BearChemist said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Stop lawyering. I'll stipulate we should listen to "local experts" if it makes you feel like you made a point.

---

People seem to accuse me of "lawyering" a lot. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll take that as an indication that I'm good at rhetorical argument. Thank you.

---

When people accuse others of "lawyering" in a debate, they are saying that person is being a tedious and pedantic c*nt.

---

I have to agree with you given you experiences in being a tedious and pedantic ****.

---

Comments like this may seem clever, but anyone who is even remotely self aware will realize that this is just an exercise in standing around in a circle and shooting at each other.

BearChemist said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Stop lawyering. I'll stipulate we should listen to "local experts" if it makes you feel like you made a point.

---

People seem to accuse me of "lawyering" a lot. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll take that as an indication that I'm good at rhetorical argument. Thank you.

---

When people accuse others of "lawyering" in a debate, they are saying that person is being a tedious and pedantic c*nt.

---

I have to agree with you given you experiences in being a tedious and pedantic ****.

---

Ignored until you stop replying

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

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.

---

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.

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?.

The average age of death from COVID in NYC is an age greater than the average life expectancy in America?

And people still can't understand why SIP is certifiably insane at this point?

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

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.

---

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.

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?.

---

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.

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?

Elvis Presley's Graceland, which calls itself "the second most recognized home in America (after the White House)," will reopen Thursday in Memphis with tours at 25% capacity.

"[G]uests will have the unique opportunity to walk in Elvis' footsteps like never before in your own personal mansion tour space spread out from other guests."Axios



*One of my law partners went to school with Ann Margaret when he was growing up in Chicago. He said she was a very sweet girl.


...and fresh in from the Everything Happens for a Reason, it's All Part of God's Plan Dept.:

Nearly 200 possibly exposed to coronavirus at religious service that violated stay-at-home orders - ABC News


https://abcnews.go.com/US/200-possibly-exposed-coronavirus-religious-service-violated-stay/story?id=70733928


* I think God's Plan is to shred the ranks of tRump supporters.

Georgia's leadership seems to have misled people to make them feel better about getting back to work.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/georgias-coronavirus-numbers-made-reopening-183733274.html

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

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.

---

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.

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?.

---

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.

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?

---

What do you think our economy will look like for the most economically vulnerable if we continue shut down (even if a limited manner) for three more months? And do you think the incremental value of waiting until the conditions are satisfied is worth it if we still don't have a vaccine? Not saying you are wrong, but wondering if we are coming up with these decisions based on risk / reward assessment of all factors. Doesn't seem like it, but I could be wrong.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

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.

---

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.

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?.

---

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.

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?

---

What do you think our economy will look like for the most economically vulnerable if we continue shut down (even if a limited manner) for three more months? And do you think the incremental value of waiting until the conditions are satisfied is worth it if we still don't have a vaccine? Not saying you are wrong, but wondering if we are coming up with these decisions based on risk / reward assessment of all factors. Doesn't seem like it, but I could be wrong.

---

Honestly? I don't have access to enough information to really be sure. I'm not a public health official or an expert on diseases. I think anyone who isn't in that position and thinks they can be sure about this is fooling themselves.

The mere fact that there are stages and a plan to start reopening some things before there is a vaccine tells me that there is a risk/reward calculation going on. It could be wrong, but I highly doubt any state government is not considering economic factors along with health concerns. Their own budgets depend upon it.

The economy will be bad. I think the economy will be bad with this virus no matter what. Everyone is just making their best guess about the least bad option.

Lucas Lee said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Stop lawyering. I'll stipulate we should listen to "local experts" if it makes you feel like you made a point.

---

People seem to accuse me of "lawyering" a lot. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll take that as an indication that I'm good at rhetorical argument. Thank you.

---

When people accuse others of "lawyering" in a debate, they are saying that person is being a tedious and pedantic c*nt.

---

I have to agree with you given you experiences in being a tedious and pedantic ****.

---

Ignored until you stop replying

---

That must wound him to the bone.

Ignored until you stop announcing to everyone who you've decided to ignore.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

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.

---

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.

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?.

---

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.

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?

---

What do you think our economy will look like for the most economically vulnerable if we continue shut down (even if a limited manner) for three more months? And do you think the incremental value of waiting until the conditions are satisfied is worth it if we still don't have a vaccine? Not saying you are wrong, but wondering if we are coming up with these decisions based on risk / reward assessment of all factors. Doesn't seem like it, but I could be wrong.

---

Honestly? I don't have access to enough information to really be sure. I'm not a public health official or an expert on diseases. I think anyone who isn't in that position and thinks they can be sure about this is fooling themselves.

The mere fact that there are stages and a plan to start reopening some things before there is a vaccine tells me that there is a risk/reward calculation going on. It could be wrong, but I highly doubt any state government is not considering economic factors along with health concerns. Their own budgets depend upon it.

The economy will be bad. I think the economy will be bad with this virus no matter what. Everyone is just making their best guess about the least bad option.

---

I guess that is a problem I have with the current plan. Flattening the curve when people were dying in the waiting room because there were no beds made complete sense. But imposing significant cost and damage without knowing whether the benefits outweigh the harm seems reckless. Again, we would never do that with other things (i.e., force you to take untested medicine or engage in medical procedure without considering the harm). Why are we doing that now?

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

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.

---

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.

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?.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

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.

---

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.

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?.

---

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.

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?

---

What do you think our economy will look like for the most economically vulnerable if we continue shut down (even if a limited manner) for three more months? And do you think the incremental value of waiting until the conditions are satisfied is worth it if we still don't have a vaccine? Not saying you are wrong, but wondering if we are coming up with these decisions based on risk / reward assessment of all factors. Doesn't seem like it, but I could be wrong.

---

Honestly? I don't have access to enough information to really be sure. I'm not a public health official or an expert on diseases. I think anyone who isn't in that position and thinks they can be sure about this is fooling themselves.

The mere fact that there are stages and a plan to start reopening some things before there is a vaccine tells me that there is a risk/reward calculation going on. It could be wrong, but I highly doubt any state government is not considering economic factors along with health concerns. Their own budgets depend upon it.

The economy will be bad. I think the economy will be bad with this virus no matter what. Everyone is just making their best guess about the least bad option.

---

I guess that is a problem I have with the current plan. Flattening the curve when people were dying in the waiting room because there were no beds made complete sense. But imposing significant cost and damage without knowing whether the benefits outweigh the harm seems reckless. Again, we would never do that with other things (i.e., force you to take untested medicine or engage in medical procedure without considering the harm). Why are we doing that now?

---

Again, I have no special expertise on this, but my understanding is that it's about mitigating the potential for another outbreak that forces us back into Stage 1 lockdown again, which will be even worse for the economy. For example, this guy thinks that if you go too quickly you will have that result:

https://time.com/5836445/rick-bright-whistleblower-coronavirus-darkest-winter/

Also, the lockdown was already implemented, so per your analogy we have pretty much already taken the untested medicine. So far the medicine has seemed to keep the disease at manageable levels (at least in California). We also know there are negative side effects to taking it. So the question is how quickly can we wean ourselves off of the medicine but remain reasonably healthy? I think you can imagine that's a tough decision with a new kind of medicine.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

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.

---

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.

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?.

---

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.

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?

---

What do you think our economy will look like for the most economically vulnerable if we continue shut down (even if a limited manner) for three more months? And do you think the incremental value of waiting until the conditions are satisfied is worth it if we still don't have a vaccine? Not saying you are wrong, but wondering if we are coming up with these decisions based on risk / reward assessment of all factors. Doesn't seem like it, but I could be wrong.

---

Honestly? I don't have access to enough information to really be sure. I'm not a public health official or an expert on diseases. I think anyone who isn't in that position and thinks they can be sure about this is fooling themselves.

The mere fact that there are stages and a plan to start reopening some things before there is a vaccine tells me that there is a risk/reward calculation going on. It could be wrong, but I highly doubt any state government is not considering economic factors along with health concerns. Their own budgets depend upon it.

The economy will be bad. I think the economy will be bad with this virus no matter what. Everyone is just making their best guess about the least bad option.

---

I guess that is a problem I have with the current plan. Flattening the curve when people were dying in the waiting room because there were no beds made complete sense. But imposing significant cost and damage without knowing whether the benefits outweigh the harm seems reckless. Again, we would never do that with other things (i.e., force you to take untested medicine or engage in medical procedure without considering the harm). Why are we doing that now?

---

Again, I have no special expertise on this, but my understanding is that it's about mitigating the potential for another outbreak that forces us back into Stage 1 lockdown again, which will be even worse for the economy. For example, this guy thinks that if you go too quickly you will have that result:

https://time.com/5836445/rick-bright-whistleblower-coronavirus-darkest-winter/

Also, the lockdown was already implemented, so per your analogy we have pretty much already taken the untested medicine. So far the medicine has seemed to keep the disease at manageable levels (at least in California). We also know there are negative side effects to taking it. So the question is how quickly can we wean ourselves off of the medicine but remain reasonably healthy? I think you can imagine that's a tough decision with a new kind of medicine.

---

That's not my analogy. If someone is sure to die in two days without any medicine, you give untested medicine because there is nothing left to lose. When someone is not feeling well but not at risk of dying, you don't give untested medicine because maybe it will do some good.

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.

I may know that I amputated your left leg because not doing so would have meant that you were going to die. Now, that you are not in imminent danger of dying, I shouldn't amputate your right leg and your left arm because, you know, we already cut off your left leg and you might maybe feel better.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

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.

---

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.

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?.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

---

Looks like Newsom just announced further loosening of requirements.

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.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

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.

---

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.

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?.

---

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.

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?

---

What do you think our economy will look like for the most economically vulnerable if we continue shut down (even if a limited manner) for three more months? And do you think the incremental value of waiting until the conditions are satisfied is worth it if we still don't have a vaccine? Not saying you are wrong, but wondering if we are coming up with these decisions based on risk / reward assessment of all factors. Doesn't seem like it, but I could be wrong.

---

Honestly? I don't have access to enough information to really be sure. I'm not a public health official or an expert on diseases. I think anyone who isn't in that position and thinks they can be sure about this is fooling themselves.

The mere fact that there are stages and a plan to start reopening some things before there is a vaccine tells me that there is a risk/reward calculation going on. It could be wrong, but I highly doubt any state government is not considering economic factors along with health concerns. Their own budgets depend upon it.

The economy will be bad. I think the economy will be bad with this virus no matter what. Everyone is just making their best guess about the least bad option.

---

I guess that is a problem I have with the current plan. Flattening the curve when people were dying in the waiting room because there were no beds made complete sense. But imposing significant cost and damage without knowing whether the benefits outweigh the harm seems reckless. Again, we would never do that with other things (i.e., force you to take untested medicine or engage in medical procedure without considering the harm). Why are we doing that now?

---

Again, I have no special expertise on this, but my understanding is that it's about mitigating the potential for another outbreak that forces us back into Stage 1 lockdown again, which will be even worse for the economy. For example, this guy thinks that if you go too quickly you will have that result:

https://time.com/5836445/rick-bright-whistleblower-coronavirus-darkest-winter/

Also, the lockdown was already implemented, so per your analogy we have pretty much already taken the untested medicine. So far the medicine has seemed to keep the disease at manageable levels (at least in California). We also know there are negative side effects to taking it. So the question is how quickly can we wean ourselves off of the medicine but remain reasonably healthy? I think you can imagine that's a tough decision with a new kind of medicine.

---

Why is it assumed that if there's a really bad second waive, SIP would (or should) again be an option? If "flattening the curve" to below the "line of available resources" is the justification, then very likely additional SIP won't be justified or required.

That is because in the interim period, we have learned more about the virus, raised the line and developed MANY more resources including reserve ICU beds, vents, PPE, etc. Unlike the first time, we should be better prepared to deal with a second wave when it hits.

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.

---

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?

Neither of us has enough special knowledge or expertise to know exactly what the right balance is.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

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.

---

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.

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?.

---

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.

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?

---

What do you think our economy will look like for the most economically vulnerable if we continue shut down (even if a limited manner) for three more months? And do you think the incremental value of waiting until the conditions are satisfied is worth it if we still don't have a vaccine? Not saying you are wrong, but wondering if we are coming up with these decisions based on risk / reward assessment of all factors. Doesn't seem like it, but I could be wrong.

---

Honestly? I don't have access to enough information to really be sure. I'm not a public health official or an expert on diseases. I think anyone who isn't in that position and thinks they can be sure about this is fooling themselves.

The mere fact that there are stages and a plan to start reopening some things before there is a vaccine tells me that there is a risk/reward calculation going on. It could be wrong, but I highly doubt any state government is not considering economic factors along with health concerns. Their own budgets depend upon it.

The economy will be bad. I think the economy will be bad with this virus no matter what. Everyone is just making their best guess about the least bad option.

---

I guess that is a problem I have with the current plan. Flattening the curve when people were dying in the waiting room because there were no beds made complete sense. But imposing significant cost and damage without knowing whether the benefits outweigh the harm seems reckless. Again, we would never do that with other things (i.e., force you to take untested medicine or engage in medical procedure without considering the harm). Why are we doing that now?

---

Again, I have no special expertise on this, but my understanding is that it's about mitigating the potential for another outbreak that forces us back into Stage 1 lockdown again, which will be even worse for the economy. For example, this guy thinks that if you go too quickly you will have that result:

https://time.com/5836445/rick-bright-whistleblower-coronavirus-darkest-winter/

Also, the lockdown was already implemented, so per your analogy we have pretty much already taken the untested medicine. So far the medicine has seemed to keep the disease at manageable levels (at least in California). We also know there are negative side effects to taking it. So the question is how quickly can we wean ourselves off of the medicine but remain reasonably healthy? I think you can imagine that's a tough decision with a new kind of medicine.

---

Why is it assumed that if there's a really bad second waive, SIP would (or should) again be an option? If "flattening the curve" to below the "line of available resources" is the justification, then very likely additional SIP won't be justified or required.

That is because in the interim period, we have learned more about the virus, raised the line and developed MANY more resources including reserve ICU beds, vents, PPE, etc. Unlike the first time, we should be better prepared to deal with a second wave when it hits.

---

I hope that is correct. I am not in the position to know that it is, and I don't think you are either.

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

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?

Neither of us has enough special knowledge or expertise to know exactly what the right balance is.

---

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.

Of course he knows - he's a white male with an opinion. That's all RWNJs need to claim something is fact.

Plenty of examples of 'con pandemic "experts" all over this board.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

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?

Neither of us has enough special knowledge or expertise to know exactly what the right balance is.

---

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.

---

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?

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.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

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.

---

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.

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?.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

---

I think you are misunderstanding both Sycasey and Newsom and the crux is the bolded statement.

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.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

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?

Neither of us has enough special knowledge or expertise to know exactly what the right balance is.

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

Of course Trump is a populist who will play this to his advantage but the Democrats have served him a softball like they did with immigration. Populism won't work unless the population is already angry about something and feel victimized by the government (whether justified or not). Asking people to just trust the government because people are too stupid to understand the reason is not helping.

OaktownBear said:

---

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.

---

I think you are misunderstanding both Sycasey and Newsom and the crux is the bolded statement.

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.

---

This is almost word for word what I posted in response to BG's hysterical claims a few days ago. He has not been able to substantiate his position and will continue to claim, without any backup, that stage 3 is impossible because Orange County can't get a variance today.

Quote:

---

I could be wrong but I believe you are conflating issues. The current standard is that in order for a county to advance from early stage 2 (where the state is as a whole) to late stage 2 with relaxed standards if they meet certain criteria and can attest to that. See here for more details as to what the variance permits.

That is distinct from the statewide criteria that will be used to advance us to stage 3. Newsom has said that we are perhaps a month away from that, not many months or years, and certainly not until there is a vaccine or cure.

Like I said, I might be reading this wrong, but I believe the idea is that we are moving the whole state through the stages at a measured pace. Places that are doing significantly better can apply for a variance and move faster than the state as a whole, but that doesn't mean that we are going to require everyone to meet those criteria to move from stage 2 to stage 3.

If I'm missing something, I would appreciate someone correcting me and pointing me to documentation showing my mistake.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

This is almost word for word what I posted in response to BG's hysterical claims a few days ago. He has not been able to substantiate his position and will continue to claim, without any backup, that stage 3 is impossible because Orange County can't get a variance today.

---

That's pretty much what I'm seeing. At some point you have to wonder if the person who doesn't understand even wants to understand.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

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?

Neither of us has enough special knowledge or expertise to know exactly what the right balance is.

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

---

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.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

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?

Neither of us has enough special knowledge or expertise to know exactly what the right balance is.

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

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?

Neither of us has enough special knowledge or expertise to know exactly what the right balance is.

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Yes, and every day we continue to allow a pandemic to spread throughout the country, there is additional damage that will only escalate.

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.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

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?

Neither of us has enough special knowledge or expertise to know exactly what the right balance is.

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Yes, and every day we continue to allow a pandemic to spread throughout the country, there is additional damage that will only escalate.

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.

---

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?

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

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?

Neither of us has enough special knowledge or expertise to know exactly what the right balance is.

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Yes, and every day we continue to allow a pandemic to spread throughout the country, there is additional damage that will only escalate.

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.

---

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?

---

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.

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.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

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.

---

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.

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?.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

---

The no death in 14 days is gone.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

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?

Neither of us has enough special knowledge or expertise to know exactly what the right balance is.

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Yes, and every day we continue to allow a pandemic to spread throughout the country, there is additional damage that will only escalate.

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.

---

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?

---

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.

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.

---

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.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

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?

Neither of us has enough special knowledge or expertise to know exactly what the right balance is.

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Yes, and every day we continue to allow a pandemic to spread throughout the country, there is additional damage that will only escalate.

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.

---

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?

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

AunBear89 said:

---

Of course he knows - he's a white male with an opinion. That's all RWNJs need to claim something is fact.

Plenty of examples of 'con pandemic "experts" all over this board.

---

And you're a non white female. So you know the way.

kelly09 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Of course he knows - he's a white male with an opinion. That's all RWNJs need to claim something is fact.

Plenty of examples of 'con pandemic "experts" all over this board.

---

And you're a non white female. So you know the way.

---

Mike drop.