The CardBoard
CA Facemask requirement - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: CA Facemask requirement (/thread-19910.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: CA Facemask requirement - 2006alum - 06-20-2020

According to this, when the CA seatbelt law was passed in 1986 it was a "secondary enforcement" law, which meant that an officer could cite a motorist for a belt use violation if and only if the officer had already stopped the vehicle for some other reason. Only in 1993 did it become a "primary enforcement" law. The linked study observed that seat belt use increased from 58 percent to 76 percent soon thereafter. 

So even the seatbelt example isn't analogous, because presumably those calling for citations for non-mask-wearing want this to be a "primary enforcement" rule.  

Incidentally, at least in my SF neighborhood, mask-wearing is already well above 58% inside public accommodations and in crowded outdoor settings - I'd guess closer to 80% apart from those actively exercising. Given all this, I'm skeptical the proposed rule would create more benefit than harm.

Leftcoast - Leftcoast - 06-20-2020

Seatbelt compliance did go up 3x during 5 years under secondary enforcement.  That’s a lot of lives saved and nothing to sneeze at - I’d take it.

(~20% in ‘85 to ~60% five years later in the observed counties)

RE: CA Facemask requirement - Goose - 06-20-2020

For a while I thought facemask wearing in the Bay area was going up. As of today, I don't think that. Driving to the grocery store today I saw many people walking on city streets in basically a crowd. No masks. You can go to a "restaurant" (apparently Starbucks qualifies) and eat outdoors without a face mask. As I understood it, everybody at the table needs to live in the same house. Today I saw about 15 bike riders (obviously not from the same family unit) who had finished their communal ride drinking coffee sitting around a big table right next to (and across from) each other gabbing away. None of them were wearing masks, and none were even in evidence. Unlike some, I don't believe face masks are a "game changer". I do believe they help, and not wearing them is a big problem. This isn't in Georgia or in Texas. This is right here in the Bay Area.

RE: CA Facemask requirement - Genuine Realist - 06-20-2020

(06-20-2020, 06:35 PM)Goose Wrote:  For a while I thought facemask wearing in the Bay area was going up. As of today, I don't think that. Driving to the grocery store today I saw many people walking on city streets in basically a crowd. No masks. You can go to a "restaurant" (apparently Starbucks qualifies) and eat outdoors without a face mask. As I understood it, everybody at the table needs to live in the same house. Today I saw about 15 bike riders (obviously not from the same family unit) who had finished their communal ride drinking coffee sitting around a big table right next to (and across from) each other gabbing away. None of them were wearing masks, and none were even in evidence. Unlike some, I don't believe face masks are a "game changer". I do believe they help, and not wearing them is a big problem. This isn't in Georgia or in Texas. This is right here in the Bay Area.
Around Mountain View, in indoor situations, compliance must be close to 100%. Most businesses have signs requiring masks - the sort of regulatory step I think is more effective than criminal sanctions.I don't see customers in these stores without masks (clerks are sometimes behind plexiglass.) Open air compliance is a bit different(I don't wear one), but I think the rationale is obvious.

Goose's post is a bit discouraging. Non-compliance in the Bay Area is obviously not linked to identification with politics. The public may be getting weary of the whole effort. The lockdown might have asked a bit too much.

RE: CA Facemask requirement - OutsiderFan - 06-21-2020

(06-20-2020, 08:17 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:  The lockdown might have asked a bit too much.

“Hold my beer” - almost every country in the world not named Brazil.

RE: CA Facemask requirement - burger - 06-21-2020

(06-21-2020, 01:31 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  
(06-20-2020, 08:17 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:  The lockdown might have asked a bit too much.

“Hold my beer” - almost every country in the world not named Brazil.

Also, every northeastern state in the US.

RE: CA Facemask requirement - BostonCard - 06-21-2020

[tweet]https://twitter.com/talibbabb/status/1274726685322153984?s=21[/tweet]

Yeah this is gonna end well.

BC
(06-21-2020, 01:31 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  
(06-20-2020, 08:17 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:  The lockdown might have asked a bit too much.

“Hold my beer” - almost every country in the world not named Brazil.

I’m not getting your use of “hold my beer” in context.

BC

RE: CA Facemask requirement - 2006alum - 06-21-2020

I hope that model citizen has not reproduced, because if he has, I feel truly sorry for his offspring that they should ever have to watch their father behave like an entitled imbecile. 

And happy father's day to the rest of you! ;)

RE: CA Facemask requirement - M T - 06-21-2020

(06-20-2020, 05:11 PM)2006alum Wrote:  
(06-20-2020, 04:21 PM)Leftcoast Wrote:   Love it or hate it legislation did what years of cajoling could not.

Are we talking about legislation? I have yet to see a single "law" passed anywhere- just "guidance" (the form this is taking in CA)

Buy-in from all stakeholders is really important for any "law" to be successful. The seatbelt law was the result of several decades of advocacy, reform, industry participation, and state and federal policymaking. Waving a magic wand and decreeing -overnight- civil penalties for failing to take actions that six months ago would have been seen as authoritarian in the extreme is, IMHO, not the way to achieve that, especially when we already know there's a substantial segment of the populace that views mask wearing through an entirely ideological lens.
If you ever read one of the Public Health Officer Orders in California, you'd know where the laws are.
County:
Quote:Please read this Order carefully.  Violation of or failure to comply with this Order is a misdemeanor punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.  (California Health and Safety Code § 120295, et seq.; Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1); Santa Clara County Ordinance Code § A1-28.)UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 101040, 101085, AND 120175, THE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (“HEALTH OFFICER”) ORDERS: ...
  (Also see 101080)

State:
Quote:Pursuant to the authority under EO N-60  -20, and Health and Safety Code sections 120125, 120140, 131080, 120130©, 120135, 120145, 120175 and 120150, this Order is to go into effect immediately and shall stay in effect until further notice.

I think of this similarly to martial law.  In the event of unusual circumstances, the government authorizes certain officers to require certain actions.  In the case of the county, the county supervisors must review the situation (section 101080) every 30 days.

Whether "civil penalties" properly describes a fine for such a misdemeanor, I will leave to those that can distinguish those details.

20 years from now, if we are still suffering widespread death from COVID-19, I expect there will be plenty of well-honed, legislature-passed, court-tested laws about wearing masks.   With only 3-4 months under out collective belts, we haven't figured out how many & who (individuals & classes) will die so we can have chicken on our table, football on Sunday, or a night out drinking and playing cards.

I will admit that I haven't figured out how the California's guidance on face masks fits under the California Public Health Officer's Order.  (I still haven't figured out how that order allows outdoor exercise or other non-business-related activity.  I also note that the mask guidance is again too-business oriented and doesn't cover situations in which you are in a private indoor (or outdoor) space that is not your own household (visiting a relative or friend in their home).  But then, I  haven't read the sections of the code mentioned in the state PHO order.  Maybe they mention "guidance" specifically.

RE: CA Facemask requirement - 2006alum - 06-22-2020

To be clear, "law" ≠ legislation. Acting with the force of law can take a wide range of forms, but the term legislation tends only to refer to law enacted through the legislative body and signed by the executive (or over her). Guidance may provide the public with notice as to how a given body delegated rulemaking and law enforcement authority will exercise that authority, but that is not the same thing as legislation.

And whether or not this small town Mayor's take is valid legal analysis (narrator: it's not), this is why I think these kinds of executive-order/guidance orders can be counter-productive:

Quote:The mayor of Nevada City suggested citizens do not need to follow California Gov. Gavin Newsom's statewide mask mandate in a Facebook post Saturday. "As you go about your day today, KNOW there is NO LAW that Orders you to Wear a Mask. Our Governor does NOT have that unilateral power to make such orders. While I know the HEADLINES over the last couple days have stated something entirely different, that is because journalism is dead," Reinette Senum wrote.

"Again, THERE IS NO LAW THAT STATES YOU MUST WEAR A MASK. Ask our local Police chief or officers. They will not, and cannot, cite ANYBODY for not wearing a mask because the law does not exist. When you come across Newsom's orders' online, you will see it's linked to a page that does not lead you to his Executive Order, BUT to the California Department of Public Health GUIDELINES! Again, NOBODY can be forced to wear a mask outside, in a business, or as an employee or customer."

Senum then linked to the California Department of Public Health page, which reads: "This document updates existing CDPH guidance for the use of cloth face coverings by the general public when outside the home. It mandates that face coverings be worn state-wide."
An earlier executive order issued by Newsom gave the state the ability to enforce regulations from the CDPH, and the recent mask order does have an enforcement component. Violating the order could result in a misdemeanor and/or a fine, according to the California Department of Public Health, although most enforcement has come in the form of educating the violator.

In addition, although an order is not technically a law, legal experts believe it carries the same weight as legislation. Per PolitiFact:
"James G. Hodge Jr., director of the Center for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University, called it 'entirely accurate' to consider an executive order to be a law. Laws can be derived from a constitution, a statute, a regulation, case law, 'or orders implemented through legal means, including emergency powers invoked by governors.'"

You, I, and anyone being honest with themselves knows that there will be almost no legal enforcement of this order. From mid-March to early May, SF issued just over 100 "warnings" for violations of its shelter in place order weeks into it. As of May 11, according to that article, there were just 23 citations issued from March 18 to May 11.

Thus, again, my contention is that these kinds of orders will only work when the populace has bought into them, along with the law enforcement community on the ground. And when they are poorly drafted and announced overnight, they are only as effective as we collectively want them to be. I am guessing Ms. Senum was not asked to weigh in on this matter before she learned about it like the rest of us, nor the chief of police for her city, nor the sheriff for her county. IMHO, that's a problem from the standpoint of compliance, whatever "the law" is.

And incidentally, it's also worth noting that Newsom's prior guidance came one vote short of being overturned at the Supreme Court. So it's not like we're floating on untroubled legal waters here, either.