"Keep your distance, wear a mask, and stick to small groups" is not the same as "do not socialize".
Ok, but then we have people doing solo activities, all by themselves, minding their own business -- getting arrested by lunatics[1] because we said no beach allowed during Covid[2]!
How do we reconcile that?
[1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/paddle-b...
You'll find California (and everywhere else) has loosened up substantially on outdoor activities, as we have substantially more information in recent months on outdoor versus indoor transmission. We've learned a lot since April about COVID-19.
It wasn't about safety. Arresting a lone surfer or lone beach jogger isn't about safety. It's about compliance. You must comply.
This whole discussion is absurd. If people actually did comply, then they wouldn't get arrested and we would have had a far more successful outcome nationwide.
We said "No beach during Covid" because a bunch of lunatics flooded the open beaches.
And while the beach may not be a problem, those same lunatics flood the gas stations, Walmarts, etc. and DON'T WEAR MASKS.
In addition, California never really locked down. California has almost continuously had an R0 above 1.0. Mostly due to the lunatics in Southern California.
If you want to open the beaches and arrest anybody not local, fine. The problem with THAT is that you now have to patrol for it--which creates in-person contact.
So, we shut the beaches completely. Sorry you can't surf. Tell your population cohort to wear your masks and stay the hell out of parties and maybe California will get below R0 one day.
Or not. And this crap can continue until we get a vaccine.
Don't allow large gatherings? OK fine, I might object to this, but I can see the other side at least.
Not allowing individuals to do individual activities? That seems misguided at best.
After all, we do allow Ice Cream Parlors to be open, and outdoor seating at restaurants where you sit in close proximity to other people who are not wearing masks... how is that better than jogging on the beach all by yourself?
They aren't better, and none of this is actually about safety nor is it about "Flattening the Curve" anymore. We flattened the curve long, long ago.
No, it's not about safety, it's about compliance. You will comply, regardless of how illogical or contradictory certain County Health Official Edicts are.
Please reread my post. I already told you what the problem was.
A zillion people flooded the open beaches. The problem is that those zillion people then go places other than the beach and spread Covid.
The only real way to prevent that is to simply close the beach. Yes, that sucks for locals. So far, you have not presented an alternative solution. "Reopen the things!" is NOT a solution--it's idiocy.
However, you know what sucks more for locals? Getting Covid 19 from a bunch of out-of-towners because you work at the grocery stores, gas stations, etc. that they all flood after the beach.
Stop being a selfish prat. If you just have to be outdoors, go hike the mountains.
> it's idiocy.
> Stop being a selfish prat
Wow, that's quite an aggressive response, no?
The solution to your problem is to not allow large gatherings on the beach. That's pretty simple, right? We're doing that already everywhere else - lines to get into stores, etc. Or enforce wearing a mask? There's plenty of ways to do this that don't result in a squad of cops running down a solo jogger, or a task force of patrol boats and helicopters for a solo surfer... just because the Mayor or County Health Official said it must be so!
So, what's wrong, for the 3rd time, with a solo jogger on the beach, with nobody around them?
The answer, for a 3rd time, is nothing.
> However, you know what sucks more for locals? Getting Covid 19 from a bunch of out-of-towners
You really think that risk doesn't exist for locals going to grocery stores too? Touching a can of food, then putting it back on the shelf? Handling paper money, grocery bags, etc.
What we have here are not rules for the sake of safety. What we have here are not rules for the sake of "Flattening the Curve".
No, we have rules for the sake of rules. They make some people feel safer, even though there's zero evidence to suggest they are effective at achieving their intended goals. The reason people are disobeying these "orders" is because the government has not done a sufficient job convincing people the rules are based on logic and actual science, not "science" and politics.
It is not inherently more risky to jog on the beach by yourself than to go sit at an outdoor restaurant, no mask, and be around a bunch of other people.
It would be intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise. Yet, here we are.
There are ads on pretty much every medium that say "Stay Home", which is not at all what you're describing. To say "nobody is saying do not socialize" is untrue, but to say "We're not allowed to socialize" is also untrue.
All of the normal places where you see people socialize have bee closed or went out business. Restaurants, bars, night clubs, sporting events, live music (festivals and stadiums) and many, many others.
It would be one thing to conform to what your saying, but its become hard if not impossible to find safe places where people CAN socialize, so they take what they get regardless of the risks to them or others.
If you can't socialize outside a bar, that's on you.
Comments like this and the ever popular "it's just a mask!" show a remarkable lack of awareness and understanding. Yes, that's perhaps overly selfish of me. Yes, there are people at serious risk, and many people dying or developing life-long serious complications. But this has been the worst period in my entire life, by far. I was regularly, very seriously, suicidal (have since moved back in with my parents now that they're stateside, starting to get better). All the policies and all the talk are oriented around having a network of close relations to fall back on. That doesn't exist for everyone.
We're going to see pretty significant long term effects to both the economy and children / young people due to a lack of social development.
I couldn't even imagine how shitty being a 20 something in a new city would be now. Dating has to be practically non-existent.
Should say that I'm for and obey covid restrictions in my country (Canada), but I'm amoung the privileged few already working from home, and have a family and kids that keep me busy.
Even in articles about house parties, major media outlets go and grab a beach photo for some reason. It's bad reporting.
2. Why can't people socialize online? It's even easier nowadays. It might not be the same thing but it can get pretty close.
It is not anywhere near close. Video calls transfer speech, tone of voice, and facial expressions at best. Body language is a vital part of face-to-face communication, and there is no video call equivalent of leaning in towards someone or putting your hand on theirs.
On the whole, both of us loved the lockdown for the 2-3 months but after that, not being able to see our close friends really started wearing on us. We were some of the first in our group to start expanding our quarantine units. Sometimes I need to remind myself of this, but the right amount of social interaction is a very rewarding and enriching part of the human experience.
What? That's a pretty exaggerated misrepresentation of what's actually being recommended. You can socialize and see or do plenty while still obeying the recommendations. For instance, my elderly neighbors regularly socialize with others -- they just put chairs out on the driveway or patio and maintain two or three times the distance as they would before the pandemic.
Buy yeah, we are just finishing out month 5 and heading into 6. But the most stringent lock downs were only into May for a lot of places; at least hear in San Antonio.
And if people had actually sheltered in place back in March, we might be opening back up (or opening with fewer COVID clusters).
The problem I do have is a substantial number of people appear to be ignoring any/all orders to stay home, distance, etc. Everything from the speakeasy gyms mentioned in the article to churches holding indoor services to in-person classes at local schools. All three of which, by most accounts, are likely to result in new COVID clusters.
There is an exit strategy, and we'd be part of it if we could have just followed the directions of doctors and epidemiologists.
What directions did they follow that allows Wuhan to have pool parties? I don't understand how having pool parties can be ok. Does the virus not exist there? How can that be possible?
Well luckily we have this thing called the internet that lets you see images, video, and text from far away places.
> What directions did they follow that allows Wuhan to have pool parties? I don't understand how having pool parties can be ok. Does the virus not exist there? How can that be possible?
Full lockdown, including stipends to help people out economically, heavy maks usage, massive amounts of tests (when they saw six new cases after not having any, they did 6.5M tests in a week in wuhan), and scanning temperatures of pretty much anyone anytime they go into public area.
Which leads to this https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/asia/wuhan-water-park-party-i...
There's a genuine culture difference in America, call it American Exceptionalism if you want, that's caused all sorts of normal preventative measures to be ignored or actively rejected. Many businesses actively rejected the idea of requiring masks, today some businesses still refuse service if you're wearing a mask. That's pretty ridiculous if you ask me.
Moreso in this thread you have hundreds of comments hemming and hawing, nitting and picking at every detail of proposed lockdowns and mask requirements. People hate this stuff and they call it an imposition on their freedom.
In other countries people just put on masks and stayed home. They didn't make nearly as much of a fuss about it all.
Yes. But my point is, I don't see how that could make them any closer to re-opening. The virus still exists. All the factors in play when the lockdowns started are still in play.
Remember, lockdown isn't about 100% prevention, it's about keeping infections at a level that's acceptable (generally defined as keeping enough ICU beds and ventilators available for COVID+normal use).
If people all wear masks, keep distance when possible, and generally "follow the rules", we should be able to return to a more normal lifestyle.
But, as politicians force schools to open, pastors insist on in-person services, and the "mah rights!" crowd refuses to play by the rules at all, we get more COVID clusters than we might otherwise.
That levels in other urban areas generally stayed below thresholds is proof that the lockdowns worked.
Until the pandemic passes (either via mutation, vaccine, or herd immunity), we should be in a state of maintenance where we move in/out of various levels of lockdown/open to keep it that way.
I couldn't find more than one case of this so I'm curious if you have any evidence it's widespread.
"Everyone stop moving around for a few days so we can contact trace and test these people without it spreading more" seems like a very good mitigation.
It has worked well for NZ thus far; they've been able to demask, hug, and live life pretty much normally for a while now.
I'd happily take the occasional few days hard lockdown in exchange for that.
As of now, the US has more than 100x deaths per capita from covid than New Zealand because of measures like that.
The US death toll is over 170.000 now because both people and government alike did not take the measures needed to contain the disease.
But hey, 170.000 is just a number, right? Just like the trillions gained in the stock market. Fuck the people that died, they were weak. Right?
Maybe these extroverts aren't extroverts and instead they're regular people suffering from withdrawal because we live in an over-socialized society.
We are now on month 7 of being told to not socialize or see or do anything. I continue to obey the orders, but I totally get why some people are starting to crack.