[BostonCard]

This time from the Governor of NY.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/nyreg...virus.html

I have not understood why Cuomo has been praised for his leadership.  Whatever the deficiencies in the global and federal response, that doesn't offer him a pass.  As governor, he's still responsive for the health and welfare of his citizens, and it shouldn't have taken an "alphabet soup" of agencies to make him aware of the need to take decisive action early, especially because under our federal system, responsibility for public health is ultimately a state and local job.  The excuse that "governors don't do global pandemics" is pretty pathetic in my opinion.

BC

[BostonCard]

This time from the Governor of NY.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/nyreg...virus.html

I have not understood why Cuomo has been praised for his leadership.  Whatever the deficiencies in the global and federal response, that doesn't offer him a pass.  As governor, he's still responsive for the health and welfare of his citizens, and it shouldn't have taken an "alphabet soup" of agencies to make him aware of the need to take decisive action early, especially because under our federal system, responsibility for public health is ultimately a state and local job.  The excuse that "governors don't do global pandemics" is pretty pathetic in my opinion.

BC

[burger]

In his (partial) defense, Cuomo also accepted some blame:

“I wish someone stood up and blew the bugle,” Mr. Cuomo said in the HBO interview, conducted by the Axios reporter Jonathan Swan. “And if no one was going to blow the bugle, I would feel much better if I was a bugle blower last December and January, even though no one danced to the music, I would feel better.”

[burger]

In his (partial) defense, Cuomo also accepted some blame:

“I wish someone stood up and blew the bugle,” Mr. Cuomo said in the HBO interview, conducted by the Axios reporter Jonathan Swan. “And if no one was going to blow the bugle, I would feel much better if I was a bugle blower last December and January, even though no one danced to the music, I would feel better.”

[Farm93]

This time from the Governor of NY.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/nyreg...virus.html

I have not understood why Cuomo has been praised for his leadership.  Whatever the deficiencies in the global and federal response, that doesn't offer him a pass.  As governor, he's still responsive for the health and welfare of his citizens, and it shouldn't have taken an "alphabet soup" of agencies to make him aware of the need to take decisive action early, especially because under our federal system, responsibility for public health is ultimately a state and local job.  The excuse that "governors don't do global pandemics" is pretty pathetic in my opinion.

BC

The key is "global".

Do we really believe the governors of NM or NE or AL have the resources to track pandemics around the world? 
What a waste if the USA couldn't trust the federal government and then had 50 governors doing their own tracking of health issues in India, China, Nigeria or even France.   Governors should get the heads up from the CDC and then should be ready to act.   

So yeah, governors don't do global pandemics.   They aren't looking for them.   And it would be so inefficient if every state was running around the world doing their own health investigation work. 

I would also not expect governors to need to go internationally to procure their own supplies directly from other governments.  Not every governor has a spouse born in South Korea and therefore capable of securing supplies from the South Korean government.   The governors should not be going directly to other nation states presumably competing with other USA states, to find supplies.

This is what he meant by governors don't do global pandemics.   They should be responsible for acting once the alarm is sounded by the Federal government, but they should not be expected to sound the alarm first or compete against other states for international supplies to treat patients.

If there was a democratic president in the White House, I would be OK if Governor Hogan had said....
Governors shouldn't be required to secure international supplies.

Ultimately, the Governor of NY is doing things in a way that New Yorkers will take seriously.   People across the USA are watching him now, but his job is not to get USA wide approval.   He has been persuasive enough to get a farmer from Kansas to act.    It was touching when he read the letter from the Kansas farmer that decided to send an N95 mask to Governor Cuomo to then give to NY health care workers.

[Farm93]

This time from the Governor of NY.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/nyreg...virus.html

I have not understood why Cuomo has been praised for his leadership.  Whatever the deficiencies in the global and federal response, that doesn't offer him a pass.  As governor, he's still responsive for the health and welfare of his citizens, and it shouldn't have taken an "alphabet soup" of agencies to make him aware of the need to take decisive action early, especially because under our federal system, responsibility for public health is ultimately a state and local job.  The excuse that "governors don't do global pandemics" is pretty pathetic in my opinion.

BC

The key is "global".

Do we really believe the governors of NM or NE or AL have the resources to track pandemics around the world? 
What a waste if the USA couldn't trust the federal government and then had 50 governors doing their own tracking of health issues in India, China, Nigeria or even France.   Governors should get the heads up from the CDC and then should be ready to act.   

So yeah, governors don't do global pandemics.   They aren't looking for them.   And it would be so inefficient if every state was running around the world doing their own health investigation work. 

I would also not expect governors to need to go internationally to procure their own supplies directly from other governments.  Not every governor has a spouse born in South Korea and therefore capable of securing supplies from the South Korean government.   The governors should not be going directly to other nation states presumably competing with other USA states, to find supplies.

This is what he meant by governors don't do global pandemics.   They should be responsible for acting once the alarm is sounded by the Federal government, but they should not be expected to sound the alarm first or compete against other states for international supplies to treat patients.

If there was a democratic president in the White House, I would be OK if Governor Hogan had said....
Governors shouldn't be required to secure international supplies.

Ultimately, the Governor of NY is doing things in a way that New Yorkers will take seriously.   People across the USA are watching him now, but his job is not to get USA wide approval.   He has been persuasive enough to get a farmer from Kansas to act.    It was touching when he read the letter from the Kansas farmer that decided to send an N95 mask to Governor Cuomo to then give to NY health care workers.

[BostonCard]

I disagree.  No one is expecting him to singlehandly carry out a global response, but New Yorkers are expecting him to manage the crisis competently in New York.  If London Breed, a mayor, was able to sound the alarm early and take steps to protect San Franciscans, and both Gavin Newsome and Mike DeWine have taken aggressive measures early in California and Ohio, respectively, then Cuomo could have done more to be more proactive in New York.

BC

[BostonCard]

I disagree.  No one is expecting him to singlehandly carry out a global response, but New Yorkers are expecting him to manage the crisis competently in New York.  If London Breed, a mayor, was able to sound the alarm early and take steps to protect San Franciscans, and both Gavin Newsome and Mike DeWine have taken aggressive measures early in California and Ohio, respectively, then Cuomo could have done more to be more proactive in New York.

BC

[82 Card]

I disagree.  No one is expecting him to singlehandly carry out a global response, but New Yorkers are expecting him to manage the crisis competently in New York.  If London Breed, a mayor, was able to sound the alarm early and take steps to protect San Franciscans, and both Gavin Newsome and Mike DeWine have taken aggressive measures early in California and Ohio, respectively, then Cuomo could have done more to be more proactive in New York.

BC

A dissenting view on London Breed: ‘The Atlantic’ article about San Francisco is a fable. Here’s what’s really happening.
This article takes the view that Breed scrambled to get in front of a train being operated by the county health officers.

[82 Card]

I disagree.  No one is expecting him to singlehandly carry out a global response, but New Yorkers are expecting him to manage the crisis competently in New York.  If London Breed, a mayor, was able to sound the alarm early and take steps to protect San Franciscans, and both Gavin Newsome and Mike DeWine have taken aggressive measures early in California and Ohio, respectively, then Cuomo could have done more to be more proactive in New York.

BC

A dissenting view on London Breed: ‘The Atlantic’ article about San Francisco is a fable. Here’s what’s really happening.
This article takes the view that Breed scrambled to get in front of a train being operated by the county health officers.

[BostonCard]

It still notes the following:

We should be grateful that our mayor took the COVID-19 threat seriously, listened to her health experts, and supported their dictums. This is not faint praise; this is more than many local, state and — notably — federal officials could be bothered to do. The comparison of Breed tweeting out warnings of a pending shelter-in-place while New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio made theater recommendations is telling, regardless of who issued the shelter-in-place orders. 
Breed declaring a state of emergency on Feb. 25 was a move that has aged well. San Francisco, and the Bay Area writ large, have not been ravaged by COVID-19 as other areas have, and that’s because of relatively early, aggressive actions (at least among the housed population). 
So, we should praise Mayor Breed for what she did and what she’s done. But not for what she didn’t do and hasn’t done — and will not do.

That seems to me a good enough reason to praise her.  I mean, on Feb. 25, there were 57 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the country, and Trump was saying that COVID-19 is "very well under control in our country".  The next day he said we are a few days away from Coronavirus cases dropping to zero.  And the contrast between Breed and DeBlasio is striking.

BC

[BostonCard]

It still notes the following:

We should be grateful that our mayor took the COVID-19 threat seriously, listened to her health experts, and supported their dictums. This is not faint praise; this is more than many local, state and — notably — federal officials could be bothered to do. The comparison of Breed tweeting out warnings of a pending shelter-in-place while New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio made theater recommendations is telling, regardless of who issued the shelter-in-place orders. 
Breed declaring a state of emergency on Feb. 25 was a move that has aged well. San Francisco, and the Bay Area writ large, have not been ravaged by COVID-19 as other areas have, and that’s because of relatively early, aggressive actions (at least among the housed population). 
So, we should praise Mayor Breed for what she did and what she’s done. But not for what she didn’t do and hasn’t done — and will not do.

That seems to me a good enough reason to praise her.  I mean, on Feb. 25, there were 57 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the country, and Trump was saying that COVID-19 is "very well under control in our country".  The next day he said we are a few days away from Coronavirus cases dropping to zero.  And the contrast between Breed and DeBlasio is striking.

BC

[2006alum]

That article (which is now over two weeks old) seems to suggest that county health officers, not the Mayor, get the final say on any SiP orders. That may be true as a practical matter, but I don't think it's true as a legal matter. As a matter of political first impressions, it would seem odd that the final say over an order to SiP would come from an unelected bureaucrat who is not directly accountable to the citizens whose activities would be curtailed. As a matter of law, according to this job description for the position for the Director of the SF Department of Public Health, the director "serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and the Health Commission." The current director is Dr. Grant Colfax, and I've seen him appear at the city press conferences where I've seen London Breed speak, and he tends to address the more technical and medical questions. I have not at all gotten the sense that she's tried to sideline him.

More broadly, I guess I'm a bit confused about why it's inappropriate to look to the mayor as having the final call on these sorts of things. Yes, she may have rubber stamped what the six/seven county health commissioners collectively decided, but at the end of the day, she has the power to override her county health director, and it's obvious that she, not he, will bear the brunt of public accountability for that decision. Moreover, it's comical to think that the Santa Clara County Health Commissioner would have a final say over what happens in the County of San Francisco, and vice versa.

[2006alum]

That article (which is now over two weeks old) seems to suggest that county health officers, not the Mayor, get the final say on any SiP orders. That may be true as a practical matter, but I don't think it's true as a legal matter. As a matter of political first impressions, it would seem odd that the final say over an order to SiP would come from an unelected bureaucrat who is not directly accountable to the citizens whose activities would be curtailed. As a matter of law, according to this job description for the position for the Director of the SF Department of Public Health, the director "serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and the Health Commission." The current director is Dr. Grant Colfax, and I've seen him appear at the city press conferences where I've seen London Breed speak, and he tends to address the more technical and medical questions. I have not at all gotten the sense that she's tried to sideline him.

More broadly, I guess I'm a bit confused about why it's inappropriate to look to the mayor as having the final call on these sorts of things. Yes, she may have rubber stamped what the six/seven county health commissioners collectively decided, but at the end of the day, she has the power to override her county health director, and it's obvious that she, not he, will bear the brunt of public accountability for that decision. Moreover, it's comical to think that the Santa Clara County Health Commissioner would have a final say over what happens in the County of San Francisco, and vice versa.

[Mick]

I disagree.  No one is expecting him to singlehandly carry out a global response, but New Yorkers are expecting him to manage the crisis competently in New York.  If London Breed, a mayor, was able to sound the alarm early and take steps to protect San Franciscans, and both Gavin Newsome and Mike DeWine have taken aggressive measures early in California and Ohio, respectively, then Cuomo could have done more to be more proactive in New York.

BC

A dissenting view on London Breed: ‘The Atlantic’ article about San Francisco is a fable. Here’s what’s really happening.
This article takes the view that Breed scrambled to get in front of a train being operated by the county health officers.

One proposal under consideration is that Mayor Breed may establish a temporary homeless shelter in the temporary transbay terminal in the Eastern Cut, about a block from my son's apartment. Same city with the terrible, multiple homeless infections at these shelters:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/co...elter.html

[Mick]

I disagree.  No one is expecting him to singlehandly carry out a global response, but New Yorkers are expecting him to manage the crisis competently in New York.  If London Breed, a mayor, was able to sound the alarm early and take steps to protect San Franciscans, and both Gavin Newsome and Mike DeWine have taken aggressive measures early in California and Ohio, respectively, then Cuomo could have done more to be more proactive in New York.

BC

A dissenting view on London Breed: ‘The Atlantic’ article about San Francisco is a fable. Here’s what’s really happening.
This article takes the view that Breed scrambled to get in front of a train being operated by the county health officers.

One proposal under consideration is that Mayor Breed may establish a temporary homeless shelter in the temporary transbay terminal in the Eastern Cut, about a block from my son's apartment. Same city with the terrible, multiple homeless infections at these shelters:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/co...elter.html

[oldalum]

it's obvious that she, not he, will bear the brunt of public accountability for that decision. 

Not sure that's true. I've thought it was clever for the various county boards of supervisors to allow the public health officers to take the brunt of the heat of the SiP policy. You may think it's obvious that the top elected officials have the ultimate say, but it didn't come across that way when the 6 public health officers announced the policy and proclaimed they had the power to impose it.

[oldalum]

it's obvious that she, not he, will bear the brunt of public accountability for that decision. 

Not sure that's true. I've thought it was clever for the various county boards of supervisors to allow the public health officers to take the brunt of the heat of the SiP policy. You may think it's obvious that the top elected officials have the ultimate say, but it didn't come across that way when the 6 public health officers announced the policy and proclaimed they had the power to impose it.

[chrisk]

it's obvious that she, not he, will bear the brunt of public accountability for that decision. 

Not sure that's true. I've thought it was clever for the various county boards of supervisors to allow the public health officers to take the brunt of the heat of the SiP policy. You may think it's obvious that the top elected officials have the ultimate say, but it didn't come across that way when the 6 public health officers announced the policy and proclaimed they had the power to impose it.

The SC board of supervisors declared a state of emergency a month or so before the first orders were issued. With an emergency in place, the county health Oiler did not need approval from the supervisors to issue the order. So the supercpvisors did not really have “final say” at the time the orders were issued.

[chrisk]

it's obvious that she, not he, will bear the brunt of public accountability for that decision. 

Not sure that's true. I've thought it was clever for the various county boards of supervisors to allow the public health officers to take the brunt of the heat of the SiP policy. You may think it's obvious that the top elected officials have the ultimate say, but it didn't come across that way when the 6 public health officers announced the policy and proclaimed they had the power to impose it.

The SC board of supervisors declared a state of emergency a month or so before the first orders were issued. With an emergency in place, the county health Oiler did not need approval from the supervisors to issue the order. So the supercpvisors did not really have “final say” at the time the orders were issued.

[Goose]

it's obvious that she, not he, will bear the brunt of public accountability for that decision. 

Not sure that's true. I've thought it was clever for the various county boards of supervisors to allow the public health officers to take the brunt of the heat of the SiP policy. You may think it's obvious that the top elected officials have the ultimate say, but it didn't come across that way when the 6 public health officers announced the policy and proclaimed they had the power to impose it.

Are we really sure they don't in fact have that power? For sure the County Health Department has wide quarantine powers. They don't use them much, but they have them. SIP can be interpreted as a "special case" of that power.

[Goose]

it's obvious that she, not he, will bear the brunt of public accountability for that decision. 

Not sure that's true. I've thought it was clever for the various county boards of supervisors to allow the public health officers to take the brunt of the heat of the SiP policy. You may think it's obvious that the top elected officials have the ultimate say, but it didn't come across that way when the 6 public health officers announced the policy and proclaimed they had the power to impose it.

Are we really sure they don't in fact have that power? For sure the County Health Department has wide quarantine powers. They don't use them much, but they have them. SIP can be interpreted as a "special case" of that power.

[M T]

it's obvious that she, not he, will bear the brunt of public accountability for that decision. 

Not sure that's true. I've thought it was clever for the various county boards of supervisors to allow the public health officers to take the brunt of the heat of the SiP policy. You may think it's obvious that the top elected officials have the ultimate say, but it didn't come across that way when the 6 public health officers announced the policy and proclaimed they had the power to impose it.

Are we really sure they don't in fact have that power? For sure the County Health Department has wide quarantine powers. They don't use them much, but they have them. SIP can be interpreted as a "special case" of that power.

In California, state law gives the Health Officers such powers. From the SCC initial SiP order:
"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 ..." (I added the links)

In a SCC telephone town hall meeting last Sunday, County Supervisor Joe Simitian brings this up at about 31:50, pointing out that the power rests with the (unelected) Health Officer, rather than the elected county officials.

[M T]

it's obvious that she, not he, will bear the brunt of public accountability for that decision. 

Not sure that's true. I've thought it was clever for the various county boards of supervisors to allow the public health officers to take the brunt of the heat of the SiP policy. You may think it's obvious that the top elected officials have the ultimate say, but it didn't come across that way when the 6 public health officers announced the policy and proclaimed they had the power to impose it.

Are we really sure they don't in fact have that power? For sure the County Health Department has wide quarantine powers. They don't use them much, but they have them. SIP can be interpreted as a "special case" of that power.

In California, state law gives the Health Officers such powers. From the SCC initial SiP order:
"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 ..." (I added the links)

In a SCC telephone town hall meeting last Sunday, County Supervisor Joe Simitian brings this up at about 31:50, pointing out that the power rests with the (unelected) Health Officer, rather than the elected county officials.

[akiddoc]

"This article takes the view that Breed scrambled to get in front of a train being operated by the county health officers."

I think that was her job. Coach the citizens of SF through the crisis. I really didn't think too much of her previously, but she has stood up and acted like a leader throughout this mess.

---

I disagree.  No one is expecting him to singlehandly carry out a global response, but New Yorkers are expecting him to manage the crisis competently in New York.  If London Breed, a mayor, was able to sound the alarm early and take steps to protect San Franciscans, and both Gavin Newsome and Mike DeWine have taken aggressive measures early in California and Ohio, respectively, then Cuomo could have done more to be more proactive in New York.

BC

A dissenting view on London Breed: ‘The Atlantic’ article about San Francisco is a fable. Here’s what’s really happening.
This article takes the view that Breed scrambled to get in front of a train being operated by the county health officers.

One proposal under consideration is that Mayor Breed may establish a temporary homeless shelter in the temporary transbay terminal in the Eastern Cut, about a block from my son's apartment.  Same city with the terrible, multiple homeless infections at these shelters:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/co...elter.html

So are you criticizing Breed because there are homeless people or criticizing her for trying to find somewhere to house them?

A large proportion of the homeless in San Francisco and Oakland are actually not from those cities. They are moving in because there are more services for the homeless than elsewhere, the weather is temperate, and there is an extensive network of advocates who have political clout in the Bay Area. Over 1/3 have psychiatric diagnoses and over 1/3 are addicts. It is an intractable problem without any real solution. The more a city does for their homeless the more homeless they attract.

[akiddoc]

"This article takes the view that Breed scrambled to get in front of a train being operated by the county health officers."

I think that was her job. Coach the citizens of SF through the crisis. I really didn't think too much of her previously, but she has stood up and acted like a leader throughout this mess.

---

I disagree.  No one is expecting him to singlehandly carry out a global response, but New Yorkers are expecting him to manage the crisis competently in New York.  If London Breed, a mayor, was able to sound the alarm early and take steps to protect San Franciscans, and both Gavin Newsome and Mike DeWine have taken aggressive measures early in California and Ohio, respectively, then Cuomo could have done more to be more proactive in New York.

BC

A dissenting view on London Breed: ‘The Atlantic’ article about San Francisco is a fable. Here’s what’s really happening.
This article takes the view that Breed scrambled to get in front of a train being operated by the county health officers.

One proposal under consideration is that Mayor Breed may establish a temporary homeless shelter in the temporary transbay terminal in the Eastern Cut, about a block from my son's apartment.  Same city with the terrible, multiple homeless infections at these shelters:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/co...elter.html

So are you criticizing Breed because there are homeless people or criticizing her for trying to find somewhere to house them?

A large proportion of the homeless in San Francisco and Oakland are actually not from those cities. They are moving in because there are more services for the homeless than elsewhere, the weather is temperate, and there is an extensive network of advocates who have political clout in the Bay Area. Over 1/3 have psychiatric diagnoses and over 1/3 are addicts. It is an intractable problem without any real solution. The more a city does for their homeless the more homeless they attract.

[Mick]

So are you criticizing Breed because there are homeless people or criticizing her for trying to find somewhere to house them?

I'm obviously not criticizing Breed because there are homeless people.  Not sure why you would say or suggest that, it doesn't make any sense.

Nor am I criticizing Breed for trying to find somewhere to house homeless people.  I don't understand why you would write that either.  No one, ever, criticizes a politician for trying to find homes for homeless.  Not sure why the hostility behind your "have you stopped beating your wife"-style of question, but there you go.

Here's a concept: why don't we try door #3, the option you failed to list, which was implicit in my post: let's find housing that doesn't become a national tragedy, housing that doesn't promote infection among homeless and staff?  Breed's track record is terrible:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/homeless/article242200051.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/coronavirus-san-francisco-homeless-shelter.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/15/san-francisco-homeless-coronavirus-msc-shelter

https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-homeless-shelter-outbreak-coronavirus-2020-4
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/a...ss-shelter
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/0...s-shelter/

At one point, the homeless were urged to remain outside, because they couldn't be kept infection-free indoors.

[Mick]

So are you criticizing Breed because there are homeless people or criticizing her for trying to find somewhere to house them?

I'm obviously not criticizing Breed because there are homeless people.  Not sure why you would say or suggest that, it doesn't make any sense.

Nor am I criticizing Breed for trying to find somewhere to house homeless people.  I don't understand why you would write that either.  No one, ever, criticizes a politician for trying to find homes for homeless.  Not sure why the hostility behind your "have you stopped beating your wife"-style of question, but there you go.

Here's a concept: why don't we try door #3, the option you failed to list, which was implicit in my post: let's find housing that doesn't become a national tragedy, housing that doesn't promote infection among homeless and staff?  Breed's track record is terrible:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/homeless/article242200051.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/coronavirus-san-francisco-homeless-shelter.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/15/san-francisco-homeless-coronavirus-msc-shelter

https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-homeless-shelter-outbreak-coronavirus-2020-4
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/a...ss-shelter
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/0...s-shelter/

At one point, the homeless were urged to remain outside, because they couldn't be kept infection-free indoors.

[82 Card]

"This article takes the view that Breed scrambled to get in front of a train being operated by the county health officers."



I think that was her job. Coach the citizens of SF through the crisis. I really didn't think too much of her previously, but she has stood up and acted like a leader throughout this mess.

Preempting the press conference scheduled by the health officers was grand standing. She ran the risk of undercutting the effectiveness of the orders. Most of the Bay area is not San Francisco. By making the orders about San Francisco politics, she may have undercut the credibility of the orders outside of the city. Out in the burbs, San Francisco politics is like watching bickering macaques at the zoo, amusing at first but eventually just noise. The health officials were trying to keep the orders from being seen as political. Breed could have waited a few hours but just couldn't stand being out of the limelight that long.

[82 Card]

"This article takes the view that Breed scrambled to get in front of a train being operated by the county health officers."



I think that was her job. Coach the citizens of SF through the crisis. I really didn't think too much of her previously, but she has stood up and acted like a leader throughout this mess.

Preempting the press conference scheduled by the health officers was grand standing. She ran the risk of undercutting the effectiveness of the orders. Most of the Bay area is not San Francisco. By making the orders about San Francisco politics, she may have undercut the credibility of the orders outside of the city. Out in the burbs, San Francisco politics is like watching bickering macaques at the zoo, amusing at first but eventually just noise. The health officials were trying to keep the orders from being seen as political. Breed could have waited a few hours but just couldn't stand being out of the limelight that long.

[2006alum]

"This article takes the view that Breed scrambled to get in front of a train being operated by the county health officers."

I think that was her job. Coach the citizens of SF through the crisis. I really didn't think too much of her previously, but she has stood up and acted like a leader throughout this mess.

Preempting the press conference scheduled by the health officers was grand standing. She ran the risk of undercutting the effectiveness of the orders. Most of the Bay area is not San Francisco. By making the orders about San Francisco politics, she may have undercut the credibility of the orders outside of the city. Out in the burbs, San Francisco politics is like watching bickering macaques at the zoo, amusing at first but eventually just noise. The health officials were trying to keep the orders from being seen as political. Breed could have waited a few hours but just couldn't stand being out of the limelight that long.

With respect, your argument feels like pearl-clutching. When Breed made her press announcement, Dr. Colfax, the Director of Public Health for the City and County of San Francisco, was there with her. He serves at her pleasure, and is the highest ranking health official for the City and County of SF. Note that the first question the media was asked was about enforcement, so she brought the police chief too, to answer questions about that. Other city leaders were there as well, as you can see from the photo in the linked article. 

Note also that the specifics of enforcement had to be decided on by San Francisco, not by the county, since SF has its own unique parks, infrastructure, etc., all of which needed to be communicated by the City and County of SF. Note this news release which goes into these questions in great detail, and also provides links and phone number for SF residents to contact relevant city offices.

I'll admit since I'm in SF right now I'm more SF-focused, but to me, what would undercut effectiveness would be if the announcement came from unelected bureaucrats (mostly outside of SF) telling me what I'm supposed to do in San Francisco. I 100% think that should have come from the highest elected office in the City, and I think she made the right call doing so with her director of public health and chief of police by her side. Maybe you feel it undercut the authority of public health officers in other counties, but I personally don't see that as her problem. She received a lot of national media criticism for announcing the emergency prior to there being any diagnosed cases, and so I absolutely think it's appropriate that she took ownership over what was then a very big deal even at the national level. Like it or not, but Dr. Sara Cody is not a highly recognizable name, her office carries no authority over San Francisco, and I don't even know if she's electorally accountable by anyone, let alone anyone in SF.

So to me, Breed did the right thing, and I've been very thankful to be under her leadership rather than that of my previous home, NYC, and de Blasio...

[2006alum]

"This article takes the view that Breed scrambled to get in front of a train being operated by the county health officers."

I think that was her job. Coach the citizens of SF through the crisis. I really didn't think too much of her previously, but she has stood up and acted like a leader throughout this mess.

Preempting the press conference scheduled by the health officers was grand standing. She ran the risk of undercutting the effectiveness of the orders. Most of the Bay area is not San Francisco. By making the orders about San Francisco politics, she may have undercut the credibility of the orders outside of the city. Out in the burbs, San Francisco politics is like watching bickering macaques at the zoo, amusing at first but eventually just noise. The health officials were trying to keep the orders from being seen as political. Breed could have waited a few hours but just couldn't stand being out of the limelight that long.

With respect, your argument feels like pearl-clutching. When Breed made her press announcement, Dr. Colfax, the Director of Public Health for the City and County of San Francisco, was there with her. He serves at her pleasure, and is the highest ranking health official for the City and County of SF. Note that the first question the media was asked was about enforcement, so she brought the police chief too, to answer questions about that. Other city leaders were there as well, as you can see from the photo in the linked article. 

Note also that the specifics of enforcement had to be decided on by San Francisco, not by the county, since SF has its own unique parks, infrastructure, etc., all of which needed to be communicated by the City and County of SF. Note this news release which goes into these questions in great detail, and also provides links and phone number for SF residents to contact relevant city offices.

I'll admit since I'm in SF right now I'm more SF-focused, but to me, what would undercut effectiveness would be if the announcement came from unelected bureaucrats (mostly outside of SF) telling me what I'm supposed to do in San Francisco. I 100% think that should have come from the highest elected office in the City, and I think she made the right call doing so with her director of public health and chief of police by her side. Maybe you feel it undercut the authority of public health officers in other counties, but I personally don't see that as her problem. She received a lot of national media criticism for announcing the emergency prior to there being any diagnosed cases, and so I absolutely think it's appropriate that she took ownership over what was then a very big deal even at the national level. Like it or not, but Dr. Sara Cody is not a highly recognizable name, her office carries no authority over San Francisco, and I don't even know if she's electorally accountable by anyone, let alone anyone in SF.

So to me, Breed did the right thing, and I've been very thankful to be under her leadership rather than that of my previous home, NYC, and de Blasio...

[M T]

I'll admit since I'm in SF right now I'm more SF-focused, but to me, what would undercut effectiveness would be if the announcement came from unelected bureaucrats (mostly outside of SF) telling me what I'm supposed to do in San Francisco. I 100% think that should have come from the highest elected office in the City, and I think she made the right call doing so with her director of public health and chief of police by her side. Maybe you feel it undercut the authority of public health officers in other counties, but I personally don't see that as her problem. She received a lot of national media criticism for announcing the emergency prior to there being any diagnosed cases, and so I absolutely think it's appropriate that she took ownership over what was then a very big deal even at the national level. Like it or not, but Dr. Sara Cody is not a highly recognizable name, her office carries no authority over San Francisco, and I don't even know if she's electorally accountable by anyone, let alone anyone in SF.

It does seem political for the 4th largest county of the 6 counties involved to try to claim leadership by press conference.  The SF Mayor has no authority over 87% of the population affected by the collective orders.

The SF Mayor declared a local emergency on Feb. 25, pursuant to the city's charter.  It wasn't until March 6 that the Health Officer of SF County (Dr. Aragón) declared a local health emergency, pursuant to state law.

The authority to declare a health emergency due to a contagious disease is delegated to the director of public health or local health officer, not the mayor, city council, or county board of supervisors.  The mayor doesn't even have the authority to ratify such a declaration, per the state laws.   I believe the state laws authorizing quarantines and such are also delegated by the state to the same non-elected officials.

"bureaucrat", really?

[M T]

I'll admit since I'm in SF right now I'm more SF-focused, but to me, what would undercut effectiveness would be if the announcement came from unelected bureaucrats (mostly outside of SF) telling me what I'm supposed to do in San Francisco. I 100% think that should have come from the highest elected office in the City, and I think she made the right call doing so with her director of public health and chief of police by her side. Maybe you feel it undercut the authority of public health officers in other counties, but I personally don't see that as her problem. She received a lot of national media criticism for announcing the emergency prior to there being any diagnosed cases, and so I absolutely think it's appropriate that she took ownership over what was then a very big deal even at the national level. Like it or not, but Dr. Sara Cody is not a highly recognizable name, her office carries no authority over San Francisco, and I don't even know if she's electorally accountable by anyone, let alone anyone in SF.

It does seem political for the 4th largest county of the 6 counties involved to try to claim leadership by press conference.  The SF Mayor has no authority over 87% of the population affected by the collective orders.

The SF Mayor declared a local emergency on Feb. 25, pursuant to the city's charter.  It wasn't until March 6 that the Health Officer of SF County (Dr. Aragón) declared a local health emergency, pursuant to state law.

The authority to declare a health emergency due to a contagious disease is delegated to the director of public health or local health officer, not the mayor, city council, or county board of supervisors.  The mayor doesn't even have the authority to ratify such a declaration, per the state laws.   I believe the state laws authorizing quarantines and such are also delegated by the state to the same non-elected officials.

"bureaucrat", really?

[oldalum]

"bureaucrat", really?

+1  
 Dictionary.com defines bureaucrat as:

1. an official of a bureaucracy
2. an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.

Either way, I take issue with the current negative paper-shuffler connotation of the word. I would prefer to refer to the county public health officers as public health professionals. I think, for example, Dr. Cody fits that description after 4 years of medical school, 3 years of a medicine residency, 2 years of a public health fellowship with the CDC, and decades of public service in a Dept. of Public Health.

More to the OP's point, IIRC the original announcement was made by each of the public health officers in a joint press conference, including SF's. No reason why Breed's press conference couldn't have followed that one.

[oldalum]

"bureaucrat", really?

+1  
 Dictionary.com defines bureaucrat as:

1. an official of a bureaucracy
2. an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.

Either way, I take issue with the current negative paper-shuffler connotation of the word. I would prefer to refer to the county public health officers as public health professionals. I think, for example, Dr. Cody fits that description after 4 years of medical school, 3 years of a medicine residency, 2 years of a public health fellowship with the CDC, and decades of public service in a Dept. of Public Health.

More to the OP's point, IIRC the original announcement was made by each of the public health officers in a joint press conference, including SF's. No reason why Breed's press conference couldn't have followed that one.

[pefloresjr]

Mission Local has historically been very critical of everything the progressive Mayor London Breed has done because in its view, she is not progressive enough.  I read the Mission Local piece on Mayor Breed a while ago and thought it was one of the most petty political articles I have ever read.  It pointed out how the template was drafted by Santa Clara County for all to use and had spots to fill in the appropriate jurisdiction.  I am certain all of the counties participated in developing the template and the items that it should include.  The article felt like the petty power battles we've seen in New York between Cuomo and De Blasio.  

The law gives the power to issue a shelter in place to the county health director, who serves at the pleasure of the Mayor in San Francisco.  No health director is issuing such an order without the full agreement of the Mayor.  The person who actually signs or issues the order is not pertinent to discussion.  As for the rollout of the orders to the entire Bay Area, that seems like a small power play by the Mayor but it does make sense for SF to have its own announcement with the Mayor, health director, chief of police, etc.  The fact that it was earlier in the day than the area wide press conference has no bearing on the strength or legitimacy of the orders.  Mayor Breed has probably gotten more credit than she deserves for the area wide decisions but who really cares other than those who are in stupid power battles over city politics.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Mission Local has historically been very critical of everything the progressive Mayor London Breed has done because in its view, she is not progressive enough.  I read the Mission Local piece on Mayor Breed a while ago and thought it was one of the most petty political articles I have ever read.  It pointed out how the template was drafted by Santa Clara County for all to use and had spots to fill in the appropriate jurisdiction.  I am certain all of the counties participated in developing the template and the items that it should include.  The article felt like the petty power battles we've seen in New York between Cuomo and De Blasio.  

The law gives the power to issue a shelter in place to the county health director, who serves at the pleasure of the Mayor in San Francisco.  No health director is issuing such an order without the full agreement of the Mayor.  The person who actually signs or issues the order is not pertinent to discussion.  As for the rollout of the orders to the entire Bay Area, that seems like a small power play by the Mayor but it does make sense for SF to have its own announcement with the Mayor, health director, chief of police, etc.  The fact that it was earlier in the day than the area wide press conference has no bearing on the strength or legitimacy of the orders.  Mayor Breed has probably gotten more credit than she deserves for the area wide decisions but who really cares other than those who are in stupid power battles over city politics.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[Goose]

No health director is issuing such an order without the full agreement of the Mayor.  The person who actually signs or issues the order is not pertinent to discussion.

While I certainly agree that "normally" the health director and the Mayor will be in agreement on such an order, I believe it is CRITICALLY important people understand why the law is written the way it is. In the past there have been instances when some Mayors have violently disagreed with the health officers about quarantine orders. The structure of the law allows the health officer to override the Mayor's objections if necessary. The Mayor would have to fire the health officer and then appoint a new health officer that would be willing to remove the quarantine. Politically, very hard to do. If the health officer has no independent authority, the only thing they could do would be resign in protest. Nobody would even know who they were and nobody would care, until it was too late. Conversely the law as written can provide political cover to a Mayor, who can simply say "I didn't do it. The health department did".

[Goose]

No health director is issuing such an order without the full agreement of the Mayor.  The person who actually signs or issues the order is not pertinent to discussion.

While I certainly agree that "normally" the health director and the Mayor will be in agreement on such an order, I believe it is CRITICALLY important people understand why the law is written the way it is. In the past there have been instances when some Mayors have violently disagreed with the health officers about quarantine orders. The structure of the law allows the health officer to override the Mayor's objections if necessary. The Mayor would have to fire the health officer and then appoint a new health officer that would be willing to remove the quarantine. Politically, very hard to do. If the health officer has no independent authority, the only thing they could do would be resign in protest. Nobody would even know who they were and nobody would care, until it was too late. Conversely the law as written can provide political cover to a Mayor, who can simply say "I didn't do it. The health department did".