3 ms·

> people would rather see hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens die than close down restaurants for a month There is no evidence that closing outdoor

> people would rather see hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens die than close down restaurants for a month There is no evidence that closing outdoor dining would save that many lives. If such evidence existed, LA surely would have shown it to the court. People aren't mad that they can't go to restaurants anymore -- they are mad that they are losing their jobs and their businesses as a direct result of government action for which the government cannot provide any public health justification, while they watch the government allow far riskier activities to continue.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
We don't have time right now to run randomized controlled trials, while the number of cases continues to rise rapidly and hospitals fill up. Exactly how dangerous each activity is is difficult to know. We have to apply reasoning to what we know about the transmission mechanisms and people's social behaviors. People sit across from one another without masks for long periods of time at restaurants, and they're social meeting points. It's entirely reasonable to assume they're a likely location for transmission. The basic point is that at the moment, most public life has to be shut down, so that R drops below 1 and new cases decrease. Restaurants are very low down on the list of essential services that need to be kept running in order for society to function. We can temporarily shut down restaurants and compensate them for their losses.
- twblalock 6y ago
  > We don't have time right now to run randomized controlled trials, while the number of cases continues to rise rapidly and hospitals fill up. Exactly how dangerous each activity is is difficult to know. We have data on various types of activities now. LA's own data showed outdoor dining only being responsible for 4% of the spread, for example. It's hard to justify draconian measures for such a drop in the bucket. > We can temporarily shut down restaurants and compensate them for their losses. For how long? California can't just print money. (The Federal government can, but that's a different problem altogether.)
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    It's one of many things that will have to close down. Every business will argue that it should be an exception, that there's not enough evidence (I've heard this from so many random businesses - "there's no study showing that the virus spreads in hair salons/pet shops/clothing retailers/badminton clubs") or that it's only a small part of the overall picture. In the end, tons of non-essential business will stay open, and transmission will remain too high. The policy should be across the board, with exceptions only for things that really are necessary (groceries, pharmacies, utilities, delivery services, etc.). The level of contacts between people has to drop as much as possible, so that R can be pushed down as far as possible. The father you push R down, the shorter the lockdown has to be. Countries that have gone halfway have found that new case numbers plateau, but that things don't get any better - they just don't get worse. > California can't just print money. (The Federal government can, but that's a different problem altogether.) That's one of the reasons why the Federal government is critical for an effective response. It has vast financial resources that the states, individually, do not have.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

We don't have time right now to run randomized controlled trials, while the number of cases continues to rise rapidly and hospitals fill up. Exactly how dangerous each activity is is difficult to know. We have to apply reasoning to what we know about the transmission mechanisms and people's social behaviors. People sit across from one another without masks for long periods of time at restaurants, and they're social meeting points. It's entirely reasonable to assume they're a likely location for transmission. The basic point is that at the moment, most public life has to be shut down, so that R drops below 1 and new cases decrease. Restaurants are very low down on the list of essential services that need to be kept running in order for society to function. We can temporarily shut down restaurants and compensate them for their losses.

twblalock 6y ago
> We don't have time right now to run randomized controlled trials, while the number of cases continues to rise rapidly and hospitals fill up. Exactly how dangerous each activity is is difficult to know. We have data on various types of activities now. LA's own data showed outdoor dining only being responsible for 4% of the spread, for example. It's hard to justify draconian measures for such a drop in the bucket. > We can temporarily shut down restaurants and compensate them for their losses. For how long? California can't just print money. (The Federal government can, but that's a different problem altogether.)
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  It's one of many things that will have to close down. Every business will argue that it should be an exception, that there's not enough evidence (I've heard this from so many random businesses - "there's no study showing that the virus spreads in hair salons/pet shops/clothing retailers/badminton clubs") or that it's only a small part of the overall picture. In the end, tons of non-essential business will stay open, and transmission will remain too high. The policy should be across the board, with exceptions only for things that really are necessary (groceries, pharmacies, utilities, delivery services, etc.). The level of contacts between people has to drop as much as possible, so that R can be pushed down as far as possible. The father you push R down, the shorter the lockdown has to be. Countries that have gone halfway have found that new case numbers plateau, but that things don't get any better - they just don't get worse. > California can't just print money. (The Federal government can, but that's a different problem altogether.) That's one of the reasons why the Federal government is critical for an effective response. It has vast financial resources that the states, individually, do not have.