[Jamesy]

Y

not a principle, but the reality that the rules are county specific so there can be cross-border differences. Since I do not know the data, I cannot say whether those differences are justified by data or are simply a product of county health officer personalities or bias, as you posit. It does seem to me that making distinctions within counties based on more narrowly local differences in data would make some sense: the vast majority of cases in SCC are in the south county, not north. Yet Palo Alto is subject to the same rules as San Jose.

But I disagree strongly with your charge that Santa Clara County's health officer believes "she knows better than everyone else and she will impose her will indiscriminately." I know her very well and can say without qualification that she absolutely does not believe she knows better than everyone else. Much the opposite: she is extremely humble and has more humility than most people I know. That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent. It is fair game and easy for us to criticize her decisions, but to portray her as using the opportunity to indiscriminately impose her will on everyone under her control is, in my view, completely wrong. It is fine to believe she is overly conservative in her decisions, and you have plenty of company, but if so that would be because of an honest difference in judgment, not some egotistical personality disorder. I understand your frustration, but disagree with your causal analysis.

Well said.  

My word choice - “indiscriminately “ - was poor.  She has a tough job.  I certainly get that.  My frustration is and always has been that I disagree with these unelected officials having what seems to me to be near absolute power.

Isn’t it better that her position is unelected so that they can do what they feel is the right thing rather than what gets them re-elected?

[Jamesy]

Y

not a principle, but the reality that the rules are county specific so there can be cross-border differences. Since I do not know the data, I cannot say whether those differences are justified by data or are simply a product of county health officer personalities or bias, as you posit. It does seem to me that making distinctions within counties based on more narrowly local differences in data would make some sense: the vast majority of cases in SCC are in the south county, not north. Yet Palo Alto is subject to the same rules as San Jose.

But I disagree strongly with your charge that Santa Clara County's health officer believes "she knows better than everyone else and she will impose her will indiscriminately." I know her very well and can say without qualification that she absolutely does not believe she knows better than everyone else. Much the opposite: she is extremely humble and has more humility than most people I know. That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent. It is fair game and easy for us to criticize her decisions, but to portray her as using the opportunity to indiscriminately impose her will on everyone under her control is, in my view, completely wrong. It is fine to believe she is overly conservative in her decisions, and you have plenty of company, but if so that would be because of an honest difference in judgment, not some egotistical personality disorder. I understand your frustration, but disagree with your causal analysis.

Well said.  

My word choice - “indiscriminately “ - was poor.  She has a tough job.  I certainly get that.  My frustration is and always has been that I disagree with these unelected officials having what seems to me to be near absolute power.

Isn’t it better that her position is unelected so that they can do what they feel is the right thing rather than what gets them re-elected?