4 ms·

The state government has not provided evidence that outdoor dining is responsible for much of the spread. At the same time, people have been travelling for Tha

The state government has not provided evidence that outdoor dining is responsible for much of the spread. At the same time, people have been travelling for Thanksgiving, and people are gathering with friends and relatives inside private homes more frequently than before. That isn't going to stop happening. If restaurants are closed, that might happen even more often, because there is nowhere else to do it! Law enforcement in parts of the state have already told us that they won't enforce curfews, or won't use curfews as probable cause for stopping people who are out and about. So, stay-at-home orders won't prevent private gatherings and travel from continuing to happen. The only way to actually stop the spread is to prevent people from having physical contact with people from other households, and we clearly aren't willing to do that. Orders to stop outdoor dining are going to kill businesses and cause people to lose their jobs for minimal public health gain.

rllearneratwork 6y ago
>>"The state government has not provided evidence that outdoor dining is responsible for much of the spread." - This is outrageous. This is the same government who has been shutting beaches in Northern California few months ago, despite all the "science" (which they claim to follow) pointing to the fact that outdoor transmission is very unlikely.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Meanwhile .. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/12.3.20-Stay-at-Home-Order-ICU-Scenario.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/12.3.20-St... : what the regional order says.. It’s really weird. We can’t eat outdoors but can congregate indoors. We can worship together and participate in protests, but can’t use outdoor playgrounds.
  - twblalock 6y ago
    It must be very frustrating to lose your business or your job because of public health restrictions like banning outdoor dining, while at the same time you see the government doing nothing about other activities which are far more risky.
  - theevilsharpie 6y ago
    > We can worship together and participate in protests, but can’t use outdoor playgrounds. They'd prohibit both religious gatherings and protests if they legally could. These are both explicitly listed as protected under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. constitution, so it wouldn't survive a court challenge, especially since a similar restriction from New York has already been struck down as unconstitutional.
- robot 6y ago
  I was at downtown Woodside CA last week and outdoor dining area was packed. And this is one of the most conscious places. I believe with a limited number of people and distance rules outdoor activity is okay, but dense outdoor dining is suspicious. Same with beach. beach is okay, a packed beach (try a popular one in half moon bay) might not be.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    San Mateo county isn’t following the rules..they are exempt from dining regulations. Woodside is an unincorporated town, iirc. The state parks and beaches in pescadaro and half moon bay etc is only for the residents. You are asked to turn back if you are not a resident. The cops run your plates. At least this was the case during the first lockdown. Not so much during the second one. There are 54 counties in California. Only 41 counties have mandatory lockdown.
natchy 6y ago
> and people are gathering with friends and relatives inside private homes more frequently than before We didn't learn our lesson from the war on drugs. When you make something completely off limits people will find a way to engage, but without any standards. Meeting people in secret (mask free) is the new drugs.
- gnicholas 6y ago
  Also, many sheriffs have said they will not enforce Newsom's order: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/12/05/stay-at-home-order-sheriff-enforcement/ https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/12/05/stay-at-home-orde...
  - twblalock 6y ago
    This probably reveals several things: 1. Newsom's authority is not respected by law enforcement 2. Law enforcement thinks the curfew is not necessary 3. Law enforcement doesn't enjoy a governor springing new rules on them without advance notice, which is the result of his making things up as he goes along This is little league stuff. It's not the way a state in a first-world country should be operating.
    - theevilsharpie 6y ago
      Under the assumption that Gavin Newsom and his administration probably aren't completely stupid, we can come up with a more charitable (and likely realistic) revelations: 1. County sheriffs only have direct jurisdiction over unincorporated areas, which are typically rural and are unlikely to be a significant source of spread. 2. These orders are likely intended to give local governments stronger authority to shut down gatherings, should they choose to use it. 3. Even if local authorities refuse to enforce the orders, there are no explicitly COVID-19 liability protections for businesses that I'm aware of. If an outbreak occurs that can be traced back to a business that was operating against regulations, that in and of itself would make the business operators jointly (if not entirely) liable, and would give insurance companies a defensible reason for not paying out claims.
dheera 6y ago
Most outdoor dining I've seen in the bay area looks downright scary to me. The guideline is 2 meters of distance WITH masks; considering eating can't be done with masks I'd want at least 6+ meters of distance without masks, and in reality many of them don't even meet 2 meters. Add to that wait staff who aren't wearing a proper KN95 or N95 masks while serving dozens of customers; many of them have only surgical or cloth masks which wouldn't make safe handling my food. I'm also in a risk group for COVID though so I'm extra cautious.
gnicholas 6y ago
> The state government has not provided evidence that outdoor dining is responsible for much of the spread. When Los Angeles County recently ordered outdoor dining to be shut down, they were sued. A judge just ruled that the county must provide evidence linking outdoor dining to COVID spread: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-02/covid-19-la-county-outdoor-dining-ban-judge https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-02/covid-19...

rllearneratwork 6y ago

>>"The state government has not provided evidence that outdoor dining is responsible for much of the spread." - This is outrageous. This is the same government who has been shutting beaches in Northern California few months ago, despite all the "science" (which they claim to follow) pointing to the fact that outdoor transmission is very unlikely.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Meanwhile .. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/12.3.20-Stay-at-Home-Order-ICU-Scenario.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/12.3.20-St... : what the regional order says.. It’s really weird. We can’t eat outdoors but can congregate indoors. We can worship together and participate in protests, but can’t use outdoor playgrounds.
- twblalock 6y ago
  It must be very frustrating to lose your business or your job because of public health restrictions like banning outdoor dining, while at the same time you see the government doing nothing about other activities which are far more risky.
- theevilsharpie 6y ago
  > We can worship together and participate in protests, but can’t use outdoor playgrounds. They'd prohibit both religious gatherings and protests if they legally could. These are both explicitly listed as protected under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. constitution, so it wouldn't survive a court challenge, especially since a similar restriction from New York has already been struck down as unconstitutional.
robot 6y ago
I was at downtown Woodside CA last week and outdoor dining area was packed. And this is one of the most conscious places. I believe with a limited number of people and distance rules outdoor activity is okay, but dense outdoor dining is suspicious. Same with beach. beach is okay, a packed beach (try a popular one in half moon bay) might not be.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  San Mateo county isn’t following the rules..they are exempt from dining regulations. Woodside is an unincorporated town, iirc. The state parks and beaches in pescadaro and half moon bay etc is only for the residents. You are asked to turn back if you are not a resident. The cops run your plates. At least this was the case during the first lockdown. Not so much during the second one. There are 54 counties in California. Only 41 counties have mandatory lockdown.

natchy 6y ago

> and people are gathering with friends and relatives inside private homes more frequently than before We didn't learn our lesson from the war on drugs. When you make something completely off limits people will find a way to engage, but without any standards. Meeting people in secret (mask free) is the new drugs.

gnicholas 6y ago
Also, many sheriffs have said they will not enforce Newsom's order: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/12/05/stay-at-home-order-sheriff-enforcement/ https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/12/05/stay-at-home-orde...
- twblalock 6y ago
  This probably reveals several things: 1. Newsom's authority is not respected by law enforcement 2. Law enforcement thinks the curfew is not necessary 3. Law enforcement doesn't enjoy a governor springing new rules on them without advance notice, which is the result of his making things up as he goes along This is little league stuff. It's not the way a state in a first-world country should be operating.
  - theevilsharpie 6y ago
    Under the assumption that Gavin Newsom and his administration probably aren't completely stupid, we can come up with a more charitable (and likely realistic) revelations: 1. County sheriffs only have direct jurisdiction over unincorporated areas, which are typically rural and are unlikely to be a significant source of spread. 2. These orders are likely intended to give local governments stronger authority to shut down gatherings, should they choose to use it. 3. Even if local authorities refuse to enforce the orders, there are no explicitly COVID-19 liability protections for businesses that I'm aware of. If an outbreak occurs that can be traced back to a business that was operating against regulations, that in and of itself would make the business operators jointly (if not entirely) liable, and would give insurance companies a defensible reason for not paying out claims.

dheera 6y ago

Most outdoor dining I've seen in the bay area looks downright scary to me. The guideline is 2 meters of distance WITH masks; considering eating can't be done with masks I'd want at least 6+ meters of distance without masks, and in reality many of them don't even meet 2 meters. Add to that wait staff who aren't wearing a proper KN95 or N95 masks while serving dozens of customers; many of them have only surgical or cloth masks which wouldn't make safe handling my food. I'm also in a risk group for COVID though so I'm extra cautious.

gnicholas 6y ago

> The state government has not provided evidence that outdoor dining is responsible for much of the spread. When Los Angeles County recently ordered outdoor dining to be shut down, they were sued. A judge just ruled that the county must provide evidence linking outdoor dining to COVID spread: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-02/covid-19-la-county-outdoor-dining-ban-judge https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-02/covid-19...