6 ms·

It is sincerely gross of SFGate to run this story without a single comment from a public health or policy expert explaining the rationale for the lockdown. Ther

It is sincerely gross of SFGate to run this story without a single comment from a public health or policy expert explaining the rationale for the lockdown. There is journalistic merit in a story about the frustrations and resentments of Bay-area business owners. It is inexcusable to present their dishonest arguments as the only side of the story. I understand that US government officials (deservedly) have lost a lot of confidence from US citizens. But one way to guarantee bad government is by having a press that presents cynical, ignorant mercantilism as straight analysis. The rationale for the lockdown is simple for laypeople like me to grok: - COVID is an extremely contagious and dangerous illness, which is still not well-understood - daily cases in San Francisco have quadrupled in the last month and local hospitals are facing collapse - it is much better to err on the side of caution and strongly discourage people from leaving their homes - from an economic perspective, the problem is the virus and lack of Congressional action, not the SF public health department. The virus quadrupling means that eventually too many people would be sick to patronize the businesses without the lockdown (only with more death and economic devastation). Comments from a handful of professors pointing this out (only less ignorantly) would be very helpful! Instead we get bad-faith comments from intellectually dishonest business leaders, like the fact that no COVID outbreaks have been linked to movie theaters (among all 12 moviegoers since 2-2020) or that proper outdoor dining is safe (and badly enforced), or whining about an absence of “hard evidence” (as if the proper policy for a novel pandemic that’s killed over 200,000 Americans in 9 months is careful double-blind studies). Journalists should not believe that financially distressed business owners are nobly assessing objective risks, while the public health officials are corrupt and unreasonable. Business owners are right to be angry. But the SF government has a job to do, and it is not their fault that state governments in the US cannot afford adequate economic stimulus . The anger needs to be towards the federal government for not providing a well-deserved bailout.

db48x 6y ago
It's unconstitutional for the government to close down businesses without due process, even if it's done with good intentions. It's unconstitutional for the executive branch to make arbitrary decisions without representative input, such as deciding which businesses will be killed and which will be allowed to stay open. It's legal to quarantine people for a fixed period of time, if they have been diagnosed with a transmissible disease. It's not legal to confine the majority of people in a state to their homes, whether they've been diagnosed with a transmissible disease or not. This is indeed simple enough for laypeople such as yourself to grok.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  > It's unconstitutional for the government to close down businesses without due process, even if it's done with good intentions. No it isn’t. That’s just not true. The government can do it in an emergency like pandemic, after a failed sanitation inspection, after a crime, etc. You can’t just say > It's unconstitutional for the executive branch to make arbitrary decisions without representative input, No it isn’t. This just isn’t true. For starters the decision is obviously not arbitrary. And “representative input” - Jesus. You can’t just make up stuff that isn’t in the constitution and claim that something you don’t like is therefore unconstitutional. > It's not legal to confine the majority of people in a state to their homes, whether they've been diagnosed with a transmissible disease or not. Again this just isn’t true and has never been true. One of the most frustrating things of this year is dealing with dangerous ignorant bullshit from people like yourself.
  - pcdoodle 6y ago
    > One of the most frustrating things of this year is dealing with dangerous ignorant bullshit from people like yourself. TBH, the same could be said about you.
  - db48x 6y ago
    Note that I said "without due process". If a restaurant owner is accused of a crime, the police must seek a warrant from a judge, must present that warrant to the owner before they are allowed to search the premises, and there can be no punishment at all until after a fair trial. In the case of a failed health inspection the process is not so involved. The closure can only last until specific named sanitation failures are fixed, the closure can be appealed or even taken to trial if the owner wants. All of this is to protect the rights of individuals, not to make the process more efficient. Meanwhile we have a governor announcing that all outdoor dining facilities are to be closed starting next week, with no specific allegations against specific establishments, no appeal, no evidence, and absolutely no due process. Oh, but essential businesses, like the film industry, are exempt: https://www.foxnews.com/us/los-angeles-bar-owner-rips-garcetti-newsom-over-double-standard-on-outdoor-dining https://www.foxnews.com/us/los-angeles-bar-owner-rips-garcet... > A Los Angeles bar owner was fighting back tears Friday, claiming Mayor Eric Garcetti > had shut down the outdoor patio at her business — while letting a Hollywood movie crew > set up an outdoor dining area just a short distance away. The 14th amendment states: > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or > immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any > person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to > any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This is simply unconstitutional, and I suspect that you haven't thought it through merely because your business wasn't closed down. >> It's unconstitutional for the executive branch to make arbitrary decisions without >> representative input, > No it isn’t. This just isn’t true. For starters the decision is obviously not > arbitrary. And “representative input” - Jesus. You can’t just make up stuff that > isn’t in the constitution and claim that something you don’t like is therefore > unconstitutional. I recommend reading the judgement of William S. Stickman IV in a recent case in Pennsylvania: https://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/15717588218.pdf https://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/15717588218.pd.... Again it comes down to due process. I'll quote a summary: > The Business Plaintiffs further argue that the business closure orders > violated the Due Process Clause. The Order states, in relevant part: > "[n]o person or entity shall operate a place of business in the > Commonwealth that is not a life-sustaining business regardless of > whether the business is open to members of the public." (ECF No. 42-3, > Section 1). The Order attached a list of "life-sustaining" businesses > that were permitted to stay open. Defendants also set up a waiver > system, whereby a business deemed to be "non-life-sustaining" could > request permission to continue operations. (ECF No. 38, p. 2) > Defendants decided to close the waiver process on April 3, 2020, > largely because of an overwhelming number of requests. (ECF No. 38, > p. 4; ECF No. 75, pp. 227-31). The record shows that Defendants never > had a set definition in writing for what constituted a > "life-sustaining" business. Rather, their view of what was, or was > not, "life-sustaining" remained in flux. (ECF No. 75, > pp. 97-98). Finally, the record shows that the definitino of > "life-sustaining" continued to change, even after the waiver process > closed. And from the conclusion: > The record shows that the Governor's advisory team, which designated > the Business Plaintiffs and countless other business thoughout the > Commonwealth as "non-life-sustaining" and, thereby, closing them, did > so with no set policy as to the designation and, indeed, without ever > formulating a set definition for "life-sustaining" and, conversely > "non-life-sustaining." The terms "life-sustaining" and > "non-life-sustaining" relative to businesses are not defined in any > Pennsylvania statue or regulation. […] > > The record demonstrates that the policy team's unilateral > determination as to which classes of businesses would be classified as > "life-sustaining" was never formalized and the team never settled on a > specific definition of "life-sustaining": > > Q: Well, Id' ask you if you'd do me a favor. Would you please tell me > where I could find the definition of "life-sustaining?" […] > > A: I believe that it's driven by the categorization and the > determiniation − I'm not sure that we wrote down anywhere what > "life-sustaining" meant. It was policy decisions that were made by our > team as to whether they considered, you know, an energy production > location or utility or supermarket to be life-sustaining as > distinguished from others that they did not believe. We didn't I > believe, write down a definition specifically but just translated the > sort of common understanding of life sustaining or not into that > business list. (any typos are my own, of course) This is exactly the kind of arbitrary and capricious government behavior that the 14th amendment protects us from. If the state congress of Pennsylvania had sat down in session and debated a law that divided businesses into the categories "life-sustaining" and "non-life-sustaining" and gave the governor the power to shut down one or the other category, then that would be fine. That would give the citizens of Pennsylvania their right to due process, because the law could be amended or repealed. But that's not what happened. The actions of the governor of California bear substantial similarity to those of the governor of Pennsylvania, so I say that they are similarly unconstitutional. >> It's not legal to confine the majority of people in a state to their homes, > whether they've been diagnosed with a transmissible disease or not. > Again this just isn’t true and has never been true. If you think it's right for the governor of California to confine you to your house without making specific allegations against you and without giving you any due process, then you are lost. There's no other word for it; you've given up your rights. You no longer believe that they exist, or that you deserve them.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
>But the SF government has a job to do, and it is not their fault that state governments in the US cannot afford adequate economic stinks. The anger needs to be towards the federal government for not providing a well-deserved bailout.[..] the following quote addresses part of your comment. [..]Danielle Rabkin owns CrossFit Golden Gate, a small fitness center in San Francisco, and directed her ire towards local officials at the San Francisco Department of Public Helath who chose to adopt the stay-at-home order despite the state projecting the Bay Area would be the last region that needs to shut down. "My big question is, why does SFDPH feel they need to be more restrictive than the California DPH?" she asked. "Why put people out of work and shut down businesses when according to Newsom we had two-to-three more weeks [until] the Bay Area hit the ICU criteria to shut down? There is no extra compensation offered, why should the feds bail us out when we meet state criteria to reopen? SFDPH is behaving criminally, this IS SO WRONG. They are leveling this city."[..]
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  Just FYI that was typo, “stinks” was meant to be “stimulus.” And again the fact that an ignorant self-interested business owner’s complaint is presented without an opposing view is disgusting. Even if SFDPH’s action is found to be unlawful it is ridiculous to call it “criminal” and irresponsible to print it without context. San Francisco is correct to look at local conditions and make a more stringent judgement than the state as a whole. I do not understand what is so difficult to understand about this (except overwhelming bad faith and indifference to human life).
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    Why is it disgusting? It’s a perfectly adequate query. Can you answer that without hyperbole or overuse of adjectives?
    - ojnabieoot 6y ago
      It’s disgusting - revolting, despicable, outrageous, horrific, contemptible - to pretend that San Francisco didn’t give any reasoning for their more stringent order. The order explains the reasoning perfectly well in an 80 page PDF anyone can go read: COVID is worse in San Francisco than in other parts of California. So it’s not a “perfectly adequate query,” it’s just ignorance. And it’s horrendously irresponsible for SFBay to perpetuate that ignorance during a pandemic.
monological 6y ago
Define dangerous. A study was just released by Stanford University with the objective of estimating the infection fatality rate of COVID-19. The results are as follows: "In people < 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%."[1] Is it much better to "err on the side of caution," when the numbers are so low? And if someone is a high risk individual, they can avoid putting themselves at risk by getting food delivered to their home. Should the entire state shutdown and destroy the economy in the process, just because a small percentage of the high-risk population wants to eat out? Shouldn't they also be able to make that decision for themselves, if they're OK with taking that risk or not? Some things to think about. [0]: https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
onecommentman 6y ago
“It is sincerely gross of SFGate to run this story without a single comment from a public health or policy expert explaining the rationale for the lockdown.” Remember this the next time you read anything of the flavor “look how wrong this is”. There are always two sides to every story in practically everything. You just happen to be on the wrong side of the rant this time, and you know enough to know the other side of things in this case. How many times did you accept one-sided characterizations on other topics without question? Like, say, a Federal bailout is the solution to all the problems?

db48x 6y ago

It's unconstitutional for the government to close down businesses without due process, even if it's done with good intentions. It's unconstitutional for the executive branch to make arbitrary decisions without representative input, such as deciding which businesses will be killed and which will be allowed to stay open. It's legal to quarantine people for a fixed period of time, if they have been diagnosed with a transmissible disease. It's not legal to confine the majority of people in a state to their homes, whether they've been diagnosed with a transmissible disease or not. This is indeed simple enough for laypeople such as yourself to grok.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
> It's unconstitutional for the government to close down businesses without due process, even if it's done with good intentions. No it isn’t. That’s just not true. The government can do it in an emergency like pandemic, after a failed sanitation inspection, after a crime, etc. You can’t just say > It's unconstitutional for the executive branch to make arbitrary decisions without representative input, No it isn’t. This just isn’t true. For starters the decision is obviously not arbitrary. And “representative input” - Jesus. You can’t just make up stuff that isn’t in the constitution and claim that something you don’t like is therefore unconstitutional. > It's not legal to confine the majority of people in a state to their homes, whether they've been diagnosed with a transmissible disease or not. Again this just isn’t true and has never been true. One of the most frustrating things of this year is dealing with dangerous ignorant bullshit from people like yourself.
- pcdoodle 6y ago
  > One of the most frustrating things of this year is dealing with dangerous ignorant bullshit from people like yourself. TBH, the same could be said about you.
- db48x 6y ago
  Note that I said "without due process". If a restaurant owner is accused of a crime, the police must seek a warrant from a judge, must present that warrant to the owner before they are allowed to search the premises, and there can be no punishment at all until after a fair trial. In the case of a failed health inspection the process is not so involved. The closure can only last until specific named sanitation failures are fixed, the closure can be appealed or even taken to trial if the owner wants. All of this is to protect the rights of individuals, not to make the process more efficient. Meanwhile we have a governor announcing that all outdoor dining facilities are to be closed starting next week, with no specific allegations against specific establishments, no appeal, no evidence, and absolutely no due process. Oh, but essential businesses, like the film industry, are exempt: https://www.foxnews.com/us/los-angeles-bar-owner-rips-garcetti-newsom-over-double-standard-on-outdoor-dining https://www.foxnews.com/us/los-angeles-bar-owner-rips-garcet... > A Los Angeles bar owner was fighting back tears Friday, claiming Mayor Eric Garcetti > had shut down the outdoor patio at her business — while letting a Hollywood movie crew > set up an outdoor dining area just a short distance away. The 14th amendment states: > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or > immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any > person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to > any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This is simply unconstitutional, and I suspect that you haven't thought it through merely because your business wasn't closed down. >> It's unconstitutional for the executive branch to make arbitrary decisions without >> representative input, > No it isn’t. This just isn’t true. For starters the decision is obviously not > arbitrary. And “representative input” - Jesus. You can’t just make up stuff that > isn’t in the constitution and claim that something you don’t like is therefore > unconstitutional. I recommend reading the judgement of William S. Stickman IV in a recent case in Pennsylvania: https://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/15717588218.pdf https://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/15717588218.pd.... Again it comes down to due process. I'll quote a summary: > The Business Plaintiffs further argue that the business closure orders > violated the Due Process Clause. The Order states, in relevant part: > "[n]o person or entity shall operate a place of business in the > Commonwealth that is not a life-sustaining business regardless of > whether the business is open to members of the public." (ECF No. 42-3, > Section 1). The Order attached a list of "life-sustaining" businesses > that were permitted to stay open. Defendants also set up a waiver > system, whereby a business deemed to be "non-life-sustaining" could > request permission to continue operations. (ECF No. 38, p. 2) > Defendants decided to close the waiver process on April 3, 2020, > largely because of an overwhelming number of requests. (ECF No. 38, > p. 4; ECF No. 75, pp. 227-31). The record shows that Defendants never > had a set definition in writing for what constituted a > "life-sustaining" business. Rather, their view of what was, or was > not, "life-sustaining" remained in flux. (ECF No. 75, > pp. 97-98). Finally, the record shows that the definitino of > "life-sustaining" continued to change, even after the waiver process > closed. And from the conclusion: > The record shows that the Governor's advisory team, which designated > the Business Plaintiffs and countless other business thoughout the > Commonwealth as "non-life-sustaining" and, thereby, closing them, did > so with no set policy as to the designation and, indeed, without ever > formulating a set definition for "life-sustaining" and, conversely > "non-life-sustaining." The terms "life-sustaining" and > "non-life-sustaining" relative to businesses are not defined in any > Pennsylvania statue or regulation. […] > > The record demonstrates that the policy team's unilateral > determination as to which classes of businesses would be classified as > "life-sustaining" was never formalized and the team never settled on a > specific definition of "life-sustaining": > > Q: Well, Id' ask you if you'd do me a favor. Would you please tell me > where I could find the definition of "life-sustaining?" […] > > A: I believe that it's driven by the categorization and the > determiniation − I'm not sure that we wrote down anywhere what > "life-sustaining" meant. It was policy decisions that were made by our > team as to whether they considered, you know, an energy production > location or utility or supermarket to be life-sustaining as > distinguished from others that they did not believe. We didn't I > believe, write down a definition specifically but just translated the > sort of common understanding of life sustaining or not into that > business list. (any typos are my own, of course) This is exactly the kind of arbitrary and capricious government behavior that the 14th amendment protects us from. If the state congress of Pennsylvania had sat down in session and debated a law that divided businesses into the categories "life-sustaining" and "non-life-sustaining" and gave the governor the power to shut down one or the other category, then that would be fine. That would give the citizens of Pennsylvania their right to due process, because the law could be amended or repealed. But that's not what happened. The actions of the governor of California bear substantial similarity to those of the governor of Pennsylvania, so I say that they are similarly unconstitutional. >> It's not legal to confine the majority of people in a state to their homes, > whether they've been diagnosed with a transmissible disease or not. > Again this just isn’t true and has never been true. If you think it's right for the governor of California to confine you to your house without making specific allegations against you and without giving you any due process, then you are lost. There's no other word for it; you've given up your rights. You no longer believe that they exist, or that you deserve them.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

>But the SF government has a job to do, and it is not their fault that state governments in the US cannot afford adequate economic stinks. The anger needs to be towards the federal government for not providing a well-deserved bailout.[..] the following quote addresses part of your comment. [..]Danielle Rabkin owns CrossFit Golden Gate, a small fitness center in San Francisco, and directed her ire towards local officials at the San Francisco Department of Public Helath who chose to adopt the stay-at-home order despite the state projecting the Bay Area would be the last region that needs to shut down. "My big question is, why does SFDPH feel they need to be more restrictive than the California DPH?" she asked. "Why put people out of work and shut down businesses when according to Newsom we had two-to-three more weeks [until] the Bay Area hit the ICU criteria to shut down? There is no extra compensation offered, why should the feds bail us out when we meet state criteria to reopen? SFDPH is behaving criminally, this IS SO WRONG. They are leveling this city."[..]

ojnabieoot 6y ago
Just FYI that was typo, “stinks” was meant to be “stimulus.” And again the fact that an ignorant self-interested business owner’s complaint is presented without an opposing view is disgusting. Even if SFDPH’s action is found to be unlawful it is ridiculous to call it “criminal” and irresponsible to print it without context. San Francisco is correct to look at local conditions and make a more stringent judgement than the state as a whole. I do not understand what is so difficult to understand about this (except overwhelming bad faith and indifference to human life).
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Why is it disgusting? It’s a perfectly adequate query. Can you answer that without hyperbole or overuse of adjectives?
  - ojnabieoot 6y ago
    It’s disgusting - revolting, despicable, outrageous, horrific, contemptible - to pretend that San Francisco didn’t give any reasoning for their more stringent order. The order explains the reasoning perfectly well in an 80 page PDF anyone can go read: COVID is worse in San Francisco than in other parts of California. So it’s not a “perfectly adequate query,” it’s just ignorance. And it’s horrendously irresponsible for SFBay to perpetuate that ignorance during a pandemic.

monological 6y ago

Define dangerous. A study was just released by Stanford University with the objective of estimating the infection fatality rate of COVID-19. The results are as follows: "In people < 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%."[1] Is it much better to "err on the side of caution," when the numbers are so low? And if someone is a high risk individual, they can avoid putting themselves at risk by getting food delivered to their home. Should the entire state shutdown and destroy the economy in the process, just because a small percentage of the high-risk population wants to eat out? Shouldn't they also be able to make that decision for themselves, if they're OK with taking that risk or not? Some things to think about. [0]: https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

onecommentman 6y ago

“It is sincerely gross of SFGate to run this story without a single comment from a public health or policy expert explaining the rationale for the lockdown.” Remember this the next time you read anything of the flavor “look how wrong this is”. There are always two sides to every story in practically everything. You just happen to be on the wrong side of the rant this time, and you know enough to know the other side of things in this case. How many times did you accept one-sided characterizations on other topics without question? Like, say, a Federal bailout is the solution to all the problems?