Nary a word

[lex24]

Article today in the Chron about spread. Starts with: “Fourth of July gatherings, graduation parties, no mask weddings, crowded bars - there are reasons the US has racked up more than 155,000 coronavirus deaths.”  Later we get this from a Dr in Virginia: “Father’s Day, Memorial Day, graduations, birthdays, backyard barbecues, you name it.” (Well, kind of).

Selfish bastards.  That’s it.  Obviously the largest gatherings of all had nothing to do with this.  Nothing. Nada.  Zip. I mean how would it even be possible to think that millions coming from all directions, gathering in very large groups for long periods of time, while tightly packed could have anything to do with this.  That’s why on June 5 the Contra Costa County Order said it was ok to have gatherings of up to 100.  As long as you were protesting. Outdoor services- no.  That was a no-no.  Makes perfect sense from a health standpoint. Right?

And given the demographics of this, I guess that the most selfish of all are America’s poor. Who are getting this at a higher rate. Selfish bastards. Imagine that during this pandemic they continue to live in higher density areas, live more often with multi generational families and that many  work outside the home, many times in high risk (and low paying) jobs.  They should just stay home.  So what If they cant eat. 

But the demographic facts are largely ignored.  Because you  see, the spread of this disease is all attributable to a bunch of selfish people.  And of course we know those selfish people are mostly a bunch of bubbas.

[JustAnotherFan]

Article today in the Chron about spread. Starts with: “Fourth of July gatherings, graduation parties, no mask weddings, crowded bars - there are reasons the US has racked up more than 155,000 coronavirus deaths.”  Later we get this from a Dr in Virginia: “Father’s Day, Memorial Day, graduations, birthdays, backyard barbecues, you name it.” (Well, kind of).

Selfish bastards.  That’s it.  Obviously the largest gatherings of all had nothing to do with this.  Nothing. Nada.  Zip. I mean how would it even be possible to think that millions coming from all directions, gathering in very large groups for long periods of time, while tightly packed could have anything to do with this.  That’s why on June 5 the Contra Costa County Order said it was ok to have gatherings of up to 100.  As long as you were protesting. Outdoor services- no.  That was a no-no.  Makes perfect sense from a health standpoint. Right?

And given the demographics of this, I guess that the most selfish of all are America’s poor. Who are getting this at a higher rate. Selfish bastards. Imagine that during this pandemic they continue to live in higher density areas, live more often with multi generational families and that many  work outside the home, many times in high risk (and low paying) jobs.  They should just stay home.  So what If they cant eat. 

But the demographic facts are largely ignored.  Because you  see, the spread of this disease is all attributable to a bunch of selfish people.  And of course we know those selfish people are mostly a bunch of bubbas.

I get the political motivation behind this post but if you step away from it I think that even if you get bothered by people protesting for basic human rights that you can recognize that there are certain activities that are much more dangerous in terms of transmission than people coming together for marches outdoors while wearing masks (assuming of course the non-mask wearing cops don't pepper spray them, arrest them, take off their masks, and throw them in jails -- which they have).

Being indoors without masks are far more dangerous places to be than at a protest. Alcohol being thrown into that is an added problem. Kissing strangers another problem. 

Yes, selfish bastards.

[OutsiderFan]

Or, maybe - and I know it's insane to accept facts that don't fit a preferred reality - the protests didn't have any material impact on virus spread? Could the reason the article said "nary a word" about protests causing virus spike, be because the protests caused "nary an additional case" of virus infection?

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/b...est-spread

[terry]

That’s why on June 5 the Contra Costa County Order said it was ok to have gatherings of up to 100.  As long as you were protesting. Outdoor services- no.  That was a no-no.  Makes perfect sense from a health standpoint. Right?

Actually, Contra Costa County's June 5 health order allowed outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, as well as protests of up to 100 people.

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...0f12a5.pdf (see part 3)

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...30c223.pdf (see part 2)

[BostonCard]

And given the demographics of this, I guess that the most selfish of all are America’s poor. Who are getting this at a higher rate. Selfish bastards. Imagine that during this pandemic they continue to live in higher density areas, live more often with multi generational families and that many  work outside the home, many times in high risk (and low paying) jobs.  They should just stay home.  So what If they cant eat. 

Sarcasm aside, this is a good point, and you are right to be calling out he Chron's statement.  Of the 155,000 deaths, the majority occurred in the "first wave", which hit the New York metro area.  By my calculation, more than 2/3 (104,000) occurred before cases started going up again June 1.



Of course, cases are going up again, and daily new cases have increased from 19,000 to 70,000 from the trough in mid-June to the second wave late July.  Figuring out what is driving this increase, independently of assigning "value" to it is important, as I mentioned in another post.  If the protests led to spread of COVID-19, that's important to know, even if you think the protests are an important expression of first amendment rights.  If it is being spread by essential activities, that's also important to know.  If it is being spread by "Fourth of July gatherings, graduation parties, no mask weddings, crowded bars", that too is important, even if you think it is important to continue such activities.



Certainly, that the protests could have led to a spike in cases is a plausible hypothesis.  As you mention, they brought thousands of people closely together for prolonged periods of time.  People were shouting loudly, and the protesters may have been exposed to tear gas and pepper spray, which can cause people to cough. And there is a there is a strong temporal correlation to the spike; the protests started in late May and the spike in cases started mid-June. That being said, I've seen multiple articles suggesting that the protests, which generally occur outside and in which adherence to mask-wearing is pretty high, did not drive the increase in cases.   Although there is a strong temporal correlation, there is a poor spatial correlation.  The spike in cases occurred primarily in the South and West; protests occurred throughout the US and in particular the Northeast and Midwest as shown in the map below:






Arizona, in particular, had a pretty bad spike, but fairly few protests.  I don't think the protests were worse in Los Angeles than the Bay Area, even though the spike was much worse in Southern California.  New York, New Jersey, Connecticut had a lot of protests and not much of a second wave.

I did a pretty back of the envelope calculation, looking at the ratio of the number of cases between the second peak week (the week of July 13 - 19, when there were ~465,000 new cases in the week, compared to the week of June 1 - 7, which was the trough (~148,000 new cases). The top-10 states with the highest ratio, representing the most dramatic rise in cases between the two weeks were: Montana (22-fold rise), Idaho (13.5-fold increase), Florida (9-fold increase), Oklahoma (6.9 fold increase), Nevada (6.7-fold increase), West Virginia (6.4-fold increase), Texas (6.3-fold increase), Hawaii (5.7-fold increase), Alaska (5.1-fold increase) and Louisiana (5.1-fold increase).  Even if you take out states like Montana, Idaho and Alaska as having a low baseline (and thus being prone to have a small increase in number of cases look like a big proportional increase), that leaves a bunch of states that are not exactly bastions of Black Lives Matter.  By contrast, in Minnesota (ground zero for the protests), where you might have expected to have a big spike in cases, only had a 1.4-fold increase in cases from early June to mid-July.  California and Oregon had an increase in cases comparable to the US as a whole (3.5 in Oregon, 3.3 in California).  Illinois had only a 1.2-fold increase.  DC actually saw a decrease (ratio was 0.8).  New York, New Jersey and Connecticut also had a continued decline (though that was a continuation of an existing trend), so the protests in those states did not reverse the positive trend in those states.

There are also a number of more refined articles that have looked to see if the protests played a role in increasing transmissions, most notably this NBER paper:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408

It notes that any increase in contact due to people participating in the protest was more than offset by fewer people venturing out because of the protests (of course, this does not mean that transmission didn't occur in the protests themselves, just that the net effect cancelled out).

Here's a link to the outcome of contact tracing in Knoxville, TN, linking positive cases to "parties and other large social gatherings, but not to protests" (it's not published so you can take it with a grain of salt)
https://www.wvlt.tv/2020/07/13/no-eviden...epartment/

Here's an interview with contact tracers in Florida and Washington:
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus...oronavirus

"We did have a rally in Bellingham, which is our county seat, and there was also a protest, and we have not been able to connect a single case to that rally or to the protest, and what we're finding is in large part that's due to the use of masks," Erika Lautenbach, the director of the Whatcom County Health Department in Washington State, tells NPR's All Things Considered. "Almost everyone at the rally was wearing a mask, and it's really a testament to how effective masks are in preventing the spread of this disease."

"We're finding that the social events and gatherings, these parties where people aren't wearing masks, are our primary source of infection," Lautenbach says. "And then the secondary source of infection is workplace settings. There were 31 related employers just associated with that one party because of the number of people that brought that to their workplace. So for us, for a community our size, that's a pretty massive spread."

That being said, I did find one article linking cases to protests in Los Angeles, which is based on what Eric Garcetti (who I assume has access to the contact tracing data) has said publicly:

https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/0...ll-sparse/

It's a well written article, and I agree with their conclusions:

What We Know
Los Angeles stands out in that its mayor and the county’s top public health official have both acknowledged a link between the region’s protests and spike in infections.

Officials and health experts elsewhere have said they do not see a significant connection between protests in their communities and the spread of the virus.

For now, at least, there’s not enough data to draw any definitive conclusions about how much the protests added to Los Angeles’ alarming surge in COVID-19 cases.

Medical experts say the protests likely contributed somewhat, but so did family gatherings over Mother’s Day and Memorial Day, as did the reopening of businesses before the demonstrations started.

BC

[akiddoc]

Most transmission is indoors. 
Masks help. A lot. 
There are certainly going to be some cases from outdoor transmission, but the physics of particle flow make it much less likely. I'll bet most of the "backyard barbecue" transmission involved going indoors while attending or very close contact without hand washing or masks. I don't think outdoor activities need to be banned IF people wear masks and they keep a few feet of distance. Hard to wear a mask while eating, though.

[M T]

Most transmission is indoors. 
Masks help. A lot. 
There are certainly going to be some cases from outdoor transmission, but the physics of particle flow make it much less likely. I'll bet most of the "backyard barbecue" transmission involved going indoors while attending or very close contact without hand washing or masks. I don't think outdoor activities need to be banned IF people wear masks and they keep a few feet of distance. Hard to wear a mask while eating, though.

On what basis do you make those statements?  I agree they represent what we "know" about the disease and are being told by the "experts".  But where is the data?  I think it is clear that contact tracing in the US is mute on the subject.  Certainly we don't have enough information for the vast majority of cases to rule in or out particular transmission paths.   If we don't know the transmission for 99.99% of the cases, I find it hard to say how most transmission happens.

On top of that, there is so much difficulty in ruling in/out a particular path even when you know that Adam gave it to Bob.  I see the CDC trying to say that even if the infectee wasn't within droplet distance of the infector in the office, then maybe they got it from fomites rather than aerosols.  It seems like they work hard at painting everything to be inside the lines they've already drawn.

I am very frustrated that we aren't seeing more effort spent at trying to track down the activities that are associated with spread.  Do the people getting it work out of the house (more than those not getting it)?  Work indoors or outdoors primarily?  Use public transportation?  Go to grocery stores?  Go to barbers or beauty saloons or bars or churches or protests or tiddly-wink tournaments or ....?  (I'm not trying to claim any of these are major contributors.  I am trying to say the kinds of questions that should be asked AND ANSWERED.)

Indeed, to me, one of the possible reasons our contact tracing seems to be failing (which I have to assume since no one seems to be touting its success) is that maybe we don't really have the right model of transmission.  (Other reasons include too much delay in the contact tracing cycle.)

[BostonCard]

Just because we can't contact trace doesn't mean it can't be done in other countries.  Here are the results of contact tracing in China:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...20053058v1

Among the identified outbreaks, 53.8% involved three cases, 26.4% involved four cases, and only 1.6% involved ten or more cases. Home outbreaks were the dominant category (254 of 318 outbreaks; 79.9%), followed by transport (108; 34.0%; note that many outbreaks involved more than one venue category). Most home outbreaks involved three to five cases. We identified only a single outbreak in an outdoor environment, which involved two cases.

and Japan:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...20029272v2

The odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.0, 57.9).

BC

[M T]

Just because we can't contact trace doesn't mean it can't be done in other countries.  Here are the results of contact tracing in China:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...20053058v1

Among the identified outbreaks, 53.8% involved three cases, 26.4% involved four cases, and only 1.6% involved ten or more cases. Home outbreaks were the dominant category (254 of 318 outbreaks; 79.9%), followed by transport (108; 34.0%; note that many outbreaks involved more than one venue category). Most home outbreaks involved three to five cases. We identified only a single outbreak in an outdoor environment, which involved two cases.

First, they only looked at outbreaks with 3 or more cases.  That assures that anyone individually affected was excluded; their selection method seems to require a place.  Pedestrians walking to work would probably not been recognized as an outbreak.

They covered 1245 positive cases (all outside Hubei) January 4 to Feb. 11.  It isn't clear whether the cases were confirmed by that date or the exposures happened before that date, or the case tracking reports were filed by that date.  As of 24:00 Feb 11, mainland China excluding Hubei province reported 11,286 confirmed cases with more than 1,000 a day newly confirmed.   So they looked at a fraction of the cases.   The quality of the data they used is unknown (to us, at least).  For instance, if 5 people that got sick rode a bus on a particular day, did they identify the infector and whether the exposure happened in the bus or while waiting for the bus, or just assumed it was on the bus?

It is unclear to me how much outdoor activity happens in China during January to February.  I know zilch about the weather in China, so I'll just use Beijing Airport's weather.  Four of the about six weeks had an average temperature range roughly 25-41F.  The other two weeks were colder (average high around freezing).  It was mostly dry. 

I don't recall that the study reported what percentage of time was spent indoors versus outdoors. If the average person's time outdoors was 10 minutes a day, then it would be very surprising if any outdoor infections were found.

and Japan:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...20029272v2

The odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.0, 57.9).

If you spend 73 minutes a day outdoors, the odds that any instant happens when you are indoors is 18.7 times greater compared to it being outdoors.  

If you want to say that a person is exposed to infectors for (say) 12 hours a day, then make that 36 minutes outdoors.

This study was apparently made public on Feb. 28. The first outbreak in Japan was Jan. 16.  Again, just using a single location for a whole country is woefully inadequate, but Narita Airport average temperature was in the low to upper 40s (F) each week during that time.  (Note that skiers spend a lot of time outdoors at much colder temperatures.)

Neither of these studies evaluated the relative risk per unit time spent outdoors versus indoors.  Neither reported (even from survey of the general population) a ratio of time spent indoors versus outdoors.   A better study would evaluate the time exposed to others, and how much of the time was indoors or outdoors.   Even better would be if it studied people before hand, and then followed up later to see if they got sick.

Neither study shows me that outdoors is any safer than indoors.  Their results could have been entirely due to the population spending more time indoors than outdoors. So I will accede to "Most transmission is indoors" when most time is indoors.  

I don't get impressed by 3 digits of precision.

[lex24]

Article today in the Chron about spread. Starts with: “Fourth of July gatherings, graduation parties, no mask weddings, crowded bars - there are reasons the US has racked up more than 155,000 coronavirus deaths.”  Later we get this from a Dr in Virginia: “Father’s Day, Memorial Day, graduations, birthdays, backyard barbecues, you name it.” (Well, kind of).

Selfish bastards.  That’s it.  Obviously the largest gatherings of all had nothing to do with this.  Nothing. Nada.  Zip. I mean how would it even be possible to think that millions coming from all directions, gathering in very large groups for long periods of time, while tightly packed could have anything to do with this.  That’s why on June 5 the Contra Costa County Order said it was ok to have gatherings of up to 100.  As long as you were protesting. Outdoor services- no.  That was a no-no.  Makes perfect sense from a health standpoint. Right?

And given the demographics of this, I guess that the most selfish of all are America’s poor. Who are getting this at a higher rate. Selfish bastards. Imagine that during this pandemic they continue to live in higher density areas, live more often with multi generational families and that many  work outside the home, many times in high risk (and low paying) jobs.  They should just stay home.  So what If they cant eat. 

But the demographic facts are largely ignored.  Because you  see, the spread of this disease is all attributable to a bunch of selfish people.  And of course we know those selfish people are mostly a bunch of bubbas.

I get the political motivation behind this post but if you step away from it I think that even if you get bothered by people protesting for basic human rights that you can recognize that there are certain activities that are much more dangerous in terms of transmission than people coming together for marches outdoors while wearing masks (assuming of course the non-mask wearing cops don't pepper spray them, arrest them, take off their masks, and throw them in jails -- which they have).

Being indoors without masks are far more dangerous places to be than at a protest. Alcohol being thrown into that is an added problem. Kissing strangers another problem. 

Yes, selfish bastards.

Actually, you don’t get the “political motivation” behind the post at all.  You missed it completely. I had and have no issue with the protest.  None.  Completely understandable given Floyd. It is possible, you know, to understand and acknowledge the righteous nature of the protests and still reach the common sensical conclusion that large gatherings in a pandemic contributes to the spread. Which is what we have been consistently told.

My point is we are getting half the story.  It was not in any way shape or form to criticize the protests. Which I would have thought was obvious.  Particularly given my comments relating to the demographics of this disease and it’s disproportionate impact on the poor. Which is another part of the story we aren’t being told.

And if you truly believe that the massive gatherings that occurred did not contribute to the spread I have a bridge to sell you.

---

[quote="lex24" pid='287541' dateline='1596638869']
That’s why on June 5 the Contra Costa County Order said it was ok to have gatherings of up to 100.  As long as you were protesting. Outdoor services- no.  That was a no-no.  Makes perfect sense from a health standpoint. Right?

Actually, Contra Costa County's June 5 health order allowed outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, as well as protests of up to 100 people.



EDIT : I was off a couple days. The order i was referring to was June 2. Amended as Terry points out on June 5.

[Mick]

Most transmission is indoors. 
Masks help. A lot. 
There are certainly going to be some cases from outdoor transmission, but the physics of particle flow make it much less likely. I'll bet most of the "backyard barbecue" transmission involved going indoors while attending or very close contact without hand washing or masks. I don't think outdoor activities need to be banned IF people wear masks and they keep a few feet of distance. Hard to wear a mask while eating, though.

I live in Willow Glen in San Jose, and we have a three-block downtown.  The restaurants have opened up for outdoor dining.  Some had porches/patios already, some commandeered a portion of the street or the broad sidewalks.  It's interesting...some of the restaurants have gone to some elaborate lengths to create an "indoor" setting with elaborate awnings.  Some have clearly spaced tables 8-10 feet apart.  Some have placed tables essentially back to back outdoors.  I don't know what the statistics are, but I won't dine in a restaurant that has tried to replicate an "indoor" setting, nor at the restaurants where the tables are outdoors but are back to back.

[teejers1]

Most transmission is indoors. 
Masks help. A lot. 
There are certainly going to be some cases from outdoor transmission, but the physics of particle flow make it much less likely. I'll bet most of the "backyard barbecue" transmission involved going indoors while attending or very close contact without hand washing or masks. I don't think outdoor activities need to be banned IF people wear masks and they keep a few feet of distance. Hard to wear a mask while eating, though.

I live in Willow Glen in San Jose, and we have a three-block downtown.  The restaurants have opened up for outdoor dining.  Some had porches/patios already, some commandeered a portion of the street or the broad sidewalks.  It's interesting...some of the restaurants have gone to some elaborate lengths to create an "indoor" setting with elaborate awnings.  Some have clearly spaced tables 8-10 feet apart.  Some have placed tables essentially back to back outdoors.  I don't know what the statistics are, but I won't dine in a restaurant that has tried to replicate an "indoor" setting, nor at the restaurants where the tables are outdoors but are back to back.

Spent a few nights at Carmel Valley Ranch (just had to get the family out of the house).  My wife and I dined twice at restaurants in Carmel.  Incredibly hard to get a reservation for Th and F nights (though admittedly, the serving window has shrunk - I presume, anyway, as reservations stopped at 9:15).  All outdoor seating, but I doubt everyone outside was 6 feet apart from occupants of other tables, but I didn't get out the tap measure.  

Food great, but the best part was to get a sense of normalcy (and to see many folks out and about).  BTW, masks everywhere, except while dining at the tables.

[Mick]

Most transmission is indoors. 
Masks help. A lot. 
There are certainly going to be some cases from outdoor transmission, but the physics of particle flow make it much less likely. I'll bet most of the "backyard barbecue" transmission involved going indoors while attending or very close contact without hand washing or masks. I don't think outdoor activities need to be banned IF people wear masks and they keep a few feet of distance. Hard to wear a mask while eating, though.

I live in Willow Glen in San Jose, and we have a three-block downtown.  The restaurants have opened up for outdoor dining.  Some had porches/patios already, some commandeered a portion of the street or the broad sidewalks.  It's interesting...some of the restaurants have gone to some elaborate lengths to create an "indoor" setting with elaborate awnings.  Some have clearly spaced tables 8-10 feet apart.  Some have placed tables essentially back to back outdoors.  I don't know what the statistics are, but I won't dine in a restaurant that has tried to replicate an "indoor" setting, nor at the restaurants where the tables are outdoors but are back to back.

Spent a few nights at Carmel Valley Ranch (just had to get the family out of the house).  My wife and I dined twice at restaurants in Carmel.  Incredibly hard to get a reservation for Th and F nights (though admittedly, the serving window has shrunk - I presume, anyway, as reservations stopped at 9:15).  All outdoor seating, but I doubt everyone outside was 6 feet apart from occupants of other tables, but I didn't get out the tap measure.  

Food great, but the best part was to get a sense of normalcy (and to see many folks out and about).  BTW, masks everywhere, except while dining at the tables.

Excellent.  We go to Bernardus in Carmel Valley every few years (25th anniversary there).  We like Lucia (their restaurant) and they have a nice bar menu with plenty of spaced tables.  And if you go during the week, the price is right.

[terry]

That’s why on June 5 the Contra Costa County Order said it was ok to have gatherings of up to 100.  As long as you were protesting. Outdoor services- no.  That was a no-no.  Makes perfect sense from a health standpoint. Right?

Contra Costa County's June 5 health order allowed outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, as well as protests of up to 100 people.

EDIT : I was off a couple days. The order i was referring to was June 2.  Amended as Terry points out on June 5.

This issue requires some context. Contra Costa County issued a health order on Tuesday, June 2, which approved outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, effective on June 15. The same June 2 order also approved protests of up to 100 people, with no effective date specified, so it was effective immediately.

So, the June 2 order approved both outdoor religious services and protests, and the order established the same attendance limit for both of them. This apparently indicated a belief that outdoor religious services and protests carried similar levels of health risk. But there were slightly different effective dates. 

Three days later, on Friday June 5, the county changed the effective date for religious services, allowing religious services to begin immediately. This change was made in time for weekend services. So, there was a three-day period, from Tuesday through Thursday, when protests were allowed but religious services were not yet allowed. After that, they were treated similarly.

To me, the similarity in treatment is a more significant indication of the county's public health assessment than is the difference in effective dates. 

So, why was there a difference in effective dates? I don't know, but here's my guess. I believe the county probably had been working on this public health order for several weeks, and had been targeting the June 15 date for resumption of religious services. I suspect the county wanted to give churches some lead time to plan their safety protocols. 

Then, shortly before the June 2 order was issued, George Floyd was murdered and protests broke out. I suspect that the provision approving protests of up to 100 people was added at the last minute in response to the protests that already were happening. There was probably some urgency around adding this provision. I'm guessing that nobody really thought through the difference between the effective dates of the protest provision and the religious services provision. These provisions appeared in two different appendices to the health order. To me, it looks like the people who prepared the document failed to coordinate the two provisions, then fixed it when the issue was pointed out. I'm reluctant to attribute to malice that which can be explained by bureaucracy or incompetence.

June 2 order -- 

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...d346a9.pdf (see part 3)

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...562dab.pdf (see part 2)

[lex24]

B

That’s why on June 5 the Contra Costa County Order said it was ok to have gatherings of up to 100.  As long as you were protesting. Outdoor services- no.  That was a no-no.  Makes perfect sense from a health standpoint. Right?

Contra Costa County's June 5 health order allowed outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, as well as protests of up to 100 people.

EDIT : I was off a couple days. The order i was referring to was June 2.  Amended as Terry points out on June 5.

This issue requires some context. Contra Costa County issued a health order on Tuesday, June 2, which approved outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, effective on June 15. The same June 2 order also approved protests of up to 100 people, with no effective date specified, so it was effective immediately.

So, the June 2 order approved both outdoor religious services and protests, and the order established the same attendance limit for both of them. This apparently indicated a belief that outdoor religious services and protests carried similar levels of health risk. But there were slightly different effective dates. 

Three days later, on Friday June 5, the county changed the effective date for religious services, allowing religious services to begin immediately. This change was made in time for weekend services. So, there was a three-day period, from Tuesday through Thursday, when protests were allowed but religious services were not yet allowed. After that, they were treated similarly.

To me, the similarity in treatment is a more significant indication of the county's public health assessment than is the difference in effective dates. 

So, why was there a difference in effective dates? I don't know, but here's my guess. I believe the county probably had been working on this public health order for several weeks, and had been targeting the June 15 date for resumption of religious services. I suspect the county wanted to give churches some lead time to plan their safety protocols. 

Then, shortly before the June 2 order was issued, George Floyd was murdered and protests broke out. I suspect that the provision approving protests of up to 100 people was added at the last minute in response to the protests that already were happening. There was probably some urgency around adding this provision. I'm guessing that nobody really thought through the difference between the effective dates of the protest provision and the religious services provision. These provisions appeared in two different appendices to the health order. To me, it looks like the people who prepared the document failed to coordinate the two provisions, then fixed it when the issue was pointed out. I'm reluctant to attribute to malice that which can be explained by bureaucracy or incompetence.

June 2 order -- 

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...d346a9.pdf (see part 3)

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...562dab.pdf (see part 2)

I have a different take. Namely that the CoCo county Health Czar got (deservedly) a boatload of criticism for the June 2 Order.  The Floyd protests began on May 26.  They were already going strong when the Order came out.  There was no reason to mention them in the first place.   NONE. It’s not as if anybody was going to avoid protesting because of the SIP.   Further, I fully remember the two week delay relating to religious services. In fact I remember at the time commenting that if I were a religious leader what I would call for our congregation to have an outdoor protest/service that next weekend limited to 100 people. Wear your facemask. 

 Mind you, I’m not particularly religious (I do not attend any service) nor was I the least bit opposed to the protests. My point was and remains this – there are politics all over this issue. On both sides of the ledger. Not just from the right. Not anywhere close. And what we are getting from the press is not the full story on this virus. Again, not even close. 

While I appreciate your benign take – I think it’s much more likely that they did exactly what they planned to do in the June 2 order not realizing the push back they would get. And then - to their credit - they corrected it quickly.

 It is absurd to suggest that there are “acceptable“ and “unacceptable“ behaviors relating to what essentially is the same thing – outdoor gatherings. Either, from a spread standpoint, you can have them up to a certain level, or you cannot.  Obviously people should be masked. No matter what.   But please don’t say that it’s OK to have 100 people doing X but not OK to have 100 people doing Y outdoors. (Assuming equal masking and distancing) It makes no sense whatsoever from an epidemiological standpoint. It’s politics, pure and simple.

And if you think I’m wrong let me ask a simple question: assume everything is exactly the same the amount of people masked percentage wise etc. etc. etc. but instead of Black Lives Matter protests the protests were Trump supporters protesting whatever. Do you truly believe that the media would be falling all over themselves to suggest that it had a little or no impact to the spread of the virus. Well Fox would, of course. But nobody else in the MSM.

I read the study BC attached – it was early for one thing and there has been a ton of protests since, a lot more people involved, more cities involved etc. Further the bit about people staying home because of the protests is, to me, a classic example of researchers finding something to support the hypothesis they want to advance. How that is possibly handled from a mathematical/scientific standpoint is beyond me. You not only would have to know numbers of people going out before and after - but you’d have to know if they were family members, social bubbles, or strangers gathering. It is impossible. As is any kind of contact tracing from 15 to 26 Million people gathering in over 1,000 cities.

And just so anotherfan doesn’t misconstrue me once again – no problem with the protests. They were righteous.

---

Most transmission is indoors. 
Masks help. A lot. 
There are certainly going to be some cases from outdoor transmission, but the physics of particle flow make it much less likely. I'll bet most of the "backyard barbecue" transmission involved going indoors while attending or very close contact without hand washing or masks. I don't think outdoor activities need to be banned IF people wear masks and they keep a few feet of distance. Hard to wear a mask while eating, though.

I live in Willow Glen in San Jose, and we have a three-block downtown.  The restaurants have opened up for outdoor dining.  Some had porches/patios already, some commandeered a portion of the street or the broad sidewalks.  It's interesting...some of the restaurants have gone to some elaborate lengths to create an "indoor" setting with elaborate awnings.  Some have clearly spaced tables 8-10 feet apart.  Some have placed tables essentially back to back outdoors.  I don't know what the statistics are, but I won't dine in a restaurant that has tried to replicate an "indoor" setting, nor at the restaurants where the tables are outdoors but are back to back.

Spent a few nights at Carmel Valley Ranch (just had to get the family out of the house).  My wife and I dined twice at restaurants in Carmel.  Incredibly hard to get a reservation for Th and F nights (though admittedly, the serving window has shrunk - I presume, anyway, as reservations stopped at 9:15).  All outdoor seating, but I doubt everyone outside was 6 feet apart from occupants of other tables, but I didn't get out the tap measure.  

Food great, but the best part was to get a sense of normalcy (and to see many folks out and about).  BTW, masks everywhere, except while dining at the tables.

Excellent.  We go to Bernardus in Carmel Valley every few years (25th anniversary there).  We like Lucia (their restaurant) and they have a nice bar menu with plenty of spaced tables.  And if you go during the week, the price is right.

My girlfriend took me to Bernardus for my birthday a couple weekends ago. Ate at both CVR (a little disappointing but that could have been due to ordering) and Lucia’s, which was fantastic. I ordered a Waygu NY and a nice bottle of Cab, so it was somewhat steep.  But oh so worth it. One of the best steaks I’ve ever had. Tenderness of a filet with the flavor of a NY. Had an outdoor massage. Everyone masked. Felt very safe. It was fantastic. 

Bernardus is perfect for this.  Spread out. Not a lot of contact with others. Wonderful place.

[BostonCard]

Lex, for what it is worth the same methodology was used to show that Trump’s rally in Tulsa also didn’t have a significant effect on infections, so there isn’t a partisan lens to it.

Mobility data is measured indirectly, usually using anonymized phone data.  You are correct that it can’t distinguish between people driving 100 miles out to the middle of nowhere and not seeing another soul, and people driving 100 miles to a busy downtown.  But the mobility data has correlated pretty well to lockdowns and subsequent decreases in transmission, and averaged over many people can probably give you a decent idea of the extent to which people are “out and about”.

BC

[terry]

It is absurd to suggest that there are “acceptable“ and “unacceptable“ behaviors relating to what essentially is the same thing – outdoor gatherings. Either, from a spread standpoint, you can have them up to a certain level, or you cannot.  Obviously people should be masked. No matter what.   But please don’t say that it’s OK to have 100 people doing X but not OK to have 100 people doing Y outdoors. (Assuming equal masking and distancing) It makes no sense whatsoever from an epidemiological standpoint. It’s politics, pure and simple.

I think this description misses the substantive impact of the county's June 2 health order.

The order did not say "protests are acceptable, but outdoor religious services are not acceptable." Rather, the order approved both protests and outdoor religious services. The order established the same attendance limit for both types of events -- 100 people. From a health management standpoint, both events were treated as though they entailed similar risks. The only difference was a slight difference in the effective dates, which was quickly changed. 

I think a fair reading of the order is that the substantive provisions of the order treated protests and religious services similarly. The substantive similarity in treatment was more significant than the slight difference in effective dates, in my view.

Lex, I think you're reading an awful lot of ideological discrimination and malicious intent into a small difference in effective dates. To me, that difference seems more likely to have come about because the two different provisions approving religious services and protests were added to different appendices, probably at different times, without full coordination of the details. 

I attend church weekly and I would like to see normal worship services resume as soon as safely possible. I believe I am reasonably sensitive to discrimination against religious practice. In this case, I just don't see it. My main take-away from this order is that it approved outdoor services, not that it labelled them "unacceptable."

[lex24]

It is absurd to suggest that there are “acceptable“ and “unacceptable“ behaviors relating to what essentially is the same thing – outdoor gatherings. Either, from a spread standpoint, you can have them up to a certain level, or you cannot.  Obviously people should be masked. No matter what.   But please don’t say that it’s OK to have 100 people doing X but not OK to have 100 people doing Y outdoors. (Assuming equal masking and distancing) It makes no sense whatsoever from an epidemiological standpoint. It’s politics, pure and simple.

I think this description misses the substantive impact of the county's June 2 health order.

The order did not say "protests are acceptable, but outdoor religious services are not acceptable." Rather, the order approved both protests and outdoor religious services. The order established the same attendance limit for both types of events -- 100 people. From a health management standpoint, both events were treated as though they entailed similar risks. The only difference was a slight difference in the effective dates, which was quickly changed. 

I think a fair reading of the order is that the substantive provisions of the order treated protests and religious services similarly. The substantive similarity in treatment was more significant than the slight difference in effective dates, in my view.

Lex, I think you're reading an awful lot of ideological discrimination and malicious intent into a small difference in effective dates. To me, that difference seems more likely to have come about because the two different provisions approving religious services and protests were added to different appendices, probably at different times, without full coordination of the details. 

I attend church weekly and I would like to see normal worship services resume as soon as safely possible. I believe I am reasonably sensitive to discrimination against religious practice. In this case, I just don't see it. My main take-away from this order is that it approved outdoor services, not that it labelled them "unacceptable."

I agree with you that my use of “unacceptable “ in the context of the June 2 order is misplaced. Frankly I meant it more broadly relative to behaviors.  I did not mean to say or imply that the CoCo county Czar was saying religious services in general are “unacceptable “. Nor am I suggesting malice vis a vis religious service. I AM suggesting that the “approval” of the protests had a political aspect.

I stand by the rest of my post.  I also followed that order ( and the other Bay Area orders) closely.  And I fail to see a reason for the two week delay (as of the 6-2 Order) given the “blessing” of the protests. I also believed then and still do now that there was no reason to mention protests in Orders. Further, the 100 “limitation” on protests was and is absurd. No way on this earth that the “limitation” would or could be enforced.  

As for the “slight difference in effective dates”  these orders were changing rapidly at that time. It’s settled down a little bit since then -  largely I think because of the July 13 state order. But up until then these orders often changed.  Which of course created the possibility that within that two week time, they  could change their mind. Now as you pointed out, the county corrected this issue very quickly. I continue to believe it’s because it came under a fair amount of criticism. Justifiably. Perhaps I’m wrong. Always a possibility.

---

Lex, for what it is worth the same methodology was used to show that Trump’s rally in Tulsa also didn’t have a significant effect on infections, so there isn’t a partisan lens to it.

Mobility data is measured indirectly, usually using anonymized phone data.  You are correct that it can’t distinguish between people driving 100 miles out to the middle of nowhere and not seeing another soul, and people driving 100 miles to a busy downtown.  But the mobility data has correlated pretty well to lockdowns and subsequent decreases in transmission, and averaged over many people can probably give you a decent idea of the extent to which people are “out and about”.

BC

Well, fwiw, I have a hard time believing the Tulsa rally did not contribute somewhat to the spread. Again it’s thousands of people gathering without social distancing.

[Snorlax94]

This weekend, possibly 250,000 bikers — many of them Trump supporters — are converging on Sturgis, ND for an annual event. Tens of thousands have already arrived, mostly not wearing masks.

Quite consistent with the comments that the BLM protests were unlikely to have contributed significantly to infection growth (besides the obvious fact that the virus was growing in places like Maricopa County AZ and Orange County CA — not exactly BLM hotspots), doctors note:
“Health experts say the coronavirus is less likely to spread outdoors, especially when people wear masks and socially distance.”

However, with the Sturgis event, like the ill-fated Tulsa rally:

“But large gatherings like the motorcycle rally also increase the number of visitors inside restaurants and stores. A few businesses in Sturgis put up signs limiting the number of customers who could enter, but most did not post such notices...

“Attendees will be asked to be respectful of the community concerns by practicing social distancing and taking personal responsibility for their health by following C.D.C. guidelines,” the news release said.

But on Friday, throngs of ralliers parked their bikes and walked shoulder to shoulder along the downtown streets, nary a mask in sight...

Amy Svoboda, 27, who was working in a women’s apparel shop for bikers called One Sexy Biker Chick, said Friday’s crowd of shoppers had been steady. She said she didn’t know what to expect, but was happy to see people turning out.

“We are allowed to make our own choices,” she said. “If we get it, we chose to be here.”

[BostonCard]

It is absurd to suggest that there are “acceptable“ and “unacceptable“ behaviors relating to what essentially is the same thing – outdoor gatherings. Either, from a spread standpoint, you can have them up to a certain level, or you cannot.  Obviously people should be masked. No matter what.   But please don’t say that it’s OK to have 100 people doing X but not OK to have 100 people doing Y outdoors. (Assuming equal masking and distancing) It makes no sense whatsoever from an epidemiological standpoint. It’s politics, pure and simple.

I think this description misses the substantive impact of the county's June 2 health order.

The order did not say "protests are acceptable, but outdoor religious services are not acceptable." Rather, the order approved both protests and outdoor religious services. The order established the same attendance limit for both types of events -- 100 people. From a health management standpoint, both events were treated as though they entailed similar risks. The only difference was a slight difference in the effective dates, which was quickly changed. 

I think a fair reading of the order is that the substantive provisions of the order treated protests and religious services similarly. The substantive similarity in treatment was more significant than the slight difference in effective dates, in my view.

Lex, I think you're reading an awful lot of ideological discrimination and malicious intent into a small difference in effective dates. To me, that difference seems more likely to have come about because the two different provisions approving religious services and protests were added to different appendices, probably at different times, without full coordination of the details. 

I attend church weekly and I would like to see normal worship services resume as soon as safely possible. I believe I am reasonably sensitive to discrimination against religious practice. In this case, I just don't see it. My main take-away from this order is that it approved outdoor services, not that it labelled them "unacceptable."

I agree with you that my use of “unacceptable “ in the context of the June 2 order is misplaced. Frankly I meant it more broadly relative to behaviors.  I did not mean to say or imply that the CoCo county Czar was saying religious services in general are “unacceptable “.  Nor am I suggesting malice vis a vis religious service.  I AM suggesting that the “approval” of the protests had a political aspect. 

I stand by the rest of my post.  I also followed that order ( and the other Bay Area orders) closely.  And I fail to see a reason for the two week delay (as of the 6-2 Order) given the “blessing” of the protests. I also believed then and still do now that there was no reason to mention protests in Orders. Further, the 100 “limitation” on protests was and is absurd. No way on this earth that the “limitation” would or could be enforced.  

As for the “slight difference in effective dates”  these orders were changing rapidly at that time. It’s settled down a little bit since then -  largely I think because of the July 13 state order. But up until then these orders often changed.  Which of course created the possibility that within that two week time, they  could change their mind. Now as you pointed out, the county corrected this issue very quickly. I continue to believe it’s because it came under a fair amount of criticism. Justifiably. Perhaps I’m wrong. Always a possibility.

---

Lex, for what it is worth the same methodology was used to show that Trump’s rally in Tulsa also didn’t have a significant effect on infections, so there isn’t a partisan lens to it.

Mobility data is measured indirectly, usually using anonymized phone data.  You are correct that it can’t distinguish between people driving 100 miles out to the middle of nowhere and not seeing another soul, and people driving 100 miles to a busy downtown.  But the mobility data has correlated pretty well to lockdowns and subsequent decreases in transmission, and averaged over many people can probably give you a decent idea of the extent to which people are “out and about”.

BC

Well, fwiw, I have a hard time believing the Tulsa rally did not contribute somewhat to the spread. Again it’s thousands of people gathering without social distancing.

Based on the pictures, most were dressed up as empty seats. Plenty of room to social distance!

BC