By Tia Will
Let’s imagine California has been invaded by a terrorist force, either foreign or domestic. This force has within the past 8 months killed 53 of our Yolo County residents and is known to have injured or affected another 2,957 of us with 32 new people affected in the last 24 hours.
Let’s suppose we know this force likes to attack people in large groups, especially indoors in close proximity. Our law enforcement, in order to better protect us, has issued stay at home orders and banned gatherings of more than 10 people. There are similar findings and orders in surrounding counties and our Governor has issued emergency orders for any similarly affected counties.
How many of you believe under these circumstances, there would not be almost universal compliance with the recommendations to take cover until this group could be contained by authorities?
So explain to me why we are seeing denial of the fact that this is exactly what has happened only with an invisible enemy, COVID-19. You may wonder why I am writing this now since COVID-19 has been with us since January. This article from the Sacramento Bee prompted me to write.
Coronavirus: Placer County health chief Aimee Sisson resigns …www.sacbee.com › news › local › article245609865
Please note the difference of perspective of the now resigned health officer and the statement of the county administrator. Both believe they are acting in the best interest of their constituents. The administrator believes she has the “bigger picture in mind”. The health officer apparently believes the broader picture of economic health, mental health, and overall societal health cannot be achieved without controlling the current pandemic. While the administrator encourages people to follow the guidelines, she states they will not be enforced. This is similar to the position the UCD campus and Yolo County have taken.
But is this position of education rather than enforcement an effective strategy? I think we already know the answer. Back in April and May, Yolo County, by enacting strict shelter in place recommendations, had almost completely contained our viral outbreak. Unfortunately, some segments of our community decided to declare victory, not understanding that the strict order was the reason for success. They pushed for re-opening too soon with the resultant resurgence of cases and prolongation of the need for social isolation. A discouraged and confused populace pushed back hard by not following even the less stringent recommendations for masking and social distancing. We have the ability to enforce, but our local and country authorities have not chosen to do so.
I would argue that our elected officials should take this pandemic which has already killed 190,000 Americans, as seriously as we would take an invading human enemy who had killed the same number. We need a consistent message, consistent rules, consistent application and enforcement of those rules just as we would in a conventional battle situation.
For those who claim they prioritize getting back our “normal lives”, I would say this is our new normal life. There is no benefit to pretending this danger is not present in our communities.
The novel coronavirus is an ongoing aspect of the reality of our current lives. The sooner we stop pretending it is not, the sooner we will be able to relax our behaviors. There is no way to back out of this. The only path is to accept, adapt and move forward.
Unless of course the large groups are protesting some social justice cause, then gatherings of any size are allowed. It’s hollow rules like this why people don’t take much of this stuff seriously.
And then there’s this,
LA County Director of Public Health, Dr. Barbara Ferrer recently saying LA schools won’t open until after the election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-wFR_qu0U0
Keith
Suspicious regarding motive do not alter the number of dead and affected.
Rather than analogizing to a terrorist invasion, I’d compare COVID-19 guidelines to DUI laws. Those laws exist not only to ensure the health and safety of drunk drivers but also, perhaps more importantly, to protect the health and safety of the general public whom they place in danger of injury or death. Instead of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, those who refuse to wear masks or maintain social distancing similarly endanger the general public by walking around under the influence of stupidity and indifference.
Yes, I agree, many/most of the social justice protesters rarely maintain social distancing during their protests while “walking around under the influence of stupidity and indifference”.
Same for those who attend Trump rallies, including Trump.
Keith
This has not been the case here in Davis. All of the BML events have been socially distanced, outdoors, and masked almost universally. My evidence? I have been at two of them and seen pictures of the others.
I am not addressing what is happening in other parts of the country. My analogy, like my interpretation, is concerned only with what is happening here in the city, county and adjacent counties. We have a number of businesses and religious venues that have knowingly broken the restrictions. My concern with the current approach is especially with the students with their propensity to party is that lack of enforcement will only encourage lack of adherence. The inevitable outcome will be more cases and more unfortunately, more deaths.
We have already seen it happen here once. Why are we refusing to accept that it will happen again if we do not change course? How many deaths are acceptable when we know how to prevent them with measures that are not excessively onerous to us. How much does it cost to gather only in groups of 10, maintain six feet of distancing, and wear a mask? Whose life is it worth to not do so? Is a frat party worth your life?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/10/health/university-illinois-covid.html
What could go wrong? Oh, this:
“What the scientists had not taken into account was that some students would continue partying after they received a positive test result. “It was willful noncompliance by a small group of people,” Dr. Goldenfeld said.”
Keith wants to keep raising this point which distracts from more important issues. If people wear masks, it reduces the spread. If they social distance it reduces the spread. If they do both, spread is going to be very low. Most BLM events have done a better job of those two things than events like Sturgis or the Trump rally. But it has nothing to do with the type of event and everything to do with how much care people are taking to protect themselves and others.
#1 A lot of “cost” emotionally… your use of the conjunction “and”, and the lack of clarifying whether indoors or outdoors is the problem. Goes also to #3… religious venues… what about indoor or outdoor events, where temps are taken, signup is required (for potential tracing), hand sanitizer is required (coming in/going out), social distancing (except families in the same household), masks, no singing? Still limited to 10? Until recently, if all the protocols I mentioned were enforced, as they were locally at the church we attend, we were able to accommodate 65-80 folk… no Covid infections reported… now, indoors 10, outside ~100, with same protocols… your not distinguishing between indoor/outdoor lead me to believe not more than ten (10), indoor or outdoor, and negates the second point you made, that I quoted…
#2 No way the BLM protests have met all of the criteria you used… remember the “and”, and the lack of distinguishing between indoor/outdoor… if you’ve participated in 2, you were twice in violation of your standards, unless they should, in your view, only apply to religious venues (starting to see a pattern?)
#3 Yes… some businesses and some religious venues have violated guidelines, not taken the proper protocols… but all have been “punished”, even if they were using restrictive, sane, protocols… looks like you’d like to see the current restrictions enforced by police, and tightened beyond what was in place in June…
Respectfully, if any business or religious venues are following the strict protocols I described, it appears you are not satisfied. What I described as protocols are exactly what Kaiser Davis uses, except they do not require the ‘sign-in’ feature, directly… and the hand sanitizer thingy is not monitored…
The local BLM protests involved many hundreds to close to a thousand participants but we are told this is somehow okay when others are told to keep it under 10. Like I stated., the rules are hypocritical when one large group is allowed and others aren’t.
I think you need to stop with the dichotomous conclusions – okay/ not okay. And start looking at a scale – what things are safer, what things are less safe.
You just don’t like it that I point out the obvious. That somehow large groups of social justice protesters are fine but other groups of more than 10 are against the rules.
safer=smaller groups of 10 or less
less safe=large groups of social justice protesters which somehow is within the regulations
Keith – Although you like to play the victim, not everything is about partisan politics. Safety is a function of the precautions taken. Available data appear to show that BLM protests are more likely to follow safety protocols that lower the risk of spreading the virus than is the case in other group situations. E.g., —
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/black-lives-matter-protests-didnt-contribute-to-covid19-surge
Oh, so large groups are above the rules if they can prove they didn’t cause surges in COVID spread. So where is that rule/regulation written?
You keep wanting to ignore that large groups are one variable. They are not the only factor.
Eric –
That one works for me too.
More complex than that… some, including at least one poster on VG, want to limit religious groups (often involved in social justice) to 10 [indoor or outdoor, apparently]… even when they follow protocols more strenuous than businesses, protest marches do… smells like ‘profiling’ to me…
Secular good, religion bad… even if they have common cause for social justice… appears to be a ‘message’…
Bill
Again, I do not know where you got the idea that I was stating an outdoor limitation of 10. Just because I did not specify does not mean I am making the more restrictive choice for some but not for others. I believe all should be held to exactly the same standard. This means if Trump were to have a rally here he would have to follow exactly the same rules as a BLM event which would be exactly the same as a religious event. I hope I have clarified my position.
Bill
You misunderstand my position on enforcement, which admittedly is my fault because I did not specify. First, I do not want the police to handle this. I want enforcement to be at the level of the public health department just as we do for tuberculosis. I would envision a tiered response with each step documented. Education first, a nominal fine for the next breach with increasing fines for repeat offenses.
As for indoor and outdoor. What I believe is accommodations can be made to fit the venue. For example, numbers could be flexible as allowed by police or health department if the event is held outdoors with 6-foot distancing and masking. Indoor gatherings in most Davis venues ( I am not familiar enough with the remainder of facilities in the county to comment) should be limited based on size, ventilation, and any other factors felt relevant by the health department. I really see no fundamental difference in this and what the health department already does with regard to hygienic standards for restaurants. You could consider that to be the precedent I would recommend.
Do we have deputized health officials who can enforce as outlined above?
Alan
Current health officers have the ability to educate, issue warnings, and impose fines. I suspect at least initially there would not be enough officers to have vigorous enforcement. However, I do not have knowledge of what resources the university has to offer to help with off-campus student offenders. Also, I believe it would be possible to draw from the ranks of other country workers who could be given enhanced powers just as was done as a first step when additional case investigators and tracers were needed.
Thanks!
Tia… thank you for the clarifications on your position(s)… the current regulatory environment is “10” indoors… no matter venue size or effective protocols… “10”.! [Period, Exclamation point] You appeared to 100% support that.
Right now, the Co Health Dept. has little/no discretion, even if based on science and common sense. That is where we are, today. In June, the Co Health dept had discretion to use science and judgement. That is not where we are now, but you appeared to strongly support where we are now.
It appears from your clarifications, that you’d support a system where science, professional judgement and common sense, and following appropriate protocols, were consistently used. If I misrepresent your position, would like clarification.
Bill
Again, you mistake my position. At no point did I state I support all the current recommendations of the county. I would support scientific evidence-based approach to all aspects of its management. But, there are both logistical and psychologic factors at play that present challenges.
1. This is a novel virus. We are literally learning new aspects of its behavior daily. While this is good in terms of finding new solutions, it also looks to many of the lay public as though they are “getting mixed messages” which in fact if they listen to experts instead of newscasters and social media they would realize what they are getting is the most up to date information based on rapidly increasing knowledge.
2. Our elected officials have been placed under tremendous pressure from many different sides. At their meetings, they face people like me saying there is no way through this without following the science. They have people saying we have defeated the virus and we need to stop pretending its real and get back to our former lives. And all points of view in between. They have a Herculean task.
3. Management of the virus has been but never should have been politicized. This is obvious just in the responses to this article. I want to stress again that I do not see this from a political, but from a health issue because of my career and experience with 4 previous epidemics. The enemy is the virus not the right or the left, and frankly, it does not give a damn about anyone’s politics. It is “interested” in only one thing. Opportunity to spread.
4. As David said, this is not a binary issue. Every opportunity to limit spread should be employed. Every human cost of taking that opportunity, whether emotional, social, or financial should be mitigated. Our best chance to do this is to stop denying this is a major issue and figure out the best options to mitigate the spread and help people adapt and thrive in the new environment.
Tia… and, you appear to misunderstand me…
I am all for a science/professional judgement/common sense set of protocols and advisories/rules, and graduated enforcement (non-PD), starting with education.
We’re in ~ 90+ % agreement…
But you lose me @ “Every opportunity to limit spread should be employed”. That sounds ‘binary’ (and a tad draconian) to me… if you had included the phrase, “science-based, professionally vetted, common sense”, I’d be close to 95+% on board… but it appears you chose not to.
Just where I am… I’ve been playing by the guidelines… I’ve been dealing with the loss of dear friends with no memorial services, due to the guidelines… have been participating in the Stanford daily assessment survey… thus far, but no farther…
Not specifically an article regarding Covid, but this quote stood out to me. The article itself is related to people going to the Tahoe area (e.g., from the Bay Area). Apparently, lots of people moving there, as well.
https://www.sfgate.com/renotahoe/article/Let-s-just-keep-this-going-Tahoe-s-endless-15558234.php
There’s been a series of related articles, regarding abandoning of office space that is no longer needed in San Francisco (due to a permanent shift toward telecommuting).
Tahoe has never impressed me. I feel claustrophobic the moment I enter the basin, and can’t wait to get the h*ll out. If I never see Lake Tahoe again, no loss. But, I LOVE Lake Tahoe . . .
. . . because all the idiot masses go there, and to Yosemite . . . leaving the rest of the beautiful Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to ME!
Idiots. Similar I.Q. to a Sturgis attendee.
I want to make an addition to what I wrote yesterday.
The Board of Supervisors has passed a graduated enforcement strategy to encourage compliance. Although I do not know the exact details of the final plan, I suspect it is along the lines of what I noted above as that is what we had discussed at a previous Board of Supervisors meeting. I also understand that there will be cooperation between the university and the BOS as to who will enforce the restrictions in the various communities.
TW, excellent metaphor. I agree that people just can’t accept this dangerous enemy because the enemy is invisible.
EG, similar, much appreciate the addition of the drunk driver metaphor for the protecting others’ aspect.
And agree with KO, above.
All good points.
Not sure, WM, why you keep telling us the things you are doing (travel, church), as if you need our approval. I can’t stop you. I prefer much more caution. What you are doing is of course much more safe than a partying Covid-19-positive college student. You believe what you are doing is safe? No need to convince us, and we won’t convince you.
Bill
I have made no assumptions whatsoever about your motivations for what you write. I have responded to your entered words only. That is a courtesy you have not extended to me. More than once you made assumptions about what I must think. Again and again, I have stated that my recommendation would be to follow the science. So why would you presume that by the use of the word “every” I mean anything beyond the science?
I will admit I have a pet peeve. I truly dislike being told what I think or what I am saying when I have said no such thing. Especially by someone who does not know me at all. Wouldn’t it be nice if we all just put forth our own ideas and responses to what someone else has said, and stop pretending we know what they mean? When I write an article for the Vanguard, I have committed to answering all legitimate questions. If you are unsure of my point, instead of guessing, or telling me what it “sounds like” why don’t you just ask me. And if I do this to you, call me out on it…but be specific.