Look, don't get me wrong. I understand why they are protesting (they should at least wear masks). I am not in their situation and do not have anxiety over income. But why the hell is it so freaking difficult to wear masks when we are around each other? And if enough people fail to do it, we are not going to get over the hump where this pain of a shelter-in-place is either sustainable or beneficial.sycasey said:I would also caution against overvaluing the loud minority that you are most likely to see on TV. Pretty much every poll that has been taken on the subject shows that a strong majority supports the stay-at-home orders.calbear93 said:I will say this. If I thought we had it in us to pull together to watch over each other and that a vaccine was imminent, I would be all for holding on a bit longer. Maybe watching news and people fighting because they are being asked to wear a mask to protect others convinced me that there is no there there. We are just adding pain to those who are least able to bear it. Our idea of civil rights is just my civil rights and not anyone else's rights. That, and a dysfunctional and elitist/overly political ruling class set our fate.Unit2Sucks said:Yeah I mean the economy was going to suffer one way or another so I think the more apt question is whether you inject poisonous medicine under medical supervision (essentially chemotherapy) or you base your decisions on a wide variety of factors that will differ from person to person.calbear93 said:My point is that I don't. No one has claimed that they do. Just like you don't inject poisonous medicine as a remedy if you don't know if the side effect outweighs the benefit, why would you inject this remedy of shutting down the economy and imposing the side effect without knowing whether the harm is outweighed by the benefit? If you have back pain that is not currently fatal but may reduce your life expectancy by an unknown number of years, would you agree to a new treatment that you know will eliminate 20 years of your life that may or may not help?Unit2Sucks said:Yes, and every day we continue to allow a pandemic to spread throughout the country, there is additional damage that will only escalate.calbear93 said:Every day we continue to shut down, there is additional damage that will only escalate. You clearly would think that if we shut down the economy for 10 years, it would be an escalation of damage. So why isn't shutting down the economy for three more months beyond the current two months not more damage than what's already been done? I don't see your logic, but maybe it's because we are viewing the same things with different colored glasses.sycasey said:To some extent, this is simply the right/left divide on a lot of issues these days, but I would still argue here that the damage has basically already been done and what we are arguing about is the best way to start rebuilding. That's a different debate from whether or not to do damage in the first place. Governments were forced to make a snap decision to do massive economic damage in the face of what appeared to be an immediate public-health crisis, and there is a good argument that the economic crash was going to come with the virus even if no "lockdown" orders had gone into effect. Either way, what's done is done.calbear93 said:We just approach this uncertainty differently. I think, before you do damage, you need to explain why the damage is required instead of asking us to blindly trust that bureaucrats know what they are doing. You seem to just trust the government and that their otherwise oppressive behavior is justified. Not saying you don't care about this country or those injured as much as I do, but I think I am just more suspicious of excessive restriction on commerce and livelihood, especially when it seems to be those like us who are not as impacted advocating for the restrictions.sycasey said:Sure, I'd love to see more data. I'm not sure that just having all the data sent to us would actually relieve the uncertainty. How many people will actually know what they are looking at, even if they have it all in front of them? How many of us have the right background in this kind of thing to be able to parse all of it?calbear93 said:OK, if they do have facts to support their actions, maybe they should disclose before asking people to bear the severe consequences of the actions? If there is a convincing argument, I suspect they would have released. Having failed to do so, I assume they don't. You don't think transparency would be helpful if they had the data? If they don't have the facts and are just amputating, then people have the right to be angry and Trump will play that to the tilt.sycasey said:So to return to your original question: how do you know that the state government is NOT taking these factors into account? Newsom seems to keep moving closer to an earlier reopening than originally surmised. Is that not evidence that he is thinking about those things?calbear93 said:
And I don't think it is a question of just knowing the side effects. What is the benefit and does it outweigh the side effect? If 3 more months of shut down means our economic damage and lost jobs are long term and ruinous for many people, having incur part of that for 2 months does not justify continuing or probably accelerating (whatever reserves or buffer we had is probably now all gone) without knowing if it is worth it.
Neither of us has enough special knowledge or expertise to know exactly what the right balance is.
That said, yes, it would be nice if we could have some Fauci-type guy (or gal) lay it all out in some easy-to-understand way. I just can't draw any conclusions one way or the other since I don't have access to all of that. I also think Trump or some other political enemy will try to demagogue the issue whether or not that information is there, so for me that wouldn't be a factor at all.
How can you be so sure that the medium to long-term economic damage from failing to contain a pandemic will be less than the damage from trying to contain it? We can all agree that the extremely short term (weeks not months) would benefit somewhat from opening. The higher that benefit is, the more likely the pandemic is to spread.
As we've seen from states that didn't shut down, the results are not good economically in either scenario. And obviously, state responses haven't been perfect (see Georgia for misrepresenting the decline in it's infection numbers) but you have to pick your poison. I get that you are choosing to pick the poison of having the pandemic wash over us, but it's still a poison. I was hopeful we could win the war against the pandemic while minimizing the long-term economic damages. I fear we are voluntarily losing the war against the pandemic and thus ensuring the long-term economic damages. I get if you are living day to day you don't worry about the future, which is why we spend trillions of dollars to create a short-term safety net to allow us to take action that would be in our collective long-term interest. Unfortunately, it appears we just lit that money on fire to give everyone an awful staycation without actually accomplishing anything positive.
Just another proof point for American Exceptionalism in 2020.
That has probably dropped over time (many of these polls are weeks old), but still there's not a lot of evidence that open revolt is happening.
Reopen the economy?
81,642 Views |
756 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Unit2Sucks
Like it or not, unless certain trends re: reduced serious hospital cases or percentage of tests being positive change, Newsom is opening up the economy. Maybe a little later then some places, but in a few weeks, most Cali counties are going to be in phase 3. Other than a few local yocals stopping things, we are back to full retail and sports w/o fans (with masks or other preventive practices). I listened to some of Newsom's presser today and Newsom was convincing on why the science worked for opening things up on his timetable. The last Phase may be met if things with the trends on reduced serious hospital cases or percentage of tests being positive continue to be thereafter. So yes, the no deaths, vaccines, etc. criteria seem to be gone. Newsom insisted this is all based on science. The models previously used overstated things due to the effectiveness of SIP and other measures. I'm cutting any Governor a break on this because the information is continually changing.
I have to say that Newsom seems a lot more reasonable than most. I remember when he was running for mayor that people hated him for being a sell out, but he always seem moderate. Good for him. We need to recover, even if slowly and he needs to be transparent and relatable, which he is at least trying to be.wifeisafurd said:
Like it or not, unless certain trends re: reduced serious hospital cases or percentage of tests being positive change, Newsom is opening up the economy. Maybe a little later then some places, but in a few weeks, most Cali counties are going to be in phase 3. Other than a few local yocals stopping things, we are back to full retail and sports w/o fans (with masks or other preventive practices). I listened to some of Newsom's presser today and Newsom was convincing on why the science worked for opening things up on his timetable. The last Phase may be met if things with the trends on reduced serious hospital cases or percentage of tests being positive continue to be thereafter. So yes, the no deaths, vaccines, etc. criteria seem to be gone. Newsom insisted this is all based on science. The models previously used overstated things due to the effectiveness of SIP and other measures. I'm cutting any Governor a break on this because the information is continually changing.
I mean, in Newsom's first mayoral election his closest competition was a Green Party candidate (and it actually was fairly close). San Francisco politics is not like everywhere else.calbear93 said:I have to say that Newsom seems a lot more reasonable than most. I remember when he was running for mayor that people hated him for being a sell out, but he always seem moderate. Good for him. We need to recover, even if slowly and he needs to be transparent and relatable, which he is at least trying to be.wifeisafurd said:
Like it or not, unless certain trends re: reduced serious hospital cases or percentage of tests being positive change, Newsom is opening up the economy. Maybe a little later then some places, but in a few weeks, most Cali counties are going to be in phase 3. Other than a few local yocals stopping things, we are back to full retail and sports w/o fans (with masks or other preventive practices). I listened to some of Newsom's presser today and Newsom was convincing on why the science worked for opening things up on his timetable. The last Phase may be met if things with the trends on reduced serious hospital cases or percentage of tests being positive continue to be thereafter. So yes, the no deaths, vaccines, etc. criteria seem to be gone. Newsom insisted this is all based on science. The models previously used overstated things due to the effectiveness of SIP and other measures. I'm cutting any Governor a break on this because the information is continually changing.
Yup, I remember Gonzalez who was surprisingly charismatic. Newsom has a bright future in national politics.sycasey said:I mean, in Newsom's first mayoral election his closest competition was a Green Party candidate (and it actually was fairly close). San Francisco politics is not like everywhere else.calbear93 said:I have to say that Newsom seems a lot more reasonable than most. I remember when he was running for mayor that people hated him for being a sell out, but he always seem moderate. Good for him. We need to recover, even if slowly and he needs to be transparent and relatable, which he is at least trying to be.wifeisafurd said:
Like it or not, unless certain trends re: reduced serious hospital cases or percentage of tests being positive change, Newsom is opening up the economy. Maybe a little later then some places, but in a few weeks, most Cali counties are going to be in phase 3. Other than a few local yocals stopping things, we are back to full retail and sports w/o fans (with masks or other preventive practices). I listened to some of Newsom's presser today and Newsom was convincing on why the science worked for opening things up on his timetable. The last Phase may be met if things with the trends on reduced serious hospital cases or percentage of tests being positive continue to be thereafter. So yes, the no deaths, vaccines, etc. criteria seem to be gone. Newsom insisted this is all based on science. The models previously used overstated things due to the effectiveness of SIP and other measures. I'm cutting any Governor a break on this because the information is continually changing.
You mean the criteria that never existed in the first place in order for us to get to level 3?wifeisafurd said:
So yes, the no deaths, vaccines, etc. criteria seem to be gone.
There was never any requirement that there be vaccines or no deaths in order for the state to move to stage 3. There was a requirement for individual counties that wanted the ability to move faster than the state as a whole.
The misinformation reported multiple times by BearGoggles has now turned into a presumptive fact in some people's minds, but it is not and was not ever true.
I'm not blaming you for repeating false information that was carelessly (or intentionally) spread here, but I do think it's important to set the record straight.
The fact that the science suggests a faster timetable, if true, is great news. Let's hope things keep moving in the right direction.
But who sets the criteria?sycasey said:Looks like Newsom just announced further loosening of requirements.BearGoggles said:
This is not accurate. Newsom authorized early stage 2 - not full stage 2. In order to get to full stage 2, a county need no deaths for 14 days, etc - the impossible requirements. So no full stage 2 (retail, haircuts, salons, schools, restaurants) without variances.
Requirements for stage 3 will be different and more onerous presumably.
Newsom is just gaslighting and you seem to be excusing it. Newsom announces Stage 2 requirements that won't be met for months (if ever) and then tells us we'll be moving to late stage 2 soon and stage 3 within months (less than 6). Not under the current requirements and not under the variance requirements.
And while Newsom and Garcetti are not the same person, they both said the same thing - no full reopening until their is a vaccine or cure.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-18/newsom-reopening-coronavirus-benchmark
Trying to tie any public official to statements made earlier in the pandemic is going to become increasingly silly. Everyone has to keep revising their policies as we learn more about the disease and different interests are heard from. It's a moving target because it has to be.
You have no decision making authority if you have no control over the rules.
What do the stay-at-homers-til-God-knows-when need to see from a data standpoint to where they will at minimum acquiesce lifting SIP. Be precise.
The returns on continuing SIP are diminishing. It isn't preventing the invevitable, just slowing it down. I think Hanky asked the question 10 times. SIP had a narrow purpose. That purpose has been served, overtly so.
The average age of death from COVID in NY is greater than the avg life expectancy in the country. The jig is up. Retreating into a state of fundamentalism regarding SIP is without basis at this point.
The returns on continuing SIP are diminishing. It isn't preventing the invevitable, just slowing it down. I think Hanky asked the question 10 times. SIP had a narrow purpose. That purpose has been served, overtly so.
The average age of death from COVID in NY is greater than the avg life expectancy in the country. The jig is up. Retreating into a state of fundamentalism regarding SIP is without basis at this point.
Lucas Lee said:But who sets the criteria?sycasey said:Looks like Newsom just announced further loosening of requirements.BearGoggles said:
This is not accurate. Newsom authorized early stage 2 - not full stage 2. In order to get to full stage 2, a county need no deaths for 14 days, etc - the impossible requirements. So no full stage 2 (retail, haircuts, salons, schools, restaurants) without variances.
Requirements for stage 3 will be different and more onerous presumably.
Newsom is just gaslighting and you seem to be excusing it. Newsom announces Stage 2 requirements that won't be met for months (if ever) and then tells us we'll be moving to late stage 2 soon and stage 3 within months (less than 6). Not under the current requirements and not under the variance requirements.
And while Newsom and Garcetti are not the same person, they both said the same thing - no full reopening until their is a vaccine or cure.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-18/newsom-reopening-coronavirus-benchmark
Trying to tie any public official to statements made earlier in the pandemic is going to become increasingly silly. Everyone has to keep revising their policies as we learn more about the disease and different interests are heard from. It's a moving target because it has to be.
You have no decision making authority if you have no control over the rules.
Newsom isn't a king, he's an elected official. If the voters don't like what he does they can get rid of him. Governors have even been recalled before.
But Newsom's approval remains high, so that seems unlikely.
You guys can debate the prior criteria. I'm just saying what it is now, and whatever it was before Newsom said he changed it to use more applicable data.Unit2Sucks said:You mean the criteria that never existed in the first place in order for us to get to level 3?wifeisafurd said:
So yes, the no deaths, vaccines, etc. criteria seem to be gone.
There was never any requirement that there be vaccines or no deaths in order for the state to move to stage 3. There was a requirement for individual counties that wanted the ability to move faster than the state as a whole.
The misinformation reported multiple times by BearGoggles has now turned into a presumptive fact in some people's minds, but it is not and was not ever true.
I'm not blaming you for repeating false information that was carelessly (or intentionally) spread here, but I do think it's important to set the record straight.
The fact that the science suggests a faster timetable, if true, is great news. Let's hope things keep moving in the right direction.
He's moderate but also regressive on some key issues. In any election outside of California, he will have to stand in the wind on that.calbear93 said:
I have to say that Newsom seems a lot more reasonable than most. I remember when he was running for mayor that people hated him for being a sell out, but he always seem moderate. Good for him. We need to recover, even if slowly and he needs to be transparent and relatable, which he is at least trying to be.
But he's had all the traditional presidential characteristics from Day 1. People respond to him. People trust him. In a perfect world your political priorities is all that mattered, but we don't live there.
I do in fact understand. My point is we are being gas lit. Rather than Newsom just saying a county can't advance to late stage 2 until he says so, they are/were pretending its a possibility when in practice (due to the express restrictions) it was not. At least not until he said so.OaktownBear said:I think you are misunderstanding both Sycasey and Newsom and the crux is the bolded statement.BearGoggles said:This is not accurate. Newsom authorized early stage 2 - not full stage 2. In order to get to full stage 2, a county need no deaths for 14 days, etc - the impossible requirements. So no full stage 2 (retail, haircuts, salons, schools, restaurants) without variances.sycasey said:I don't think this summary of my argument is accurate at all. First of all, Newsom and Garcetti are not the same person and haven't said the same thing; let's not lump them together. Newsom has already allowed all counties in the state to move to Stage 2 (not all have done it yet), and has laid out some criteria that counties need to meet if they want to move beyond Stage 2. Some of them have done it; the highest-population ones can't, and maybe won't ever. However, Newsom has also laid out a rough timeline for moving to Stage 3, roughly between a month to 3 months. I'll grant this is not very specific, but then again our understanding of this disease is not very specific either.BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Sycasey - do you have any evidence to support the bolded statements for major population centers? Obviously, Newsom is allowing counties to go slower than recommended - but there's not much if any evidence that he's allowing larger counties to reopen faster.sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:
The Democrats trust politicians and experts
I'm confused. If listening to experts is bad, who should we listen to?
There are many experts with conflicting and one size fits all advice. Trust the people in your own community and let the people or their representatives be part of the process.
Why would I trust the people in my community who have no knowledge about this new disease and how it spreads?
The people's representatives are part of the process. Those are the politicians, who you also said not to trust.
There is a local public health official also other local health professionals who know as much as Newsom. The local politicians are more responsive to their constituency their needs and the local situation but who is voting on this- certainly not the people's representatives- it is all edict. . Modoc County doesn't need a solution from Newsom. They can figure it out for themselves
So you think a patchwork of different policies will work? People do travel from county to county. Someone needs to create overarching rules to set minimum standards.
In practice, Newsom has allowed counties some flexibility (those decisions are largely driven by the local health officials you cited above). For example, the Bay Area counties opted to hold off on moving to "Stage 2" of reopening even after the state loosened restrictions overall, though many are going there on Monday. And counties that want to reopen faster are able to do so, provided they meet certain metrics. Seems like a decent balance to me.
We went back and forth on this previously and you acknowledged that the "certain metrics" required to reopen faster are not achievable in most areas (e.g., no covid deaths for 14 consecutive days and No more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days). You and Unit2 were convinced that the variance process was the solution to that. Where are the variances for larger counties?
Below is a link to the requirements for the variance. Unless I'm misreading the variance requirements (which is possible), they seem to be equally unreasonable/unachievable. For example, even to get a variance, it appears the County must attest that there have been no covid deaths for 14 consecutive days and no more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days - the exact same unachievable requirements.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COVID-19-County-Variance-Attestation-Memo.aspx
Form Here: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/CDPH%20COVID19%20County%20Variance%20Attestation%20Form.pdf
Here's a list of the variances granted - not a single large county. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Local-Variance-Attestations.aspx
And just to be clear, I have a solid source that OC and other So Cal counties (I assume excluding LA) have been pursuing variances and can't get them because Sacramento won't waive these requirements. There is increasing frustration to the point that reportedly other options are being considered.
As an aside, here's a cool tool where you can see how each county is doing in terms of the Stage 2 metrics.
https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/
The larger counties have not met the standards and thus are not reopening sooner.
We originally landed on this topic when I claimed that Newsom/Garcetti were, based on their recent statements, extending unreasonable restrictions on reopening for the next 2-3 months. You and others challenged that point and then cited to the fact that even though they said that, and adopted rules restricting MANY Stage 2 reopening activities, we would really be reopening sooner because of "variances." In other words, they said it and adopted objectively impossible standards for reopening, but didn't really mean it.
So you're now conceding that the unreasonable standards are in fact being enforced and you apparently approve of that. Why didn't you just say that at the beginning?.
So that means that once the state decides to move to Stage 3, all counties will be able to move to Stage 3 regardless of their individual numbers. Until then, they need to meet the stricter requirements to jump ahead of the pack. Is that understood now?
Requirements for stage 3 will be different and more onerous presumably.
Newsom is just gaslighting and you seem to be excusing it. Newsom announces Stage 2 requirements that won't be met for months (if ever) and then tells us we'll be moving to late stage 2 soon and stage 3 within months (less than 6). Not under the current requirements and not under the variance requirements.
And while Newsom and Garcetti are not the same person, they both said the same thing - no full reopening until their is a vaccine or cure.
There are two different processes. There is the state process. So the state will determine when we can move on to later stages. Alternatively, there are criteria that allows a county to have a variance and open up earlier. You are conflating the criteria for getting a variance to the state policy with the criteria for the state moving to the next stage as a whole.
There are requirements that a county must meet to act ahead of the state into full stage 2. If they don't meet those requirements, they have to wait until the state moves into full stage 2. Those requirements have no bearing on when the state moves to full stage 2. They are only the requirements for the county to move on BEFORE the state. Then there is the state making the determination to move as a statewide policy to the next stage. They are not the same thing. The requirement that a county have no deaths for 14 days does not have any bearing on the state determination and it does not mean that it will be months before the state opens.
Say you take your kids to Grandmas. Grandma has a pool. The kids say they want to go to the yard. You say, okay, but until you go out there, they can't use the pool unless somebody 16 or older is with them. They say "Hey the oldest is 10. We'll never get to swim". You say. "No, you'll get to swim when I get there"
The counties get to swim when Gavin gets there.
OC can't get a variance because it was never intended that they get one. The variances are for small rural counties. Not urban counties with 3M people. That should have been obvious to them from the get go.
Not saying that is right. But your conclusion that the fact that OC wouldn't be able to achieve a variance for months if ever DOES NOT MEAN the state will only move on based on the criteria that would allow a variance. It is really obvious that the state is moving on to opening things unless there is a new wave of infections. I guess you don't see things that way. I'm not sure why because Newsom has had a pretty reasonably detailed schedule including opening schools as of July. If we haven't moved to full stage 2 in 6 months as you seem to fear, I'm happy to say you are right.
And the fact that they just changed the rule today for variances pretty much proves my point. Newsom is making this up as he goes along - with rules that have little to no basis in fact or science (e.g., arbitrary metric of no deaths in 14 days and closing of beaches) - and then he's reacting when the public gets upset. The overall situation in OC is no different today than it was last week.
And, as a reminder, we landed on this issue when: (i) I stated that Newsom and Garcetti were adopting unreasonable standards for reopening; and (ii) some posters said that wasn't really the case because of the announced standards would be modified by the then-available county variances. Now that we all seem to agree the variances were a sham (or were never intended to be granted to larger counties), then we're back to point (i).
You operate in such bad faith. I report misinformation? No, you repeatedly misrepresent what I said.Unit2Sucks said:You mean the criteria that never existed in the first place in order for us to get to level 3?wifeisafurd said:
So yes, the no deaths, vaccines, etc. criteria seem to be gone.
There was never any requirement that there be vaccines or no deaths in order for the state to move to stage 3. There was a requirement for individual counties that wanted the ability to move faster than the state as a whole.
The misinformation reported multiple times by BearGoggles has now turned into a presumptive fact in some people's minds, but it is not and was not ever true.
I'm not blaming you for repeating false information that was carelessly (or intentionally) spread here, but I do think it's important to set the record straight.
The fact that the science suggests a faster timetable, if true, is great news. Let's hope things keep moving in the right direction.
Please feel free to link to a post where I said that vaccines were a requirement for the state to go to stage 3? I I didn't say that - though both Newsom and Garcetti said things along those lines and I quoted them verbatim.
I did say that the requirements (until today) for counties to move to late stage 2 were unachievable - probably even with a vaccine.
There was - until today - a requirement of no deaths for 14 days for counties to move to late stage 2 and/or 3. That is/was the official requirement. And at the state level, that was the official guidance.
On 4/15/20, Garcetti (not me) said this on CNN:
""Nothing I've heard would indicate that we'll be in those large, thousands-of-people gatherings anytime soon, and probably not for the rest of this year," he told Blitzer. Garcetti said while he hoped there was some scenario where public health officials give residents the green light to attend large events, that possibility is unrealistic given lack of available preventive treatments. "I think we all have never wanted science to work so quickly," he said. "But until there's either a vaccine, some sort of pharmaceutical intervention or herd immunity, the science is the science."
Garcetti said that in many places - no baseball, etc. until there is a treatment/vaccine.
https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/04/15/garcetti-sporting-events-concerts-unlikely-in-los-angeles-until-2021-1276698
Newsom said similar things. NY times on 4/29/20 (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/us/california-reopen-coronavirus.html:
Mr. Newsom said Stage 2 was weeks away. The third and fourth phases, he said, are months away.
But unlike in any of the other phases, Stage 4 will be allowed only once treatments or a vaccine have been developed.
"Being back at concerts and convention halls with tens of thousands of fans will take some time," Mr. Newsom said.
Mr. Newsom emphasized that reopening schools and child care facilities is not only critical for students, who have suffered "learning loss" in recent months, but also for getting parents back to work.
But state officials have said that, barring a vaccine or herd immunity, schools won't be able to open to students until everyone kids, teachers and staff can be safe."
_____________________
And just to be clear, reopening of schools is stage 2. So, as of 3 weeks ago, Newsom and state reps were saying stages 3 and 4 were months (plural) away and that schools could not reopen without vaccine.
What I did say is that given the standards announced by Newsom and Garcetti, we would not be able to fully reopen until there was a vaccine/treatment - which might never happen.
Newsom is backing down and changing the guidance/rules. That is a good thing. But that doesn't change what he said/did prior to today.
This is a veritable gish gallop of contradictory statements and lies.BearGoggles said:You operate in such bad faith. I report misinformation? No, you repeatedly misrepresent what I said.Unit2Sucks said:You mean the criteria that never existed in the first place in order for us to get to level 3?wifeisafurd said:
So yes, the no deaths, vaccines, etc. criteria seem to be gone.
There was never any requirement that there be vaccines or no deaths in order for the state to move to stage 3. There was a requirement for individual counties that wanted the ability to move faster than the state as a whole.
The misinformation reported multiple times by BearGoggles has now turned into a presumptive fact in some people's minds, but it is not and was not ever true.
I'm not blaming you for repeating false information that was carelessly (or intentionally) spread here, but I do think it's important to set the record straight.
The fact that the science suggests a faster timetable, if true, is great news. Let's hope things keep moving in the right direction.
Please feel free to link to a post where I said that vaccines were a requirement for the state to go to stage 3? I I didn't say that - though both Newsom and Garcetti said things along those lines and I quoted them verbatim.
I did say that the requirements (until today) for counties to move to late stage 2 were unachievable - probably even with a vaccine.
There was - until today - a requirement of no deaths for 14 days for counties to move to late stage 2 and/or 3. That is/was the official requirement. And at the state level, that was the official guidance.
On 4/15/20, Garcetti (not me) said this on CNN:
""Nothing I've heard would indicate that we'll be in those large, thousands-of-people gatherings anytime soon, and probably not for the rest of this year," he told Blitzer. Garcetti said while he hoped there was some scenario where public health officials give residents the green light to attend large events, that possibility is unrealistic given lack of available preventive treatments. "I think we all have never wanted science to work so quickly," he said. "But until there's either a vaccine, some sort of pharmaceutical intervention or herd immunity, the science is the science."
Garcetti said that in many places - no baseball, etc. until there is a treatment/vaccine.
https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/04/15/garcetti-sporting-events-concerts-unlikely-in-los-angeles-until-2021-1276698
Newsom said similar things. NY times on 4/29/20 (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/us/california-reopen-coronavirus.html:
Mr. Newsom said Stage 2 was weeks away. The third and fourth phases, he said, are months away.
But unlike in any of the other phases, Stage 4 will be allowed only once treatments or a vaccine have been developed.
"Being back at concerts and convention halls with tens of thousands of fans will take some time," Mr. Newsom said.
Mr. Newsom emphasized that reopening schools and child care facilities is not only critical for students, who have suffered "learning loss" in recent months, but also for getting parents back to work.
But state officials have said that, barring a vaccine or herd immunity, schools won't be able to open to students until everyone kids, teachers and staff can be safe."
_____________________
And just to be clear, reopening of schools is stage 2. So, as of 3 weeks ago, Newsom and state reps were saying stages 3 and 4 were months (plural) away and that schools could not reopen without vaccine.
What I did say is that given the standards announced by Newsom and Garcetti, we would not be able to fully reopen until there was a vaccine/treatment - which might never happen.
Newsom is backing down and changing the guidance/rules. That is a good thing. But that doesn't change what he said/did prior to today.
BearGoggles:
Also BearGoggles:Quote:
Please feel free to link to a post where I said that vaccines were a requirement for the state to go to stage 3? I I didn't say that - though both Newsom and Garcetti said things along those lines and I quoted them verbatim.
Quote:
Read that again - to get to the later part of Stage 2, a county must have ZERO COVID DEATHS. Besides the fact that reports of deaths and cases trail by many weeks, we literally many never achieve that. Not absent a cure. And that is stage 2 - not the later stages. The standard is not just unreasonable - in many places it will be impossible.
...
So its not really a question of arguing for lockdown until there's a cure. It actually official policy - though benevolent King Newsom has the ability to grant variances under an unclear standard.
Also BearGoggles:
Quote:
We are currently in "early stage 2." We can't progress until we have no deaths for 14 days which, in any decent sized county, means a cure. Until then, no restaurants, no gyms, no haircuts/salons, no leisure/tourism travel, no shopping (other than curbside), and shockingly, no religious services, etc. And businesses operate with extreme limitations (i.e., partial staffing, etc.). No social gatherings.
That's not lock down?
BearGoggles:
Quote:
There was - until today - a requirement of no deaths for 14 days for counties to move to late stage 2 and/or 3. That is/was the official requirement. And at the state level, that was the official guidance.
Gavin Newsom on May 8 (not yesterday):
My explanation of the situation showing that the stricter standards were only for stage 2 variances, not for the state as a whole to progress to stage 3.Quote:
"Phase 3 is not a year away. It's not 6 months away. It's not even three months away. It may not even be more than a month away," Newsom said. "We just want to make sure we have a protocol in place to secure customer safety, employee safety and allow the businesses to thrive in a way that is sustainable."
"Roughly 70% of the economy in the state of California can open with modifications into this next phase," said Newsom Friday. "I know 70% is not 100%, and I recognize that 'with modifications' means 'with restrictions' and 'with restrictions' means a struggle for businesses to get back where they were pre-pandemic." [url=https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95602/replies/1753844][/url]
BearGoggles:
Newsom in that NYT Article:Quote:
[url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/us/california-reopen-coronavirus.html][/url]Newsom said similar things. NY times on 4/29/20 (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/us/california-reopen-coronavirus.html:
BearGoggles:Quote:
"We're beginning to have much more public conversations about opening up, with modifications," Gov. Gavin Newsom told Californians in his daily briefing. "The virus has not gone away."
Schools, he said, could reopen for the new academic year as early as "July or August."
And some loosening of restrictions could be weeks, not months, away, Mr. Newsom said, once again warning that any easing of stay-at-home orders is contingent on officials' ability to quickly put them back into place if case counts start to rise.
LOL. You have been completely wrong about this for a while now and continue to make unsupported misleading claims about Stage 3 requirements, but I'm the one who operates in bad faith.Quote:
You operate in such bad faith. I report misinformation? No, you repeatedly misrepresent what I said.
BearGoggles said:
I do in fact understand. My point is we are being gas lit. Rather than Newsom just saying a county can't advance to late stage 2 until he says so, they are/were pretending its a possibility when in practice (due to the express restrictions) it was not. At least not until he said so.
Except that's not true. Some counties have already advanced to late Stage 2, so it's not impossible for everyone. It is probably impossible for HIGH POPULATION counties to reach those metrics, and if you want to argue the standards are unfair for that reason then fine . . . but it's not gaslighting to set standards and then enforce those same standards for everyone.
Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that there's a certain logic to allowing sparsely-populated rural counties to open up faster than densely-packed urban ones? The dense counties are much more likely to suffer COVID outbreaks. Again, one can disagree with the specific metrics but as a general plan this isn't crazy.
The scientific knowledge of this disease is also constantly changing, because guess what, it's a new disease. Public policy is going to naturally change in response.BearGoggles said:
And the fact that they just changed the rule today for variances pretty much proves my point. Newsom is making this up as he goes along - with rules that have little to no basis in fact or science (e.g., arbitrary metric of no deaths in 14 days and closing of beaches) - and then he's reacting when the public gets upset. The overall situation in OC is no different today than it was last week.
That doesn't mean everything Newsom does is right, but the mere fact that he changed his stance on some things doesn't prove anything about his motives.
False, see above.BearGoggles said:
And, as a reminder, we landed on this issue when: (i) I stated that Newsom and Garcetti were adopting unreasonable standards for reopening; and (ii) some posters said that wasn't really the case because of the announced standards would be modified by the then-available county variances. Now that we all seem to agree the variances were a sham (or were never intended to be granted to larger counties), then we're back to point (i).
I'm sorry. I believe you are genuine in your interpretations, but I believe your interpretations are based on being mad and emotional responses to what you think certain leaders will say or have said rather than what they actually have said. Newsom came out with a clear plan for reopening weeks ago and has followed that plan. Not a clear timeline because that was the point - they needed to make decisions based on most up to date information. He hasn't changed his plan. He is not reacting to the public getting upset. He has 79% approval rating for his handling of the crisis. He has hinted at timelines in the past and has come pretty close to following those hints. There was never a danger that we were looking at 6 month timelines.BearGoggles said:I do in fact understand. My point is we are being gas lit. Rather than Newsom just saying a county can't advance to late stage 2 until he says so, they are/were pretending its a possibility when in practice (due to the express restrictions) it was not. At least not until he said so.OaktownBear said:I think you are misunderstanding both Sycasey and Newsom and the crux is the bolded statement.BearGoggles said:This is not accurate. Newsom authorized early stage 2 - not full stage 2. In order to get to full stage 2, a county need no deaths for 14 days, etc - the impossible requirements. So no full stage 2 (retail, haircuts, salons, schools, restaurants) without variances.sycasey said:I don't think this summary of my argument is accurate at all. First of all, Newsom and Garcetti are not the same person and haven't said the same thing; let's not lump them together. Newsom has already allowed all counties in the state to move to Stage 2 (not all have done it yet), and has laid out some criteria that counties need to meet if they want to move beyond Stage 2. Some of them have done it; the highest-population ones can't, and maybe won't ever. However, Newsom has also laid out a rough timeline for moving to Stage 3, roughly between a month to 3 months. I'll grant this is not very specific, but then again our understanding of this disease is not very specific either.BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Sycasey - do you have any evidence to support the bolded statements for major population centers? Obviously, Newsom is allowing counties to go slower than recommended - but there's not much if any evidence that he's allowing larger counties to reopen faster.sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:
The Democrats trust politicians and experts
I'm confused. If listening to experts is bad, who should we listen to?
There are many experts with conflicting and one size fits all advice. Trust the people in your own community and let the people or their representatives be part of the process.
Why would I trust the people in my community who have no knowledge about this new disease and how it spreads?
The people's representatives are part of the process. Those are the politicians, who you also said not to trust.
There is a local public health official also other local health professionals who know as much as Newsom. The local politicians are more responsive to their constituency their needs and the local situation but who is voting on this- certainly not the people's representatives- it is all edict. . Modoc County doesn't need a solution from Newsom. They can figure it out for themselves
So you think a patchwork of different policies will work? People do travel from county to county. Someone needs to create overarching rules to set minimum standards.
In practice, Newsom has allowed counties some flexibility (those decisions are largely driven by the local health officials you cited above). For example, the Bay Area counties opted to hold off on moving to "Stage 2" of reopening even after the state loosened restrictions overall, though many are going there on Monday. And counties that want to reopen faster are able to do so, provided they meet certain metrics. Seems like a decent balance to me.
We went back and forth on this previously and you acknowledged that the "certain metrics" required to reopen faster are not achievable in most areas (e.g., no covid deaths for 14 consecutive days and No more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days). You and Unit2 were convinced that the variance process was the solution to that. Where are the variances for larger counties?
Below is a link to the requirements for the variance. Unless I'm misreading the variance requirements (which is possible), they seem to be equally unreasonable/unachievable. For example, even to get a variance, it appears the County must attest that there have been no covid deaths for 14 consecutive days and no more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days - the exact same unachievable requirements.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COVID-19-County-Variance-Attestation-Memo.aspx
Form Here: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/CDPH%20COVID19%20County%20Variance%20Attestation%20Form.pdf
Here's a list of the variances granted - not a single large county. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Local-Variance-Attestations.aspx
And just to be clear, I have a solid source that OC and other So Cal counties (I assume excluding LA) have been pursuing variances and can't get them because Sacramento won't waive these requirements. There is increasing frustration to the point that reportedly other options are being considered.
As an aside, here's a cool tool where you can see how each county is doing in terms of the Stage 2 metrics.
https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/
The larger counties have not met the standards and thus are not reopening sooner.
We originally landed on this topic when I claimed that Newsom/Garcetti were, based on their recent statements, extending unreasonable restrictions on reopening for the next 2-3 months. You and others challenged that point and then cited to the fact that even though they said that, and adopted rules restricting MANY Stage 2 reopening activities, we would really be reopening sooner because of "variances." In other words, they said it and adopted objectively impossible standards for reopening, but didn't really mean it.
So you're now conceding that the unreasonable standards are in fact being enforced and you apparently approve of that. Why didn't you just say that at the beginning?.
So that means that once the state decides to move to Stage 3, all counties will be able to move to Stage 3 regardless of their individual numbers. Until then, they need to meet the stricter requirements to jump ahead of the pack. Is that understood now?
Requirements for stage 3 will be different and more onerous presumably.
Newsom is just gaslighting and you seem to be excusing it. Newsom announces Stage 2 requirements that won't be met for months (if ever) and then tells us we'll be moving to late stage 2 soon and stage 3 within months (less than 6). Not under the current requirements and not under the variance requirements.
And while Newsom and Garcetti are not the same person, they both said the same thing - no full reopening until their is a vaccine or cure.
There are two different processes. There is the state process. So the state will determine when we can move on to later stages. Alternatively, there are criteria that allows a county to have a variance and open up earlier. You are conflating the criteria for getting a variance to the state policy with the criteria for the state moving to the next stage as a whole.
There are requirements that a county must meet to act ahead of the state into full stage 2. If they don't meet those requirements, they have to wait until the state moves into full stage 2. Those requirements have no bearing on when the state moves to full stage 2. They are only the requirements for the county to move on BEFORE the state. Then there is the state making the determination to move as a statewide policy to the next stage. They are not the same thing. The requirement that a county have no deaths for 14 days does not have any bearing on the state determination and it does not mean that it will be months before the state opens.
Say you take your kids to Grandmas. Grandma has a pool. The kids say they want to go to the yard. You say, okay, but until you go out there, they can't use the pool unless somebody 16 or older is with them. They say "Hey the oldest is 10. We'll never get to swim". You say. "No, you'll get to swim when I get there"
The counties get to swim when Gavin gets there.
OC can't get a variance because it was never intended that they get one. The variances are for small rural counties. Not urban counties with 3M people. That should have been obvious to them from the get go.
Not saying that is right. But your conclusion that the fact that OC wouldn't be able to achieve a variance for months if ever DOES NOT MEAN the state will only move on based on the criteria that would allow a variance. It is really obvious that the state is moving on to opening things unless there is a new wave of infections. I guess you don't see things that way. I'm not sure why because Newsom has had a pretty reasonably detailed schedule including opening schools as of July. If we haven't moved to full stage 2 in 6 months as you seem to fear, I'm happy to say you are right.
And the fact that they just changed the rule today for variances pretty much proves my point. Newsom is making this up as he goes along - with rules that have little to no basis in fact or science (e.g., arbitrary metric of no deaths in 14 days and closing of beaches) - and then he's reacting when the public gets upset. The overall situation in OC is no different today than it was last week.
And, as a reminder, we landed on this issue when: (i) I stated that Newsom and Garcetti were adopting unreasonable standards for reopening; and (ii) some posters said that wasn't really the case because of the announced standards would be modified by the then-available county variances. Now that we all seem to agree the variances were a sham (or were never intended to be granted to larger counties), then we're back to point (i).
We were not being gaslit on variances. Rural counties with very few cases asked for a policy where they could open up sooner than major population centers. It was a reasonable request and the state gave a reasonable response. No one every claimed that the response was designed for Orange County. That doesn't make it a sham.
So yes we are back to point (i) and my point being that at least with respect to Newsom (I don't follow Garcetti) the standards you were ascribing to him were never his standards, but I'm guessing what you feared them to be.
This is part of the whole point that "democrats" on here have been making for weeks. Conservatives have been making this a false choice between opening and not opening and we have been saying WE ARE OPENING. It is a matter of how we do it. On April 28 Newsom talked about schools opening early for next year by opening in July and still we have spent weeks since then fighting arguments that democrats never intend to open. It is a complete misrepresentation of what was going on and now that we are at the point where we are opening things exactly as it was said we would people have to argue that they have bowed to public pressure from a public that has massively supported the policies and Newsom himself, because they have to justify that they either deliberately misrepresented what was going on or wouldn't listen to those that told them exactly what was going to happen.
Oaktown - the context of the entire discussion was OC's inability to get go to full stage 2 despite low covid. Unit2 and Sycasey responded by saying "but variances." So don't tell me know that no one ever claimed variances were for OC. And certainly the OC Board of Supervisors were not told that - they have been trying to get one for some time (not to mention opening beaches).OaktownBear said:I'm sorry. I believe you are genuine in your interpretations, but I believe your interpretations are based on being mad and emotional responses to what you think certain leaders will say or have said rather than what they actually have said. Newsom came out with a clear plan for reopening weeks ago and has followed that plan. Not a clear timeline because that was the point - they needed to make decisions based on most up to date information. He hasn't changed his plan. He is not reacting to the public getting upset. He has 79% approval rating for his handling of the crisis. He has hinted at timelines in the past and has come pretty close to following those hints. There was never a danger that we were looking at 6 month timelines.BearGoggles said:I do in fact understand. My point is we are being gas lit. Rather than Newsom just saying a county can't advance to late stage 2 until he says so, they are/were pretending its a possibility when in practice (due to the express restrictions) it was not. At least not until he said so.OaktownBear said:I think you are misunderstanding both Sycasey and Newsom and the crux is the bolded statement.BearGoggles said:This is not accurate. Newsom authorized early stage 2 - not full stage 2. In order to get to full stage 2, a county need no deaths for 14 days, etc - the impossible requirements. So no full stage 2 (retail, haircuts, salons, schools, restaurants) without variances.sycasey said:I don't think this summary of my argument is accurate at all. First of all, Newsom and Garcetti are not the same person and haven't said the same thing; let's not lump them together. Newsom has already allowed all counties in the state to move to Stage 2 (not all have done it yet), and has laid out some criteria that counties need to meet if they want to move beyond Stage 2. Some of them have done it; the highest-population ones can't, and maybe won't ever. However, Newsom has also laid out a rough timeline for moving to Stage 3, roughly between a month to 3 months. I'll grant this is not very specific, but then again our understanding of this disease is not very specific either.BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Sycasey - do you have any evidence to support the bolded statements for major population centers? Obviously, Newsom is allowing counties to go slower than recommended - but there's not much if any evidence that he's allowing larger counties to reopen faster.sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:
The Democrats trust politicians and experts
I'm confused. If listening to experts is bad, who should we listen to?
There are many experts with conflicting and one size fits all advice. Trust the people in your own community and let the people or their representatives be part of the process.
Why would I trust the people in my community who have no knowledge about this new disease and how it spreads?
The people's representatives are part of the process. Those are the politicians, who you also said not to trust.
There is a local public health official also other local health professionals who know as much as Newsom. The local politicians are more responsive to their constituency their needs and the local situation but who is voting on this- certainly not the people's representatives- it is all edict. . Modoc County doesn't need a solution from Newsom. They can figure it out for themselves
So you think a patchwork of different policies will work? People do travel from county to county. Someone needs to create overarching rules to set minimum standards.
In practice, Newsom has allowed counties some flexibility (those decisions are largely driven by the local health officials you cited above). For example, the Bay Area counties opted to hold off on moving to "Stage 2" of reopening even after the state loosened restrictions overall, though many are going there on Monday. And counties that want to reopen faster are able to do so, provided they meet certain metrics. Seems like a decent balance to me.
We went back and forth on this previously and you acknowledged that the "certain metrics" required to reopen faster are not achievable in most areas (e.g., no covid deaths for 14 consecutive days and No more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days). You and Unit2 were convinced that the variance process was the solution to that. Where are the variances for larger counties?
Below is a link to the requirements for the variance. Unless I'm misreading the variance requirements (which is possible), they seem to be equally unreasonable/unachievable. For example, even to get a variance, it appears the County must attest that there have been no covid deaths for 14 consecutive days and no more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days - the exact same unachievable requirements.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COVID-19-County-Variance-Attestation-Memo.aspx
Form Here: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/CDPH%20COVID19%20County%20Variance%20Attestation%20Form.pdf
Here's a list of the variances granted - not a single large county. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Local-Variance-Attestations.aspx
And just to be clear, I have a solid source that OC and other So Cal counties (I assume excluding LA) have been pursuing variances and can't get them because Sacramento won't waive these requirements. There is increasing frustration to the point that reportedly other options are being considered.
As an aside, here's a cool tool where you can see how each county is doing in terms of the Stage 2 metrics.
https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/
The larger counties have not met the standards and thus are not reopening sooner.
We originally landed on this topic when I claimed that Newsom/Garcetti were, based on their recent statements, extending unreasonable restrictions on reopening for the next 2-3 months. You and others challenged that point and then cited to the fact that even though they said that, and adopted rules restricting MANY Stage 2 reopening activities, we would really be reopening sooner because of "variances." In other words, they said it and adopted objectively impossible standards for reopening, but didn't really mean it.
So you're now conceding that the unreasonable standards are in fact being enforced and you apparently approve of that. Why didn't you just say that at the beginning?.
So that means that once the state decides to move to Stage 3, all counties will be able to move to Stage 3 regardless of their individual numbers. Until then, they need to meet the stricter requirements to jump ahead of the pack. Is that understood now?
Requirements for stage 3 will be different and more onerous presumably.
Newsom is just gaslighting and you seem to be excusing it. Newsom announces Stage 2 requirements that won't be met for months (if ever) and then tells us we'll be moving to late stage 2 soon and stage 3 within months (less than 6). Not under the current requirements and not under the variance requirements.
And while Newsom and Garcetti are not the same person, they both said the same thing - no full reopening until their is a vaccine or cure.
There are two different processes. There is the state process. So the state will determine when we can move on to later stages. Alternatively, there are criteria that allows a county to have a variance and open up earlier. You are conflating the criteria for getting a variance to the state policy with the criteria for the state moving to the next stage as a whole.
There are requirements that a county must meet to act ahead of the state into full stage 2. If they don't meet those requirements, they have to wait until the state moves into full stage 2. Those requirements have no bearing on when the state moves to full stage 2. They are only the requirements for the county to move on BEFORE the state. Then there is the state making the determination to move as a statewide policy to the next stage. They are not the same thing. The requirement that a county have no deaths for 14 days does not have any bearing on the state determination and it does not mean that it will be months before the state opens.
Say you take your kids to Grandmas. Grandma has a pool. The kids say they want to go to the yard. You say, okay, but until you go out there, they can't use the pool unless somebody 16 or older is with them. They say "Hey the oldest is 10. We'll never get to swim". You say. "No, you'll get to swim when I get there"
The counties get to swim when Gavin gets there.
OC can't get a variance because it was never intended that they get one. The variances are for small rural counties. Not urban counties with 3M people. That should have been obvious to them from the get go.
Not saying that is right. But your conclusion that the fact that OC wouldn't be able to achieve a variance for months if ever DOES NOT MEAN the state will only move on based on the criteria that would allow a variance. It is really obvious that the state is moving on to opening things unless there is a new wave of infections. I guess you don't see things that way. I'm not sure why because Newsom has had a pretty reasonably detailed schedule including opening schools as of July. If we haven't moved to full stage 2 in 6 months as you seem to fear, I'm happy to say you are right.
And the fact that they just changed the rule today for variances pretty much proves my point. Newsom is making this up as he goes along - with rules that have little to no basis in fact or science (e.g., arbitrary metric of no deaths in 14 days and closing of beaches) - and then he's reacting when the public gets upset. The overall situation in OC is no different today than it was last week.
And, as a reminder, we landed on this issue when: (i) I stated that Newsom and Garcetti were adopting unreasonable standards for reopening; and (ii) some posters said that wasn't really the case because of the announced standards would be modified by the then-available county variances. Now that we all seem to agree the variances were a sham (or were never intended to be granted to larger counties), then we're back to point (i).
We were not being gaslit on variances. Rural counties with very few cases asked for a policy where they could open up sooner than major population centers. It was a reasonable request and the state gave a reasonable response. No one every claimed that the response was designed for Orange County. That doesn't make it a sham.
So yes we are back to point (i) and my point being that at least with respect to Newsom (I don't follow Garcetti) the standards you were ascribing to him were never his standards, but I'm guessing what you feared them to be.
This is part of the whole point that "democrats" on here have been making for weeks. Conservatives have been making this a false choice between opening and not opening and we have been saying WE ARE OPENING. It is a matter of how we do it. On April 28 Newsom talked about schools opening early for next year by opening in July and still we have spent weeks since then fighting arguments that democrats never intend to open. It is a complete misrepresentation of what was going on and now that we are at the point where we are opening things exactly as it was said we would people have to argue that they have bowed to public pressure from a public that has massively supported the policies and Newsom himself, because they have to justify that they either deliberately misrepresented what was going on or wouldn't listen to those that told them exactly what was going to happen.
And your claim that Newsom never announced a timeline is at odds with what he said. I won't quote again, but he did specifically say things like months, not weeks. He has since changed his tune and changed the rules for variances, but time will tell.
Question for you - what are the official California criteria for moving from Stage 2 to Stage 3, and from Stage 3 to Stage 4?
Stop gaslighting this forum on this topic. This is beyond disingenuous, even by your usual standards. Neither myself nor Sycasey made any claims that OC would be or should be eligible for variances. Given that it's part of a large population center with most of the state's COVID cases within an hour's drive, I don't know why anyone would compare OC to one of the rural counties with virtually no COVID cases for which the variances were intended.BearGoggles said:Oaktown - the context of the entire discussion was OC's inability to get go to full stage 2 despite low covid. Unit2 and Sycasey responded by saying "but variances." So don't tell me know that no one ever claimed variances were for OC. And certainly the OC Board of Supervisors were not told that - they have been trying to get one for some time (not to mention opening beaches).OaktownBear said:I'm sorry. I believe you are genuine in your interpretations, but I believe your interpretations are based on being mad and emotional responses to what you think certain leaders will say or have said rather than what they actually have said. Newsom came out with a clear plan for reopening weeks ago and has followed that plan. Not a clear timeline because that was the point - they needed to make decisions based on most up to date information. He hasn't changed his plan. He is not reacting to the public getting upset. He has 79% approval rating for his handling of the crisis. He has hinted at timelines in the past and has come pretty close to following those hints. There was never a danger that we were looking at 6 month timelines.BearGoggles said:I do in fact understand. My point is we are being gas lit. Rather than Newsom just saying a county can't advance to late stage 2 until he says so, they are/were pretending its a possibility when in practice (due to the express restrictions) it was not. At least not until he said so.OaktownBear said:I think you are misunderstanding both Sycasey and Newsom and the crux is the bolded statement.BearGoggles said:This is not accurate. Newsom authorized early stage 2 - not full stage 2. In order to get to full stage 2, a county need no deaths for 14 days, etc - the impossible requirements. So no full stage 2 (retail, haircuts, salons, schools, restaurants) without variances.sycasey said:I don't think this summary of my argument is accurate at all. First of all, Newsom and Garcetti are not the same person and haven't said the same thing; let's not lump them together. Newsom has already allowed all counties in the state to move to Stage 2 (not all have done it yet), and has laid out some criteria that counties need to meet if they want to move beyond Stage 2. Some of them have done it; the highest-population ones can't, and maybe won't ever. However, Newsom has also laid out a rough timeline for moving to Stage 3, roughly between a month to 3 months. I'll grant this is not very specific, but then again our understanding of this disease is not very specific either.BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Sycasey - do you have any evidence to support the bolded statements for major population centers? Obviously, Newsom is allowing counties to go slower than recommended - but there's not much if any evidence that he's allowing larger counties to reopen faster.sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:
The Democrats trust politicians and experts
I'm confused. If listening to experts is bad, who should we listen to?
There are many experts with conflicting and one size fits all advice. Trust the people in your own community and let the people or their representatives be part of the process.
Why would I trust the people in my community who have no knowledge about this new disease and how it spreads?
The people's representatives are part of the process. Those are the politicians, who you also said not to trust.
There is a local public health official also other local health professionals who know as much as Newsom. The local politicians are more responsive to their constituency their needs and the local situation but who is voting on this- certainly not the people's representatives- it is all edict. . Modoc County doesn't need a solution from Newsom. They can figure it out for themselves
So you think a patchwork of different policies will work? People do travel from county to county. Someone needs to create overarching rules to set minimum standards.
In practice, Newsom has allowed counties some flexibility (those decisions are largely driven by the local health officials you cited above). For example, the Bay Area counties opted to hold off on moving to "Stage 2" of reopening even after the state loosened restrictions overall, though many are going there on Monday. And counties that want to reopen faster are able to do so, provided they meet certain metrics. Seems like a decent balance to me.
We went back and forth on this previously and you acknowledged that the "certain metrics" required to reopen faster are not achievable in most areas (e.g., no covid deaths for 14 consecutive days and No more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days). You and Unit2 were convinced that the variance process was the solution to that. Where are the variances for larger counties?
Below is a link to the requirements for the variance. Unless I'm misreading the variance requirements (which is possible), they seem to be equally unreasonable/unachievable. For example, even to get a variance, it appears the County must attest that there have been no covid deaths for 14 consecutive days and no more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days - the exact same unachievable requirements.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COVID-19-County-Variance-Attestation-Memo.aspx
Form Here: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/CDPH%20COVID19%20County%20Variance%20Attestation%20Form.pdf
Here's a list of the variances granted - not a single large county. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Local-Variance-Attestations.aspx
And just to be clear, I have a solid source that OC and other So Cal counties (I assume excluding LA) have been pursuing variances and can't get them because Sacramento won't waive these requirements. There is increasing frustration to the point that reportedly other options are being considered.
As an aside, here's a cool tool where you can see how each county is doing in terms of the Stage 2 metrics.
https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/
The larger counties have not met the standards and thus are not reopening sooner.
We originally landed on this topic when I claimed that Newsom/Garcetti were, based on their recent statements, extending unreasonable restrictions on reopening for the next 2-3 months. You and others challenged that point and then cited to the fact that even though they said that, and adopted rules restricting MANY Stage 2 reopening activities, we would really be reopening sooner because of "variances." In other words, they said it and adopted objectively impossible standards for reopening, but didn't really mean it.
So you're now conceding that the unreasonable standards are in fact being enforced and you apparently approve of that. Why didn't you just say that at the beginning?.
So that means that once the state decides to move to Stage 3, all counties will be able to move to Stage 3 regardless of their individual numbers. Until then, they need to meet the stricter requirements to jump ahead of the pack. Is that understood now?
Requirements for stage 3 will be different and more onerous presumably.
Newsom is just gaslighting and you seem to be excusing it. Newsom announces Stage 2 requirements that won't be met for months (if ever) and then tells us we'll be moving to late stage 2 soon and stage 3 within months (less than 6). Not under the current requirements and not under the variance requirements.
And while Newsom and Garcetti are not the same person, they both said the same thing - no full reopening until their is a vaccine or cure.
There are two different processes. There is the state process. So the state will determine when we can move on to later stages. Alternatively, there are criteria that allows a county to have a variance and open up earlier. You are conflating the criteria for getting a variance to the state policy with the criteria for the state moving to the next stage as a whole.
There are requirements that a county must meet to act ahead of the state into full stage 2. If they don't meet those requirements, they have to wait until the state moves into full stage 2. Those requirements have no bearing on when the state moves to full stage 2. They are only the requirements for the county to move on BEFORE the state. Then there is the state making the determination to move as a statewide policy to the next stage. They are not the same thing. The requirement that a county have no deaths for 14 days does not have any bearing on the state determination and it does not mean that it will be months before the state opens.
Say you take your kids to Grandmas. Grandma has a pool. The kids say they want to go to the yard. You say, okay, but until you go out there, they can't use the pool unless somebody 16 or older is with them. They say "Hey the oldest is 10. We'll never get to swim". You say. "No, you'll get to swim when I get there"
The counties get to swim when Gavin gets there.
OC can't get a variance because it was never intended that they get one. The variances are for small rural counties. Not urban counties with 3M people. That should have been obvious to them from the get go.
Not saying that is right. But your conclusion that the fact that OC wouldn't be able to achieve a variance for months if ever DOES NOT MEAN the state will only move on based on the criteria that would allow a variance. It is really obvious that the state is moving on to opening things unless there is a new wave of infections. I guess you don't see things that way. I'm not sure why because Newsom has had a pretty reasonably detailed schedule including opening schools as of July. If we haven't moved to full stage 2 in 6 months as you seem to fear, I'm happy to say you are right.
And the fact that they just changed the rule today for variances pretty much proves my point. Newsom is making this up as he goes along - with rules that have little to no basis in fact or science (e.g., arbitrary metric of no deaths in 14 days and closing of beaches) - and then he's reacting when the public gets upset. The overall situation in OC is no different today than it was last week.
And, as a reminder, we landed on this issue when: (i) I stated that Newsom and Garcetti were adopting unreasonable standards for reopening; and (ii) some posters said that wasn't really the case because of the announced standards would be modified by the then-available county variances. Now that we all seem to agree the variances were a sham (or were never intended to be granted to larger counties), then we're back to point (i).
We were not being gaslit on variances. Rural counties with very few cases asked for a policy where they could open up sooner than major population centers. It was a reasonable request and the state gave a reasonable response. No one every claimed that the response was designed for Orange County. That doesn't make it a sham.
So yes we are back to point (i) and my point being that at least with respect to Newsom (I don't follow Garcetti) the standards you were ascribing to him were never his standards, but I'm guessing what you feared them to be.
This is part of the whole point that "democrats" on here have been making for weeks. Conservatives have been making this a false choice between opening and not opening and we have been saying WE ARE OPENING. It is a matter of how we do it. On April 28 Newsom talked about schools opening early for next year by opening in July and still we have spent weeks since then fighting arguments that democrats never intend to open. It is a complete misrepresentation of what was going on and now that we are at the point where we are opening things exactly as it was said we would people have to argue that they have bowed to public pressure from a public that has massively supported the policies and Newsom himself, because they have to justify that they either deliberately misrepresented what was going on or wouldn't listen to those that told them exactly what was going to happen.
And your claim that Newsom never announced a timeline is at odds with what he said. I won't quote again, but he did specifically say things like months, not weeks. He has since changed his tune and changed the rules for variances, but time will tell.
Question for you - what are the official California criteria for moving from Stage 2 to Stage 3, and from Stage 3 to Stage 4?
BearGoggles said:Oaktown - the context of the entire discussion was OC's inability to get go to full stage 2 despite low covid. Unit2 and Sycasey responded by saying "but variances." So don't tell me know that no one ever claimed variances were for OC. And certainly the OC Board of Supervisors were not told that - they have been trying to get one for some time (not to mention opening beaches).OaktownBear said:I'm sorry. I believe you are genuine in your interpretations, but I believe your interpretations are based on being mad and emotional responses to what you think certain leaders will say or have said rather than what they actually have said. Newsom came out with a clear plan for reopening weeks ago and has followed that plan. Not a clear timeline because that was the point - they needed to make decisions based on most up to date information. He hasn't changed his plan. He is not reacting to the public getting upset. He has 79% approval rating for his handling of the crisis. He has hinted at timelines in the past and has come pretty close to following those hints. There was never a danger that we were looking at 6 month timelines.BearGoggles said:I do in fact understand. My point is we are being gas lit. Rather than Newsom just saying a county can't advance to late stage 2 until he says so, they are/were pretending its a possibility when in practice (due to the express restrictions) it was not. At least not until he said so.OaktownBear said:I think you are misunderstanding both Sycasey and Newsom and the crux is the bolded statement.BearGoggles said:This is not accurate. Newsom authorized early stage 2 - not full stage 2. In order to get to full stage 2, a county need no deaths for 14 days, etc - the impossible requirements. So no full stage 2 (retail, haircuts, salons, schools, restaurants) without variances.sycasey said:I don't think this summary of my argument is accurate at all. First of all, Newsom and Garcetti are not the same person and haven't said the same thing; let's not lump them together. Newsom has already allowed all counties in the state to move to Stage 2 (not all have done it yet), and has laid out some criteria that counties need to meet if they want to move beyond Stage 2. Some of them have done it; the highest-population ones can't, and maybe won't ever. However, Newsom has also laid out a rough timeline for moving to Stage 3, roughly between a month to 3 months. I'll grant this is not very specific, but then again our understanding of this disease is not very specific either.BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Sycasey - do you have any evidence to support the bolded statements for major population centers? Obviously, Newsom is allowing counties to go slower than recommended - but there's not much if any evidence that he's allowing larger counties to reopen faster.sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:sycasey said:Anarchistbear said:
The Democrats trust politicians and experts
I'm confused. If listening to experts is bad, who should we listen to?
There are many experts with conflicting and one size fits all advice. Trust the people in your own community and let the people or their representatives be part of the process.
Why would I trust the people in my community who have no knowledge about this new disease and how it spreads?
The people's representatives are part of the process. Those are the politicians, who you also said not to trust.
There is a local public health official also other local health professionals who know as much as Newsom. The local politicians are more responsive to their constituency their needs and the local situation but who is voting on this- certainly not the people's representatives- it is all edict. . Modoc County doesn't need a solution from Newsom. They can figure it out for themselves
So you think a patchwork of different policies will work? People do travel from county to county. Someone needs to create overarching rules to set minimum standards.
In practice, Newsom has allowed counties some flexibility (those decisions are largely driven by the local health officials you cited above). For example, the Bay Area counties opted to hold off on moving to "Stage 2" of reopening even after the state loosened restrictions overall, though many are going there on Monday. And counties that want to reopen faster are able to do so, provided they meet certain metrics. Seems like a decent balance to me.
We went back and forth on this previously and you acknowledged that the "certain metrics" required to reopen faster are not achievable in most areas (e.g., no covid deaths for 14 consecutive days and No more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days). You and Unit2 were convinced that the variance process was the solution to that. Where are the variances for larger counties?
Below is a link to the requirements for the variance. Unless I'm misreading the variance requirements (which is possible), they seem to be equally unreasonable/unachievable. For example, even to get a variance, it appears the County must attest that there have been no covid deaths for 14 consecutive days and no more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days - the exact same unachievable requirements.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COVID-19-County-Variance-Attestation-Memo.aspx
Form Here: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/CDPH%20COVID19%20County%20Variance%20Attestation%20Form.pdf
Here's a list of the variances granted - not a single large county. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Local-Variance-Attestations.aspx
And just to be clear, I have a solid source that OC and other So Cal counties (I assume excluding LA) have been pursuing variances and can't get them because Sacramento won't waive these requirements. There is increasing frustration to the point that reportedly other options are being considered.
As an aside, here's a cool tool where you can see how each county is doing in terms of the Stage 2 metrics.
https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/
The larger counties have not met the standards and thus are not reopening sooner.
We originally landed on this topic when I claimed that Newsom/Garcetti were, based on their recent statements, extending unreasonable restrictions on reopening for the next 2-3 months. You and others challenged that point and then cited to the fact that even though they said that, and adopted rules restricting MANY Stage 2 reopening activities, we would really be reopening sooner because of "variances." In other words, they said it and adopted objectively impossible standards for reopening, but didn't really mean it.
So you're now conceding that the unreasonable standards are in fact being enforced and you apparently approve of that. Why didn't you just say that at the beginning?.
So that means that once the state decides to move to Stage 3, all counties will be able to move to Stage 3 regardless of their individual numbers. Until then, they need to meet the stricter requirements to jump ahead of the pack. Is that understood now?
Requirements for stage 3 will be different and more onerous presumably.
Newsom is just gaslighting and you seem to be excusing it. Newsom announces Stage 2 requirements that won't be met for months (if ever) and then tells us we'll be moving to late stage 2 soon and stage 3 within months (less than 6). Not under the current requirements and not under the variance requirements.
And while Newsom and Garcetti are not the same person, they both said the same thing - no full reopening until their is a vaccine or cure.
There are two different processes. There is the state process. So the state will determine when we can move on to later stages. Alternatively, there are criteria that allows a county to have a variance and open up earlier. You are conflating the criteria for getting a variance to the state policy with the criteria for the state moving to the next stage as a whole.
There are requirements that a county must meet to act ahead of the state into full stage 2. If they don't meet those requirements, they have to wait until the state moves into full stage 2. Those requirements have no bearing on when the state moves to full stage 2. They are only the requirements for the county to move on BEFORE the state. Then there is the state making the determination to move as a statewide policy to the next stage. They are not the same thing. The requirement that a county have no deaths for 14 days does not have any bearing on the state determination and it does not mean that it will be months before the state opens.
Say you take your kids to Grandmas. Grandma has a pool. The kids say they want to go to the yard. You say, okay, but until you go out there, they can't use the pool unless somebody 16 or older is with them. They say "Hey the oldest is 10. We'll never get to swim". You say. "No, you'll get to swim when I get there"
The counties get to swim when Gavin gets there.
OC can't get a variance because it was never intended that they get one. The variances are for small rural counties. Not urban counties with 3M people. That should have been obvious to them from the get go.
Not saying that is right. But your conclusion that the fact that OC wouldn't be able to achieve a variance for months if ever DOES NOT MEAN the state will only move on based on the criteria that would allow a variance. It is really obvious that the state is moving on to opening things unless there is a new wave of infections. I guess you don't see things that way. I'm not sure why because Newsom has had a pretty reasonably detailed schedule including opening schools as of July. If we haven't moved to full stage 2 in 6 months as you seem to fear, I'm happy to say you are right.
And the fact that they just changed the rule today for variances pretty much proves my point. Newsom is making this up as he goes along - with rules that have little to no basis in fact or science (e.g., arbitrary metric of no deaths in 14 days and closing of beaches) - and then he's reacting when the public gets upset. The overall situation in OC is no different today than it was last week.
And, as a reminder, we landed on this issue when: (i) I stated that Newsom and Garcetti were adopting unreasonable standards for reopening; and (ii) some posters said that wasn't really the case because of the announced standards would be modified by the then-available county variances. Now that we all seem to agree the variances were a sham (or were never intended to be granted to larger counties), then we're back to point (i).
We were not being gaslit on variances. Rural counties with very few cases asked for a policy where they could open up sooner than major population centers. It was a reasonable request and the state gave a reasonable response. No one every claimed that the response was designed for Orange County. That doesn't make it a sham.
So yes we are back to point (i) and my point being that at least with respect to Newsom (I don't follow Garcetti) the standards you were ascribing to him were never his standards, but I'm guessing what you feared them to be.
This is part of the whole point that "democrats" on here have been making for weeks. Conservatives have been making this a false choice between opening and not opening and we have been saying WE ARE OPENING. It is a matter of how we do it. On April 28 Newsom talked about schools opening early for next year by opening in July and still we have spent weeks since then fighting arguments that democrats never intend to open. It is a complete misrepresentation of what was going on and now that we are at the point where we are opening things exactly as it was said we would people have to argue that they have bowed to public pressure from a public that has massively supported the policies and Newsom himself, because they have to justify that they either deliberately misrepresented what was going on or wouldn't listen to those that told them exactly what was going to happen.
And your claim that Newsom never announced a timeline is at odds with what he said. I won't quote again, but he did specifically say things like months, not weeks. He has since changed his tune and changed the rules for variances, but time will tell.
Question for you - what are the official California criteria for moving from Stage 2 to Stage 3, and from Stage 3 to Stage 4?
Please quote or link to the post where either Unit2 or I claimed that the variances were intended for Orange County. We'll wait.
At this point folks just don't want to admit they're wrong -- that they went all-in with the "experts" their government was parroting and they swung and missed. I thought the SIP made perfect sense and am not convinced it was definite mistake in hindsight. You can see they are hedging, starting to straddle both sides of the fence, when they cite their governments are on track to open up. Even though they've spend a lot of time saying opening up at this point is a bad idea, a certain public health and moral calamity. They are taking great pride at any inkling of infections and death in hopes it is a signal that their fear and irrationality will on the surface be confirmed. I'm sure if one dug up the posts in february through March and how they've evolved in lockstep with mainstream reporting, it would be a sight to see.
GBear4Life said:
At this point folks just don't want to admit they're wrong -- that they went all-in with the "experts" their government was parroting and they swung and missed. You can see they are hedging, starting to straddle both sides of the fence, when they cite their governments are on track to open up. Even though they've spend a lot of time saying opening up at this point is a bad idea, a certain public health and moral calamity. They are taking great pride at any inkling of infections and death in hopes it is a signal that their fear and irrationality will on the surface be confirmed.
Well, by the end of the year you will be proven right or wrong. You may well be right. If Latin America gets lit up then it was for reals and something truly to be afraid of.
".. with mainstream reporting, it would be a sight to see." "Non mainstream" Fox News reporting was shameful.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
SIP will never be justified in so far as everyone in need of care from the virus can seek care. You don't need to wait a year. Don't conflate SIP with social distancing practices and other reasonable precautions and measures. Extraordinary measures and action require extraordinary evidence.bearister said:GBear4Life said:
At this point folks just don't want to admit they're wrong -- that they went all-in with the "experts" their government was parroting and they swung and missed. You can see they are hedging, starting to straddle both sides of the fence, when they cite their governments are on track to open up. Even though they've spend a lot of time saying opening up at this point is a bad idea, a certain public health and moral calamity. They are taking great pride at any inkling of infections and death in hopes it is a signal that their fear and irrationality will on the surface be confirmed.
Well, by the end of the year you will be proven right or wrong. You may well be right. If Latin America gets lit up then it was for reals and something truly to be afraid of.
In case anyone is wondering, the bay area has been pretty transparent about their criteria for reopening and SF Gate's tracker has been providing regular updates on the progress.
This new idea that the SIP was a failure flies in the face of available evidence. The bay area got hit with COVID earlier than anyone else and has done relatively well. If we had waited a few more weeks to SIP, we would have a much bigger problem on our hands. My biggest concern at this point is that we can't protect ourselves from a pandemic that is uncontained elsewhere. I will grant that it's entirely possible that our efforts fail here but so far they've been working well and we are progressing through the curve.
I'm hopeful that if we have the right safety nets in place (testing/tracing), we can open broadly and safely and that people will feel confident in our public health systems. Of course, that can only take you so far unless the rest of the country/world has done a good job as well but it's too early to conclude that protecting ourselves is a mistake.
This new idea that the SIP was a failure flies in the face of available evidence. The bay area got hit with COVID earlier than anyone else and has done relatively well. If we had waited a few more weeks to SIP, we would have a much bigger problem on our hands. My biggest concern at this point is that we can't protect ourselves from a pandemic that is uncontained elsewhere. I will grant that it's entirely possible that our efforts fail here but so far they've been working well and we are progressing through the curve.
I'm hopeful that if we have the right safety nets in place (testing/tracing), we can open broadly and safely and that people will feel confident in our public health systems. Of course, that can only take you so far unless the rest of the country/world has done a good job as well but it's too early to conclude that protecting ourselves is a mistake.
That is scary and sad. They seem to have an idiot in charge (like us), so I wish them leadership from other sources and a bit of good luck.
"Not every graduation in America is going virtual this year.
In Alabama's Birmingham suburbs, some 1,950 graduates and guests could attend tonight's ceremony at Hoover Metropolitan Stadium (famous from MTV's "Two-A-Days"), AP reports. Another 3,450 could be on hand tomorrow.
Why it matters: Health officials fear large gatherings could result in coronavirus spread, especially since many people are contagious before experiencing symptoms.
Much of the U.S. is on week three of loosened coronavirus restrictions, which experts initially assumed would cause outbreaks to surge, but new case counts are falling in the U.S.
All 50 states have now loosened their restrictions to some degree, the N.Y. Times notes.
Alabama's case count rose in early May, and it's held steady over the past week.
Between the lines: Health officials keep warning against large gatherings, but the ceremonies are outdoors with fewer guests and more space, plus face masks are provided.
In two nearby cities that also held outdoor ceremonies, the AP notes, few of the attendees wore protective face masks, and seniors hugged and gathered in tight groups of friends for pictures.
The big picture: Texas is charting a similar path after Gov. Greg Abbott said outdoor graduations are permissible starting May 29.
In San Antonio, some students get two guests and a single parking space for their outdoor ceremonies in June, per The Rivard Report, a local news nonprofit.
The city's Northside district is having "contactless" ceremonies featuring students walking individually across a stage. The schools will edit the walks into a single video, per the San Antonio News-Express.
The bottom line: These graduations are good examples of the temptations Americans will face and the lengths they'll go to preserve some sense of normal until a vaccine is widely available." Axios
If we pull up a few Alabamans and Texans short when the dust settles, hey, sh@it happens.
In Alabama's Birmingham suburbs, some 1,950 graduates and guests could attend tonight's ceremony at Hoover Metropolitan Stadium (famous from MTV's "Two-A-Days"), AP reports. Another 3,450 could be on hand tomorrow.
Why it matters: Health officials fear large gatherings could result in coronavirus spread, especially since many people are contagious before experiencing symptoms.
Much of the U.S. is on week three of loosened coronavirus restrictions, which experts initially assumed would cause outbreaks to surge, but new case counts are falling in the U.S.
All 50 states have now loosened their restrictions to some degree, the N.Y. Times notes.
Alabama's case count rose in early May, and it's held steady over the past week.
Between the lines: Health officials keep warning against large gatherings, but the ceremonies are outdoors with fewer guests and more space, plus face masks are provided.
In two nearby cities that also held outdoor ceremonies, the AP notes, few of the attendees wore protective face masks, and seniors hugged and gathered in tight groups of friends for pictures.
The big picture: Texas is charting a similar path after Gov. Greg Abbott said outdoor graduations are permissible starting May 29.
In San Antonio, some students get two guests and a single parking space for their outdoor ceremonies in June, per The Rivard Report, a local news nonprofit.
The city's Northside district is having "contactless" ceremonies featuring students walking individually across a stage. The schools will edit the walks into a single video, per the San Antonio News-Express.
The bottom line: These graduations are good examples of the temptations Americans will face and the lengths they'll go to preserve some sense of normal until a vaccine is widely available." Axios
If we pull up a few Alabamans and Texans short when the dust settles, hey, sh@it happens.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
So much CNN, so little time.
From Maple Lake, MN:
"Church of Saint Timothy - Dear Parishioners of Saint Timothy and Saint Ignatius, I hope that all is well with you. I wanted to share an important update with all of you regarding the Coronoavirus situation in our parishes. Yesterday afternoon, we learned that some parishioners of Saint Ignatius with whom Father Andrew and I have been in contact tested positive for the COVID-19 virus. Father Andrew has just now tested positive as well. Monsignor Callaghan and I have recently developed some symptoms and are awaiting our own test results. We don't know at this point what our own illness may be and nothing is confirmed. The parishioners of Saint Ignatius should also be aware that at least one of the volunteers that helped with the distribution of flowers for Mother's Day has been feeling unwell and was exposed to others with the virus. This comes as a major surprise to us, as we have tried to respect the guidelines of the CDC and social distancing and the MDH to the best of our ability."
Why don't the churches just admit that they need the collection plate proceeds and after doing a risk/reward analysis they have decided that the reward is worth the risk of the physical well being of their clergy and flock? I would have a lot more respect for that honesty than the pretextual violation of Constitutional rights argument being put forward.
"Church of Saint Timothy - Dear Parishioners of Saint Timothy and Saint Ignatius, I hope that all is well with you. I wanted to share an important update with all of you regarding the Coronoavirus situation in our parishes. Yesterday afternoon, we learned that some parishioners of Saint Ignatius with whom Father Andrew and I have been in contact tested positive for the COVID-19 virus. Father Andrew has just now tested positive as well. Monsignor Callaghan and I have recently developed some symptoms and are awaiting our own test results. We don't know at this point what our own illness may be and nothing is confirmed. The parishioners of Saint Ignatius should also be aware that at least one of the volunteers that helped with the distribution of flowers for Mother's Day has been feeling unwell and was exposed to others with the virus. This comes as a major surprise to us, as we have tried to respect the guidelines of the CDC and social distancing and the MDH to the best of our ability."
Why don't the churches just admit that they need the collection plate proceeds and after doing a risk/reward analysis they have decided that the reward is worth the risk of the physical well being of their clergy and flock? I would have a lot more respect for that honesty than the pretextual violation of Constitutional rights argument being put forward.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
https://www.facebook.com/churchofsttimothy/photos/dear-parishioners-of-saint-timothy-and-saint-ignatiusi-hope-that-all-is-well-wit/1384822555058854/
muting more than 300 handles, turnaround is fair play
tRump, sent to us by God according to his press secretary, has proclaimed "Open'em up Now!"
Well, the good news is that if anyone gets sick and dies, at least we know that it is all part of God's plan as conveyed to us by his representative on earth.
Well, the good news is that if anyone gets sick and dies, at least we know that it is all part of God's plan as conveyed to us by his representative on earth.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
covid hospitalizations in California peaked over a month ago. C'mon Man!GBear4Life said:SIP will never be justified in so far as everyone in need of care from the virus can seek care. You don't need to wait a year. Don't conflate SIP with social distancing practices and other reasonable precautions and measures. Extraordinary measures and action require extraordinary evidence.bearister said:GBear4Life said:
At this point folks just don't want to admit they're wrong -- that they went all-in with the "experts" their government was parroting and they swung and missed. You can see they are hedging, starting to straddle both sides of the fence, when they cite their governments are on track to open up. Even though they've spend a lot of time saying opening up at this point is a bad idea, a certain public health and moral calamity. They are taking great pride at any inkling of infections and death in hopes it is a signal that their fear and irrationality will on the surface be confirmed.
Well, by the end of the year you will be proven right or wrong. You may well be right. If Latin America gets lit up then it was for reals and something truly to be afraid of.
https://pjmedia.com/columns/tyler-o-neil/2020/05/21/coronavirus-data-shows-14-days-to-slow-the-spread-worked-so-why-are-we-still-in-lockdown-n414167
Salon hairstylist with COVID-19 exposed clients: MO official | McClatchy Washington Bureau
https://www.kansascity.com/news/coronavirus/article242946596.html
https://amp.mcclatchydc.com/news/coronavirus/article242946596.html?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.kansascity.com/news/coronavirus/article242946596.html
https://amp.mcclatchydc.com/news/coronavirus/article242946596.html?__twitter_impression=true
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Featured Stories
See All
The Five Big Questions facing Cal Football in 2025
by Bear Insider
Bear Insider Video: Cal RB LJ Johnson
by Jim McGill
Cal Football Fall Camp Day 5
by Jim McGill
Bear Insider Video: Cal DE Tyson Ford
by Jim McGill