Hacker News Reader

> The state government has not provided evidence that outdoor dining is responsible for much of the spread.

When Los Angeles County recently ordered outdoor dining to be shut down, they were sued. A judge just ruled that the county must provide evidence linking outdoor dining to COVID spread: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-02/covid-19...

>>"The state government has not provided evidence that outdoor dining is responsible for much of the spread."

- This is outrageous. This is the same government who has been shutting beaches in Northern California few months ago, despite all the "science" (which they claim to follow) pointing to the fact that outdoor transmission is very unlikely.

Meanwhile ..

https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/12.3.20-St... : what the regional order says..

It’s really weird. We can’t eat outdoors but can congregate indoors. We can worship together and participate in protests, but can’t use outdoor playgrounds.

It must be very frustrating to lose your business or your job because of public health restrictions like banning outdoor dining, while at the same time you see the government doing nothing about other activities which are far more risky.

> We can worship together and participate in protests, but can’t use outdoor playgrounds.

They'd prohibit both religious gatherings and protests if they legally could. These are both explicitly listed as protected under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. constitution, so it wouldn't survive a court challenge, especially since a similar restriction from New York has already been struck down as unconstitutional.

I was at downtown Woodside CA last week and outdoor dining area was packed. And this is one of the most conscious places. I believe with a limited number of people and distance rules outdoor activity is okay, but dense outdoor dining is suspicious.

Same with beach. beach is okay, a packed beach (try a popular one in half moon bay) might not be.

San Mateo county isn’t following the rules..they are exempt from dining regulations. Woodside is an unincorporated town, iirc. The state parks and beaches in pescadaro and half moon bay etc is only for the residents. You are asked to turn back if you are not a resident. The cops run your plates. At least this was the case during the first lockdown. Not so much during the second one.

There are 54 counties in California. Only 41 counties have mandatory lockdown.

> and people are gathering with friends and relatives inside private homes more frequently than before

We didn't learn our lesson from the war on drugs. When you make something completely off limits people will find a way to engage, but without any standards.

Meeting people in secret (mask free) is the new drugs.

Also, many sheriffs have said they will not enforce Newsom's order: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/12/05/stay-at-home-orde...

This probably reveals several things:

1. Newsom's authority is not respected by law enforcement

2. Law enforcement thinks the curfew is not necessary

3. Law enforcement doesn't enjoy a governor springing new rules on them without advance notice, which is the result of his making things up as he goes along

This is little league stuff. It's not the way a state in a first-world country should be operating.

Under the assumption that Gavin Newsom and his administration probably aren't completely stupid, we can come up with a more charitable (and likely realistic) revelations:

1. County sheriffs only have direct jurisdiction over unincorporated areas, which are typically rural and are unlikely to be a significant source of spread.

2. These orders are likely intended to give local governments stronger authority to shut down gatherings, should they choose to use it.

3. Even if local authorities refuse to enforce the orders, there are no explicitly COVID-19 liability protections for businesses that I'm aware of. If an outbreak occurs that can be traced back to a business that was operating against regulations, that in and of itself would make the business operators jointly (if not entirely) liable, and would give insurance companies a defensible reason for not paying out claims.

> County sheriffs only have direct jurisdiction over unincorporated areas, which are typically rural and are unlikely to be a significant source of spread.

The counties discussed in the linked article are Orange County, Riverside, and other similar counties. These are not "the boonies".

The populated parts of those counties will be their own cities, which the county sheriffs have limited jurisdiction over. These cities will either have their own police departments, or they'll contract with the county sheriff to enforce the laws and regulations (in which case the decision on whether or not to enforce curfew will be the city's, not the sheriff's).

This is simply not true. For example, I live in unincorporated San Mateo County. By your hypothesis, I live in an area that is not heavily populated. But it's a regular suburban neighborhood that is 3 miles from downtown Palo Alto and downtown Menlo Park. I have lived in both NorCal and SoCal, and this is common in both areas. Where do you live, and what makes you so certain that unincorporated areas in California are not populated?

Separately, do you really think that if the OC Sheriff says "we are not enforcing Newsom's rules" that the deputies are going to enforce those rules in cities within their patrol areas? If a Sheriff has decided not to enforce a law in his jurisdiction, why would he direct his deputies to enforce that same law in other parts of his patrol area?

> Where do you live, and what makes you so certain that unincorporated areas in California are not populated?

I live in Southern California, one of the areas of currently under a state mandated stay-at-home order.

And I never said unincorporated areas where unpopulated, I said they were rural, which implies that they're sparsely populated. This is partly by definition (a city would either be part of an urban center, or its own urban center), and partly because populations that are dense enough tend to form cities.

And to be clear, when I refer to "city", I'm referring to incorporated cities, not just major cities.

> Separately, do you really think that if the OC Sheriff says "we are not enforcing Newsom's rules" that the deputies are going to enforce those rules in cities within their patrol areas? If a Sheriff has decided not to enforce a law in his jurisdiction, why would he direct his deputies to enforce that same law in other parts of his patrol area?

Yes.

Again, Sheriffs only have direct jurisdiction over unincorporated areas of the county. Cities are their own jurisdiction. The cities may contract with the Sheriff for policing, but the deputies would be following the direction of the city government in that case. If the city directs their police to enforce a stay-at-home order (be it the city's own police or Sheriff deputies policing on behalf of the city), the police would have no legal basis to refuse. They may not be able to practically enforce such an order, but that's a different issue.

Yes. You are right. It is also related to funding issue for schools and law enforcement. They are exempt from a lot of restrictions of other cities, but have limited facilities.

Both my farms are in unincorporated towns. There is no police dept. I have to call the sheriff’s office. Entirely diff jurisdiction.

Most outdoor dining I've seen in the bay area looks downright scary to me.

The guideline is 2 meters of distance WITH masks; considering eating can't be done with masks I'd want at least 6+ meters of distance without masks, and in reality many of them don't even meet 2 meters.

Add to that wait staff who aren't wearing a proper KN95 or N95 masks while serving dozens of customers; many of them have only surgical or cloth masks which wouldn't make safe handling my food.

I'm also in a risk group for COVID though so I'm extra cautious.