[lex24]

B

That’s why on June 5 the Contra Costa County Order said it was ok to have gatherings of up to 100.  As long as you were protesting. Outdoor services- no.  That was a no-no.  Makes perfect sense from a health standpoint. Right?

Contra Costa County's June 5 health order allowed outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, as well as protests of up to 100 people.

EDIT : I was off a couple days. The order i was referring to was June 2.  Amended as Terry points out on June 5.

This issue requires some context. Contra Costa County issued a health order on Tuesday, June 2, which approved outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, effective on June 15. The same June 2 order also approved protests of up to 100 people, with no effective date specified, so it was effective immediately.

So, the June 2 order approved both outdoor religious services and protests, and the order established the same attendance limit for both of them. This apparently indicated a belief that outdoor religious services and protests carried similar levels of health risk. But there were slightly different effective dates. 

Three days later, on Friday June 5, the county changed the effective date for religious services, allowing religious services to begin immediately. This change was made in time for weekend services. So, there was a three-day period, from Tuesday through Thursday, when protests were allowed but religious services were not yet allowed. After that, they were treated similarly.

To me, the similarity in treatment is a more significant indication of the county's public health assessment than is the difference in effective dates. 

So, why was there a difference in effective dates? I don't know, but here's my guess. I believe the county probably had been working on this public health order for several weeks, and had been targeting the June 15 date for resumption of religious services. I suspect the county wanted to give churches some lead time to plan their safety protocols. 

Then, shortly before the June 2 order was issued, George Floyd was murdered and protests broke out. I suspect that the provision approving protests of up to 100 people was added at the last minute in response to the protests that already were happening. There was probably some urgency around adding this provision. I'm guessing that nobody really thought through the difference between the effective dates of the protest provision and the religious services provision. These provisions appeared in two different appendices to the health order. To me, it looks like the people who prepared the document failed to coordinate the two provisions, then fixed it when the issue was pointed out. I'm reluctant to attribute to malice that which can be explained by bureaucracy or incompetence.

June 2 order -- 

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...d346a9.pdf (see part 3)

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...562dab.pdf (see part 2)

I have a different take. Namely that the CoCo county Health Czar got (deservedly) a boatload of criticism for the June 2 Order.  The Floyd protests began on May 26.  They were already going strong when the Order came out.  There was no reason to mention them in the first place.   NONE. It’s not as if anybody was going to avoid protesting because of the SIP.   Further, I fully remember the two week delay relating to religious services. In fact I remember at the time commenting that if I were a religious leader what I would call for our congregation to have an outdoor protest/service that next weekend limited to 100 people. Wear your facemask. 

 Mind you, I’m not particularly religious (I do not attend any service) nor was I the least bit opposed to the protests. My point was and remains this – there are politics all over this issue. On both sides of the ledger. Not just from the right. Not anywhere close. And what we are getting from the press is not the full story on this virus. Again, not even close. 

While I appreciate your benign take – I think it’s much more likely that they did exactly what they planned to do in the June 2 order not realizing the push back they would get. And then - to their credit - they corrected it quickly.

 It is absurd to suggest that there are “acceptable“ and “unacceptable“ behaviors relating to what essentially is the same thing – outdoor gatherings. Either, from a spread standpoint, you can have them up to a certain level, or you cannot.  Obviously people should be masked. No matter what.   But please don’t say that it’s OK to have 100 people doing X but not OK to have 100 people doing Y outdoors. (Assuming equal masking and distancing) It makes no sense whatsoever from an epidemiological standpoint. It’s politics, pure and simple.

And if you think I’m wrong let me ask a simple question: assume everything is exactly the same the amount of people masked percentage wise etc. etc. etc. but instead of Black Lives Matter protests the protests were Trump supporters protesting whatever. Do you truly believe that the media would be falling all over themselves to suggest that it had a little or no impact to the spread of the virus. Well Fox would, of course. But nobody else in the MSM.

I read the study BC attached – it was early for one thing and there has been a ton of protests since, a lot more people involved, more cities involved etc. Further the bit about people staying home because of the protests is, to me, a classic example of researchers finding something to support the hypothesis they want to advance. How that is possibly handled from a mathematical/scientific standpoint is beyond me. You not only would have to know numbers of people going out before and after - but you’d have to know if they were family members, social bubbles, or strangers gathering. It is impossible. As is any kind of contact tracing from 15 to 26 Million people gathering in over 1,000 cities.

And just so anotherfan doesn’t misconstrue me once again – no problem with the protests. They were righteous.

---

Most transmission is indoors. 
Masks help. A lot. 
There are certainly going to be some cases from outdoor transmission, but the physics of particle flow make it much less likely. I'll bet most of the "backyard barbecue" transmission involved going indoors while attending or very close contact without hand washing or masks. I don't think outdoor activities need to be banned IF people wear masks and they keep a few feet of distance. Hard to wear a mask while eating, though.

I live in Willow Glen in San Jose, and we have a three-block downtown.  The restaurants have opened up for outdoor dining.  Some had porches/patios already, some commandeered a portion of the street or the broad sidewalks.  It's interesting...some of the restaurants have gone to some elaborate lengths to create an "indoor" setting with elaborate awnings.  Some have clearly spaced tables 8-10 feet apart.  Some have placed tables essentially back to back outdoors.  I don't know what the statistics are, but I won't dine in a restaurant that has tried to replicate an "indoor" setting, nor at the restaurants where the tables are outdoors but are back to back.

Spent a few nights at Carmel Valley Ranch (just had to get the family out of the house).  My wife and I dined twice at restaurants in Carmel.  Incredibly hard to get a reservation for Th and F nights (though admittedly, the serving window has shrunk - I presume, anyway, as reservations stopped at 9:15).  All outdoor seating, but I doubt everyone outside was 6 feet apart from occupants of other tables, but I didn't get out the tap measure.  

Food great, but the best part was to get a sense of normalcy (and to see many folks out and about).  BTW, masks everywhere, except while dining at the tables.

Excellent.  We go to Bernardus in Carmel Valley every few years (25th anniversary there).  We like Lucia (their restaurant) and they have a nice bar menu with plenty of spaced tables.  And if you go during the week, the price is right.

My girlfriend took me to Bernardus for my birthday a couple weekends ago. Ate at both CVR (a little disappointing but that could have been due to ordering) and Lucia’s, which was fantastic. I ordered a Waygu NY and a nice bottle of Cab, so it was somewhat steep.  But oh so worth it. One of the best steaks I’ve ever had. Tenderness of a filet with the flavor of a NY. Had an outdoor massage. Everyone masked. Felt very safe. It was fantastic. 

Bernardus is perfect for this.  Spread out. Not a lot of contact with others. Wonderful place.

[lex24]

B

That’s why on June 5 the Contra Costa County Order said it was ok to have gatherings of up to 100.  As long as you were protesting. Outdoor services- no.  That was a no-no.  Makes perfect sense from a health standpoint. Right?

Contra Costa County's June 5 health order allowed outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, as well as protests of up to 100 people.

EDIT : I was off a couple days. The order i was referring to was June 2.  Amended as Terry points out on June 5.

This issue requires some context. Contra Costa County issued a health order on Tuesday, June 2, which approved outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, effective on June 15. The same June 2 order also approved protests of up to 100 people, with no effective date specified, so it was effective immediately.

So, the June 2 order approved both outdoor religious services and protests, and the order established the same attendance limit for both of them. This apparently indicated a belief that outdoor religious services and protests carried similar levels of health risk. But there were slightly different effective dates. 

Three days later, on Friday June 5, the county changed the effective date for religious services, allowing religious services to begin immediately. This change was made in time for weekend services. So, there was a three-day period, from Tuesday through Thursday, when protests were allowed but religious services were not yet allowed. After that, they were treated similarly.

To me, the similarity in treatment is a more significant indication of the county's public health assessment than is the difference in effective dates. 

So, why was there a difference in effective dates? I don't know, but here's my guess. I believe the county probably had been working on this public health order for several weeks, and had been targeting the June 15 date for resumption of religious services. I suspect the county wanted to give churches some lead time to plan their safety protocols. 

Then, shortly before the June 2 order was issued, George Floyd was murdered and protests broke out. I suspect that the provision approving protests of up to 100 people was added at the last minute in response to the protests that already were happening. There was probably some urgency around adding this provision. I'm guessing that nobody really thought through the difference between the effective dates of the protest provision and the religious services provision. These provisions appeared in two different appendices to the health order. To me, it looks like the people who prepared the document failed to coordinate the two provisions, then fixed it when the issue was pointed out. I'm reluctant to attribute to malice that which can be explained by bureaucracy or incompetence.

June 2 order -- 

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...d346a9.pdf (see part 3)

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...562dab.pdf (see part 2)

I have a different take. Namely that the CoCo county Health Czar got (deservedly) a boatload of criticism for the June 2 Order.  The Floyd protests began on May 26.  They were already going strong when the Order came out.  There was no reason to mention them in the first place.   NONE. It’s not as if anybody was going to avoid protesting because of the SIP.   Further, I fully remember the two week delay relating to religious services. In fact I remember at the time commenting that if I were a religious leader what I would call for our congregation to have an outdoor protest/service that next weekend limited to 100 people. Wear your facemask. 

 Mind you, I’m not particularly religious (I do not attend any service) nor was I the least bit opposed to the protests. My point was and remains this – there are politics all over this issue. On both sides of the ledger. Not just from the right. Not anywhere close. And what we are getting from the press is not the full story on this virus. Again, not even close. 

While I appreciate your benign take – I think it’s much more likely that they did exactly what they planned to do in the June 2 order not realizing the push back they would get. And then - to their credit - they corrected it quickly.

 It is absurd to suggest that there are “acceptable“ and “unacceptable“ behaviors relating to what essentially is the same thing – outdoor gatherings. Either, from a spread standpoint, you can have them up to a certain level, or you cannot.  Obviously people should be masked. No matter what.   But please don’t say that it’s OK to have 100 people doing X but not OK to have 100 people doing Y outdoors. (Assuming equal masking and distancing) It makes no sense whatsoever from an epidemiological standpoint. It’s politics, pure and simple.

And if you think I’m wrong let me ask a simple question: assume everything is exactly the same the amount of people masked percentage wise etc. etc. etc. but instead of Black Lives Matter protests the protests were Trump supporters protesting whatever. Do you truly believe that the media would be falling all over themselves to suggest that it had a little or no impact to the spread of the virus. Well Fox would, of course. But nobody else in the MSM.

I read the study BC attached – it was early for one thing and there has been a ton of protests since, a lot more people involved, more cities involved etc. Further the bit about people staying home because of the protests is, to me, a classic example of researchers finding something to support the hypothesis they want to advance. How that is possibly handled from a mathematical/scientific standpoint is beyond me. You not only would have to know numbers of people going out before and after - but you’d have to know if they were family members, social bubbles, or strangers gathering. It is impossible. As is any kind of contact tracing from 15 to 26 Million people gathering in over 1,000 cities.

And just so anotherfan doesn’t misconstrue me once again – no problem with the protests. They were righteous.

---

Most transmission is indoors. 
Masks help. A lot. 
There are certainly going to be some cases from outdoor transmission, but the physics of particle flow make it much less likely. I'll bet most of the "backyard barbecue" transmission involved going indoors while attending or very close contact without hand washing or masks. I don't think outdoor activities need to be banned IF people wear masks and they keep a few feet of distance. Hard to wear a mask while eating, though.

I live in Willow Glen in San Jose, and we have a three-block downtown.  The restaurants have opened up for outdoor dining.  Some had porches/patios already, some commandeered a portion of the street or the broad sidewalks.  It's interesting...some of the restaurants have gone to some elaborate lengths to create an "indoor" setting with elaborate awnings.  Some have clearly spaced tables 8-10 feet apart.  Some have placed tables essentially back to back outdoors.  I don't know what the statistics are, but I won't dine in a restaurant that has tried to replicate an "indoor" setting, nor at the restaurants where the tables are outdoors but are back to back.

Spent a few nights at Carmel Valley Ranch (just had to get the family out of the house).  My wife and I dined twice at restaurants in Carmel.  Incredibly hard to get a reservation for Th and F nights (though admittedly, the serving window has shrunk - I presume, anyway, as reservations stopped at 9:15).  All outdoor seating, but I doubt everyone outside was 6 feet apart from occupants of other tables, but I didn't get out the tap measure.  

Food great, but the best part was to get a sense of normalcy (and to see many folks out and about).  BTW, masks everywhere, except while dining at the tables.

Excellent.  We go to Bernardus in Carmel Valley every few years (25th anniversary there).  We like Lucia (their restaurant) and they have a nice bar menu with plenty of spaced tables.  And if you go during the week, the price is right.

My girlfriend took me to Bernardus for my birthday a couple weekends ago. Ate at both CVR (a little disappointing but that could have been due to ordering) and Lucia’s, which was fantastic. I ordered a Waygu NY and a nice bottle of Cab, so it was somewhat steep.  But oh so worth it. One of the best steaks I’ve ever had. Tenderness of a filet with the flavor of a NY. Had an outdoor massage. Everyone masked. Felt very safe. It was fantastic. 

Bernardus is perfect for this.  Spread out. Not a lot of contact with others. Wonderful place.