[Goose]

This must be an all of the above approach, but we live with a large crew that believes in whataboutisms and therefore none of the above.




Governors then are left implementing things they can do without hitting too many legal hurdles.   Curfews are implemented all of the time for different emergency reasons, so that is well within a Governor's set of powers.   Telling people what they can and can't do in their own homes is much more problematic.   Best to do all of the above, but any governor needs to do things that will withstand the inevitable howling from that COVID denier crew.




Curfews, restaurant capacity restrictions and the dreaded school closures are in the domain of local and state officials, so we will get those.   We SHOULD get no church gatherings, no weddings and no house parties, but those each have problems politically and constitutionally.  So we won't see them, but it shouldn't stop top officials from begging for those things not to happen.




With everything implemented at city, county or state levels there is always an available whatabout or cries about inconclusive efficacy relative to some other approach that is also not going to be accepted by some subset of the population.   Governors shouldn't worry about those that inevitably will object to any restriction.   Focus on doing something, ramp up your approval ratings, and be confident that a 60+ approval rating shows the majority understand you have been given a raw deal made worse by the complete lack of leadership at the Federal level.




How problematic is the whataboutism Goose?   Just sort that worldometers list by cases per million like I mentioned and you will see the problem is real.   The COVID deniers in the ICU just exemplifies how deep the faith is at the moment, but they are the tip of a massive iceberg in those states.   There are a lot of other COVID deniers roaming those lands. 




FWIW - SIP won't work either, but it is the next step and it is coming soon.   So plan ahead, stay safe, and do the right thing even if some percentage of your neighbors insist on doing dumb whataboutism stuff.

Where you and I differ is that you appear to believe the iceberg is composed of COVID-19 deniers. I am quite certain that that group doesn't exist in San Mateo County or Santa Clara County in significant numbers, yet we have a serious and growing COVID-19 problem. I believe the iceberg is composed of people who are fully aware of the COVID-19 danger but who also believe that their personal wants and needs at times trump their civic and social duties. They wear masks except when they don't, and they social distance except when the go to grandma's for dinner.



It isn't ideological or "whataboutism". It is just plain cognitive dissonance. While there are some people who make this a statement about their "rights", most people know what the situation is. They just don't think that their choices about the risk level they are willing to accept are excessive. They are 90% compliant, and that should be good for at least a B. The idea that it isn't their choice what is acceptable just doesn't penetrate. I talk to people all the time these days who are discussing who is coming to their Thanksgiving dinner from out of state. Yes, there are some crazies out there, but that isn't what is killing us.

[Goose]

This must be an all of the above approach, but we live with a large crew that believes in whataboutisms and therefore none of the above.




Governors then are left implementing things they can do without hitting too many legal hurdles.   Curfews are implemented all of the time for different emergency reasons, so that is well within a Governor's set of powers.   Telling people what they can and can't do in their own homes is much more problematic.   Best to do all of the above, but any governor needs to do things that will withstand the inevitable howling from that COVID denier crew.




Curfews, restaurant capacity restrictions and the dreaded school closures are in the domain of local and state officials, so we will get those.   We SHOULD get no church gatherings, no weddings and no house parties, but those each have problems politically and constitutionally.  So we won't see them, but it shouldn't stop top officials from begging for those things not to happen.




With everything implemented at city, county or state levels there is always an available whatabout or cries about inconclusive efficacy relative to some other approach that is also not going to be accepted by some subset of the population.   Governors shouldn't worry about those that inevitably will object to any restriction.   Focus on doing something, ramp up your approval ratings, and be confident that a 60+ approval rating shows the majority understand you have been given a raw deal made worse by the complete lack of leadership at the Federal level.




How problematic is the whataboutism Goose?   Just sort that worldometers list by cases per million like I mentioned and you will see the problem is real.   The COVID deniers in the ICU just exemplifies how deep the faith is at the moment, but they are the tip of a massive iceberg in those states.   There are a lot of other COVID deniers roaming those lands. 




FWIW - SIP won't work either, but it is the next step and it is coming soon.   So plan ahead, stay safe, and do the right thing even if some percentage of your neighbors insist on doing dumb whataboutism stuff.

Where you and I differ is that you appear to believe the iceberg is composed of COVID-19 deniers. I am quite certain that that group doesn't exist in San Mateo County or Santa Clara County in significant numbers, yet we have a serious and growing COVID-19 problem. I believe the iceberg is composed of people who are fully aware of the COVID-19 danger but who also believe that their personal wants and needs at times trump their civic and social duties. They wear masks except when they don't, and they social distance except when the go to grandma's for dinner.



It isn't ideological or "whataboutism". It is just plain cognitive dissonance. While there are some people who make this a statement about their "rights", most people know what the situation is. They just don't think that their choices about the risk level they are willing to accept are excessive. They are 90% compliant, and that should be good for at least a B. The idea that it isn't their choice what is acceptable just doesn't penetrate. I talk to people all the time these days who are discussing who is coming to their Thanksgiving dinner from out of state. Yes, there are some crazies out there, but that isn't what is killing us.