Commentary: We Should Stick with Evidence-Based COVID Restrictions

Share:

By David M. Greenwald

As we wait for a vaccine, COVID is out of control and clearly state and local government had to step in.  ICU capacity is expected to drop below 15 percent in our region—that’s a real danger and something has to be done.

Nationally the numbers are scary—yesterday there was once again a total of more than 200,000 new cases (remember in September, we were in the 30 to 50 thousand range) and deaths topped 3000 for the first time.  To put that into perspective, more people died of COVID yesterday than died on 9/11.

Clearly something had to change, and clearly steps had to be taken to get people to take this threat seriously again—even as they are fatigued with the whole pandemic thing.

But it should be evidence-based and I have to question some of the approaches.

For instance, I never thought it was a good idea to open restaurants for inside service.  You can socially distance, but someone has to serve people, air is going to flow over the course of an hour and even with good HVAC systems, it is a risk.

“Our mantra is the more frequently and more closely you interact with other people, and the number of people you interact with, increases your risk,” says Grant Baldwin, PhD, co-leader of the CDC’s Community Interventions and At-Risk Task Force, COVID-19 Response as reported in WebMD.

CDC rates indoor dining with reduced seating capacity and tables six feet apart as “even more risk.”

The CDC study found that those who have contracted COVID “are twice as likely as the general population to have eaten at a restaurant in the two weeks beforehand,” a study from the CDC in September reported.

Part of the problem is that those eating at restaurants cannot eat or drink with a mask on.

The CDC concluded that eating out is among the riskiest activities during a pandemic.  So to me, it made sense to end indoor seating and probably made sense not to re-instate it to begin with.

But what about outdoor eating?  Is there any evidence that the virus is being spread at outdoor restaurants?  The National Restaurant Association said, “There is no clear evidence that the virus was actually contracted at a restaurant versus any other community locations.”

A report from Los Angeles TV Station, Channel 7 Eyewitness news found, “Data from the county health department shows a small percentage of outbreaks have been tied to restaurants and bars. But some have been cited for coronavirus-related violations.”

But LA’s Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer doesn’t think there is good enough data: “I wish we could answer this question. I think people would feel better if we could say with certainty where people got infected, but we just can’t.”

LA led the state in banning outdoor eating, and Dr. Ferrer pointed to county data that indicated food and beverage establishments “comprised roughly 41% of the 76 coronavirus-related citations issued in L.A. County during the first two weeks of November.”

Yolo County is shutting down outdoor eating after today?  Should they?  I don’t think we have good data to say that will make much of a difference.

I have even more trouble with restrictions on grocery store capacity.  Mostly because I am not sure there is any data on it, and unlike restaurant eating this is a necessity.  Not to mention the probability of panic and hoarding.

Yolo County, attempting to ward off that possibility, increased grocery capacity from 20 percent to 35 percent.

“On Sunday, December 6, additional restrictions were placed in Yolo County specifically directed at slowing the spread of COVID-19 by reducing interactions between people of different households. Under these restrictions, the capacity of retail industries was placed at 20% and included grocery stores in alignment with the State’s new Regional Stay Home Order. As of December 6, the State increased its capacity restrictions on grocery stores to 35%. Finding this capacity sufficient to still ensure 6 feet of distance between patrons,” a county press release stated.

“In order to ensure that California’s grocery stores are able to safely deliver sufficient quantities of food to California households, it is necessary to ensure capacity for grocery stores,” according to the supplemental order signed by Dr. Erica Pan, the California Health Department’s acting public health officer, on Sunday.

Seems pretty clear that the best way to avoid getting COVID is for everyone to wear a mask and socially distance.  Is it necessary to limit capacity in grocery stores to accomplish that?  Most of the time I have been in a grocery story, everyone has been wearing a mask and most of the time there is at least six feet of distance.

There seems to be strong evidence that workers at grocery stores are getting infected at higher rates.  But it is not clear that reducing capacity is going to change that.

There is a hope that perhaps with a reduction in cases that these orders will be temporary.  One point I have made is that we are yo-yoing in effect here.  As cases go up, we ratchet up restrictions.  As cases go down, we loosen them.  Then the cases invariably go up again.

That’s a problem.  We need to hold the line on some of this stuff until we get a vaccine and can distribute it more broadly.

Then again, does closing down outdoor eating and limiting grocery stores to 35 percent capacity, really address the broader issues?  I get the need to send the message—and perhaps this sends that message—but it seems to me, it could be more evidence-based.

—David M. Greenwald reporting


To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

57 thoughts on “Commentary: We Should Stick with Evidence-Based COVID Restrictions”

  1. Keith Olsen

    But LA’s Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer doesn’t think there is good enough data: “I wish we could answer this question. I think people would feel better if we could say with certainty where people got infected, but we just can’t.”

    LA County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl casts deciding vote to ban outdoor dining in Los Angeles then is caught later that same day dining in an outdoor restaurant.

    Los Angeles residents and others have expressed outrage after LA County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl was seen eating outdoors hours after voting to ban outdoor dining throughout the county.
    “This is a serious health emergency and we must take it seriously,” Kuehl said at the meeting before the measure passed in a 3-2 vote. “The servers are not protected from us, and they’re not protected from their other tables that they’re serving at that particular time, plus all the hours in which they’re working.”

    https://www.newsweek.com/outrage-la-county-supervisor-bans-outdoor-dining-then-dines-outdoors-1551639

    1. Bill Marshall

      Point made… but hypocrisy, one way or the other is not “evidence-based” as to restrictions on the general population, to hold the pandemic in check… it is evidence as to “fitness to lead” and/or personal integrity… but that is a different topic, and not germane to the ‘topic du jour’

      1. Richard McCann

        Bill

        Here, here! Time to stop using hypocrisy as evidence against taking required measures, no matter the issue. It’s particularly a problem when the person who accuses those of hypocrisy are so inconsistent in how they use it, e.g., overlooking obvious corruption when supposedly calling for “draining the swamp.”

      2. Alan Miller

        hypocrisy . . . is a differenttopic, and not germane to the ‘topic du jour’

        Disagree so much I can’t even begin to discuss the details.  “Do as I say, not as I do” is one of the most destructive paradigms in leadership in a time of crisis.  Were this a republican, you’d be singing a different tune, no?  At least Donald Trump is as much a dumb-arse in what he says as what he does with the coronavirus, but at least he’s not a hypocrite.

    2. Keith Olsen

      I think it’s more of a case of those that are mandating that people can’t do this or that and then do just the opposite themselves they end up totally undercutting their message.

      1. Ron Oertel

        If people followed what some politicians recommend for others (but don’t practice themselves), there’d be a lot more engaging in extra-marital affairs, living on expansive, several-acre estates east of Sacramento – while simultaneously extolling the virtues of “density” (and forcing others into accepting it), and eating at fancy restaurants in the wine country with lobbyists.

      2. David Greenwald Post author

        That only matters if there isn’t a science-based reason for the policies. Otherwise is it a personal indiscretion that reflects poorly on them, but doesn’t impact the overall policy.

        1. Ron Oertel

          If politicians who are espousing policies don’t follow what they require of others, that could lead to a breakdown of compliance.  Some folks might figure that if politicians aren’t taking it seriously, why should they?

          And if people believe that the recommendations are actually being made for “other’s” sake – rather than themselves (e.g., those at risk, hospitals that don’t have enough capacity), demonstrated hypocrisy can further undermine efforts.

          And if (as in the case of the restaurant owner in the L.A. area), outdoor buffets for filmakers are “o.k.”, but her adjacent (almost identical) outdoor seating area “isn’t” o.k., that further undermines compliance.

          I think there’s at least some similarity to the “drought people”, in that they will demand water conservation, while others are continuing to allow more development/demand on that water supply. In other words, “don’t flush”, or water your yard, as we need that for more developments. Hell, we’ll even ensure that you don’t have a yard in the first place (e.g., for newer developments), while “we” live on several-acre estates. (But, only after moving from an ultra-expensive “white” community, in Marin, for example.)

          Oh – and we’ll continue to espouse income equality for others, while ignoring it for ourselves. 😉

  2. Don Shor

    Here are some of the impacts of these closures on different industries that have some relevance in Davis. I included airlines just because those numbers are so stark; not particularly relevant to Davis.

    Note that these are national numbers and they are likely more adverse impacts locally because of the reduced student population. I have been told that about 50% of undergrads and about 70% of grad students returned this fall. That would magnify the impacts on local restaurants and some retailers.

    In the absence of continued assistance from Washington, the impact on workers, the self-employed, and business owners, and indirectly on commercial property owners, will be severe as we enter another protracted period without retail sales and dining. Those 4th Quarter numbers are likely to negatively exceed the Q2 numbers below.

     

     

  3. Don Shor

    Clearly something had to change, and clearly steps had to be taken to get people to take this threat seriously again

    But apparently there will be minimal enforcement of the ban on indoor gatherings. So businesses are taking the brunt of this again.

  4. Tia Will

    “does closing down outdoor eating and limiting grocery stores to 35 percent capacity, really address the broader issues? “

    Of course, a single step does not address the broader issues. Just as wearing a mask in and of itself does not address ICU staff availability. It is not intended to and has no capacity to do so. That does not mean it is not a necessary step. I would call your attention to the “swiss cheese model” of adverse event prevention. While no one step solves the problem, each preventive measure contributes to the whole of a prevention strategy. 

    Don is right. Businesses are being disproportionately hit monetarily. This is not an argument for loosening restrictions on businesses. It is an argument for the financial support of those being most affected.

    This article from today’s Washington Post is an indication of yet another threat to businesses that of course will fall disproportionately on the small business owner than on national chains:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/10/pandemic-shoplifting-hunger/

    What we need is what many other countries have done throughout the pandemic. Crudely put, they have paid people to stay home allowing enough money to avoid the need for miles long food lines and theft just to survive.

  5. Alan Miller

    New York opened their schools recently based on ‘evidence’.  They had stated conflicting evidence before the election.  I heard many sources before the election saying that some blue areas would change their stance if Trump lost the election – indeed one rep in LA even stated it outright publicly by accident – then tried to say by ‘after the election’ that was about the timeframe to open the schools anyway, oops.  And indeed New York opened their schools right after.

    When so many are ignoring the orders, no I don’t believe outdoor dining should be banned.  Businesses have spent $10’s of K’s setting up tents and heaters, and then the gov changes it again.  The problem is the american people and the american politicians – we have pooched this thing and we are doomed.  Go Australia!!!!!

    1. Keith Olsen

      When so many are ignoring the orders, no I don’t believe outdoor dining should be banned.  Businesses have spent $10’s of K’s setting up tents and heaters

      Exactly!

      New York opened their schools recently based on ‘evidence’.  They had stated conflicting evidence before the election.  I heard many sources before the election saying that some blue areas would change their stance if Trump lost the election – indeed one rep in LA even stated it outright publicly by accident – then tried to say by ‘after the election’ that was about the timeframe to open the schools anyway, oops.  And indeed New York opened their schools right after.

      Be careful, pointing out hypocrisy is looked down upon on this blog.

      1. David Greenwald Post author

        The reality is that everyone is trying to figure out what to do with this as they go along. We are learning more. I’m less concerned about hypocrisy and more concerned about getting the science right and very concerned about people ignoring evidence based approaches as thousands of people are dying.

        1. Ron Oertel

          I suspect that at this point, there isn’t going to be a lot more “science” conducted, since the vaccine is on the horizon.

          The evidence shows a relatively low (and decreasing) death rate, for what that’s worth.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            It could be three or four months before a vaccine is widely available. At this rate 10,000 every three or four days are dying. The number could rise given the explosion of cases over the last month and the potential of seeing up to half a million cases a day shortly.

        2. Ron Oertel

          I don’t think that my comment is in “disagreement” with yours.

          If I’m not mistaken, there’s (already) a nearly 10% infection rate in California. (I’m not sure how they know, since not everyone is tested.)

          In any case, I’m starting to know of people (personally), who have been infected (and aren’t dropping dead). I am still nevertheless very cautious, and have no contact with those people.

          Probably not the case, if I went into a grocery store.

        3. Ron Oertel

          Tried to find confirmation of the (estimated) percentage of those infected in California, but no luck.  Not sure where I heard the almost 10% reference, or its context.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            Not sure where you would get that from since the official number is 1.4 million and California would have to surpass 4 million cases to get to 10 percent.

        4. Ron Oertel

          Yeah – probably should just ignore that.

          In any case, “confirmed cases” is an entirely different number than “total estimated cases”.

          Hell, anyone reading this might have already been exposed (and would test positive), without even knowing it.

          My guess is that they don’t really know, and won’t know unless they test everyone on a periodic/frequent basis.

        5. Tia Will

          I’m less concerned about hypocrisy and more concerned about getting the science right and very concerned about people ignoring evidence based approaches as thousands of people are dying.”

          To this, I would add that the science around this new coronavirus is constantly changing. Often what looks like “not knowing what they are doing” or “hypocrisy” is because of the unprecedented rate of acquisition of new information. I was caught by this myself earlier in my communications about recommendations and so understand the recommendation you make one day may be altered by the article you read the next day. Also, there may be unintended consequences of recommendations and inconsistencies in recommendations from one jurisdiction to the next.

          I think perhaps we would all be better off if we kept in mind that the enemy is the virus, not our neighbors, our business owners, or our local electeds. There will be plenty of time to apportion responsibility and blame after we have controlled the virus, which I would add, we are nowhere near accomplishing.

           

        6. Richard McCann

          We hit 3,000 deaths nationwide, which is on pace for more than one million annually. That’s more than 20 times more than fatalities from car accidents. If we had a million auto accident deaths we would have a huge outcry.

          As for hypocrisy, I’ve pointed out the problem with your reasoning above.

        7. Ron Oertel

          Not sure who that comment was directed to, but thanks for pointing that out.  That would be one out of every 330 people or so.  A lot, to be sure.

          Hopefully, a combination of vaccines and herd immunity will prevent that. (From what I understand, getting the virus offers some protection against getting it again.) There’s no way that will continue, at some point.

          Does anyone know what the actual death rate is, per age group? And, what percentage of survivors have long-term problems?

          Also, is there even a rough estimate regarding the number of people who would (or would have) tested positive?

           

        8. Alan Miller

          I’m less concerned about hypocrisy . . .

          I’m with you on your points in the article.  But hypocrisy and over-reach of political leaders are both downright dangerous in a time of crisis.  I can ‘relatively forgive’ a politician saying we need to reign in the budget on un-needed trips by state politicians and then being caught in Hawaii on the taxpayer dime – as it’s only money.  When we are talking about life-and-death matters, hypocrisy undermines respect for the system and gives the impression politicians don’t even believe what they are telling people to do — including killing businesses to do so — while preaching otherwise it is killing people.  If she believed it, she wouldn’t have eaten out – clearly she doesn’t or is suicidal.   Shelia Khule should be tried for murder.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            I’m not sure I would consider it hypocrisy what Kuehl did (not a huge fan of her btw) – Gavin and Pelosi, for sure. But she voted to ban outdoor eating, it had a time certain, she dined outdoors on the last day it was permissible. I dined outdoors at Tres yesterday, I saw nothing wrong with doing that. Tomorrow, that option won’t be available.

        9. Keith Olsen

          But she voted to ban outdoor eating, it had a time certain, she dined outdoors on the last day it was permissible.

          You must be kidding.  Before casting her vote she stated the following and still dined outdoors.

          “This is a serious health emergency and we must take it seriously,” Kuehl said at the meeting before the measure passed in a 3-2 vote. “The servers are not protected from us, and they’re not protected from their other tables that they’re serving at that particular time, plus all the hours in which they’re working.”

          Were the servers somehow protected on the last night, or was it going to be more dangerous the next night?

        10. Don Shor

          Proportionally speaking, the damage done by Donald Trump’s incoherent and dishonest messaging, his super-spreader events,  and his ongoing displays of non-compliant behavior is vastly greater than any of the transgressions cited about local political figures. We now have a situation where millions of Americans refuse to wear masks, literally attack public health officers and local officials trying to enact reasonable measures to protect the public, and will likely be reluctant to get the vaccine when it rolls out. I am less concerned about someone who set a bad example one time, than I am about the enormous continuing damage Trump has done.

        11. Alan Miller

          I’m not sure I would consider it hypocrisy what Kuehl did (not a huge fan of her btw) – Gavin and Pelosi, for sure. But she voted to ban outdoor eating, it had a time certain, she dined outdoors on the last day it was permissible.

          It was “legal”, but did you listen to her speech?  She talked about how dangerous it was, how the servers and the patrons weren’t protected.  Clearly, she didn’t believe what she was saying or she wouldn’t have dined out herself – that’s why I consider it hypocritical.  In some ways – the worst, because it so countered her speech.

          I dined outdoors at Tres yesterday, I saw nothing wrong with doing that. Tomorrow, that option won’t be available.

          Nothing illegal about doing that.  If something is unsafe, it’s unsafe.  We were eating outside because spread is much less likely.  It wasn’t safe yesterday and unsafe today – just illegal today.  I don’t think we disagree on that.

          I do think some places and some people make eating outside questionable because of their behavior.  The one time I ate out we requested the one table that was away from all the others and not near another venue and had them sanitize it in front of us – and then we moved it even further ourselves, then turned it so we’d be as far apart as possible.  I go some places, and no one is even trying.  I am so tempted to name names.  Tongue held.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            I understand that her speech was in my view over-the-top. I felt fairly comfortable eating at Tres outside – the tables were distanced, minimal contact with servers who all wore masks. The number of violations by restaurants cited by LA health officials was concerning. So to me, it wasn’t necessarily one size fits all – but then again, her speech acted as though it was.

        12. Alan Miller

          Proportionally speaking, the damage done by Donald Trump’s . . .

          There you go again.  Have many times do I have to say this?  Trump has been satanically awful on the Covid-19 thing as a whole – like no one could have been a worse prez in this regard at this time.  But, to go all Godwin on y’all — just because Trump is Hitler (who killed many millions of people) with the coronavirus, doesn’t mean that you get to prop up the reputation of Charles Shipman (who only killed a couple hundred women) as an angel.  That isn’t an argument.  What Kuehl, Newsom, Pelosi, etc. did was despicable – you don’t get get to point at the giant flaming orange d*ckwad in the Whitehouse and say “oh yeah, but he’s worse”.

          1. Don Shor

            There you go again.

            The constant refrain from a Trump supporter about the hypocrisy of minor politicians is practically a daily feature here. I plan to “go again” any time he does it. It isn’t “Godwin” or any other of your facile analysis. He stops, I’ll stop. As far as I’m concerned, Trump supporters have no standing on the topic of hypocrisy. And the disproportionate impact of the president on this issue bears repeating.

          2. David Greenwald Post author

            I think Don by and large is correct, but Newsom, Pelosi, Breed and others did no favors to anyone.

        13. Keith Olsen

          This article is about California and the governor, local health department officials and supervisors making edicts about what restrictions Californians must adhere to in order to try and stem COVID.   This article is about whether or not some of those directives are fact based and necessary.  Pointing out that some of the very people who are putting forward these directives are not adhering to their own rules is totally on topic. Trump is not setting California policies for COVID.  This article is not about Trump.  Trump is off topic and you know if I brought Biden into this conversation my comment would be deleted.

          1. Don Shor

            if I brought Biden into this conversation

            You would have no basis for bringing Biden into the conversation, so this is once again an attempt at ‘both sides’ argument when there are not two ‘sides’ of equal merit.
            Biden has not contributed to the shambolic, incoherent, literally dishonest messaging that has come down from Trump. He has not ignored and undercut the advice of his own health council. He has not encouraged his supporters to disregard legal orders by governors. He has not flagrantly violated those health orders during his campaign and post-campaign events. He has not refused to model the kind of behavior that his own health advisers are counseling to the public. He has not listened to a ‘herd immunity’ adviser who has no background in the science involved in this pandemic.
            Trump has done all those things. With millions of devoted followers, it is unquestionable that he has contributed to the spread of COVID (directly and indirectly) and fomented the beliefs and attitudes that have led us right back to where we are today with lockdowns, crowded hospitals, and increasing deaths from this pandemic.
            The reason that governors are having to take the lead on this issue is because of the poor leadership from the president.

            The most dangerous people in America right now are libertarians, white guys with guns, and Trump supporters. And there is considerable overlap between those groups.

        14. Keith Olsen

          The most dangerous people in America right now are libertarians, white guys with guns, and Trump supporters. And there is considerable overlap between those groups.

          I have a whole different opinion on who the most dangerous people are in America today but that would be totally off topic.

        15. Ron Oertel

          With the key being that not all Biden supporters are the same.  😉

          Nor are all the causes of the spread of coronavirus due to Trump and his base. Seems to me that there has been quite a few others involved in that, as well.

  6. Ron Oertel

    I understand that a lot of the reason for concern is due to the already-limited capacity of hospitals (even under “normal” circumstances).

    The relentless focus by the media reminds me of the way that they focus on droughts, or fires, etc.  In the case of drought, there seems to be an entire drought mechanism (starting with the “drought people” in state agencies), of whom I’m sure we’ll hear from shortly.  😉

    Meanwhile, other officials will continue to make decisions which increase demand (which is summarily ignored by the media), but I digress.

  7. Bill Marshall

    Hell, anyone reading this might have already been exposed (and would test positive), without even knowing it.

    Untrue. Not all who have been exposed would test positive (positive tests would indicate exposure, but it is a “all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares” thingy)…  Makes about as much sense as your 10% number (as in, NOT!).  The only folk I’ve known who tested positive have had mild symptoms of actual infection…

    Exposure does not equal positive test, nor infection.  True of any disease, viral or not…

    1. Ron Oertel

      Actually, my comment is true as written.  Anyone reading this might have already been exposed (and would test positive).

      Your follow-up comment is also true. (It is also true that some show NO symptoms. It is also true that some who have symptoms have not been tested. It is also true that those who were tested last week, were exposed this week – and don’t know it. It is also true that the tests are not always accurate. I am not sure if those who have already recovered would likely test negative.)

      But that’s right – I don’t have support for that 10%, as already noted. Now, if anyone could find an estimated percentage, that might be more interesting than pointing out something I’ve already acknowledged.

    2. Bill Marshall

       have already been exposed (and would test positive).

      Untrue, for reasons previously stated.  Science-based fact.

      Again,

      Exposure does not equal positive test, nor infection. True of any disease, viral or not…

      1. Ron Oertel

        You conveniently left-out “might have”, which preceded that segment.

        I am already aware that exposure does not necessarily equal “testing positive”.  Thought that was pretty obvious, given the way that sentence was written. Though maybe “could” would be better than “would”, even with the “might” that preceded it.

        Perhaps coulda-shoulda-woulda.

        I guess we could go on to discuss what “exposure” actually means, but it seems rather pointless, and would likely lead to more concerns regarding “grammar”.

  8. Todd Edelman

    Still no mention of “pods”. This is totally inexcusable!

    A group of non-household people, from 2 to ideally less than 10, with no to limited-contact with others (essential work) etc. is more or less, also a household. This includes e.g. four adults and a few kids in the typical divorced parents situation. This includes a housemate who does booty call with a someone who lives alone.

    So very common situations are not being addressed directly.

    1. Alan Miller

      This includes a housemate who does booty call with a someone who lives alone.

      Like political protests and religious gatherings, a booty call is a protected free-speech right and is exempt from enforcement 😐

  9. Don Shor

     

    City of Davis: PARTIES AND GATHERINGS DURING COVID-19

     

     https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/police-department/code-enforcement/parties-and-gatherings-during-covid-19

     

    If you become aware of a location where parties or gatherings are occurring that may be in violation of the restrictions, you may attempt to address the issue personally. This conversation should be polite, even friendly. It can begin with a statement like, “I’m not sure you’re aware…” The event organizer may not recognize that the gathering/party could cause harm to public health or is in violation of any ordinances. Briefly explain the issue, and ask the person to refrain from the activity.

    You should be aware that not all people are going to respond positively to your request. If the behavior continues, you can request an investigation.

    To Request an Investigation

    Investigations are initiated on a complaint basis. It is City of Davis’ policy to make every effort to keep the complainant’s information anonymous. For noise violations, the reporting party must provide their name, address, and phone number before formal action can be taken.

    • Call the Davis Police Department at (530) 747-5400. A dispatcher will ask for your information along with the address of the property where the party/gathering is occurring and information regarding the violation. The dispatcher will ensure your call is properly forwarded to either a code enforcement officer or a police officer for response. In some cases the dispatcher may have you leave a message on a voicemail that is forwarded to code enforcement for a later response.

     By comparison:

    “Compliance with health orders is a matter of personal responsibility and not a matter of law enforcement.” — Sheriff Don Barnes, Orange County

  10. Bill Marshall

    after we have controlled the virus, which I would add, we are nowhere near accomplishing.

    True story… the “denial” approach, nor the “everyone stay home in their bunkers for 4 months” approach are not going to get us there…

    IMNSHO, we need to be prudent, don’t do “stupids”…

    Wearing masks in public, stay home if we’re not feeling well, social distance, these are all prudent and necessary measures… telling everyone that they need to hoard by the midnight deadline, then hunker in their bunker thingy is NOT real… might as well die…

    The pandemic is real… it is a dangerous threat, particularly to some… but whoever said the “yo-yo” thing is on the right track… going from one extreme to the other seems to be “a stupid”…

    To date, even with projections (the pessimistic ones), on a per capita basis, is not like the so-called “Spanish Flu” of ~100 years ago… nor the plagues of previous centuries (15-20% of the human populace, as I recall)… panic is not a viable answer… ignoring reasonable precautions (prudence) is a bad answer…

    The article focuses on science/fact based… Tia is correct that we have not fully understood/researched this threat…. we don’t even know if contracting it, having mild symptoms, is even a ‘guarantee of future success (immunity)’… we do not “know” that the vaccines in progress will “solve” the issue… but to deny the threat, not be prudent, is a “stupid”… so is going out to the 3rd deviation on the other end (force eveyone to hunker in their bunker [and advise them that if they run out of provisions, “too bad for you”])… not a viable answer… another “stupid”…

    Paranoia and politics… may have to re-invent the traditional “6 P’s”… was Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance… perhaps “Paranoia and Politics Promotes Piss Poor Performance”… just a random thought… others might well do better…

  11. Tia Will

    Bill

    I agree with much of your post. But you have fallen victim to your own expressed dislike of hyperbole.

    telling everyone that they need to hoard by the midnight deadline, then hunker in their bunker thingy is NOT real… might as well die…”

    Literally, no one in our county has suggested “hunkering in your bunker” or hoarding. To suggest that is some recommendation that folks find objectionable, is in and of itself objectionable since it does not conform to reality. People love to condemn extremes, which is fine where they exist. But this is a matter of creating a strawman extreme to push back against.

    I see nothing at all extreme about suggesting people stay home when they can, go outside as necesary ( shopping, exercise, dog walking…) but do it only alone or with housemates. And when you may be in proximity to other people, always have a mask available to don, distance, and handsanitize frequently.

    I do not see any of this as draconian, and yet some people continue to insist that this is some violation of their God given right…to what? To spread a lethal virus at a time when our health care systems are being overwhelmed. Yes, as of this am, we have zero ICU beds available in Yolo County. And that is no exaggeration.

    1. Bill Marshall

      I see nothing at all extreme about suggesting people stay home when they can, go outside as necesary ( shopping, exercise, dog walking…) but do it only alone or with housemates. And when you may be in proximity to other people, always have a mask available to don, distance, and handsanitize frequently.
      I do not see any of this as draconian, and yet some people continue to insist that this is some violation of their God given right…to what?

      Pretty much agree with the first paragraph…

      As to the second… why are not all businesses doing the mask-donning, distancing AND temperature taking and REQUIRED hand sanitizing, giving names/contact info for potential ‘tracing’?

      Yet, many places of worship are doing all five, and are shut down tighter… go figure…

  12. Bill Marshall

    Meanwhile, it appears that Trump ‘gets it’… doing everything he can, by any means, to “shelter in place” for at least the next four years (@1600 Pennsylvania Ave – [irony unintentional])…

    To be sure what he had, and has, is contagious, and possibly lethal to others… ask the Proud Boys…

  13. John Hobbs

    “The most dangerous people in America right now are libertarians, white guys with guns, and Trump supporters. And there is considerable overlap between those groups.”

    I couldn’t have said it better. I have, but you excise it before it can be read.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for