08-08-2020, 02:29 PM
(08-08-2020, 01:46 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(08-07-2020, 02:41 PM)lex24 Wrote:(08-07-2020, 10:36 AM)terry Wrote:(08-06-2020, 06:41 PM)lex24 Wrote: 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.
(08-06-2020, 08:50 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 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
LOL
