I've heard this from so many random businesses - "there's no study showing that the virus spreads in hair salons/pet shops/clothing retailers/badminton clubs") or that it's only a small part of the overall picture. In the end, tons of non-essential business will stay open, and transmission will remain too high. The policy should be across the board, with exceptions only for things that really are necessary (groceries, pharmacies, utilities, delivery services, etc.).
The level of contacts between people has to drop as much as possible, so that R can be pushed down as far as possible. The father you push R down, the shorter the lockdown has to be. Countries that have gone halfway have found that new case numbers plateau, but that things don't get any better - they just don't get worse.
> California can't just print money. (The Federal government can, but that's a different problem altogether.)
That's one of the reasons why the Federal government is critical for an effective response. It has vast financial resources that the states, individually, do not have.
Anybody who believes anything that comes out of a PRC lapdog of a news agency is either naive or just stupid. Why would state media tell the truth? You're seriously going to sit there and tell me a country of 1 billion + has effectively eradicated this virus but the rest of the world has not?
State media isn't the only source of information about China. Many mllions of people converse across the border every day. There are many people on HN who regularly talk to people in China. The government does not have the level of control over the flow of information that many people outside think (or which the government itself would probably like). Even when the outbreak was detected in December, news got out online within hours. There was a panic about a few cases in Shanghai's international airport a few weeks ago, and videos of it were on Western social media within hours.
Yes, China has effectively eradicated the virus. They're not the only country to have done so. New Zealand has, and Australia is close.
They don't span the size of the United States in terms of population spaced out across the country.
Also, while there is "free speech" to a degree, you do not have the freedom in China to criticize the government in the same way you do in the western world. So most non-state media won't say anything bad in regards to how the government has handled the situation for fear of reprisal.
I'm not talking about Chinese media - state or non-state. I'm talking about Chinese people who talk regularly with people outside of China.
They can see what's going on with their own eyes. They can see that the hospitals aren't overflowing, that restaurants are open again, that nobody they know has gotten CoVID-19 in months, etc. They went through the experience of an outbreak, then a strict lockdown, then a reopening.
There is also foreign media in China. This recent, very interesting documentary on Wuhan that you might understand (based on your username), produced by a German-French public broadcaster: https://youtu.be/LmsI7lc2_Vg.
The government has told people exactly what to do (stay away from large groups, don't have large gatherings for thanksgiving etc). People didn’t listen. Thats why they had to take the next step. It sounds like an opportunity to educate yourself about COVID.
That's a very antisocial attitude to take. Societies can't deal with crises like pandemics if enough people take that attitude, and the result will be large numbers of avoidable deaths.
In March and April we didn't know the risks, and we didn't know who was at risk. Now, we have the data, and we do know. If you are in a high risk category, or just generally concerned, you should isolate.
I wear a mask in public, and that's about all that I think is legally reasonable.
This thread is an interesting read. A lot of nitpicking about the data to support various restrictions, complaints about freedom, and arguments about costs to business.
These arguments happen everywhere of course but ITT they significantly outnumber any arguments in favour of restrictions. I wonder if that’s representative of the US as a whole and explains why COVID has been particularly bad there?
What differentiates the US from the major countries in the top 10 is that the US has done very little to prevent spread of the virus in the past weeks, meaning that going forward, things will be far worse in the US. Compare the graphs of the major countries (i.e., not San Marino, Andorra, North Macedonia and other small countries) in the top 10, and then the US:
In contrast to Belgium, Italy, Spain and the UK, the US is letting the virus spread largely unchecked, and there has been massive resistance to even the most basic measures to control the spread.
Finally, it's worth noting that individual US states have been worse hit than individual European countries listed above. New Jersey and Belgium have similar populations, but New Jersey has had more deaths/capita. As the number of new cases continues to fall in Belgium and rise in New Jersey, that difference will widen.
State comparisons like this seem much more useful. Considering the US FedGov has been mostly, and now completely, MIA on tackling the virus. It's been left to the states to haphazardly implement their own protocols.
Yes, the issue is widespread mental health issues in America.
Neither this apathy in the face of a mortal threat nor the delusional and mendacious outgoing President are an anomaly; they reflect the degraded state of the American psyche.
On one hand, I don't disagree with the judge's reasoning. There hasn't been much evidence about the transmission rate.
On the other hand, while the transmission rate from outdoor dining may be very low (4% per posts in this thread), if that difference happens to be enough to push R0 above 1, or worse, cause a decrease in the number of available ICU beds, then allowing it could be a big mistake.
To put it another way, even if the evidence to close outdoor dining is weak, running an IRL experiment by leaving it open is very risky.
By that logic we ought to be closing all businesses. Why should outdoor dining be closed, yet indoor retail stores still be open?
You have to evaluate the trade-offs. People's jobs matter too. Another trade-off is that by taking away relatively safe options like outdoor dining, we force people to gather in private homes which is much more dangerous -- and they will gather; it's the holidays, and nobody can prevent it.
> Why should outdoor dining be closed, yet indoor retail stores still be open?
That’s easy. They shouldn’t.
And yes, it is that simple. California is within days of running out of ICU capacity in whole areas of the state just given our current case progression rate even if you immediately found a way to freeze all transmission tomorrow.
Additional human contact directly costs even more lives right now, in this specific time.
Then why are they not massively ramping up ICU capacity? Surely the 'cost' of doing that is less than the 'cost' of shutting down huge sections of society?
Why don't we have the same lockdowns when influenza threatens to overwhelm hospitals each year?
Where is the focus on public health interventions such as mass Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Zinc supplemenation, as well as seriously dealing with obesity (banning or taxing added sugar) and air pollution (banning or taxing coal and oil)?
> Because you cannot. Even if you have the space and the materials, you do not have the qualified and experienced personel to run it.
Oh yes you do. Absolutely. They're called traveler nurses and there are literally thousands of them out there. Agencies like Krucial Staffing have been hiring hundreds of them at a time and sending them to places like El Paso. Which now has a declining ICU admission rate.
If they said "We need 500 ICU nurses to be in California within 48 hours" they would have them.
Whether or not the big union in California would let this happen, however, is another story in itself.
But yes, you absolutely can get people to staff it.
Even if we have enough nurses, we also need more doctors, respiratory therapists, and so on...
At some point in a wave, the number of ICU beds used across the US would be greater than the number of professionals available even if they moved to other hot spots when they could. It's a good idea to stay as far away from that point as we can, especially if we're unsure about the rate of spread in the winter/flu season.
> Why don't we have the same lockdowns when influenza threatens to overwhelm hospitals each year?
People keep making comparisons to flu, so it's useful to talk a bit about how covid-19 is much more lethal than flu.
I know the numbers for the UK. Official numbers for flu are about 10,000 to 20,000 deaths each year. Official numbers for covid-19 are currently about 60,000.
Already we can see covid-19 is much more lethal. But this ignores differences in counting.
If we count flu using the same methods we're currently using for covid we see only a couple of hundred, fewer than 1000, deaths to flu each year.
If we count covid using the same methods we use to count flu deaths we'd see at least 140,000 covid deaths.
> Where is the focus on public health interventions
We have internationally coordinated programmes of work to monitor which flu strains are active, then develop vaccines to target these, then to vaccinate as many vulnerable people as possible.
Why would you need ICU capacity? There is no working medication, no cure, no regime. The only treatment (intubation) turned out to outright kill patients. The only thing you will get in a hospital is oxygen to help you breath while 50% of admitted die.
Every sentence you emit is completely false. There is working medication, there is a regimen (I assume that's what you mean by regime).
Overall, your idea, which seems to be, "Let's not admit people who have serious COVID-19 symptoms to the hospital and just let me them die," shows a complete disregard both for science and for human life.
Its the actual reality. I have 4 family members in different stages of covid. From my previous post:
'Two of my family members received portable (oxygen) units and isolated at home, third didnt get anything other than some pills for inflammation, last one stayed at the hospital and didnt receive anything other than oxygen and some random probably useless antibiotics.'
Yes, you will get pumped with ramdesivir and steroids .. if you are a head of state like Donald or Boris, the rest get optional oxygen and a fuck off sticker.
I think you're conflating a VIP getting favorable treatment to your family getting normal treatment. I imagine that other people who went to the same places your family were seen at recieved other treatments if they had worse presentation. If your family worsened they should receive other treatments as well. Hopefully they will have a mild version and fully recover, and if they don't, and nothing is done, someone needs to step in on their behalf and escalate things.
My great uncle was in critical condition, once again - oxygen and useless antibiotics. And about subpar treatment, that branch of family has 3 doctors and couple of nurses, he was actually treated preferentially.
Can you speak to his doctor, or ask a close family member to? If he's being given antibiotics for no reason, that should be reported. On the flip side, especially with covid, doctors may try to aggressively treat anything else present because it can complicate things and because bacteria are largely something we can treat, especially compared to covid.
I guess with retail you can visit, shop, pay and leave while wearing a mask, yet at a restaurant, you'd likely be maskless for the duration of your visit? Might be part of their consideration.
In B&H, one court already dismissed a corona curfew fine. Just like in the US, government officials imposed knee-jerk restrictions that get thrown out in courts. Wherever you are, challenge a corona fine in a court and you're likely to win.
I think the big takeaways from this pandemic are: (1) we need to limit "emergency powers" to some timeframe where the legislature cannot meet. Maybe 7 days or so. We are about 280 days into the crisis, so it's time for our normal political process to decide matters. (2) we need some way to allow people to voluntarily take vaccines faster. Like a special board that can override the FDA for individuals or groups who have over 1 in 1,000 chance of dying from a disease in the next year.
144 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadThen the the board of supervisors asked her more specific questions about the data when they were preparing the latest lockdown order. Instead of reiterating or expanding on what she said before, she walked back her claims and said there was no specific data about the spread of COVID due to outdoor dining.
This is all just an emotional reaction based on what you consider to be probable. It isnt based in science or data, it´s based in hypotheticals.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/122433365/... https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/oversight-contact-tracin...
It's so strange. After 9/11, Americans completely remade their society and started a series of pointless, losing wars. But COVID has killed a hundred times as many, seriously injured god knows how many more, and people just go on about "big brother, destruction of freedoms, and government control".
That's what's "insane" to me - a major, deadly pandemic that the world's richest country refuses to deal with due to clinical paranoia.
> The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health admitted during a Board of Supervisor's meeting Tuesday that there is no hard scientific evidence linking the recent COVID-19 surge to back up their move to shut down outdoor dining.
https://abc7.com/covid-19-data-restaurants-outdoor-dining/82...
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/los-angeles-department...
In the US community spread is far too out of control and contact tracing is far too underfunded to get anywhere close to comprehensive data about this.
There have been some useful small case investigations published by the US CDC.
Instead we dont even know what percentage of hospitalized actually used masks, something super basic and easy to check.
With all due respect, it's like you've never met Americans. People wouldn't cooperate if asked to, and the hospitals can't afford to hire the people it would take to process the forms.
The primary question to ask in America is always this: "Can an investor make money out of this?"
> "By failing to weigh the benefits of an outdoor dining restriction against its costs, the County acted arbitrarily and its decision lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate end," wrote Judge James C. Chalfant.
In what sense is there a lack of a rational relationship between "restricting outdoor activity" and "reducing mass gathering" here? Whether or not the approach is ultimately a good one, the reasoning behind it seems pretty rational and simple to understand: they're restricting outdoor activity to reduce people's incentives to gather and reduce COVID-19's chances of spreading (which seems like a pretty legitimate end). What am I missing?
(One might point out that this is a very strange legal technicality, and... yeah, kinda.)
Even though the trial court judge's ruling in the first case isn't binding precedent in a subsequent case (only higher courts can create binding precedent), it will nonetheless carry some weight as the state decides whether to back down.
Anyway these bans have a tendency to turn into some idiotic measures race where authorities compete on ‘toughness’, of course preferably applying it in situations where someone else bears the costs.
Striking down poor local rules helps against that.
Why any more proof than an "it's simple" shrug is required apparently has to do with the limits of emergency powers. They are apparently not able to make any arbitrary pronouncements.
If the county was right that closing outdoor restaurants in particular was one of the more important measures to rule, then they have cost lives--or will cost lives if the state's measures expire--by failing to successfully argue the case. They knew that this was coming their way.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/12...
Many people not wearing masks. Distancing and putting others are risk.
What an absolute travesty!
That is before we even consider the long term health consequences of what we're doing to people. Stress kills, too.
I also feel (perhaps cynically) that banning is a good thing as a taxpaying citizen. Ban it, get the rule on the books but don't actually actively enforce it.
It highly limits the state's liability if it does turn out late next year that outdoor gatherings due increase probabilities. Otherwise the state is on the hook for unlimited lawsuits related to criminal negligence for giving improper guidance which lead to loss of life.
Its just like jaywalking rules. Its rarely enforced but prevents lawsuits in the event there is a fatality.
The government cannot have "liability" for action or inaction because of sovereign immunity. No private person can sue the state without the state's permission.
The rule is default deny. There is legislation that allows you to sue the government in specific, narrow circumstances, but nothing really relevant to this situation. I'm sure someone will try anyway, but the suit will certainly be dismissed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
Perhaps not "liable" in the official lawyer sense but expensive settlements paid by the states are definitely fair game.
Some random examples:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2020-...
https://www.expressnews.com/news/education/article/Harlandal...
For example, see the Pineapple Hill video (or whatever the place was called). In this case, the restaurant was forced to shut down, while a film crew set up their catering right across the street from her.
Here, the state determined the entertainment industry to be "essential workers", rather than the county, but the basic point stands.
I'm actually not sure they're "very" different risk profiles, though it isn't unreasonable to assume that before you analyze the situation further. My reason is that contagiousness peaks around 2-3 days before symptoms appear, and the false negative rate for a test is 100% just 4 days before symptoms appear. [1]
Now consider that tests themselves normally take around 3 days to come back. That means if you find out your test results just 1 day before symptoms appear, they'll be based on your viral load from three days prior, where (as mentioned above) the test would've had a ~100% chance of producing a false negative! (Things improve a little for a 2-day turnaround, not that much.) In other news, the only time you can really expect useful results is on (or after) the day of symptoms... at which point you would already be staying home.
I do see 2 places where this argument breaks down:
- For asymptomatic carriers. I don't know what the rates are like, but asymptomatic people won't know to stay home without a test, so tests would seem to have some value there for the purpose of making public gathering safer. However, intuitively, I wouldn't expect it to be a game-changer—I'd only expect it to stretch the runway a little bit (say, get you a few extra days/weeks), but you'd still be back at square 1 having to shut things down afterward.
- For people who aren't cautious and would go out to dine even amidst symptoms, but wouldn't go if they test positive. Which seems ironic because you could say reckless behavior here would (in some sense) seem to create a positive feedback loop justifying more reckless behavior. That not only seems like a questionable way to justify public policy, but it also seems to suffer from the same problem as the last item: it'd only delay the inevitable by a few days/weeks.
- For rapid tests (< 1 day, preferably < 1 hour). I don't expect rapid tests will be available to the masses for everyday activities.
So, at least on my end, with traditional testing that takes 2-3 days to come back, it's entirely plausible (and moreover, likely) to me that testing has low utility for these particular purposes. But I would love to hear an expert's explanation that takes all these factors (and more) into account.
[1] https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/07/when-should...
Are diners in American restaurants required to register name and contact details before entering? We have that in South Australia (takes a few seconds via QR code), and we currently have no active cases state-wide.
Last time, they showed a list of particular hot spots (bus stops, shopping centres, schools) and asked if we'd been at any of those locations recently. Though I imagine there wouldn't be much of the US right now that isn't some level of hot spot!
Gyms, shops, shopping malls are open. No testing and no limits.
States have a legal and ethical pubic health obligation. They're also on the hook financially via lost sales taxes and medicaid costs. Each covid case is bad for states. But they can't pay businesses to close. And they federal government won't pay even though they could.
A 10 minute spit test would make this allot more doable.
They're in essence, supposed to work in as much of a bubble as they can whereas you cannot say the same about a restaurant. It's an unfortunate situation, but they really are quite different.
The policy goal is to minimize the number of people you meet. You meet your household, if you have to work non-remotely, then you meet some coworkers (preferably a limited amount and always the same, separating a company in teams/"bubbles") and ideally that's it - it makes all sense that places where you'd be eating together with random strangers should be restricted much more than work lunches where outsiders are excluded.
For instance, I walked by the Presidio parade grounds in SF this past Sunday. Plenty of people were picnicking on the grass there. They were eating and drinking without masks while social distancing. It’s basically a restaurant level risk without the restaurant.
That activity is allowed but outdoor dining isn’t.
Another example. I went to downtown Burlingame the week before to get my phone fixed. There was a lot of outdoor dining but more interestingly there were many people walking or standing around with masks down while sipping drinks. Those sidewalks don’t permit 6 ft social distancing.
That is still not restricted but outdoor dining a few feet away would be.
These restrictions don’t make much sense. The problem is that the behavior that is causing most of the spread is something that they cannot effectively ban without massive policing.
Similarly, the economic effects aren’t being felt evenly.
I think more and more people have come to this realization.
If you are poor and likely to get it, then why shouldn’t you give it to the rich? Likewise if you are rich, you aren’t feeling the economic effects and may be for lockdowns. If you are a teen why should you be inconvenienced by masks? I think we are seeing both play out.
Young people will be hit the hardest, if there's an economic recession in the coming years. It will be especially hard for young people to find jobs.
Or in other words, it's a tragedy of the commons.
Also, the "but other businesses..." argument fails to recognize that dining is a special case activity: The nature of eating food requires you to be unmasked and using your mouth. It's not the same as shopping for clothes.
If they are from the same household and keeping their distance from people in other households this is entirely fine. It’s relatively low risk if outdoors, especially someplace relatively windy.
If they are from different households and crowding together eating then they are technically violating SF’s local health orders. Enforcement is difficult of course.
> Burlingame [...] many people walking or standing around with masks down while sipping drinks [...] That is still not restricted
I would guess that these people are violating their local health orders (they certainly would be in SF), but again it’s a lot harder to enforce this one than shutting down restaurants.
Someone’s financial livelihood should not be more important than a population’s health.
> "By failing to weigh the benefits of an outdoor dining restriction against its costs, the County acted arbitrarily and its decision lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate end," wrote Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant in a tentative ruling issued Tuesday to a legal challenge from the California Restaurant Association.
Why is the judge trying to evaluate the object-level claim by the state? Isn't the legal question here simply one of authority? Is there some kind of standard in the emergency powers law that says they have to meet some scientific-evidentiary threshold?
Curious if anyone has more insight into this.
This doc goes into the details a bit in plain language: https://emsa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2019/03/New-...
Those are not emergency powers. Those are normal public health powers.
If not, who is to guard these limited powers?
Everyone knows California's policies are unrealistic -- people are going to gather. Instead of telling people how to do it safely, and how to minimize risk, the government is taking the impossible approach of telling people not to do it at all, and taking away venues where it is relatively low-risk to do so.
Even though the government cannot ban highly risky gatherings in private homes (because law enforcement is not on board with that), it has decided to ban lower-risk gatherings such as outdoor dining anyway. This is not a rational scientific approach, but rather an attempt to stick to unrealistic abstinence-only messaging. That attempt to stay on message is costing people their jobs and their businesses despite having little public health benefit.
When people see public health orders being unrealistic and inconsistent, they stop respecting them.
It's also explicitly protected by the first amendment.
Governments can drastically reduce contacts between people, and doing so reverses the growth of the epidemic. This has been done in many countries now.
The most obvious example is China, which essentially eradicated the virus months ago, but even European countries have had success with lockdowns. For example, take a look at the graph of new cases in France: [1]. Case numbers were growing exponentially in October. The French government implemented a lockdown on 30 October. About one week later, the number of new cases began to rapidly decline. A recent relaxation in the lockdown (beginning 1 December) has caused the decline to stop, and new case numbers are now approximately constant at 20% of peak level of a month ago.
For the US, an equivalent effect would be reducing new case numbers from 200k/day now to 40k/day in one month. The US could do this, and it would save hundreds of thousands of lives over the next few months.
1. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/france/#gr...
That would be a lot trickier to make happen, especially by unanimity.
But yeah, this is theoretically (although not really politically) possible for the US right now.
But doing so has costs and epidemiology is not, nor should it be, the only consideration. The US could enforce speed limits of 25 mph everywhere and effectively eradicate motor vehicle deaths. Could enforce limits on sugar intake and reduce heart disease deaths. But of course these seem fairly absurd propositions. The fervor of COVID reporting makes such measures seem reasonable.
It reminds me a bit of Bostrom’s vulnerable world hypothesis, in which he imagines scenarios could arise (in that case due to technological progress) where the only way to prevent a rogue bad actor from accomplishing mass destruction is “turn-key totalitarianism” where freedoms are subsumed to allow the government to address the threat. And there are situations where this seems the only pragmatic response, for instance if technology was discovered that allowed an individual to easily and cheaply produce an explosion akin to a nuclear weapon.
But COVID does not seem such a scenario to many. And yet what many others are asking for here is turn-key totalitarianism. Is that really favorable here to more vulnerable populations being at higher risk? Do we really want to just maximize age expectancy and reduce deaths as a guiding function of society? I don’t think so, but that is the implicit claim within, and it's why it's hard to enact in practice.
Ah, America. This attitude is why the US is the world leader in COVID-19, and things are only getting worse.
Very soon there will be days with 5000 Americans dead, 300,000 new infections, and God knows how many people crippled for life, and yet I'm sure people will still be going on about "totalitarianism" and fiercely resisting any public health measures.
What is the number of deaths it takes for you to think the government should take whatever action necessary to prevent it? Is it 1? 100? 1000? When does reduction in deaths become more important than other considerations?
Many countries have now taken action to suppress the epidemic. The US could do the same.
Your elected government telling you that you can't go to a restaurant during a pandemic isn't "turn-key totalitarianism." What kind of a self-centered society do we live in, in which people would rather see hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens die than close down restaurants for a month?
Neither is shutting down economic activity for a significant period of time.
> people would rather see hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens die than close down restaurants for a month
What a ridiculously dishonest way to frame it. This is just political punditry at work. Restaurants closing for a month also has real people attached to it. People who lose their livelihood and don't have an ample safety net to keep them afloat. And of course it's not just restaurants, shutdowns impact many businesses in many ways, and those impact people in many other ways. And, as pointed out in the article here, it's highly questionable whether an action like this would save significant life.
> Your elected government telling you that you can't go to a restaurant during a pandemic isn't "turn-key totalitarianism."
But it is. I certainly agree it's not full-scale totalitarianism, but it is an authoritarian action in the face of a threat (which like I said reminds me of the kind of turn-key totalitarianism Bostrom mentions in the vulnerable world hypothesis). China was as successful as it was in such measures because it is inherently authoritarian, the US has been less successful because it isn't, and has deep-rooted propaganda against it. Should we wish the US was more ready to allow the government to take authoritarian action? What if the virus was 20x more deadly? What if it was 0.5x as deadly? Where do we say it's ok for the government to exert control? This is of course not a new, nor a readily decided or agreed upon, question.
Look, all told I'm not really sure what the right answer is here. Maybe we actually should be less hostile toward authoritarian actions in general for the good of society as a whole. Maybe China is actually closer to the optimal model, I don't know, I could make some compelling points (to those open to hear them) in either direction.
My main point here is just that the calculus shouldn't just be which actions reduce new cases and deaths the most, and indeed that isn't the calculus for many people, hence the resistance and difficulty in implementation. In reality the equation is and should be very complicated and nuanced, taking actions and reactions of various actors into account.
It's a direct and honest way to put it. Which would you prefer? Should the US lock down and save hundreds of thousands of lives, or would you rather keep restaurants open? It's easy to muse about hypothetical questions about how many people should die before the government should act, but this is too serious an issue for sophistry. There are consequences here.
> Restaurants closing for a month also has real people attached to it. People who lose their livelihood and don't have an ample safety net to keep them afloat.
Restaurants can be compensated. Their employees and customers will be safer for it.
> it is an authoritarian action
There's nothing authoritarian about it. It's a reasonable, rational response to a health crisis taken by a democratically elected government. It's just as "authoritarian" as mandating seatbelts or childhood vaccinations.
> China was as successful as it was in such measures because it is inherently authoritarian, the US has been less successful because it isn't, and has deep-rooted propaganda against it.
And that goes for authoritarian New Zealand and Australia too, I suppose? Populations in highly democratic countries will actually support strong lockdown measures if they believe they will be effective and if the government compensates people financially. The President of the US has been whipping up opposition to any rational public health measures, from face masks to lockdowns. That doesn't help for public acceptance of rational measures. But if it truly is impossible to gain public support for lockdowns in the US, then something is deeply wrong with American society.
But they haven't been. That's the problem.
How about restaurants stay open and there is little to no additional loss of life?
> It's easy to muse about hypothetical questions about how many people should die before the government should act
This isn't hypothetical. We're seeing it play out and the difficulty you're having is that people disagree with you about that number and you appear to be unable to understand why.
> Restaurants can be compensated.
Oh geez why didn't I or LA or the US think of that? Alright then, pack it in problem solved, let's just make sure everyone's compensated.
Of course were it that simple few would have a problem with the sacrifice, and a much more convincing argument could be made that it would be better for society as a whole to lock down.
> There's nothing authoritarian about it.
Nothing? There's nothing authoritarian about the government imposing a lockdown? Are you somehow of the notion that "democratically elected" governments cannot be authoritarian in any way? I'm struggling to understand your perspective here.
> It's just as "authoritarian" as mandating seatbelts or childhood vaccinations.
Absolutely (well, for the sake of argument, I wouldn't argue mandating seatbelts is on the same level as shutting down restaurants but for our purposes here let's say we're on the same page). We always make tradeoffs of this kind all the time to be sure. Few want anarchy (the opposite of authoritarianism). It's again why the "hypothetical" question is important to understanding why people disagree with you. Where do we draw the line?
> And that goes for authoritarian New Zealand and Australia too, I suppose?
Moreso than the US? Most definitely. Less than China? Of course. Australia and NZ benefit from largely homogenous cultures and low population density that allow them to better handle such things. Singapore would likely have been a better counter-example.
> Populations in highly democratic countries will actually support strong lockdown measures if they believe they will be effective and if the government compensates people financially.
Sure, except none of your conditionals there actually get bourn out. Many people question the effectiveness (again not just of reducing cases, but on providing a net positive impact to society) and in the US stimulus measures haven't been nearly precise enough to find themselves to the right hands.
> But if it truly is impossible to gain public support for lockdowns in the US, then something is deeply wrong with American society
Rephrased: "If American society cannot widely support the action I think is correct, there is something deeply wrong with American society." There is something deeply wrong with American society, but it is thinking like that.
That's a disingenuous answer. There's an obvious choice here. The virus spreads through social contact, so what's needed to reduce spread and save lives is a sharp reduction in contacts between people. Closing places where people gather socially is a key component in any rational plan to reduce spread of the virus.
> Oh geez why didn't I or LA or the US think of that? Alright then, pack it in problem solved, let's just make sure everyone's compensated.
It is simple, and many countries have done it. I currently live in one that is doing precisely this - closing businesses and compensating them. The lockdown has reduced transmission without causing major financial hardships.
> Australia and NZ benefit from largely homogenous cultures
Australia and New Zealand are extremely diverse immigrant nations. They're very similar to the US in that regard.
> There's nothing authoritarian about the government imposing a lockdown?
There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it. If the government were cynically using emergency powers to suppress political opponents, I would call that authoritarian. But in an actual public health emergency, a democratic government implementing rational, effective public health measures allowed by law is not "authoritarian."
> Sure, except none of your conditionals there actually get bourn out. Many people question the effectiveness (again not just of reducing cases, but on providing a net positive impact to society) and in the US stimulus measures haven't been nearly precise enough to find themselves to the right hands.
First off, lockdowns are effective, so if people question them on that basis, they're simply misinformed, or they have a strong interest in preventing a lockdown. The latter is the reason why the president of the US has militated against lockdowns. His #1 priority is the stock market, and if a few hundred thousand Americans have to die so the DJIA can break 30k, he really doesn't care. And he's not the only one who thinks that way, which is why there's so much FUD around public health measures.
If there were a rational government that would explain the situation and the necessary measures, I believe there would be a majority in favor of a lockdown. And in fact, this spring, an overwhelming majority of Americans did favor lockdown measures (around 80%). Since then, it's become a highly partisan issue. Support among Democrats has remained high, but it's plummeted among Republicans. I think Trump's vocal opposition to public health measures had a lot to do with that. Even basic measures like wearing a mask are now partisan.
It's not simple. Even in your country, or any other country that has done this effectively, I promise you it is not simple. There are sacrifices being made, whether you can see them now or not. And just because it has been executed well in one country and economy does not mean it can just be universally applied without issue.
In any case, I'm absolutely all for such compensation, I'm just not under the delusion that it's easy to achieve.
> There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it.
You've apparently just conjured up your own notion of what authoritarian means to select cases. I'm not going to argue semantics. Suffice to say, this is more governmental control than many people are willing to relinquish.
> Australia and New Zealand are extremely diverse immigrant nations. They're very similar to the US in that regard.
Neither are anywhere remotely close to the diversity of the US. The major cities are to be sure cosmopolitan as they are around the world, the general populous is not.
> There's nothing inherently authoritarian about it.
You've conjured your own meaning of authoritarian here to apparently require specific political opposition oppression. This is not correct, but I'm also not interested in arguing semantics. Suffice to say many view lockdown as more interventionist than ideal in their government.
> First off, lockdowns are effective
I will refer you back to my original post and the very first sentence I responded to you with, as well as the parenthetical you replied to here. They are effective in reducing cases. This is not the only factor at play.
> And in fact, this spring, an overwhelming majority of Americans did favor lockdown measures (around 80%).
Indeed, when the world as a whole locked down together. Since that time is has become partisan as you said, and also highly questioned whether the costs were worth it.
As I mentioned before, I'm not sure exactly what the right answer is here. I'm just sure it's more complicated than your pulpit would suggest.
There is no evidence that closing outdoor dining would save that many lives. If such evidence existed, LA surely would have shown it to the court.
People aren't mad that they can't go to restaurants anymore -- they are mad that they are losing their jobs and their businesses as a direct result of government action for which the government cannot provide any public health justification, while they watch the government allow far riskier activities to continue.
The basic point is that at the moment, most public life has to be shut down, so that R drops below 1 and new cases decrease. Restaurants are very low down on the list of essential services that need to be kept running in order for society to function. We can temporarily shut down restaurants and compensate them for their losses.
We have data on various types of activities now. LA's own data showed outdoor dining only being responsible for 4% of the spread, for example. It's hard to justify draconian measures for such a drop in the bucket.
> We can temporarily shut down restaurants and compensate them for their losses.
For how long? California can't just print money. (The Federal government can, but that's a different problem altogether.)
The level of contacts between people has to drop as much as possible, so that R can be pushed down as far as possible. The father you push R down, the shorter the lockdown has to be. Countries that have gone halfway have found that new case numbers plateau, but that things don't get any better - they just don't get worse.
> California can't just print money. (The Federal government can, but that's a different problem altogether.)
That's one of the reasons why the Federal government is critical for an effective response. It has vast financial resources that the states, individually, do not have.
Yes, China has effectively eradicated the virus. They're not the only country to have done so. New Zealand has, and Australia is close.
Also, while there is "free speech" to a degree, you do not have the freedom in China to criticize the government in the same way you do in the western world. So most non-state media won't say anything bad in regards to how the government has handled the situation for fear of reprisal.
They can see what's going on with their own eyes. They can see that the hospitals aren't overflowing, that restaurants are open again, that nobody they know has gotten CoVID-19 in months, etc. They went through the experience of an outbreak, then a strict lockdown, then a reopening.
There is also foreign media in China. This recent, very interesting documentary on Wuhan that you might understand (based on your username), produced by a German-French public broadcaster: https://youtu.be/LmsI7lc2_Vg.
If I want to gather with my friends, I will.
Have you ever considered that people aren’t listening precisely because they have educated themselves on covid?
I wear a mask in public, and that's about all that I think is legally reasonable.
These arguments happen everywhere of course but ITT they significantly outnumber any arguments in favour of restrictions. I wonder if that’s representative of the US as a whole and explains why COVID has been particularly bad there?
This is just misinformation. USA isn't even in the top 10 for deaths per capita (it's eleventh): https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat... . And the countries ahead of it all hard harsher lockdown measures than most of the US.
What differentiates the US from the major countries in the top 10 is that the US has done very little to prevent spread of the virus in the past weeks, meaning that going forward, things will be far worse in the US. Compare the graphs of the major countries (i.e., not San Marino, Andorra, North Macedonia and other small countries) in the top 10, and then the US:
1. Belgium: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/belgium/#g...
4. Italy: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/#gra...
6. Spain: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/spain/#gra...
10. UK: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/#graph-...
11. USA: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/#graph-...
In contrast to Belgium, Italy, Spain and the UK, the US is letting the virus spread largely unchecked, and there has been massive resistance to even the most basic measures to control the spread.
Finally, it's worth noting that individual US states have been worse hit than individual European countries listed above. New Jersey and Belgium have similar populations, but New Jersey has had more deaths/capita. As the number of new cases continues to fall in Belgium and rise in New Jersey, that difference will widen.
Neither this apathy in the face of a mortal threat nor the delusional and mendacious outgoing President are an anomaly; they reflect the degraded state of the American psyche.
I don't see it improving.
On the other hand, while the transmission rate from outdoor dining may be very low (4% per posts in this thread), if that difference happens to be enough to push R0 above 1, or worse, cause a decrease in the number of available ICU beds, then allowing it could be a big mistake.
To put it another way, even if the evidence to close outdoor dining is weak, running an IRL experiment by leaving it open is very risky.
You have to evaluate the trade-offs. People's jobs matter too. Another trade-off is that by taking away relatively safe options like outdoor dining, we force people to gather in private homes which is much more dangerous -- and they will gather; it's the holidays, and nobody can prevent it.
That’s easy. They shouldn’t.
And yes, it is that simple. California is within days of running out of ICU capacity in whole areas of the state just given our current case progression rate even if you immediately found a way to freeze all transmission tomorrow.
Additional human contact directly costs even more lives right now, in this specific time.
Why don't we have the same lockdowns when influenza threatens to overwhelm hospitals each year?
Where is the focus on public health interventions such as mass Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Zinc supplemenation, as well as seriously dealing with obesity (banning or taxing added sugar) and air pollution (banning or taxing coal and oil)?
Because you cannot. Even if you have the space and the materials, you do not have the qualified and experienced personel to run it.
Oh yes you do. Absolutely. They're called traveler nurses and there are literally thousands of them out there. Agencies like Krucial Staffing have been hiring hundreds of them at a time and sending them to places like El Paso. Which now has a declining ICU admission rate.
If they said "We need 500 ICU nurses to be in California within 48 hours" they would have them.
Whether or not the big union in California would let this happen, however, is another story in itself.
But yes, you absolutely can get people to staff it.
At some point in a wave, the number of ICU beds used across the US would be greater than the number of professionals available even if they moved to other hot spots when they could. It's a good idea to stay as far away from that point as we can, especially if we're unsure about the rate of spread in the winter/flu season.
People keep making comparisons to flu, so it's useful to talk a bit about how covid-19 is much more lethal than flu.
I know the numbers for the UK. Official numbers for flu are about 10,000 to 20,000 deaths each year. Official numbers for covid-19 are currently about 60,000.
Already we can see covid-19 is much more lethal. But this ignores differences in counting.
If we count flu using the same methods we're currently using for covid we see only a couple of hundred, fewer than 1000, deaths to flu each year.
If we count covid using the same methods we use to count flu deaths we'd see at least 140,000 covid deaths.
> Where is the focus on public health interventions
We have internationally coordinated programmes of work to monitor which flu strains are active, then develop vaccines to target these, then to vaccinate as many vulnerable people as possible.
Overall, your idea, which seems to be, "Let's not admit people who have serious COVID-19 symptoms to the hospital and just let me them die," shows a complete disregard both for science and for human life.
'Two of my family members received portable (oxygen) units and isolated at home, third didnt get anything other than some pills for inflammation, last one stayed at the hospital and didnt receive anything other than oxygen and some random probably useless antibiotics.'
Yes, you will get pumped with ramdesivir and steroids .. if you are a head of state like Donald or Boris, the rest get optional oxygen and a fuck off sticker.