Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened

Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - 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: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened (/thread-19578.html)

Pages: 1 2

Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - stupac2 - 04-29-2020

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/29/breaking-bay-area-to-allow-construction-some-outdoor-activities-under-new-shelter-in-place-order/

Outdoor activities such as construction and gardening (presumably it means professionally) are now allowed, as are golf and tennis, and importantly for those of us with kids, meetings of small groups of children.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - 82lsju - 04-29-2020

the order is here

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/order-health-officer-050420.aspx

from skimming it maybe you could play tennis with someone in your household (see sec 16)

Quote:Sports or activities that include the use of shared equipment or physical contact between participants may only be engaged in by members of the same household or living unit;

Use of shared outdoor facilities for recreational activities that may occur outside of residences consistent with the restrictions set forth in subsections 1, 2, and 3, above, including, but not limited to, golf courses, skate parks, and athletic fields, must, before they may begin, comply with social distancing and health/safety protocols posted at the site and any other restrictions, including prohibitions, on access and use established by the Health Officer, government, or other entity that manages such area to reduce crowding and risk of transmission of COVID-19.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - stupac2 - 04-29-2020

It was pointed out elsewhere that golf is still forbidden by the state order. Sorry duffers.

Also the "groups of children" thing is only in an educational or summer camp setting. Which is still important with summer coming and even remote school ending.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - akiddoc - 04-29-2020

(04-29-2020, 01:51 PM)stupac2 Wrote: It was pointed out elsewhere that golf is still forbidden by the state order. Sorry duffers.

Also the "groups of children" thing is only in an educational or summer camp setting. Which is still important with summer coming and even remote school ending.

Napa is already allowing golf. The governor says he will get together with the Bay Area Counties to come to some agreement on golf question.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - Snorlax94 - 04-29-2020

(04-29-2020, 03:11 PM)akiddoc Wrote:
(04-29-2020, 01:51 PM)stupac2 Wrote: It was pointed out elsewhere that golf is still forbidden by the state order. Sorry duffers.

Also the "groups of children" thing is only in an educational or summer camp setting. Which is still important with summer coming and even remote school ending.

Napa is already allowing golf. The governor says he will get together with the Bay Area Counties to come to some agreement on golf question.

However, Newsom did not seem inclined to stop golf courses from reopening, and offered broad support for the revised Bay Area order.

"We are well in tune and in touch with the Bay Area counties," he said. "We look at low risk as a framework for reopening in many of these instances.... and we'll be looking at some of the specifics that came out as it relates to their guidelines. As it relates to golf, there are a number of parts in the state that do provide for low-risk golfing already, so that's not completely inconsistent."

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - 82lsju - 04-29-2020

(04-29-2020, 01:51 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Also the "groups of children" thing is only in an educational or summer camp setting. Which is still important with summer coming and even remote school ending.

more on this in the order

Quote:Childcare establishments, summer camps, and other educational or recreational institutions or programs providing care or supervision for children of all ages that enable owners, employees, volunteers, and contractors for Essential Businesses, Essential Governmental Functions, Outdoor Businesses, or Minimum Basic Operations to work as allowed under this Order. To the extent possible, these operations must comply with the following conditions:

They must be carried out in stable groups of 12 or fewer children (“stable” means that the same 12 or fewer children are in the same group each day).

Children shall not change from one group to another.

If more than one group of children is at one facility, each group shall be in a separate room. Groups shall not mix with each other.

Providers or educators shall remain solely with one group of children.

The Health Officer will carefully monitor the changing public health situation as well as any changes to the State Shelter Order. In the event that the State relaxes restrictions on childcare and related institutions and programs, the Health Officer will consider whether to similarly relax the restrictions imposed by this Order.

a FAQ on the SCC order is here

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Documents/frequently-asked-questions-04-29-2020.pdf

as well as a summary of the changes here

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Documents/executive-summary-order-04-29-2020-may-4-extension-and-revisions-en.pdf

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - Snorlax94 - 05-01-2020

OEAnd now, it sounds like the whole state could be heading toward a significant re-opening, probably coming next week.

For what it's worth, I don't think we're ready to re-open permanently, because the uptick in testing and contact tracing has been too slow. My guess is that, the numbers have gotten low enough that, if we are smart, we can re-open to stage 2 and enjoy life for a little while. Meanwhile, we'll be expanding testing and tracing. Assuming we can keep cases growing slowly by being smart, maybe the economy can kind of open for 4-12 weeks as the state ramps up its capabilities. Then over the summer, we may have to shut down again, but by then hopefully we can test 100,000+ per day, with easy-to-find same-day testing and fast, ubiquitous tracing, so hopefully the second shutdown will be shorter and more impactful.

I mean, between:

Plan 1: Stay locked down another 2-3 months as we build up testing and tracing capabilities, re-open only when it's in place.

Plan 2: Partial re-open in a smart way, slowly grow testing & tracing capabilities for 2-3 months, then shut down briefly afterwards, and after the second shutdown, hopefully we have enough in place to try for containment after that.

Plan 2 would sound reasonable. I don't plan on dining inside any restaurants myself until I know I'm immune one way or another, but if the Shelter-In-Place were loosened to this degree, I look forward to getting takeout and picnicking at a scenic spot (which is technically not permitted now because we'd be driving out of the county), stopping by an outdoor nursery so we can garden more this summer, taking a quick trip inside a non-essential store, or inviting a few friends over for dinner to eat on our patio with a table separated by a 4' long sneeze guard.

From SFGate:

Quote:During a Friday press conference, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced he is "very close" to modifying the state's shelter-in-place order, but hinted those modifications may be contingent on the behavior of beach-goers.

"We're getting very close to making very meaningful augmentations to that stay-at-home order," he said. "We said 'weeks, not months' about four or five days ago. I want to say 'many days, not weeks.' As long as we continue to be prudent and thoughtful in certain modifications, I think we'll be making some announcements."

It is not entirely clear what exactly those announcements will be, but the governor seemed to hint towards moving to Stage 2 of the state's reopening plan, stating, "We’re getting very close to making some announcements that will be meaningful to people in the retail sector, the hospitality sector, and yes, that second phase includes restaurants."

https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks/article/Gavin-Newsom-beaches-California-reopen-crowds-news-15240967.php

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - dabigv13 - 05-01-2020

Very apprehensive about any relaxation statewide in the near term. Some areas of SoCal seem past peak, but others are worsening, and overall hospitalizations and ICU usage is not declining, but rather has been rising slowly. Relaxing now would seemingly just add more fuel to an already burning fire. Think you need the fire to be mostly out before you throw on more fuel.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - Goose - 05-01-2020

I believe there are two factors involved here that are pushing us in a direction that probably we shouldn't go. One important factor is we have no definite statement from the counties as to how low the number of new cases per day (or smoothed average thereof) must fall before they (at least believe that they) will be able to contain the outbreak via contact tracking and tracing. Without knowing that, the population feels that one number is as good as another so why not open now? Hard to argue when nobody knows what the alternative will be.
Second, the politicians know they have received the support of the population during this economically difficult shutdown. However, there is a limit to how long they can retain that support. The "people" of California are starting to unilaterally quit following the rules. It isn't real overt yet, but it is happening. The politicians are sensitive to the idea that if they don't somehow keep the people at least mostly believing in what is recommended, they will lose control of the situation. Therefore, the politicians are trying to have a "safety valve" that will keep things under control. That is fine as long as the people still buy in and the recommended loosening is not so large it is in effect no regulation.
These two effects taken together may cause us to open up sooner than is prudent. However, failing more and better information about the way ahead, I think that is exactly what we will do.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - 76lsjumb - 05-01-2020

(05-01-2020, 05:01 PM)Goose Wrote: I believe there are two factors involved here that are pushing us in a direction that probably we shouldn't go. One important factor is we have no definite statement from the counties as to how low the number of new cases per day (or smoothed average thereof) must fall before they (at least believe that they) will be able to contain the outbreak via contact tracking and tracing. Without knowing that, the population feels that one number is as good as another so why not open now? Hard to argue when nobody knows what the alternative will be.
Second, the politicians know they have received the support of the population during this economically difficult shutdown. However, there is a limit to how long they can retain that support. The "people" of California are starting to unilaterally quit following the rules. It isn't real overt yet, but it is happening. The politicians are sensitive to the idea that if they don't somehow keep the people at least mostly believing in what is recommended, they will lose control of the situation. Therefore, the politicians are trying to have a "safety valve" that will keep things under control. That is fine as long as the people still buy in and the recommended loosening is not so large it is in effect no regulation.
These two effects taken together may cause us to open up sooner than is prudent. However, failing more and better information about the way ahead, I think that is exactly what we will do.

There's the rub. I'm not sure that "prudence" is a scientific concept... Nor that your concept of "prudence" is the same as the next guy's. Of course, we could decree that the Government's idea of "prudence" should be all-powerful. But then, I'm not sure Newsom's concept of "prudence" is the same as Trump's. So, the insistence on doing what "science," rather than politics or economics, says should be done, ultimately and necessarily, must give way to the "prudence" of whomever wields the power. In the United States, that's the people.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - Goose - 05-01-2020

(05-01-2020, 06:29 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: There's the rub. I'm not sure that "prudence" is a scientific concept... Nor that your concept of "prudence" is the same as the next guy's. Of course, we could decree that the Government's idea of "prudence" should be all-powerful. But then, I'm not sure Newsom's concept of "prudence" is the same as Trump's. So, the insistence on doing what "science," rather than politics or economics, says should be done, ultimately and necessarily, must give way to the "prudence" of whomever wields the power. In the United States, that's the people.

Not quite. In many cases the people have ceded that power to others. County Health officers are one prominent example. They have wide ranging powers that are not easily overcome. This has been deemed necessary by the people because of exactly the effects you point out. In times of serious threat, "the people" probably can't agree on what is "prudent". Historically, people have always understood quarantines are sometimes necessary, until they are the ones to be quarantined. In effect, in this case, the person who is "all powerful" has been defined.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - 76lsjumb - 05-01-2020

(05-01-2020, 06:52 PM)Goose Wrote:
(05-01-2020, 06:29 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: There's the rub. I'm not sure that "prudence" is a scientific concept... Nor that your concept of "prudence" is the same as the next guy's. Of course, we could decree that the Government's idea of "prudence" should be all-powerful. But then, I'm not sure Newsom's concept of "prudence" is the same as Trump's. So, the insistence on doing what "science," rather than politics or economics, says should be done, ultimately and necessarily, must give way to the "prudence" of whomever wields the power. In the United States, that's the people.
Not quite. In many cases the people have ceded that power to others. County Health officers are one prominent example. They have wide ranging powers that are not easily overcome. This has been deemed necessary by the people because of exactly the effects you point out. In times of serious threat, "the people" probably can't agree on what is "prudent". Historically, people have always understood quarantines are sometimes necessary, until they are the ones to be quarantined. In effect, in this case, the person who is "all powerful" has been defined.

I don't disagree with that as far as County Health officials are concerned. indeed, the kerfuffle this weekend in Orange County is a good example and kind of proves [or, at least, supports, my point. People are much more willing to abide by restrictions imposed by their local governmental agency and less so as that agency gets further and further away.

In the current situation, I still chuckle when I imagine the outcry that would have ensued if Trump had announced, in late January or early February -- say in the middle of or immediately after the impeachment hearings -- that he was invoking executive power to order a nationwide shutdown on the scale that many have been [and, indeed, still are] prescribing as absolutely essential in the name of health safety. The cries of "Dictator!" would have been deafening, impeachment proceedings would have resumed within hours...and all those "idiot protesters" not practicing social distancing would have been massing outside the White House by the millions [very likely with the full on support of mainstream media].

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - Snorlax94 - 05-01-2020

(05-01-2020, 08:01 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: In the current situation, I still chuckle when I imagine the outcry that would have ensued if Trump had announced, in late January or early February -- say in the middle of or immediately after the impeachment hearings -- that he was invoking executive power to order a nationwide shutdown on the scale that many have been [and, indeed, still are] prescribing as absolutely essential in the name of health safety. The cries of "Dictator!" would have been deafening, impeachment proceedings would have resumed within hours...and all those "idiot protesters" not practicing social distancing would have been massing outside the White House by the millions [very likely with the full on support of mainstream media].

No I think people are glad when he actually does something helpful, like investing more in vaccine research. It’s just that those are incredibly, incredibly rare relative to say, prescribing injected Lysol and internalized sunshine, claiming it’s just a cold, championing unproven drugs like hydroxychloroquine, engaging in unproven xenophobic speculation of the disease, letting states compete against each other to get supplies, claiming anyone who wants a test can get a test, using the stimulus bill to give additional breaks to the real estate industry, delaying use of the Defense Production Act to address crucial shortages, recognizing the threat and mobilizing extremely late, failing to quickly get a working test, failing to rapidly roll out a working test, taking supplies from states, generating chaos by undermining governor’s actions on Twitter, failing to provide federal leadership on widespread testing, failing to provide federal leadership for widespread contact tracing, undermining attempts to enable wider mail in voting, etc., which seem more common than the helpful actions.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - 76lsjumb - 05-01-2020

(05-01-2020, 08:47 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:
(05-01-2020, 08:01 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: In the current situation, I still chuckle when I imagine the outcry that would have ensued if Trump had announced, in late January or early February -- say in the middle of or immediately after the impeachment hearings -- that he was invoking executive power to order a nationwide shutdown on the scale that many have been [and, indeed, still are] prescribing as absolutely essential in the name of health safety. The cries of "Dictator!" would have been deafening, impeachment proceedings would have resumed within hours...and all those "idiot protesters" not practicing social distancing would have been massing outside the White House by the millions [very likely with the full on support of mainstream media].
No I think people are glad when he actually does something helpful, like investing more in vaccine research. It’s just that those are incredibly, incredibly rare relative to say, prescribing injected Lysol and internalized sunshine, claiming it’s just a cold, championing unproven drugs like hydroxychloroquine, engaging in unproven xenophobic speculation of the disease, letting states compete against each other to get supplies, claiming anyone who wants a test can get a test, using the stimulus bill to give additional breaks to the real estate industry, delaying use of the Defense Production Act to address crucial shortages, recognizing the threat and mobilizing extremely late, failing to quickly get a working test, failing to rapidly roll out a working test, taking supplies from states, generating chaos by undermining governor’s actions on Twitter, failing to provide federal leadership on widespread testing, failing to provide federal leadership for widespread contact tracing, undermining attempts to enable wider mail in voting, etc., which seem more common than the helpful actions.

Sorry, not buying it. Someone who dislikes Trump as much as you [and many others on the Board] obviously do would never ever have stood for him invoking executive powers to cancel all major sporting events and leagues, shutting down Congress, ordering all Chinese New Year's festivities to cease, requiring everyone in every state to shelter-in-place [with particularly stringent restrictions imposed on California and New York], shutting down small businesses all over the country, ordering various industries to cease their normal production and do whatever his advisors said, etc.

Remember, he caught significant heat for simply restricting travel from China [and I'm guessing you thought that was pretty xenophobic of him], and many folks [see. e.g., Nancy Pelosi] were imploring people to participate in those activities at the time. There is simply no way you would have been applauding him for taking such decisive action... and you know it. That's perfectly fine. I cringe every time I hear him speak and I find him to be about the worst possible candidate to be our next president [except possibly for that other old white guy that looks like he'll be running]. But, I don't automatically assume that whatever Trump does is the exact opposite of what should be done. I'm sensing you do.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - fullmetal - 05-01-2020

(05-01-2020, 04:22 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Very apprehensive about any relaxation statewide in the near term. Some areas of SoCal seem past peak, but others are worsening, and overall hospitalizations and ICU usage is not declining, but rather has been rising slowly. Relaxing now would seemingly just add more fuel to an already burning fire. Think you need the fire to be mostly out before you throw on more fuel.

dabigV is dropping frontline knowledge here. Peaks aren't guaranteed to be followed by steep declines either. We have not yet hammered the trend line and yet we want to dance :(

Texas is re-opening with restrictions despite an ever-increasing and not-plateauing active case trend line. Thankfully, most people are still wary and will not rush out. Those who do rush out are fewer in number and thus will represent a smaller total possible pool of infections...we'll see what happens after a couple weeks of that.

dabigV, take care of yourself and keep fighting the good fight.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - Goose - 05-01-2020

(05-01-2020, 08:01 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:
(05-01-2020, 06:52 PM)Goose Wrote:
(05-01-2020, 06:29 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: There's the rub. I'm not sure that "prudence" is a scientific concept... Nor that your concept of "prudence" is the same as the next guy's. Of course, we could decree that the Government's idea of "prudence" should be all-powerful. But then, I'm not sure Newsom's concept of "prudence" is the same as Trump's. So, the insistence on doing what "science," rather than politics or economics, says should be done, ultimately and necessarily, must give way to the "prudence" of whomever wields the power. In the United States, that's the people.
Not quite. In many cases the people have ceded that power to others. County Health officers are one prominent example. They have wide ranging powers that are not easily overcome. This has been deemed necessary by the people because of exactly the effects you point out. In times of serious threat, "the people" probably can't agree on what is "prudent". Historically, people have always understood quarantines are sometimes necessary, until they are the ones to be quarantined. In effect, in this case, the person who is "all powerful" has been defined.

I don't disagree with that as far as County Health officials are concerned. indeed, the kerfuffle this weekend in Orange County is a good example and kind of proves [or, at least, supports, my point. People are much more willing to abide by restrictions imposed by their local governmental agency and less so as that agency gets further and further away.

In the current situation, I still chuckle when I imagine the outcry that would have ensued if Trump had announced, in late January or early February -- say in the middle of or immediately after the impeachment hearings -- that he was invoking executive power to order a nationwide shutdown on the scale that many have been [and, indeed, still are] prescribing as absolutely essential in the name of health safety. The cries of "Dictator!" would have been deafening, impeachment proceedings would have resumed within hours...and all those "idiot protesters" not practicing social distancing would have been massing outside the White House by the millions [very likely with the full on support of mainstream media].

Fortunately he, and all presidents, do not have that power. Had he attempted that, he would have (rightly) been condemned and ignored. Probably he would have (rightly) been removed from office. Even if, or perhaps especially if, such a shutdown would be a good idea, he does not have that power. He does have the power to close international borders, and the congress has delegated to the executive branch the power to enforce "national quarantine" under the commerce clause. He may shut down traffic between states. He may NOT shut down traffic within states. Its called the law. Despite the fact it seems almost nobody wants to follow it, it does exist and has served our nation well.
Certainly, the Presidency is a "bully pulpit". The President can suggest lots of things, and can encourage the states to act in certain ways. It is extremely interesting to me that the response to such "encouragement" on this board corresponds mostly to what ones opinion of the goals are, not the legitimacy of the actions themselves. Yet another sign that the "rule of law" means much less now than it did even 50 years ago and that the ends justify the means.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - BostonCard - 05-01-2020

I think it is interesting that the two options presented are "do nothing" or "declare a nationwide shutdown". There was a lot of room between those two, and a lot of soft leadership that the president could have exerted, but chose not to. Even a guideline for states to follow in terms of how and when to tighten restrictions, much like the guide that the administration generated for loosening them (which I have praised), would have been helpful.

BC

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - 2006alum - 05-02-2020

(05-01-2020, 11:15 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is interesting that the two options presented are "do nothing" or "declare a nationwide shutdown". There was a lot of room between those two, and a lot of soft leadership that the president could have exerted, but chose not to. Even a guideline for states to follow in terms of how and when to tighten restrictions, much like the guide that the administration generated for loosening them (which I have praised), would have been helpful.

BC

+1. The choices were not merely between the scylla of dictatorship and the charybdis of ineffectual flailing. Unfortunately, the most effectual options (test, trace, isolate) don't make for good headlines or incite protests, so they've generally gotten lost in the clangor.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - Goose - 05-02-2020

(05-02-2020, 12:17 AM)2006alum Wrote:
(05-01-2020, 11:15 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is interesting that the two options presented are "do nothing" or "declare a nationwide shutdown". There was a lot of room between those two, and a lot of soft leadership that the president could have exerted, but chose not to. Even a guideline for states to follow in terms of how and when to tighten restrictions, much like the guide that the administration generated for loosening them (which I have praised), would have been helpful.

BC
+1. The choices were not merely between the scylla of dictatorship and the charybdis of ineffectual flailing. Unfortunately, the most effectual options (test, trace, isolate) don't make for good headlines or incite protests, so they've generally gotten lost in the clangor.

+1. There is a very wide "middle way" here. Someplace there is where we should be.

RE: Bay Area Shelter in Place restrictions loosened - 76lsjumb - 05-02-2020

(05-02-2020, 12:17 AM)2006alum Wrote:
(05-01-2020, 11:15 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is interesting that the two options presented are "do nothing" or "declare a nationwide shutdown". There was a lot of room between those two, and a lot of soft leadership that the president could have exerted, but chose not to. Even a guideline for states to follow in terms of how and when to tighten restrictions, much like the guide that the administration generated for loosening them (which I have praised), would have been helpful.

BC
+1. The choices were not merely between the scylla of dictatorship and the charybdis of ineffectual flailing. Unfortunately, the most effectual options (test, trace, isolate) don't make for good headlines or incite protests, so they've generally gotten lost in the clangor.

I’m not sure I understand this point. The actions that I suggest would have been heavily resisted and condemned if ordered by the president are all actions that the scientists and doctors and critics of the president have insisted were necessary and, in fact, have actually been imposed in the past months. Arguing that they somehow could have been avoided if the president had exercised “soft leadership” strikes me as ignoring two rather obvious realities: what happened pretty much everywhere else in the world and the fact that he had just been impeached. Honestly, I doubt there are very few on this Board who would have given two hoots for any “soft leadership” by the president in February.