6 ms·

Reading this I was expecting the same knee-jerk, panic response that has become the "acceptable" public health response to the problem the pandemic places befor

Reading this I was expecting the same knee-jerk, panic response that has become the "acceptable" public health response to the problem the pandemic places before us. While I detect a hint of futility in this statement, I am nonetheless deeply heartened to know some public health officials are themselves questioning some of the simplistic premises that have been driving policy to this point at all levels of government. Really there at least three attributes that I see in this statement that I don't typically see in utterings of our bureaucrats: 1) I actually get the sense of outright honesty from this statement. Not some overly messsaged, PR driven/reviewed statement by some spokes-hole. I actually think this statement is really what this guy believes... a public statement that even expresses some vulnerability. Despite the subject, very refreshing and I'd be more likely to listen seriously to what he has to say in future. 2) Struggling with right and good uses of power and seeing not using one's power as itself a public good. Good heavens... this guy should run for President! I expect I'd disagree with much of his politics, but I'd vote for him just for having such thoughts and expect the nation would be better off no matter his other leanings. 3) Questioning the mandates, their effectiveness, and whether they might be causing more harm than good. And not doing so from some artificial posturing to show "the right politics", but honest, genuine questioning. Whether you agree or not... I wish more of our public officials were this thoughtful on critical issues such as face us in this pandemic.

heleninboodler 6y ago
I agree wholeheartedly with all three of your points. I disagree strongly with one of his positions (I don't think we should be opening schools while the rest of us are locked down), but I too find it very, very encouraging to have a public official obviously using his brain and being honest about the fact that nobody really knows the right answer. And especially in the context about the use of power, the acknowledgement that imposing a lockdown doesn't actually necessarily change people's behavior all that much is a really good point. We've definitely seen that there are some that will intentionally do the opposite if they feel their freedoms are being impinged upon, so if it's not going to actually make an improvement, the gesture could be a huge mistake.
- remote_phone 6y ago
  Places like UK did a hard lockdown for 6 weeks and kept schools open. It completely worked. Yes, kids can transmit the virus, but it appears that as long as the ADULTS limit their interaction with other adults, kids have only a limited way of encountering infections.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Didn't UK have either the worst or second-worst outcome among all European nations?
    - glitchcrab 6y ago
      Yeah please don't use us as an example - the UK has handled this terribly.
    - AlphaSite 6y ago
      Yes, but it doesn't really disprove the assertion that lockdown's work. It more proves that the other approaches they tried either dont work or weren't applied effectively.
      - koheripbal 6y ago
        I suppose, but it also means that the conclusion above (that lockdowns excluding schools works) isn't based on any evidence.
        jacobush 6y ago
        Sweden did sort of a lockdown excluding schools up to pupils age 16.
        leoedin 6y ago
        To be clear, the UK entered a lockdown excluding schools on the 5th of November. Within a week, positive tests started declining significantly. The lockdown ended on the 2nd of December. Within a week, positive tests started going up again. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/08/covid-cases-and-deaths-today-coronavirus-uk-map https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/08/covid-cases-an... There is plenty of evidence that lockdowns do work. Whether they make sense from an economic or overall quality of life perspective is a separate issue. But they work.
shostack 6y ago
If you go back and read his earlier statements, you can clearly see the evolution of his frustration. He's been a straight shooter on this from the start.
interestica 6y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/coronavirus-san-mateo-scott-morrow.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/coronavirus-san-mateo-... From March "The Silicon Valley Doctor Who Doesn’t Mince Words on Coronavirus Threat"
KorematsuFred 6y ago
Indeed. A very rare instance where a government official questions his own wisdom. Wish more california officials were like him. Not only mandates are completely ineffective (compared to the other much better alternatives) some of the folks like me feel compelled to call BS on many of the "dictats" and make it an ideological issue. At that stage, states credibility reduces even further.
- ketzo 6y ago
  Okay, I’ll bite — what would be better (from a public health perspective) than government mandates for masks, social distancing, and reduced/restricted indoor gathering? And, to be clear, what makes you say they are ineffective? Because literally everything I’ve seen everywhere says that those three things are basically the only things that have been effective.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Those actions are helpful. The question read to me as whether the mandate to do them was the maximally effective course. Education, facts, and increasing public consciousness seem like they’d be more effective than mandates for private gatherings. People who would follow the mandate in private would likely also follow educational campaigns. Voluntary compliance based on understanding works everywhere. Mandates only work where you can be seen.
vmception 6y ago
the bay area finds it easier to govern when nobody is doing anything. they are using the pandemic as convenience to an extent. they don't have a holistic solution and they don't know what they are doing. yes, it does keep case numbers lower and lagging. the health official here is right though.
bsder 6y ago
Quoting the man, himself: > I think people should stay at home, avoid all non-essential activities, wear masks, and not gather with anyone outside their households. I’ve been saying this for about 10 months now. If you didn’t listen to my (and many others) entreaties before, I don’t think you’ll likely change your behavior based on a new order. I disagree with this wholeheartedly. People are getting a LOT of pressure to see family right now. Strong messages from people in authority absolutely will cause some people to think more about this. It also gives them an external authority to appeal to when resisting peer pressure. Yes, you're not going to get the dipshits. However, being able to tell family, that you maybe didn't even want to see all that much anyway (a lot of people only do the extended family thing out of obligation at the holidays), that there is an "Official Order(tm)" to "Don't gather" helps. This is similar to official "mask mandates". This helps because a store can now say "Sir, the city/county/state has issued official orders to wear masks and we will have to ask you to leave if you don't wear it." An official mandate gives the store political cover. It also gives the average citizen the ability to ask the store to kick someone out who is non-compliant. The "Bully Pulpit" is a real thing.
- wnissen 6y ago
  I agree that there are difficult tradeoffs here. Essentially ever official has said that there will be no enforcement, so the order effectively only applies to the persuadable. My kid's scout troop is still meeting, kinda sorta complying with the letter of the order. I have advocated multiple times with the leadership to stop the meetings or at a minimum restrict them to small, stable groups, but I am the only one who feels that way. Perhaps a more severe shutdown would persuade them, but perhaps not. I wonder if just a few token enforcement actions, such as pulling people over and asking if they are complying, or modest fines for the local megachurch with 95 cars in the parking lot on Sundays, would go a long way toward making people think twice. There's a common feeling that if something is legal, it's OK, and I find that's rarely true. It's legal to fart in an elevator, but that doesn't make it right. BTW, the "bully pulpit" specifically
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    95 cars sure doesn't meet my definition of a megachurch. That's rather small, actually.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deeviant 6y ago
People only tend to appreciate thoughtfulness and restraint when said thoughtfulness and restraint benefits and/or agrees with their own positions.

heleninboodler 6y ago

I agree wholeheartedly with all three of your points. I disagree strongly with one of his positions (I don't think we should be opening schools while the rest of us are locked down), but I too find it very, very encouraging to have a public official obviously using his brain and being honest about the fact that nobody really knows the right answer. And especially in the context about the use of power, the acknowledgement that imposing a lockdown doesn't actually necessarily change people's behavior all that much is a really good point. We've definitely seen that there are some that will intentionally do the opposite if they feel their freedoms are being impinged upon, so if it's not going to actually make an improvement, the gesture could be a huge mistake.

remote_phone 6y ago
Places like UK did a hard lockdown for 6 weeks and kept schools open. It completely worked. Yes, kids can transmit the virus, but it appears that as long as the ADULTS limit their interaction with other adults, kids have only a limited way of encountering infections.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Didn't UK have either the worst or second-worst outcome among all European nations?
  - glitchcrab 6y ago
    Yeah please don't use us as an example - the UK has handled this terribly.
  - AlphaSite 6y ago
    Yes, but it doesn't really disprove the assertion that lockdown's work. It more proves that the other approaches they tried either dont work or weren't applied effectively.
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      I suppose, but it also means that the conclusion above (that lockdowns excluding schools works) isn't based on any evidence.
      - jacobush 6y ago
        Sweden did sort of a lockdown excluding schools up to pupils age 16.
      - leoedin 6y ago
        To be clear, the UK entered a lockdown excluding schools on the 5th of November. Within a week, positive tests started declining significantly. The lockdown ended on the 2nd of December. Within a week, positive tests started going up again. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/08/covid-cases-and-deaths-today-coronavirus-uk-map https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/08/covid-cases-an... There is plenty of evidence that lockdowns do work. Whether they make sense from an economic or overall quality of life perspective is a separate issue. But they work.

shostack 6y ago

If you go back and read his earlier statements, you can clearly see the evolution of his frustration. He's been a straight shooter on this from the start.

interestica 6y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/coronavirus-san-mateo-scott-morrow.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/coronavirus-san-mateo-... From March "The Silicon Valley Doctor Who Doesn’t Mince Words on Coronavirus Threat"

KorematsuFred 6y ago

Indeed. A very rare instance where a government official questions his own wisdom. Wish more california officials were like him. Not only mandates are completely ineffective (compared to the other much better alternatives) some of the folks like me feel compelled to call BS on many of the "dictats" and make it an ideological issue. At that stage, states credibility reduces even further.

ketzo 6y ago
Okay, I’ll bite — what would be better (from a public health perspective) than government mandates for masks, social distancing, and reduced/restricted indoor gathering? And, to be clear, what makes you say they are ineffective? Because literally everything I’ve seen everywhere says that those three things are basically the only things that have been effective.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Those actions are helpful. The question read to me as whether the mandate to do them was the maximally effective course. Education, facts, and increasing public consciousness seem like they’d be more effective than mandates for private gatherings. People who would follow the mandate in private would likely also follow educational campaigns. Voluntary compliance based on understanding works everywhere. Mandates only work where you can be seen.

vmception 6y ago

the bay area finds it easier to govern when nobody is doing anything. they are using the pandemic as convenience to an extent. they don't have a holistic solution and they don't know what they are doing. yes, it does keep case numbers lower and lagging. the health official here is right though.

bsder 6y ago

Quoting the man, himself: > I think people should stay at home, avoid all non-essential activities, wear masks, and not gather with anyone outside their households. I’ve been saying this for about 10 months now. If you didn’t listen to my (and many others) entreaties before, I don’t think you’ll likely change your behavior based on a new order. I disagree with this wholeheartedly. People are getting a LOT of pressure to see family right now. Strong messages from people in authority absolutely will cause some people to think more about this. It also gives them an external authority to appeal to when resisting peer pressure. Yes, you're not going to get the dipshits. However, being able to tell family, that you maybe didn't even want to see all that much anyway (a lot of people only do the extended family thing out of obligation at the holidays), that there is an "Official Order(tm)" to "Don't gather" helps. This is similar to official "mask mandates". This helps because a store can now say "Sir, the city/county/state has issued official orders to wear masks and we will have to ask you to leave if you don't wear it." An official mandate gives the store political cover. It also gives the average citizen the ability to ask the store to kick someone out who is non-compliant. The "Bully Pulpit" is a real thing.

wnissen 6y ago
I agree that there are difficult tradeoffs here. Essentially ever official has said that there will be no enforcement, so the order effectively only applies to the persuadable. My kid's scout troop is still meeting, kinda sorta complying with the letter of the order. I have advocated multiple times with the leadership to stop the meetings or at a minimum restrict them to small, stable groups, but I am the only one who feels that way. Perhaps a more severe shutdown would persuade them, but perhaps not. I wonder if just a few token enforcement actions, such as pulling people over and asking if they are complying, or modest fines for the local megachurch with 95 cars in the parking lot on Sundays, would go a long way toward making people think twice. There's a common feeling that if something is legal, it's OK, and I find that's rarely true. It's legal to fart in an elevator, but that doesn't make it right. BTW, the "bully pulpit" specifically
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  95 cars sure doesn't meet my definition of a megachurch. That's rather small, actually.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deeviant 6y ago

People only tend to appreciate thoughtfulness and restraint when said thoughtfulness and restraint benefits and/or agrees with their own positions.