As of Monday, January 25th, San Mateo County has lifted the Regional Stay at Home Order, following Gov. Newsom who lifted the strict stay-at-home order in favor of allowing local authorities to control reopening plans. As for San Mateo, outdoor dining and personal services are able to resume this week. While the rate of new coronavirus cases and the infection rate in California is slowing, this lifted order comes at a time in which LA County is still overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients and new, more contagious variants of the coronavirus are appearing in the US, following Europe, Africa, and South America.
So why did California lawmakers decide now was a good time to lighten restrictions? Besides the flattening rate of new COVID-19 cases, lessened restricts also benefit many businesses. In fact, LA county leaders especially have been faced with frustrated business owners, upset about forced closures. Without scientific proof that transmission occurs often in outdoor dining circumstances, it has been difficult for California leaders to justify outlawing outdoor dining and similar restrictions. Furthermore, state leaders are reflecting on the past months, commenting that California was not as overwhelmed with the virus as predicted and therefore were feeling positive about the future of COVID-19 in the state.
While some restrictions have been lifted, it is important to note that the state will still be regulated by a system of rules based on the prevalence of the virus in each county.
Some criticisms to California's lightened restrictions include; Chairwoman Patterson of the CA Republican Party: "This Governor's decisions have never been based on science... It's sad and pathetic," and the reality that California is behind on vaccine rollout.
The fact that Gov. Newsom said he rushed to lift the restrictions as quickly as possible is discomforting. Even if the numbers do indicate that it is safe to reduce restrictions, Newsom's recent actions seem to be fueled by economic pressure. Is lifting restrictions truly going to be solution for the 9% unemployment rate or the series of restaurant and hotel closures? Is this really the right direction for the state even as worry rises regarding the vaccine rollout and hospitalization numbers?
8 comments:
A lot of people have disagreed with the Stay at home orders from the beginning, some were business owners who wanted to keep their business alive and running, others were kids who just wanted to go to school, all around I think a lot of people wanted this stay at home order lifted. But there is safety issues, in counties up North, we are going better, we have more ICU beds and we are administering vaccinations to health care workers, child care reps and many others which is a step in the right direction. While such vaccinations are happening down South in LA and Orange County cases are still really high and many people aren't taking to the stay at home order. It is concerning to see cases rising in Counties down south and how the continued to get worse even with the Stay at Home Order. I think that the state reopening is a good and a bad thing, good for our mom and pop shops and for the people that just want to get to work and do their job, but bad for others with compromising health issues. Moving forward we need to look at what is really essential and what we really need in order to keep everyone around us healthy and safe. I think if we continue to mask up, social distance and staying with in our "social bubbles" we can keep things safe.
It makes sense as to why Newsom decided to life the stay at home order because of many small business owners and others who depend on things that were restricted. But the thing is while things are pretty okay here, in Southern California the situation is a lot worse. Where cases are still t a high and ICU beds are full in many hospitals. With the cases not going down, taking away the stay at home order may only make it worse. There will always be benefits and consequences to things and while this will help out people get back to work, there will be people who go out and compromise others. The only thing we can do now is evaluate what is essential and despite allowed to go out, decide if it is really needed to go out; even so, if you choose to, make sure to take precautions and stay safe to keep things well right now.
Newsom’s stay-at-home order affected the parts of California that needed to be affected; the necessity to “stay at home” was decided on a county-by-county basis. A county needed a remaining ICU capacity below 15% in order to effect the stay-at-home order, and Newsom’s justification for lifting orders was models that projected a rise of ICU capacity in the next four weeks. Yet LA county is still reporting less than 15% (it’s at 11% as of Jan. 27). LA county also lifted air quality limits to allow for more cremations only a little more than a week ago. According to NBC on Jan. 16, one person died from COVID-19 every six minutes in LA. For most of early January, San Mateo County had less than 10 ICU beds. The highly populated parts of California aren't ready for more lenient restrictions.
Further than the potential for harm, local officials and state legislatures weren’t adequately notified of Newsom’s rash plans to change protocol, leaving gaps in information and regulation at the local level. People already were evading the stay-at-home order, the store capacities, the regulations. Bypassing restrictions is quite easy when there are no repercussions (curfew???). San Mateo County tried advising social bubbles of three (IIRC) families, but “social bubbles” don’t work unless they are legitimate bubbles. Instead, the bubbles turned into a complicated venn diagram with one’s family, the family of a grocery store worker, one’s dentist, doctor, their staff and family, and everyone else their “bubble” family came in contact with.
While San Mateo County may be in phase 1b of vaccinations, we are no where close to herd immunity. And while COVID-19 cases are trending downwards, they’re still awfully high: more than two times California’s numbers in mid-November. Teetering on the edge of safe and not safe will be harmful long term, for families and communities losing members, for the economy, for small businesses, for hospitals and healthcare workers facing PTSD. Sticking to a stay-at-home order could’ve put us further from the edge, but instead we’re standing with one foot dangling off the ledge.
I like what Kayla has said about how there aren't really any repercussions for those evading the covid-19 restrictions, and have to agree about how forming social bubbles is not as simple as it sounds. Right now, it looks like the once far-fetched republican effort (followers of QAnon and other extremists) to recall Gavin Newsom has turned into a credible campaign -- a lot of people don't agree with how he has gone about the pandemic (maskless at the Napa party after advising people to social distance AND vaccine rollout), and people have issues with the unemployment fraud that happened recently. While Newsom remains popular in the polls, the recall supporters are gaining signatures on their petition to force a special election for the governor. By March 17th, they need to submit 1.5 million signatures of registered voters (12% the initial vote turnout), and proponents say they are hoping to present about 2 million signatures (KQED). It also looks like a lot of people that come from tech backgrounds are backing this effort, donating from $25,000-100,000. I would be very surprised if they were able to accumulate that many signatures, and if they did, to vote Newsom out of office. I guess we'll have to see what happens in mid-March.
Re-opening is inevitable. Our economy is fragile, and small businesses who rely heavily on daily revenue will not survive an entire year of Stay-At-Home orders. While I completely understand the risk in opening more businesses back up, it would be imprudent for the state to ignore the economic crisis many families are currently enduring. Especially with such a high cost of living in California, it is difficult for those with businesses to make ends meet when people are being told not to go there. I believe what California is doing (a consistent pattern of closing and opening back up), is a good way to find a middle ground. Especially with many essential workers being vaccinated right now, making use of the valuable time we have while COVID rates are low is important. Of course, if cases begin to sky rocket, then another Stay-At-Home order should be put in place. However, in the mean time, I think supporting smaller businesses and enforcing safety guidelines is the best bet to preserve both the economy and national health.
I agree with Ashley and Amy’s statements regarding the still alarming number of Covid-19 cases in Southern California. I also find the statistics Kayla mentioned, regarding LA County falling below the 15% threshold for remaining ICU capacity, extremely concerning. With a new Covid-19 variant initially discovered at a Boston hospital (and later identified in other countries), now possibly arising in California, the stakes for balancing the control of the virus with competing economic pressures from businesses hindered by such restrictions, could not be higher. Research in South Africa has demonstrated that these Covid-19 variants, such as “N501Y,” could contribute to “a pattern in which uncontrolled spread and long-haul infections work in tandem to fuel coronavirus mutations” (Healy). As individuals with compromised immune systems are more likely to experience these dangerous, “long-haul” infections, it is extremely important to recognize that these variants are likely to threaten the effectiveness of current FDA-approved Covid-19 vaccines, meaning leaders should prioritize the safeguarding of public health. As emphasized by infectious disease researcher Tulio de Oliveira, “keep[ing] the virus around for a long time, [is] giving it more opportunities to outsmart us.”
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-01-30/long-term-covid-19-patients-are-incubating-dangerous-new-coronavirus-strains
I agree with Emma's point about the inevitability of re-opening restaurants. Many businesses in our county are small businesses and rely on the flow of people buying from them. Not all places have the luxury of doing take outs and food delivery. The volume of customers had drastically decreased since mid to late last year. With the Stay-at-home order, their income practically risks dropping to zero. I don't think that the pattern of opening and reopening places is working. I think this lift is going to benefit those businesses but a large risk to the workers and customers. Not only do they have to share a space, but also the clean ups are potential exposures to covid. Although our situation here is not as bad as the outbreaks in LA County, I think everyone should still be cautious about the choices they make. Reducing/limiting the times you go out to eat will already decrease your chances of getting the virus.
While all these comments seem to agree that reopening certainly brings great costs, I think that Emma's acknowledgement of the inevitability of reopening is very relevant. Rachel as well brought up the importance of finding a way to reopen restaurants as many do not have the resources or accessibility to stay open for long periods of time relying only on take out & food delivery options. The reality that restaurants must reopen made me wonder when will restaurant employees, especially servers and hosts that interact with many unmasked customers, be vaccinated? According to a Restaurant Business article from about a month and a half ago, restaurant employees are part of the next group that is to be vaccinated, following "Frontline Essential Workers" and individuals 75 and older. This is definitely reassuring, but with the inconsistent vaccine rollout it is hard to predict when foodservice workers will begin to get vaccinated.
The reopening of restaurants and similar places also makes me question when schools will reopen. As a student, I find it hard to watch bars and restaurants be reopened before I am able to return to school. However, it is easy to see how the economic factors can put pressure on reopening restaurants where it does exist for schools. In-person, outdoor dining is necessary for most restaurants to be able to stay open and provide jobs to many individuals. Teachers/staff at schools, on the other hand, can still receive their normal salaries while also getting the added benefit of staying at home and away from coronavirus risks.
Post a Comment