[cardcrimson]

Contra Costa County

Population: 1.1 million
Positive Covid-19 tests: 707 (0.06% of the population)
Deaths with Covid-19 (not necessarily from Covid-19): 22
Hospitalized with Covid-19: 35
ICU Occupancy Rate, March 29: 58%
ICU Occupancy Rate, April 20: 57%
Ventilator Usage Rate, March 29: 27%
Ventilator Usage Rate, April 20: 22%

https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/hospital-dashboard


Contra Costa County, where it's currently against the law for one kid to kick a soccer ball to another kid. Something seems amiss.

[cardcrimson]

Contra Costa County

Population: 1.1 million
Positive Covid-19 tests: 707 (0.06% of the population)
Deaths with Covid-19 (not necessarily from Covid-19): 22
Hospitalized with Covid-19: 35
ICU Occupancy Rate, March 29: 58%
ICU Occupancy Rate, April 20: 57%
Ventilator Usage Rate, March 29: 27%
Ventilator Usage Rate, April 20: 22%

https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/hospital-dashboard


Contra Costa County, where it's currently against the law for one kid to kick a soccer ball to another kid. Something seems amiss.

[dabigv13]

A different way of looking at it is, you could have been rationing vents and running out of dialysis machines like NYC, so hey, if my kids can't kick a soccer ball around for a month or two, no big deal.

[dabigv13]

A different way of looking at it is, you could have been rationing vents and running out of dialysis machines like NYC, so hey, if my kids can't kick a soccer ball around for a month or two, no big deal.

[Leftcoast]

Setting aside Contra Costa with it's strong Bay Area connections, it's very understandable that states/counties will open up at different times.  We're a big country and the timing and gates necessary for phase 1 in New York may make no sense in Alaska or Wyoming.  On the other hand, I'd hope the Bay Area where county borders are barely more than lines on a map will act in unison.

[Leftcoast]

Setting aside Contra Costa with it's strong Bay Area connections, it's very understandable that states/counties will open up at different times.  We're a big country and the timing and gates necessary for phase 1 in New York may make no sense in Alaska or Wyoming.  On the other hand, I'd hope the Bay Area where county borders are barely more than lines on a map will act in unison.

[teejers1]

Setting aside Contra Costa with it's strong Bay Area connections, it's very understandable that states/counties will open up at different times.  We're a big country and the timing and gates necessary for phase 1 in New York may make no sense in Alaska or Wyoming.  On the other hand, I'd hope the Bay Area where county borders are barely more than lines on a map will act in unison.

Hmm.  Depends on what you mean by "Bay Area."  My gut tells me that Contra Costa County is very different than Santa Clara County.  I generally favor decisions made at more local levels.  From my vantage point, I don't expect meaningful "opening up" till late May/early June (I DON"T count tennis courts and golf courses as meaningful loosening of the grips on lockdown - those never should have been on "the list" of closures, imo).

[teejers1]

Setting aside Contra Costa with it's strong Bay Area connections, it's very understandable that states/counties will open up at different times.  We're a big country and the timing and gates necessary for phase 1 in New York may make no sense in Alaska or Wyoming.  On the other hand, I'd hope the Bay Area where county borders are barely more than lines on a map will act in unison.

Hmm.  Depends on what you mean by "Bay Area."  My gut tells me that Contra Costa County is very different than Santa Clara County.  I generally favor decisions made at more local levels.  From my vantage point, I don't expect meaningful "opening up" till late May/early June (I DON"T count tennis courts and golf courses as meaningful loosening of the grips on lockdown - those never should have been on "the list" of closures, imo).

[Farm93]

Setting aside Contra Costa with it's strong Bay Area connections, it's very understandable that states/counties will open up at different times.  We're a big country and the timing and gates necessary for phase 1 in New York may make no sense in Alaska or Wyoming.  On the other hand, I'd hope the Bay Area where county borders are barely more than lines on a map will act in unison.

Hmm.  Depends on what you mean by "Bay Area."  My gut tells me that Contra Costa County is very different than Santa Clara County.  I generally favor decisions made at more local levels.  From my vantage point, I don't expect meaningful "opening up" till late May/early June (I DON"T count tennis courts and golf courses as meaningful loosening of the grips on lockdown - those never should have been on "the list" of closures, imo).

Contra Costa County touches the SF Bay and the other bays of the Bay Area too.
Contra Costa County has BART stations something that the Santa Clara County will get some day soon.
More critically a lot of people that live in Contra Costa County work in Santa Clara County.

So while they may be different in a lot of ways, there are more than a few ways for a contagious virus to get between the two counties.  

Politically it gets hard to start picking non-essential industry winners and losers.  The goal in early March was to do something sweeping ASAP.   Once you get into picking different industries you are likely to start picking political battles that might slow the process down quite a bit.  Inevitably some business would be missed that should qualify...equestrian jumping?   Frisbee golf courses?   Baseball batting cages?  Archery ranges?   At some point it is just faster and more effective to say everything that is non-essential is closed.  And golf and tennis are simply not essential.

[Farm93]

Setting aside Contra Costa with it's strong Bay Area connections, it's very understandable that states/counties will open up at different times.  We're a big country and the timing and gates necessary for phase 1 in New York may make no sense in Alaska or Wyoming.  On the other hand, I'd hope the Bay Area where county borders are barely more than lines on a map will act in unison.

Hmm.  Depends on what you mean by "Bay Area."  My gut tells me that Contra Costa County is very different than Santa Clara County.  I generally favor decisions made at more local levels.  From my vantage point, I don't expect meaningful "opening up" till late May/early June (I DON"T count tennis courts and golf courses as meaningful loosening of the grips on lockdown - those never should have been on "the list" of closures, imo).

Contra Costa County touches the SF Bay and the other bays of the Bay Area too.
Contra Costa County has BART stations something that the Santa Clara County will get some day soon.
More critically a lot of people that live in Contra Costa County work in Santa Clara County.

So while they may be different in a lot of ways, there are more than a few ways for a contagious virus to get between the two counties.  

Politically it gets hard to start picking non-essential industry winners and losers.  The goal in early March was to do something sweeping ASAP.   Once you get into picking different industries you are likely to start picking political battles that might slow the process down quite a bit.  Inevitably some business would be missed that should qualify...equestrian jumping?   Frisbee golf courses?   Baseball batting cages?  Archery ranges?   At some point it is just faster and more effective to say everything that is non-essential is closed.  And golf and tennis are simply not essential.

[2006alum]

Politically it gets hard to start picking non-essential industry winners and losers.  The goal in early March was to do something sweeping ASAP.   Once you get into picking different industries you are likely to start picking political battles that might slow the process down quite a bit.  Inevitably some business would be missed that should qualify...equestrian jumping?   Frisbee golf courses?   Baseball batting cages?  Archery ranges?   At some point it is just faster and more effective to say everything that is non-essential is closed.  And golf and tennis are simply not essential.

FWIW, Nate Silver has been saying for a few weeks now that "re-opening" is going to be much, much more difficult than imposing lockdowns/sheltering in place, for precisely these reasons, coupled with the fact that once a flare-up reemerges (which it almost inevitably will in at least some jurisdictions), there will be less appetite to return to sheltering in place, and it will be harder to assess when second and third waves have "peaked."

...Which, of course, is why we need tons of testing, effective contact tracing, and clear isolation protocols...

[2006alum]

Politically it gets hard to start picking non-essential industry winners and losers.  The goal in early March was to do something sweeping ASAP.   Once you get into picking different industries you are likely to start picking political battles that might slow the process down quite a bit.  Inevitably some business would be missed that should qualify...equestrian jumping?   Frisbee golf courses?   Baseball batting cages?  Archery ranges?   At some point it is just faster and more effective to say everything that is non-essential is closed.  And golf and tennis are simply not essential.

FWIW, Nate Silver has been saying for a few weeks now that "re-opening" is going to be much, much more difficult than imposing lockdowns/sheltering in place, for precisely these reasons, coupled with the fact that once a flare-up reemerges (which it almost inevitably will in at least some jurisdictions), there will be less appetite to return to sheltering in place, and it will be harder to assess when second and third waves have "peaked."

...Which, of course, is why we need tons of testing, effective contact tracing, and clear isolation protocols...

[M T]

Contra Costa County, where it's currently against the law for one kid to kick a soccer ball to another kid. Something seems amiss.

Yeah, playing soccer is a unalienable right.


Suppose you played a game where you grabbed a ball and then dropped it, and the other guy picked it up and dropped it, and then it was your turn again.  In between turns, you can wipe the sweat from your body, blow onto your hand to dry it a bit, but you can't wash your hands.   Is that safe to do when you can't tell if one of the players has COVID-19?

[M T]

Contra Costa County, where it's currently against the law for one kid to kick a soccer ball to another kid. Something seems amiss.

Yeah, playing soccer is a unalienable right.


Suppose you played a game where you grabbed a ball and then dropped it, and the other guy picked it up and dropped it, and then it was your turn again.  In between turns, you can wipe the sweat from your body, blow onto your hand to dry it a bit, but you can't wash your hands.   Is that safe to do when you can't tell if one of the players has COVID-19?

[cardcrimson]

Contra Costa County, where it's currently against the law for one kid to kick a soccer ball to another kid. Something seems amiss.

Yeah, playing soccer is a unalienable right.


Suppose you played a game where you grabbed a ball and then dropped it, and the other guy picked it up and dropped it, and then it was your turn again.  In between turns, you can wipe the sweat from your body, blow onto your hand to dry it a bit, but you can't wash your hands.   Is that safe to do when you can't tell if one of the players has COVID-19?

I thought the Newsom and his fellow decision makers were basing their decisions on facts. Please provide one, one example where the virus has spread from two kids kicking a ball to each other, or even playing catch.

Here's some advice from experts, too. Playing catch, basketball, tennis is all okay with common sense. From NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/01/825143172...r-distance

[cardcrimson]

Contra Costa County, where it's currently against the law for one kid to kick a soccer ball to another kid. Something seems amiss.

Yeah, playing soccer is a unalienable right.


Suppose you played a game where you grabbed a ball and then dropped it, and the other guy picked it up and dropped it, and then it was your turn again.  In between turns, you can wipe the sweat from your body, blow onto your hand to dry it a bit, but you can't wash your hands.   Is that safe to do when you can't tell if one of the players has COVID-19?

I thought the Newsom and his fellow decision makers were basing their decisions on facts. Please provide one, one example where the virus has spread from two kids kicking a ball to each other, or even playing catch.

Here's some advice from experts, too. Playing catch, basketball, tennis is all okay with common sense. From NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/01/825143172...r-distance

[oldalum]

I feel like everyone's talking past each other on this thread. There are two topics that are being conflated. One is, at the individual level, the ease of maintaining social distancing while doing many sports (but not all; e.g., I think wrestling won't work). Of course it is possible and even easy as pie to maintain social distancing while doing many sports. For some, like throwing a frisbee, it's a necessary part of the activity. People who want to maintain social distance while doing these activities, can do so easily. Why not let them? The second topic is, at a public policy level, whether those activities should be prohibited during a lockdown/SIP because if you permit them, violations of social distancing will inevitably occur (both inadvertent and intentional) and detract from the community effort to contain the virus.

Some posters are focusing on the first, individual level, and decry the prohibition on those activities; but other posters--including me--place more value on the public policy level during a period of strict lockdown. As restrictions are being lifted, it is inevitable that social distancing is going to be weakened to some degree, and to the degree feasible it seems desirable to have that weakening be progressive and not a lot at once. It seems like restrictions on some activities (e.g., golf, singles but maybe not doubles tennis) should be progressively loosened sooner than on others.

OK, have at me, I'm (starting to) get used to it.

[oldalum]

I feel like everyone's talking past each other on this thread. There are two topics that are being conflated. One is, at the individual level, the ease of maintaining social distancing while doing many sports (but not all; e.g., I think wrestling won't work). Of course it is possible and even easy as pie to maintain social distancing while doing many sports. For some, like throwing a frisbee, it's a necessary part of the activity. People who want to maintain social distance while doing these activities, can do so easily. Why not let them? The second topic is, at a public policy level, whether those activities should be prohibited during a lockdown/SIP because if you permit them, violations of social distancing will inevitably occur (both inadvertent and intentional) and detract from the community effort to contain the virus.

Some posters are focusing on the first, individual level, and decry the prohibition on those activities; but other posters--including me--place more value on the public policy level during a period of strict lockdown. As restrictions are being lifted, it is inevitable that social distancing is going to be weakened to some degree, and to the degree feasible it seems desirable to have that weakening be progressive and not a lot at once. It seems like restrictions on some activities (e.g., golf, singles but maybe not doubles tennis) should be progressively loosened sooner than on others.

OK, have at me, I'm (starting to) get used to it.

[BostonCard]

I appreciate your framing of the issue.  On an individual level, I will continue to adhere to the shelter in place rules faithfully and I will practice risk minimizing activities to the extent I can.  It means I always go out with a mask even if I am going on a walk where I am able to maintain at least 6 ft between me and others all times.  A mask is non-intrusive and would protect other people in the unlikely event I am inadvertently harbouring the virus.  Plus it is a reminder to everyone that we are in the midst of a pandemic.  My risk is not zero (I am not sealing myself hermetically in a cave), but if I did get the virus it would be a bit of a fluke event.

I'm also not going to yell at a couple of kids who broke into a tennis court to hit some balls around and I certainly am not going to post a rant on NextDoor about it.  These may be technically prohibited under the SiP rules, but they are low risk activities.  Another popular activity that garners public shaming are gardeners.  In our community the rules say gardeners are not allowed except in cases where the maintenence threatens a nearby structure (think of a dead tree at risk of falling).  We told our gardener we would continue to pay him during SiP but not to come (he wanted to come anyways).  Gardening is a low risk activity provided the gardener maintains social distance.  I think it could be safely resumed with a miniscule increase in transmissibility.

As I noted in a different thread, right now we are basically only allowing essential services (food, medical, etc.)  That's fine, but as we open up, I think we will want to expand the list of "essential" services to include those that are important but not essential, and to start allowing low risk but not essential services to resume.

BC

[BostonCard]

I appreciate your framing of the issue.  On an individual level, I will continue to adhere to the shelter in place rules faithfully and I will practice risk minimizing activities to the extent I can.  It means I always go out with a mask even if I am going on a walk where I am able to maintain at least 6 ft between me and others all times.  A mask is non-intrusive and would protect other people in the unlikely event I am inadvertently harbouring the virus.  Plus it is a reminder to everyone that we are in the midst of a pandemic.  My risk is not zero (I am not sealing myself hermetically in a cave), but if I did get the virus it would be a bit of a fluke event.

I'm also not going to yell at a couple of kids who broke into a tennis court to hit some balls around and I certainly am not going to post a rant on NextDoor about it.  These may be technically prohibited under the SiP rules, but they are low risk activities.  Another popular activity that garners public shaming are gardeners.  In our community the rules say gardeners are not allowed except in cases where the maintenence threatens a nearby structure (think of a dead tree at risk of falling).  We told our gardener we would continue to pay him during SiP but not to come (he wanted to come anyways).  Gardening is a low risk activity provided the gardener maintains social distance.  I think it could be safely resumed with a miniscule increase in transmissibility.

As I noted in a different thread, right now we are basically only allowing essential services (food, medical, etc.)  That's fine, but as we open up, I think we will want to expand the list of "essential" services to include those that are important but not essential, and to start allowing low risk but not essential services to resume.

BC

[oldalum]

Gardening is a good example. In Santa Clara County, the initial SiP rules permitted gardeners to work, even more than one at a time if they drove in separate vehicles. Seems pretty safe. Under the most recent tightening, the rules are like yours: gardeners are prohibited, can work only if necessary for safety. I've got to believe that the powers-that-be concluded that stay-at-home meant stay at home, and the making of exceptions for some non-essential activities, however safely they can be done, was undermining the whole enterprise.

[oldalum]

Gardening is a good example. In Santa Clara County, the initial SiP rules permitted gardeners to work, even more than one at a time if they drove in separate vehicles. Seems pretty safe. Under the most recent tightening, the rules are like yours: gardeners are prohibited, can work only if necessary for safety. I've got to believe that the powers-that-be concluded that stay-at-home meant stay at home, and the making of exceptions for some non-essential activities, however safely they can be done, was undermining the whole enterprise.

[2006alum]

I feel like everyone's talking past each other on this thread forum.

Fixed for you. I'm beginning to find that it's not worth engaging with a few folks who never address responses to their posts but then go on and make the exact same (already addressed) point again in another thread. ;)

[2006alum]

I feel like everyone's talking past each other on this thread forum.

Fixed for you. I'm beginning to find that it's not worth engaging with a few folks who never address responses to their posts but then go on and make the exact same (already addressed) point again in another thread. ;)

[Leftcoast]

Hmm.  Depends on what you mean by "Bay Area."  My gut tells me that Contra Costa County is very different than Santa Clara County. - Teejers

My point was more that the 6 Bay Area counties, including Contra Costa, that collectively put in place the initial Shelter-in-Place ruling should also work together in rolling it back, just as initially agreed.   They are a tightly intertwined economic and social system and it is in the public's interest that they work together.  

If you are looking for data on just how intertwined these six counties are you can start with commute patterns.  The data below covers commutes into and out of 9 SF bay area adjacent counties as of 2010.  Alameda is the overall outbound commute winner but Contra Cost is second in the number of commuters sent to other Bay Area counties. (93,000 to Alameda, 48,000 to San Francisco, 12,000 to Santa Clara, 10,000 to San Mateo, 7,000 to Marin.)

The county among the six with the least outbound commuters is Napa but I suspect that has more to do with relative populations. The chart is from 2010 which was the tail-end of the recession. We can safely assume commute patterns have only intensified since then. For reference, compare Napa (not among the six) to Contra-Costa in the graphic below.

http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/commute-patterns

The six bay area counties in the initial ruling were:
* San Francisco
* San Mateo
* Santa Clara
* Contra Costa
* Alameda 
* Marin

The three that did not participate:
* Napa
* Solano
* Sonoma

Finally, here is a link to the March 16 article discussing the six county announcement:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politi...135014.php

[Leftcoast]

Hmm.  Depends on what you mean by "Bay Area."  My gut tells me that Contra Costa County is very different than Santa Clara County. - Teejers

My point was more that the 6 Bay Area counties, including Contra Costa, that collectively put in place the initial Shelter-in-Place ruling should also work together in rolling it back, just as initially agreed.   They are a tightly intertwined economic and social system and it is in the public's interest that they work together.  

If you are looking for data on just how intertwined these six counties are you can start with commute patterns.  The data below covers commutes into and out of 9 SF bay area adjacent counties as of 2010.  Alameda is the overall outbound commute winner but Contra Cost is second in the number of commuters sent to other Bay Area counties. (93,000 to Alameda, 48,000 to San Francisco, 12,000 to Santa Clara, 10,000 to San Mateo, 7,000 to Marin.)

The county among the six with the least outbound commuters is Napa but I suspect that has more to do with relative populations. The chart is from 2010 which was the tail-end of the recession. We can safely assume commute patterns have only intensified since then. For reference, compare Napa (not among the six) to Contra-Costa in the graphic below.

http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/commute-patterns

The six bay area counties in the initial ruling were:
* San Francisco
* San Mateo
* Santa Clara
* Contra Costa
* Alameda 
* Marin

The three that did not participate:
* Napa
* Solano
* Sonoma

Finally, here is a link to the March 16 article discussing the six county announcement:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politi...135014.php