11-29-2020, 02:35 PM
Thanks, Teej! I personally agree with you and I think the lack of transparency is more troubling now that we're a full nine months into this and have much more available data in terms of high versus low risk than we did in March. When the state of exception lasts beyond a short period of time, the data supporting it needs to be compelling. I just think that point can be elegantly made without the ad hominems, and, at least for me, is all the more persuasive for it.
And to the merits of your point: I'm increasingly in agreement. I do think LA's exceptions for athletic facilities that are in compliance with their athletics protocols strikes a much better balance than the blanket ban imposed by SCC. And as I've said from the very outset, when these dictates comes from individuals not accountable to a public referendum (ie an election), it can't be surprising when folks like Teej start to dig their heels in. Part of public health is getting "the public" on board, and I think issuing sudden, blanket bans is counterproductive to that part of her mission.
And to the merits of your point: I'm increasingly in agreement. I do think LA's exceptions for athletic facilities that are in compliance with their athletics protocols strikes a much better balance than the blanket ban imposed by SCC. And as I've said from the very outset, when these dictates comes from individuals not accountable to a public referendum (ie an election), it can't be surprising when folks like Teej start to dig their heels in. Part of public health is getting "the public" on board, and I think issuing sudden, blanket bans is counterproductive to that part of her mission.