It's pushing the limits and increases the risks but the state has decided to mainly look the other way as outdoor dining has never been even a minor CV spreading location for eaters in this state and unlike some states, Oregon still does detailed contact tracing to see where you got it.Somehow I think that an enclosed tent is stretching the meaning of outdoor dining just a tad. Might be within the letter of the law but not the spirit...
UPDATE: I thought the original post was from Florida... I’m losing my mind.
What's strange about it? It's a real story that was repeated on various internet forums and channels.What I find strange, is there is a similar video from California. Even the words spoken by the woman, who looks like she is wearing the same clothes, are the same.
?
https://www.mediaite.com/news/tearf...ec8E2-MZSIi4PhkRtVedOR-of88zGihtNam2cnGOnIMSY
SHERMAN OAKS, LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- The owner of a Sherman Oaks restaurant expressed her anger and frustration over Los Angeles County's outdoor dining ban in a gut-wrenching video.
Angela Marsden, the owner of Pineapple Hill Saloon and Grill, posted a video on social media after she saw production tents and tables set up in a parking lot just a few feet from the outdoor dining area she's not allowed to use.
People involved in the television production were seen dining under the tents.
"Everything I own is being taken away from me and they set up a movie company right next to my outdoor patio," Marsden says in the video.
"They have not given us money and they have shut us down. We cannot survive. My staff cannot survive," she also says.
Marsden has owned the restaurant for 10 years. She says she spent around $80,000 setting up an outdoor dining area and making changes to meet L.A. County's health requirements, but she's run out of loan money and can't afford to offer takeout, so for now, she's closing.
Nothing at all. I think I’m losing me mind. I thought the original post was in Florida...What's strange about it? It's a real story that was repeated on various internet forums and channels.
https://abc7.com/sherman-oaks-angela-marsden-viral-video-pineapple-hill-saloon-and-grill/8514601/
A misleading headline. Yes they failed to control the winter surge but the most of the world failed and is still failing using stricter mandatory measures. It wasn't a experiment, it was a matter of law that made it voluntary. Sweden was never a proof that lock-downs were useless because they had plenty of restrictions prior to the current mandatory ones. The fact they needed to change the law to force human behaviors this late in the pandemic says more about the level of Swedes citizens compliance to those voluntary rules and the limits of humans behavioral control during long term dangers.Sweden gives up on its "Herd-Immunity" approach!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/long-a...eden-ends-its-pandemic-experiment-11607261658
Long a Holdout From Covid-19 Restrictions, Sweden Ends Its Pandemic Experiment
Government imposes mandatory measures after failing to contain new surge in infections
Dr. Nowak said medical personnel had never shared the optimism of the country’s public-health agency about so-called herd immunity—population-wide resistance to a pathogen acquired through gradual exposure—and had repeatedly warned that the virus couldn’t be controlled with voluntary measures alone.
The policy, which came into force in early September, opens the door to visitors who can provide evidence that they've recovered from Covid-19 -- proof of both a positive and negative test in the past six months.
Iceland has plans for a similar policy beginning next week -- and it already gives citizens who have previously been infected permission to ignore the nationwide mask mandate.
Experts call these types of policies a kind of "immunity passport." But does beating the virus actually give you immunity? The evidence so far suggests that for most people, it does.
"It's certainly theoretically possible that some people even who have antibodies may not be protected," Dr. Ania Wajnberg tells CNN outside her lab at Mount Sinai Hospital's Icahn School of Medicine in New York.
"But I think the majority of people that test positive for antibodies will be protected for some time."
I wonder if they really tried if anything could make less sense. Wrestling where there is pretty much full body contact but don't shake hands. Grandson just did his first match and it's strange with no spectators but they do admit parents.https://www.wlwt.com/article/ohsaa-...nts-can-wrestle-but-cant-shake-hands/34874133
Among the new rules is student-athletes are permitted to wrestle, but must refrain from handshakes before and after the match.
In Massachusetts, governor Charlie Baker has focused his latest round of rules on outdoor mask wearing — something that many experts have said is unlikely to help since the virus is extremely unlikely to be transmitted over distances outside. The British Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has deemed outdoor mask wearing of negligible benefit.
...
Baker has justified his outdoor mask mandate by saying it sends a message. The message I heard was that that the rules are not chosen for our health and welfare but to make our political leaders look like they are doing something. Rules should only be decreed along with evidence for their benefit, argued statistician and risk communication expert David Spiegelhalter in a piece for The Guardian: “
It's come to the point of diminishing returns causing more harm with marginal increases in good. It's not that lockdowns don't work to reduce the spread of infectious agents, they do, but the population (in general around the world) has just about had it up to here with mandatory restrictions that are blunt in effect, authoritarian and just plain confusing.The Greatest Generation begets the Most Selfish.
Ironic: I was having this conversation with my mom last night prior to reading this article this morning.
It's time to do something other than 'Just Say No'.As for enforcement, L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva sent mixed messages this week as the orders were issued.
“I want to stay away from businesses that are trying to comply the best they can,” Villanueva told Fox 11 on Thursday.
“They bent over backwards to modify their entire operation to conform to these current health orders,” he continued, “and then they have the rug yanked out from under them, that’s a disservice. I don’t want to make their lives any more miserable.”
The day before, Villanueva tweeted that the department would be “conducting targeted enforcement on super-spreader events.” It’s unclear exactly what gatherings will qualify, but Villanueva was probably referring to event like the massive house parties in the hills this summer or YouTuber Jake Paul’s bash for hundreds of his mask-less friends in Calabasas last weekend.
Typically used to describe sex-education programs and needle exchanges for drug users, harm reduction aims to mitigate the risks of dangerous behaviors instead of trying to get people to cease altogether.
When it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic, a harm-reduction approach would encourage masking and social distancing instead of demanding that people have no contact at all with friends or family they don't live with. In other words, even during a pandemic, abstinence-only isn't effective.
L.A., however, has adopted more of a "just say no" attitude. Last week the county became one of the only places in the nation to halt all outdoor gatherings among people who aren’t in the same household, prohibiting two friends from meeting up in a park or going on a hike with masks on. Gov. Gavin Newsom followed suit and included the ban in his regional stay-at-home order.
California officials are desperate to reverse an unprecedented flood of new coronavirus cases up and down the state, and even their critics acknowledge the impossibility of the situation. But banning relatively safe outdoor activities risks alienating people who want to follow the rules but feel exhausted, disregarded and sometimes confused by them, Brown University health economist Emily Oster said.
"Some of the things they're telling you not to do are incredibly low-risk," Oster said. "When you are so strict about what people can do, they stop listening."
| States and territories | Total cases | Cases per 100K | 2-week new cases | 1-week change | 2-week change | 4-week change |
|---|
| California | 1,362,596 | 3,449 | 252,589 | 42% | 92% | 214% |
| New York | 711,812 | 3,659 | 108,702 | 44% | 62% | 219% |
| Arizona | 364,276 | 5,005 | 64,611 | 45% | 60% | 212% |
| Delaware | 39,912 | 4,099 | 8,104 | 35% | 56% | 198% |
| Pennsylvania | 422,841 | 3,303 | 115,594 | 19% | 48% | 261% |
| Virginia | 255,053 | 2,988 | 37,257 | 5% | 45% | 88% |
| Massachusetts | 256,844 | 3,726 | 49,994 | 76% | 41% | 163% |
| Montana | 67,875 | 6,351 | 12,295 | -2% | -23% | 34% |
| Wyoming | 36,317 | 6,275 | 8,148 | -11% | -25% | 96% |
| South Dakota | 85,991 | 9,720 | 12,926 | -11% | -27% | 14% |
| Wisconsin | 441,067 | 7,575 | 64,829 | -2% | -31% | 29% |
| Iowa | 244,693 | 7,756 | 33,036 | -6% | -42% | 63% |
| North Dakota | 82,987 | 10,890 | 10,298 | -28% | -44% | 6% |