[76lsjumb]

Have you seen what's happening in Florida and Arizona and South Carolina and Oklahoma and California and Oregon (I could go on)?  Exactly how many deaths are you comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

If you think that's a fair question, you ought to be willing to answer it yourself.  So, exactly how many deaths are YOU comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

[76lsjumb]

Have you seen what's happening in Florida and Arizona and South Carolina and Oklahoma and California and Oregon (I could go on)?  Exactly how many deaths are you comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

If you think that's a fair question, you ought to be willing to answer it yourself.  So, exactly how many deaths are YOU comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

[BostonCard]

You can't enforce it with criminal sanction. But you can set up a regulatory and social environment in which the wearing of masks becomes customary. 

I also note that hand sanitizer is becoming ubiquitous. You see hand sanitizers in a jug outside of grocery stores, sanitary wipes, etc. My own thought is creating that regulatory environment, while opening up completely, is the way to go.

Have you seen what's happening in Florida and Arizona and South Carolina and Oklahoma and California and Oregon (I could go on)?  Exactly how many deaths are you comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

I'm not sure your response answers GR's point.  Are you really going to have police going around issuing citations (I assume that's what it is) to people not wearing masks?  And what happens when citations are used against the most marginalized populations?

I kind of agree with GR.  Some things you enforce via cultural norms.

BC

[BostonCard]

You can't enforce it with criminal sanction. But you can set up a regulatory and social environment in which the wearing of masks becomes customary. 

I also note that hand sanitizer is becoming ubiquitous. You see hand sanitizers in a jug outside of grocery stores, sanitary wipes, etc. My own thought is creating that regulatory environment, while opening up completely, is the way to go.

Have you seen what's happening in Florida and Arizona and South Carolina and Oklahoma and California and Oregon (I could go on)?  Exactly how many deaths are you comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

I'm not sure your response answers GR's point.  Are you really going to have police going around issuing citations (I assume that's what it is) to people not wearing masks?  And what happens when citations are used against the most marginalized populations?

I kind of agree with GR.  Some things you enforce via cultural norms.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

As someone who has worn a face covering since March because it was such a logical no-brainer, and who paid attention to the citizen-driven mask wearing initiative in the Czech Republic to conclude it was the best way to stop virus spread, when suspecting this was case based on Asian country success, I just SMH.

At first, I wore covering every time I was outside the  house. It was cold, so it was even welcome. Then, a few weeks ago after reading how few spread events have occurred outside in passing and given everyone keeps distance walking down street, I only used covering inside places and if around people outside. 

At same time, CT’s case numbers have steadily fallen. Even my nurse friend’s LTCF has had 0 positive tests after they started testing every week a couple weeks ago. CT has had a mandatory mask when around others EO from Governor in place since April 20. On April 22, CT had 2,200 new cases. There has been a manageable amount of new cases with steady numbers decline - with increased testing - ever since masks were made compulsory. Not everyone complies, but vast majority has, clearly enough to knock down spread so businesses can open. Now only bars remain closed.

Wear a mask. That is all.

You can't enforce it with criminal sanction. But you can set up a regulatory and social environment in which the wearing of masks becomes customary. 

I also note that hand sanitizer is becoming ubiquitous. You see hand sanitizers in a jug outside of grocery stores, sanitary wipes, etc. My own thought is creating that regulatory environment, while opening up completely, is the way to go.

Have you seen what's happening in Florida and Arizona and South Carolina and Oklahoma and California and Oregon (I could go on)?  Exactly how many deaths are you comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

Your posts bring to mind the old Catholic doctrine of invincible ignorance. Although it is like impossible to dent the durable material of self-righteous elitism in which your tunnel vision is constructed, I'll try.

You lose human lives, and damage human lives, either way. There is no winning. Rising unemployment takes its toll in suicides, marital stress, domestic violence, increased criminality, and so on. Quarantines and lockdowns are not without cost. That's why Presidents in office age so quickly -  big decisions on non-calculable choices of lesser evils will do that. Only an arrogant fool would be confident as to which is the better choice. Oops - forgot my audience for just a second.

Let me introduce you to the second Horseman. That would be famine. When the global lockdown began in March, as extensive as it was, there was real concern about the effect on food distribution systems. The way in which food is prepared and distributed, why we in a prosperous nation have the large, varied choice of nutrition we do, at such low cost, is fascinating, and way beyond the ambit of this post. But what is the case is that much of the world lives close to the line of malnutrition, and even starvation. Close down our economy, and we also close down the food demand that enables our agricultural sector to produce the surpluses it does. We in the US will do OK - people around the world not so well. 

I'm going to post a CNN link from late April, in which the UN warmed that the number of people facing 'crisis levels of hunger' might double from 135 million to 270 million. At about the same time, food riots broke out in Lebanon

Correct my math if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked 135 million is a larger number than 100,000. There are more zeros to the right.

Of course, that increase was not entirely attributable the lockdown in the US, or even largely. There are other factors. But reducing economic vigor definitely limits the export market, and the ability to render humanitarian aid. Even making conservative adjustments, the degree of human suffering is several orders of magnitude greater than the impact of measured reopening. 

Fortunately, it has apparently not come to that. I am not reading the same reports these days. But there is quite a lot at stake here, countervalues to the need to contain  the virus, and other damage to human lives. We HAVE to try to balance these off. Complete reopening with strong regulatory measures for social distancing seems to me the best bet. Waiting for the curve to flatten or for a magic elixir seems to me a fool's errand. The curve isn't going to flatten more than it has, and the vaccine may be a long way off.

You can now return to your usual mode of incoherent sputtering.

[Genuine Realist]

As someone who has worn a face covering since March because it was such a logical no-brainer, and who paid attention to the citizen-driven mask wearing initiative in the Czech Republic to conclude it was the best way to stop virus spread, when suspecting this was case based on Asian country success, I just SMH.

At first, I wore covering every time I was outside the  house. It was cold, so it was even welcome. Then, a few weeks ago after reading how few spread events have occurred outside in passing and given everyone keeps distance walking down street, I only used covering inside places and if around people outside. 

At same time, CT’s case numbers have steadily fallen. Even my nurse friend’s LTCF has had 0 positive tests after they started testing every week a couple weeks ago. CT has had a mandatory mask when around others EO from Governor in place since April 20. On April 22, CT had 2,200 new cases. There has been a manageable amount of new cases with steady numbers decline - with increased testing - ever since masks were made compulsory. Not everyone complies, but vast majority has, clearly enough to knock down spread so businesses can open. Now only bars remain closed.

Wear a mask. That is all.

You can't enforce it with criminal sanction. But you can set up a regulatory and social environment in which the wearing of masks becomes customary. 

I also note that hand sanitizer is becoming ubiquitous. You see hand sanitizers in a jug outside of grocery stores, sanitary wipes, etc. My own thought is creating that regulatory environment, while opening up completely, is the way to go.

Have you seen what's happening in Florida and Arizona and South Carolina and Oklahoma and California and Oregon (I could go on)?  Exactly how many deaths are you comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

Your posts bring to mind the old Catholic doctrine of invincible ignorance. Although it is like impossible to dent the durable material of self-righteous elitism in which your tunnel vision is constructed, I'll try.

You lose human lives, and damage human lives, either way. There is no winning. Rising unemployment takes its toll in suicides, marital stress, domestic violence, increased criminality, and so on. Quarantines and lockdowns are not without cost. That's why Presidents in office age so quickly -  big decisions on non-calculable choices of lesser evils will do that. Only an arrogant fool would be confident as to which is the better choice. Oops - forgot my audience for just a second.

Let me introduce you to the second Horseman. That would be famine. When the global lockdown began in March, as extensive as it was, there was real concern about the effect on food distribution systems. The way in which food is prepared and distributed, why we in a prosperous nation have the large, varied choice of nutrition we do, at such low cost, is fascinating, and way beyond the ambit of this post. But what is the case is that much of the world lives close to the line of malnutrition, and even starvation. Close down our economy, and we also close down the food demand that enables our agricultural sector to produce the surpluses it does. We in the US will do OK - people around the world not so well. 

I'm going to post a CNN link from late April, in which the UN warmed that the number of people facing 'crisis levels of hunger' might double from 135 million to 270 million. At about the same time, food riots broke out in Lebanon

Correct my math if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked 135 million is a larger number than 100,000. There are more zeros to the right.

Of course, that increase was not entirely attributable the lockdown in the US, or even largely. There are other factors. But reducing economic vigor definitely limits the export market, and the ability to render humanitarian aid. Even making conservative adjustments, the degree of human suffering is several orders of magnitude greater than the impact of measured reopening. 

Fortunately, it has apparently not come to that. I am not reading the same reports these days. But there is quite a lot at stake here, countervalues to the need to contain  the virus, and other damage to human lives. We HAVE to try to balance these off. Complete reopening with strong regulatory measures for social distancing seems to me the best bet. Waiting for the curve to flatten or for a magic elixir seems to me a fool's errand. The curve isn't going to flatten more than it has, and the vaccine may be a long way off.

You can now return to your usual mode of incoherent sputtering.

[burger]

You can't enforce it with criminal sanction. But you can set up a regulatory and social environment in which the wearing of masks becomes customary. 

I also note that hand sanitizer is becoming ubiquitous. You see hand sanitizers in a jug outside of grocery stores, sanitary wipes, etc. My own thought is creating that regulatory environment, while opening up completely, is the way to go.

Have you seen what's happening in Florida and Arizona and South Carolina and Oklahoma and California and Oregon (I could go on)?  Exactly how many deaths are you comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

I'm not sure your response answers GR's point.  Are you really going to have police going around issuing citations (I assume that's what it is) to people not wearing masks?  And what happens when citations are used against the most marginalized populations?

I kind of agree with GR.  Some things you enforce via cultural norms.

BC

GR called for a full reopening of the economy.  That's what I was responding to.

---

GR, can we drop the insults?  I have tried to argue directly against what you say and not call names.  You, like Trump, can't seem to post anything without insulting people here.  It's ironic that you accuse me of self-righteousness while simultaneously insulting me.



We discussed effects of recessions on mortality rates earlier here extensively.  Mortality rates go down during recessions, even after you account for suicides.  Here is just one example: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abs...17/1840483  So, the argument that we should save lives by reopening is specious.  Also, how do you keep people from killing themselves because of economic problem?  Extend the expanded unemployment benefits--Trump and the republicans are blocking this.

Another issues with your argument about saving lives by reopening is that even if we reopen everything, we will still be looking at a depression. a There was a study just this week that showed this (can't find it now).  The point was that enough people will stay home regardless of official orders to keep things depressed until we get a vaccine. 

So what happens if we follow your wish and reopen everything?  Dumb people will start hanging out together and spreading the virus.  We're seeing that right now in a bunch of states.  They will pass it on to their roommates and families and coworkers and so on, and we will end up with New York City's recent outcome in 100 cities or more.  It's going to be a disaster.  I don't see how anyone who saw what happened in New York City's hospitals can say that they are okay with outcome in the rest of the country.  Being jobless is a far better fate than dying alone in an ICU, isolated from your friends and family, on a ventilator.

Your argument about famine is also specious.  Contrary to what you said, American food exports nearly all go to developed countries (https://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2...countries/).  Even if we were feeding all the third world countries (we're not), as an American, I can't control what those countries do.  The best thing you or I can do to prevent famine elsewhere would still be to stay home, don't spread the virus, and hope that cases diminish here to the point where meatpacking plant workers and tomato pickers can safely do their jobs and we can export food to everyone.

Your fatalism about the virus is belied by the fact that we were getting it under control before the reopening started.  You act as if the virus cannot be controlled.  Examples in dozens of countries show this to be false.   And the US can get things under control by repeating what we did in March.  Really, this is going to happen whether you like it or not because when the hospitals fill up in Florida and Arizona and Alabama those states will be forced to reimplement the lockdowns.  There is no way around it, and when the images of overflowing hospitals hit the news, even idiots like DeSantis and Ducey will be forced to act.

I apologize if I was sputtering too much.  But I was wearing a mask, which should reduce the spread of any aerosols.

[burger]

You can't enforce it with criminal sanction. But you can set up a regulatory and social environment in which the wearing of masks becomes customary. 

I also note that hand sanitizer is becoming ubiquitous. You see hand sanitizers in a jug outside of grocery stores, sanitary wipes, etc. My own thought is creating that regulatory environment, while opening up completely, is the way to go.

Have you seen what's happening in Florida and Arizona and South Carolina and Oklahoma and California and Oregon (I could go on)?  Exactly how many deaths are you comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

I'm not sure your response answers GR's point.  Are you really going to have police going around issuing citations (I assume that's what it is) to people not wearing masks?  And what happens when citations are used against the most marginalized populations?

I kind of agree with GR.  Some things you enforce via cultural norms.

BC

GR called for a full reopening of the economy.  That's what I was responding to.

---

GR, can we drop the insults?  I have tried to argue directly against what you say and not call names.  You, like Trump, can't seem to post anything without insulting people here.  It's ironic that you accuse me of self-righteousness while simultaneously insulting me.



We discussed effects of recessions on mortality rates earlier here extensively.  Mortality rates go down during recessions, even after you account for suicides.  Here is just one example: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abs...17/1840483  So, the argument that we should save lives by reopening is specious.  Also, how do you keep people from killing themselves because of economic problem?  Extend the expanded unemployment benefits--Trump and the republicans are blocking this.

Another issues with your argument about saving lives by reopening is that even if we reopen everything, we will still be looking at a depression. a There was a study just this week that showed this (can't find it now).  The point was that enough people will stay home regardless of official orders to keep things depressed until we get a vaccine. 

So what happens if we follow your wish and reopen everything?  Dumb people will start hanging out together and spreading the virus.  We're seeing that right now in a bunch of states.  They will pass it on to their roommates and families and coworkers and so on, and we will end up with New York City's recent outcome in 100 cities or more.  It's going to be a disaster.  I don't see how anyone who saw what happened in New York City's hospitals can say that they are okay with outcome in the rest of the country.  Being jobless is a far better fate than dying alone in an ICU, isolated from your friends and family, on a ventilator.

Your argument about famine is also specious.  Contrary to what you said, American food exports nearly all go to developed countries (https://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2...countries/).  Even if we were feeding all the third world countries (we're not), as an American, I can't control what those countries do.  The best thing you or I can do to prevent famine elsewhere would still be to stay home, don't spread the virus, and hope that cases diminish here to the point where meatpacking plant workers and tomato pickers can safely do their jobs and we can export food to everyone.

Your fatalism about the virus is belied by the fact that we were getting it under control before the reopening started.  You act as if the virus cannot be controlled.  Examples in dozens of countries show this to be false.   And the US can get things under control by repeating what we did in March.  Really, this is going to happen whether you like it or not because when the hospitals fill up in Florida and Arizona and Alabama those states will be forced to reimplement the lockdowns.  There is no way around it, and when the images of overflowing hospitals hit the news, even idiots like DeSantis and Ducey will be forced to act.

I apologize if I was sputtering too much.  But I was wearing a mask, which should reduce the spread of any aerosols.

[DenverCard]

Since I don't have much useful to add regarding the primary topics of the virus and the economy, I thought I would take a moment to echo calls for civility and grace amidst the passion that the discussions elicit, which I realize includes frustration when opinions are diametrically opposed.  This board has been a fantastic source of information about the pandemic, and I turn to it first before perusing other sites or taking a deeper dive.  (Thanks to Outsider Fan for initiating the discussions, and to the moderators for nurturing it and keeping it organized.)  The knowledge displayed has been impressive, and it is made all the more useful by the breadth of perspectives.  But the joy of reading is greatly marred by personal attacks, sarcasm, or other unnecessary distractions.  So please -- play nice.  Hopefully we will soon be again of one voice in cheering on the Card.

[DenverCard]

Since I don't have much useful to add regarding the primary topics of the virus and the economy, I thought I would take a moment to echo calls for civility and grace amidst the passion that the discussions elicit, which I realize includes frustration when opinions are diametrically opposed.  This board has been a fantastic source of information about the pandemic, and I turn to it first before perusing other sites or taking a deeper dive.  (Thanks to Outsider Fan for initiating the discussions, and to the moderators for nurturing it and keeping it organized.)  The knowledge displayed has been impressive, and it is made all the more useful by the breadth of perspectives.  But the joy of reading is greatly marred by personal attacks, sarcasm, or other unnecessary distractions.  So please -- play nice.  Hopefully we will soon be again of one voice in cheering on the Card.

[Genuine Realist]

You can't enforce it with criminal sanction. But you can set up a regulatory and social environment in which the wearing of masks becomes customary. 

I also note that hand sanitizer is becoming ubiquitous. You see hand sanitizers in a jug outside of grocery stores, sanitary wipes, etc. My own thought is creating that regulatory environment, while opening up completely, is the way to go.

Have you seen what's happening in Florida and Arizona and South Carolina and Oklahoma and California and Oregon (I could go on)?  Exactly how many deaths are you comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

I'm not sure your response answers GR's point.  Are you really going to have police going around issuing citations (I assume that's what it is) to people not wearing masks?  And what happens when citations are used against the most marginalized populations?

I kind of agree with GR.  Some things you enforce via cultural norms.

BC

Enforcement efforts on individuals have led to fiascoes.

You are far better off to subject commercial enterprises f a certain size to administrative regulation, and leave it to them  

You're never going to get 100% compliance. But you will be able to police the larger areas and gatherings.  Also, the example becomes educational.

---

You can't enforce it with criminal sanction. But you can set up a regulatory and social environment in which the wearing of masks becomes customary. 

I also note that hand sanitizer is becoming ubiquitous. You see hand sanitizers in a jug outside of grocery stores, sanitary wipes, etc. My own thought is creating that regulatory environment, while opening up completely, is the way to go.

Have you seen what's happening in Florida and Arizona and South Carolina and Oklahoma and California and Oregon (I could go on)?  Exactly how many deaths are you comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

I'm not sure your response answers GR's point.  Are you really going to have police going around issuing citations (I assume that's what it is) to people not wearing masks?  And what happens when citations are used against the most marginalized populations?

I kind of agree with GR.  Some things you enforce via cultural norms.

BC

GR called for a full reopening of the economy.  That's what I was responding to.

---

GR, can we drop the insults?  I have tried to argue directly against what you say and not call names.  You, like Trump, can't seem to post anything without insulting people here.  It's ironic that you accuse me of self-righteousness while simultaneously insulting me.



We discussed effects of recessions on mortality rates earlier here extensively.  Mortality rates go down during recessions, even after you account for suicides.  Here is just one example: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abs...17/1840483  So, the argument that we should save lives by reopening is specious.  Also, how do you keep people from killing themselves because of economic problem?  Extend the expanded unemployment benefits--Trump and the republicans are blocking this.

Another issues with your argument about saving lives by reopening is that even if we reopen everything, we will still be looking at a depression. a There was a study just this week that showed this (can't find it now).  The point was that enough people will stay home regardless of official orders to keep things depressed until we get a vaccine. 

So what happens if we follow your wish and reopen everything?  Dumb people will start hanging out together and spreading the virus.  We're seeing that right now in a bunch of states.  They will pass it on to their roommates and families and coworkers and so on, and we will end up with New York City's recent outcome in 100 cities or more.  It's going to be a disaster.  I don't see how anyone who saw what happened in New York City's hospitals can say that they are okay with outcome in the rest of the country.  Being jobless is a far better fate than dying alone in an ICU, isolated from your friends and family, on a ventilator.

Your argument about famine is also specious.  Contrary to what you said, American food exports nearly all go to developed countries (https://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2...countries/).  Even if we were feeding all the third world countries (we're not), as an American, I can't control what those countries do.  The best thing you or I can do to prevent famine elsewhere would still be to stay home, don't spread the virus, and hope that cases diminish here to the point where meatpacking plant workers and tomato pickers can safely do their jobs and we can export food to everyone.

Your fatalism about the virus is belied by the fact that we were getting it under control before the reopening started.  You act as if the virus cannot be controlled.  Examples in dozens of countries show this to be false.   And the US can get things under control by repeating what we did in March.  Really, this is going to happen whether you like it or not because when the hospitals fill up in Florida and Arizona and Alabama those states will be forced to reimplement the lockdowns.  There is no way around it, and when the images of overflowing hospitals hit the news, even idiots like DeSantis and Ducey will be forced to act.

I apologize if I was sputtering too much.  But I was wearing a mask, which should reduce the spread of any aerosols.

Oh, please. You don't see insult implicit in your first rhetorical question?

Anyway, your apology is accepted.

[Genuine Realist]

You can't enforce it with criminal sanction. But you can set up a regulatory and social environment in which the wearing of masks becomes customary. 

I also note that hand sanitizer is becoming ubiquitous. You see hand sanitizers in a jug outside of grocery stores, sanitary wipes, etc. My own thought is creating that regulatory environment, while opening up completely, is the way to go.

Have you seen what's happening in Florida and Arizona and South Carolina and Oklahoma and California and Oregon (I could go on)?  Exactly how many deaths are you comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

I'm not sure your response answers GR's point.  Are you really going to have police going around issuing citations (I assume that's what it is) to people not wearing masks?  And what happens when citations are used against the most marginalized populations?

I kind of agree with GR.  Some things you enforce via cultural norms.

BC

Enforcement efforts on individuals have led to fiascoes.

You are far better off to subject commercial enterprises f a certain size to administrative regulation, and leave it to them  

You're never going to get 100% compliance. But you will be able to police the larger areas and gatherings.  Also, the example becomes educational.

---

You can't enforce it with criminal sanction. But you can set up a regulatory and social environment in which the wearing of masks becomes customary. 

I also note that hand sanitizer is becoming ubiquitous. You see hand sanitizers in a jug outside of grocery stores, sanitary wipes, etc. My own thought is creating that regulatory environment, while opening up completely, is the way to go.

Have you seen what's happening in Florida and Arizona and South Carolina and Oklahoma and California and Oregon (I could go on)?  Exactly how many deaths are you comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?

I'm not sure your response answers GR's point.  Are you really going to have police going around issuing citations (I assume that's what it is) to people not wearing masks?  And what happens when citations are used against the most marginalized populations?

I kind of agree with GR.  Some things you enforce via cultural norms.

BC

GR called for a full reopening of the economy.  That's what I was responding to.

---

GR, can we drop the insults?  I have tried to argue directly against what you say and not call names.  You, like Trump, can't seem to post anything without insulting people here.  It's ironic that you accuse me of self-righteousness while simultaneously insulting me.



We discussed effects of recessions on mortality rates earlier here extensively.  Mortality rates go down during recessions, even after you account for suicides.  Here is just one example: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abs...17/1840483  So, the argument that we should save lives by reopening is specious.  Also, how do you keep people from killing themselves because of economic problem?  Extend the expanded unemployment benefits--Trump and the republicans are blocking this.

Another issues with your argument about saving lives by reopening is that even if we reopen everything, we will still be looking at a depression. a There was a study just this week that showed this (can't find it now).  The point was that enough people will stay home regardless of official orders to keep things depressed until we get a vaccine. 

So what happens if we follow your wish and reopen everything?  Dumb people will start hanging out together and spreading the virus.  We're seeing that right now in a bunch of states.  They will pass it on to their roommates and families and coworkers and so on, and we will end up with New York City's recent outcome in 100 cities or more.  It's going to be a disaster.  I don't see how anyone who saw what happened in New York City's hospitals can say that they are okay with outcome in the rest of the country.  Being jobless is a far better fate than dying alone in an ICU, isolated from your friends and family, on a ventilator.

Your argument about famine is also specious.  Contrary to what you said, American food exports nearly all go to developed countries (https://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2...countries/).  Even if we were feeding all the third world countries (we're not), as an American, I can't control what those countries do.  The best thing you or I can do to prevent famine elsewhere would still be to stay home, don't spread the virus, and hope that cases diminish here to the point where meatpacking plant workers and tomato pickers can safely do their jobs and we can export food to everyone.

Your fatalism about the virus is belied by the fact that we were getting it under control before the reopening started.  You act as if the virus cannot be controlled.  Examples in dozens of countries show this to be false.   And the US can get things under control by repeating what we did in March.  Really, this is going to happen whether you like it or not because when the hospitals fill up in Florida and Arizona and Alabama those states will be forced to reimplement the lockdowns.  There is no way around it, and when the images of overflowing hospitals hit the news, even idiots like DeSantis and Ducey will be forced to act.

I apologize if I was sputtering too much.  But I was wearing a mask, which should reduce the spread of any aerosols.

Oh, please. You don't see insult implicit in your first rhetorical question?

Anyway, your apology is accepted.

[OutsiderFan]

We have laws requiring seat belt wearing in cars.  Masks are effectively the same thing.  If people aren't going to wear them voluntarily or at government request, there is no reason laws can't be passed that will result in sanction if not wearing one.

A $500 fine if not wearing a mask when inside any building or outside with a group of 5 or more people (or something like this), would be perfectly doable. Police or code enforcement can easily take pictures of offending parties to get the evidence needed to win any court challenge to tickets issued for not wearing a mask.

[OutsiderFan]

We have laws requiring seat belt wearing in cars.  Masks are effectively the same thing.  If people aren't going to wear them voluntarily or at government request, there is no reason laws can't be passed that will result in sanction if not wearing one.

A $500 fine if not wearing a mask when inside any building or outside with a group of 5 or more people (or something like this), would be perfectly doable. Police or code enforcement can easily take pictures of offending parties to get the evidence needed to win any court challenge to tickets issued for not wearing a mask.

[2006alum]

We have laws requiring seat belt wearing in cars.  Masks are effectively the same thing.  If people aren't going to wear them voluntarily or at government request, there is no reason laws can't be passed that will result in sanction if not wearing one.

A $500 fine if not wearing a mask when inside any building or outside with a group of 5 or more people (or something like this), would be perfectly doable. Police or code enforcement can easily take pictures of offending parties to get the evidence needed to win any court challenge to tickets issued for not wearing a mask.

Although I always wear a seatbelt, I can say from firsthand experience as a passenger in others' vehicles that the seatbelt law is beyond imperfectly enforced, and there are 20+ times the number of people walking around outside or in public accommodations for every person in a moving vehicle.

I'm with GR and BC that the better route here is regulatory enforcement through public accommodations. I imagine any shop owner who put up a sign that said "Wear a mask - or *I'll* be fined" would get a sympathetic audience even from those customers otherwise disinclined to wear masks. 

And speaking from personal experience, when I'm running out to my garage to grab something from my car, I'm not going to wear a mask, and if someone tried to stop and ticket me, I'd be really PO'd. Nevertheless, I'd never object to any business turning me away for failing to wear a mask.

[2006alum]

We have laws requiring seat belt wearing in cars.  Masks are effectively the same thing.  If people aren't going to wear them voluntarily or at government request, there is no reason laws can't be passed that will result in sanction if not wearing one.

A $500 fine if not wearing a mask when inside any building or outside with a group of 5 or more people (or something like this), would be perfectly doable. Police or code enforcement can easily take pictures of offending parties to get the evidence needed to win any court challenge to tickets issued for not wearing a mask.

Although I always wear a seatbelt, I can say from firsthand experience as a passenger in others' vehicles that the seatbelt law is beyond imperfectly enforced, and there are 20+ times the number of people walking around outside or in public accommodations for every person in a moving vehicle.

I'm with GR and BC that the better route here is regulatory enforcement through public accommodations. I imagine any shop owner who put up a sign that said "Wear a mask - or *I'll* be fined" would get a sympathetic audience even from those customers otherwise disinclined to wear masks. 

And speaking from personal experience, when I'm running out to my garage to grab something from my car, I'm not going to wear a mask, and if someone tried to stop and ticket me, I'd be really PO'd. Nevertheless, I'd never object to any business turning me away for failing to wear a mask.

[OutsiderFan]

2006, no suggested remedies are perfect for the mess we are in, short of completely isolation from others that nobody thinks is possible or pragmatic.

If you knew you could get ticketed in a crowd outside or if not wearing a mask inside, you would be more inclined to wear one.  It's basic economic incentive at work. We have to be willing to do a lot more than we have to reduce spread if we ever want to stop the damage the virus is doing to us.

[OutsiderFan]

2006, no suggested remedies are perfect for the mess we are in, short of completely isolation from others that nobody thinks is possible or pragmatic.

If you knew you could get ticketed in a crowd outside or if not wearing a mask inside, you would be more inclined to wear one.  It's basic economic incentive at work. We have to be willing to do a lot more than we have to reduce spread if we ever want to stop the damage the virus is doing to us.

[2006alum]

2006, no suggested remedies are perfect for the mess we are in, short of completely isolation from others that nobody thinks is possible or pragmatic.

If you knew you could get ticketed in a crowd outside or if not wearing a mask inside, you would be more inclined to wear one.  It's basic economic incentive at work. We have to be willing to do a lot more than we have to reduce spread if we ever want to stop the damage the virus is doing to us.

My family members and friends know they can get ticketed for failing to wear a seatbelt, and it doesn't stop them. Even the loud annoying automated reminder chimes don't stop them. In the era where nearly every interaction between the police and protestors is fraught, the last thing we need is police using a protest as an opportunity to enforce a mandatory mask policy and trying to tackle people who run off to evade citation.

[2006alum]

2006, no suggested remedies are perfect for the mess we are in, short of completely isolation from others that nobody thinks is possible or pragmatic.

If you knew you could get ticketed in a crowd outside or if not wearing a mask inside, you would be more inclined to wear one.  It's basic economic incentive at work. We have to be willing to do a lot more than we have to reduce spread if we ever want to stop the damage the virus is doing to us.

My family members and friends know they can get ticketed for failing to wear a seatbelt, and it doesn't stop them. Even the loud annoying automated reminder chimes don't stop them. In the era where nearly every interaction between the police and protestors is fraught, the last thing we need is police using a protest as an opportunity to enforce a mandatory mask policy and trying to tackle people who run off to evade citation.

[burger]

2006, no suggested remedies are perfect for the mess we are in, short of completely isolation from others that nobody thinks is possible or pragmatic.

If you knew you could get ticketed in a crowd outside or if not wearing a mask inside, you would be more inclined to wear one.  It's basic economic incentive at work. We have to be willing to do a lot more than we have to reduce spread if we ever want to stop the damage the virus is doing to us.

My family members and friends know they can get ticketed for failing to wear a seatbelt, and it doesn't stop them. Even the loud annoying automated reminder chimes don't stop them. In the era where nearly every interaction between the police and protestors is fraught, the last thing we need is police using a protest as an opportunity to enforce a mandatory mask policy and trying to tackle people who run off to evade citation.

Your odds of being pulled over for not wearing a seat belt are near nil.  We do a decent amount of driving on weekends in CA, and we hardly ever see cops.  So, of course people aren't worried about the fines.

For masks, what would work is to have cops handing out tickets in grocery stores or wherever.  No one needs to be arrested, and they could be under strict orders not to chase offenders who flee.  Let stores pay the cops overtime to be there so this doesn't detract from other policing (I'm guessing overtime is harder to come by now).  If you want to make this really non-onerous for poor people, etc., let the fines be waived if you send in a photo of yourself wearing a mask in a grocery store within 10 days, or something.

We've already tried asking nicely for people to wear masks.  That's not been good enough.  So, now put some teeth in it.

[burger]

2006, no suggested remedies are perfect for the mess we are in, short of completely isolation from others that nobody thinks is possible or pragmatic.

If you knew you could get ticketed in a crowd outside or if not wearing a mask inside, you would be more inclined to wear one.  It's basic economic incentive at work. We have to be willing to do a lot more than we have to reduce spread if we ever want to stop the damage the virus is doing to us.

My family members and friends know they can get ticketed for failing to wear a seatbelt, and it doesn't stop them. Even the loud annoying automated reminder chimes don't stop them. In the era where nearly every interaction between the police and protestors is fraught, the last thing we need is police using a protest as an opportunity to enforce a mandatory mask policy and trying to tackle people who run off to evade citation.

Your odds of being pulled over for not wearing a seat belt are near nil.  We do a decent amount of driving on weekends in CA, and we hardly ever see cops.  So, of course people aren't worried about the fines.

For masks, what would work is to have cops handing out tickets in grocery stores or wherever.  No one needs to be arrested, and they could be under strict orders not to chase offenders who flee.  Let stores pay the cops overtime to be there so this doesn't detract from other policing (I'm guessing overtime is harder to come by now).  If you want to make this really non-onerous for poor people, etc., let the fines be waived if you send in a photo of yourself wearing a mask in a grocery store within 10 days, or something.

We've already tried asking nicely for people to wear masks.  That's not been good enough.  So, now put some teeth in it.

[2006alum]

2006, no suggested remedies are perfect for the mess we are in, short of completely isolation from others that nobody thinks is possible or pragmatic.

If you knew you could get ticketed in a crowd outside or if not wearing a mask inside, you would be more inclined to wear one.  It's basic economic incentive at work. We have to be willing to do a lot more than we have to reduce spread if we ever want to stop the damage the virus is doing to us.

My family members and friends know they can get ticketed for failing to wear a seatbelt, and it doesn't stop them. Even the loud annoying automated reminder chimes don't stop them. In the era where nearly every interaction between the police and protestors is fraught, the last thing we need is police using a protest as an opportunity to enforce a mandatory mask policy and trying to tackle people who run off to evade citation.

Your odds of being pulled over for not wearing a seat belt are near nil.  We do a decent amount of driving on weekends in CA, and we hardly ever see cops.  So, of course people aren't worried about the fines.

For masks, what would work is to have cops handing out tickets in grocery stores or wherever.  No one needs to be arrested, and they could be under strict orders not to chase offenders who flee.  Let stores pay the cops overtime to be there so this doesn't detract from other policing (I'm guessing overtime is harder to come by now).  If you want to make this really non-onerous for poor people, etc., let the fines be waived if you send in a photo of yourself wearing a mask in a grocery store within 10 days, or something.

We've already tried asking nicely for people to wear masks.  That's not been good enough.  So, now put some teeth in it.

I feel like this is a distinction without a difference - I've already said I'm fine with public accommodations being required to turn members of the public away for not wearing masks upon entry. And if they want to have security or police present to enforce this, also fine by me. But trying to cite individual people is going to cause more harm than benefit, IMHO, because what you really want to do is prevent an unmasked presence in confined spaces. But trying to catch people and cite them, and then make them appear to contest it in public courtrooms or administrative hearings that are already barely operating due to the same underlying virus, is a game that's not worth the candle.

[2006alum]

2006, no suggested remedies are perfect for the mess we are in, short of completely isolation from others that nobody thinks is possible or pragmatic.

If you knew you could get ticketed in a crowd outside or if not wearing a mask inside, you would be more inclined to wear one.  It's basic economic incentive at work. We have to be willing to do a lot more than we have to reduce spread if we ever want to stop the damage the virus is doing to us.

My family members and friends know they can get ticketed for failing to wear a seatbelt, and it doesn't stop them. Even the loud annoying automated reminder chimes don't stop them. In the era where nearly every interaction between the police and protestors is fraught, the last thing we need is police using a protest as an opportunity to enforce a mandatory mask policy and trying to tackle people who run off to evade citation.

Your odds of being pulled over for not wearing a seat belt are near nil.  We do a decent amount of driving on weekends in CA, and we hardly ever see cops.  So, of course people aren't worried about the fines.

For masks, what would work is to have cops handing out tickets in grocery stores or wherever.  No one needs to be arrested, and they could be under strict orders not to chase offenders who flee.  Let stores pay the cops overtime to be there so this doesn't detract from other policing (I'm guessing overtime is harder to come by now).  If you want to make this really non-onerous for poor people, etc., let the fines be waived if you send in a photo of yourself wearing a mask in a grocery store within 10 days, or something.

We've already tried asking nicely for people to wear masks.  That's not been good enough.  So, now put some teeth in it.

I feel like this is a distinction without a difference - I've already said I'm fine with public accommodations being required to turn members of the public away for not wearing masks upon entry. And if they want to have security or police present to enforce this, also fine by me. But trying to cite individual people is going to cause more harm than benefit, IMHO, because what you really want to do is prevent an unmasked presence in confined spaces. But trying to catch people and cite them, and then make them appear to contest it in public courtrooms or administrative hearings that are already barely operating due to the same underlying virus, is a game that's not worth the candle.

[M T]

California claims that seat belt compliance went from 92.5% in 2005 to 95.9% in 2018 (reducing non-compliance by 45%), partly due to "Click It or Ticket" and $160 fines.  We've had seat belts for more than 50 years, and it has been a long time getting people to see the need for them.  One difference is that your use of a seat belt protects only you.  Your use of a face mask protects you AND others.  

I am extremely disappointed and shocked in seeing the statement by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department that they consider this an offen se of a "minor nature".   They refer to the state's order as a "recommendation".

In 3 months, the US has suffered more than three times as many deaths from COVID-19 as from automobile accidents for all of 2018 (ie, 12 times the rate of traffic fatalities).   Maybe the Sacramento Sheriff's Office should stop enforcing traffic laws too, since, in comparison, traffic deaths are so much less than those caused by offenses of a minor nature.

[M T]

California claims that seat belt compliance went from 92.5% in 2005 to 95.9% in 2018 (reducing non-compliance by 45%), partly due to "Click It or Ticket" and $160 fines.  We've had seat belts for more than 50 years, and it has been a long time getting people to see the need for them.  One difference is that your use of a seat belt protects only you.  Your use of a face mask protects you AND others.  

I am extremely disappointed and shocked in seeing the statement by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department that they consider this an offen se of a "minor nature".   They refer to the state's order as a "recommendation".

In 3 months, the US has suffered more than three times as many deaths from COVID-19 as from automobile accidents for all of 2018 (ie, 12 times the rate of traffic fatalities).   Maybe the Sacramento Sheriff's Office should stop enforcing traffic laws too, since, in comparison, traffic deaths are so much less than those caused by offenses of a minor nature.

[Genuine Realist]

California claims that seat belt compliance went from 92.5% in 2005 to 95.9% in 2018 (reducing non-compliance by 45%), partly due to "Click It or Ticket" and $160 fines.  We've had seat belts for more than 50 years, and it has been a long time getting people to see the need for them.  One difference is that your use of a seat belt protects only you.  Your use of a face mask protects you AND others.  

I am extremely disappointed and shocked in seeing the statement by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department that they consider this an offen se of a "minor nature".   They refer to the state's order as a "recommendation".

In 3 months, the US has suffered more than three times as many deaths from COVID-19 as from automobile accidents for all of 2018 (ie, 12 times the rate of traffic fatalities).   Maybe the Sacramento Sheriff's Office should stop enforcing traffic laws too, since, in comparison, traffic deaths are so much less than those caused by offenses of a minor nature.

You simply can't do this in the present political environment. The attempt in Texas and Minnesota to punish black market beauty shop operators led to a national scandal.

In New York, a non-compliant  and resistant African-American mother led to a fracas of exactly the type the NYPD is trying to avoid, and a $10 million dollar lawsuit. As near as I can tell, the mother was dead wrong, but that doesn't change the publicity.

More than that, there are significant racial disparities alleged in the enforcement of these provisions. The NYT, never one to miss a racial agenda, is of course hot off the mark - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/nyreg...virus.html

Racist police? The actual fact of the NYPD is that it is no longer Irish - it's actually over 50$ POC, about 20% African-American, 30% Hispanic, [approximately matching the NY demographics in both cases] and a smattering  of other non-Caucasian ethnicities pushing the percentage up. In view of this, my own view is that the citation imbalance bluntly reflects non-compliance in those communities rather than any selective enforcement by the officers. Search me as to why that would be, but I'd bet on the community non-compliance rather than racism, given the makeup of the Department.

But what beat cop wants to go near these issues? No one, really. If you issue a summons and someone tears it up, or refuses to sign it [the promise to appear], what are you going to do? The statutory alternative is to arrest. Most motorists are not aware that a traffic cop has an arrest power in a traffic stop situation, if the id seems suspect or the driver refuses to accept the citation. That's rarely used with traffic stops, which are fairly serious infractions. No way anyone is going to do it with a mask violation, in an urban setting,with a mess of phone cameras all around. Who needs it?

Look elsewhere for effective enforcement. Criminal sanctions are a practical impossibility.

[Genuine Realist]

California claims that seat belt compliance went from 92.5% in 2005 to 95.9% in 2018 (reducing non-compliance by 45%), partly due to "Click It or Ticket" and $160 fines.  We've had seat belts for more than 50 years, and it has been a long time getting people to see the need for them.  One difference is that your use of a seat belt protects only you.  Your use of a face mask protects you AND others.  

I am extremely disappointed and shocked in seeing the statement by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department that they consider this an offen se of a "minor nature".   They refer to the state's order as a "recommendation".

In 3 months, the US has suffered more than three times as many deaths from COVID-19 as from automobile accidents for all of 2018 (ie, 12 times the rate of traffic fatalities).   Maybe the Sacramento Sheriff's Office should stop enforcing traffic laws too, since, in comparison, traffic deaths are so much less than those caused by offenses of a minor nature.

You simply can't do this in the present political environment. The attempt in Texas and Minnesota to punish black market beauty shop operators led to a national scandal.

In New York, a non-compliant  and resistant African-American mother led to a fracas of exactly the type the NYPD is trying to avoid, and a $10 million dollar lawsuit. As near as I can tell, the mother was dead wrong, but that doesn't change the publicity.

More than that, there are significant racial disparities alleged in the enforcement of these provisions. The NYT, never one to miss a racial agenda, is of course hot off the mark - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/nyreg...virus.html

Racist police? The actual fact of the NYPD is that it is no longer Irish - it's actually over 50$ POC, about 20% African-American, 30% Hispanic, [approximately matching the NY demographics in both cases] and a smattering  of other non-Caucasian ethnicities pushing the percentage up. In view of this, my own view is that the citation imbalance bluntly reflects non-compliance in those communities rather than any selective enforcement by the officers. Search me as to why that would be, but I'd bet on the community non-compliance rather than racism, given the makeup of the Department.

But what beat cop wants to go near these issues? No one, really. If you issue a summons and someone tears it up, or refuses to sign it [the promise to appear], what are you going to do? The statutory alternative is to arrest. Most motorists are not aware that a traffic cop has an arrest power in a traffic stop situation, if the id seems suspect or the driver refuses to accept the citation. That's rarely used with traffic stops, which are fairly serious infractions. No way anyone is going to do it with a mask violation, in an urban setting,with a mess of phone cameras all around. Who needs it?

Look elsewhere for effective enforcement. Criminal sanctions are a practical impossibility.

[magnus]

Like MT said, it's taken years for seat belt compliance to be where it is today.

When seat belt laws first came out, it wasn't what it was today.   Just front seat passengers at first (or even less restrictive,  I'm not sure).  And plenty of people ignoring it.   It's taken years to change the public mindset.   Mask mentality unfortunately won't change overnight,  though a pandemic surely did speed things up.

[magnus]

Like MT said, it's taken years for seat belt compliance to be where it is today.

When seat belt laws first came out, it wasn't what it was today.   Just front seat passengers at first (or even less restrictive,  I'm not sure).  And plenty of people ignoring it.   It's taken years to change the public mindset.   Mask mentality unfortunately won't change overnight,  though a pandemic surely did speed things up.

[BostonCard]

California claims that seat belt compliance went from 92.5% in 2005 to 95.9% in 2018 (reducing non-compliance by 45%), partly due to "Click It or Ticket" and $160 fines.  We've had seat belts for more than 50 years, and it has been a long time getting people to see the need for them.  One difference is that your use of a seat belt protects only you.  Your use of a face mask protects you AND others.  

I think this is instructive, because by the time it was made the law, it was already functionally engrained in most people's consciousness.  It is much easier to make a rule that gets you from 92.5% to cut the non-compliance rate from 7.5% to 4.1% than it is to go from 30% to 90% compliance.  I think the better analogy is speed limits, for which compliance is probably <10%.  They are no less in the books that the "Click it or ticket" rule, but nobody follows the speed limit.

BC

[BostonCard]

California claims that seat belt compliance went from 92.5% in 2005 to 95.9% in 2018 (reducing non-compliance by 45%), partly due to "Click It or Ticket" and $160 fines.  We've had seat belts for more than 50 years, and it has been a long time getting people to see the need for them.  One difference is that your use of a seat belt protects only you.  Your use of a face mask protects you AND others.  

I think this is instructive, because by the time it was made the law, it was already functionally engrained in most people's consciousness.  It is much easier to make a rule that gets you from 92.5% to cut the non-compliance rate from 7.5% to 4.1% than it is to go from 30% to 90% compliance.  I think the better analogy is speed limits, for which compliance is probably <10%.  They are no less in the books that the "Click it or ticket" rule, but nobody follows the speed limit.

BC

[2006alum]

 I think the better analogy is speed limits, for which compliance is probably <10%.  They are no less in the books that the "Click it or ticket" rule, but nobody follows the speed limit.

Well, almost no one... 

[2006alum]

 I think the better analogy is speed limits, for which compliance is probably <10%.  They are no less in the books that the "Click it or ticket" rule, but nobody follows the speed limit.

Well, almost no one... 

[Leftcoast]

Why are people arguing about the seatbelt law as observed CURRENTLY?

Wouldn’t the more relevant data be from 1986 when the law was first put in place?  After years of public service announcements, newspaper coverage of traffic fatality rates with and without seatbelts, and watching “Red Asphalt” in drivers training California’s drivers wore seatbelts only about 30% of the time.  Once the mandatory seatbelt law was put in place compliance was in the high 70s or higher within a 5 year period.  Love it or hate it legislation did what years of cajoling could not.

I was one of those who grumblingly strapped up due to legislation.  Seatbelts and shoulder straps felt constraining, restrictive, and uncomfortable then (Sound familiar?). Now I feel unsafe and loose in my seat without ‘em.

It’s generally agreed that nanny state law has save 10s of thousands of lives.

Isn’t that the more relevant parallel rather than how we moved from 91% to 95%?

[Leftcoast]

Why are people arguing about the seatbelt law as observed CURRENTLY?

Wouldn’t the more relevant data be from 1986 when the law was first put in place?  After years of public service announcements, newspaper coverage of traffic fatality rates with and without seatbelts, and watching “Red Asphalt” in drivers training California’s drivers wore seatbelts only about 30% of the time.  Once the mandatory seatbelt law was put in place compliance was in the high 70s or higher within a 5 year period.  Love it or hate it legislation did what years of cajoling could not.

I was one of those who grumblingly strapped up due to legislation.  Seatbelts and shoulder straps felt constraining, restrictive, and uncomfortable then (Sound familiar?). Now I feel unsafe and loose in my seat without ‘em.

It’s generally agreed that nanny state law has save 10s of thousands of lives.

Isn’t that the more relevant parallel rather than how we moved from 91% to 95%?

[2006alum]

 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) and equivalents to executive orders, which, as others have noted, are often hastily written, poorly announced, and haphazardly implemented and enforced. I imagine part of the reason why the Sheriff in Sacramento County announced he wouldn't enforce the "guidance" is because he and other county sheriffs had zero input on what it would prohibit/require, how it would be enforced, and whether it could be more smartly implemented to maximize compliance without law enforcement involvement. 

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.

[2006alum]

 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) and equivalents to executive orders, which, as others have noted, are often hastily written, poorly announced, and haphazardly implemented and enforced. I imagine part of the reason why the Sheriff in Sacramento County announced he wouldn't enforce the "guidance" is because he and other county sheriffs had zero input on what it would prohibit/require, how it would be enforced, and whether it could be more smartly implemented to maximize compliance without law enforcement involvement. 

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.

[Leftcoast]

My guess from your handle is that you weren’t around in ‘86.  The spillover from the Reagan years was not a time of ideological unity in California and support of the new law from all stakeholders is not how I remember it.

Conservatives (I was a conservative leaning moderate at the time) decried “the nanny state” and police objected to enforcing it.  The law was eventually made a “secondary” offense to get their grudging support meaning police wouldn’t pull people over BECAUSE of seatbelt non-compliance but could cite them for it if they were pulled over for some other offense.  (That was change ~5 years later.)

Still worked. I see lots of parallels to today but also remember California was more politically divided then - We were a prized swing state. Wise legislation can be effective in moving public opinion.

If interested in the impact of secondary/primary legislation and seatbelt laws check this out. (Graph of California compliance showing ‘85 through change to primary enforcement.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0...p261f1.jpg

[Leftcoast]

My guess from your handle is that you weren’t around in ‘86.  The spillover from the Reagan years was not a time of ideological unity in California and support of the new law from all stakeholders is not how I remember it.

Conservatives (I was a conservative leaning moderate at the time) decried “the nanny state” and police objected to enforcing it.  The law was eventually made a “secondary” offense to get their grudging support meaning police wouldn’t pull people over BECAUSE of seatbelt non-compliance but could cite them for it if they were pulled over for some other offense.  (That was change ~5 years later.)

Still worked. I see lots of parallels to today but also remember California was more politically divided then - We were a prized swing state. Wise legislation can be effective in moving public opinion.

If interested in the impact of secondary/primary legislation and seatbelt laws check this out. (Graph of California compliance showing ‘85 through change to primary enforcement.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0...p261f1.jpg