It is being spread in shopping areas too, so rules are going to be tightened up.
Given that people cannot avoid buying food, does it really make sense to allow non-essential outlets to increase the risk, especially when that is completely avoidalve increase?
If it meant that people who would otherwise be infected at non-essential places would now not be infected anywhere or at all, sure. But if it meant that you simply shifted the place where they got infected (from a non-essential place to an essential place)? That wouldn’t do any good, yet it would certainly do harm.
Here in Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot is asking that restaurants and bars be opened “as quickly as possible.”
… the mayor said the ban on indoor dining and bar service has resulted in people engaging in risky behavior in private, holding underground parties at hotels, businesses, and elsewhere, without wearing masks or keeping a safe distance from other people to limit the spread of the virus.
She said reopening bars and restaurants would give people somewhere to go unwind where business owners can enforce the proper precautions.
“If we have people and give them an outlet for entertainment in the restaurant space, in the bar space, we have much more of an opportunity, in my view, to be able to regulate and control that environment,” Lightfoot said. “People are engaging in risky behavior that is not only putting themselves at risk, but putting their families, their co-workers, and other ones at risk. Let’s bring it out of the shadows. Let’s allow them to have some recreation in restaurants, in bars, where we can actually work with responsible owners and managers to regulate and protect people from COVID-19.”
This is what the Illinois Restaurant Association argued would happen back in November:
That this happened seems… obvious to me? It doesn’t seem like policy makers have consulted with any behavioral psychologists on this.
Clearly officialdom can only pull the public so far from whatever the public wants to do anyhow.
At the same time, people take at least some of their behavioral cues from what officialdom or other opinion leaders recommend or require.
So there is both pushing and pulling from both ends of that rope.
I think your point can be summarized as:
The American public, having been massively malignly influenced for the last year, is now in a collective mental state that’s too screwed up to be led competently. Instead we have to accept that Americans’ bulk behavior is so irredeemably irresponsible that we’re left with minimally effective counter-intuitive interventions as the last, least-bad option on offer. All larger, better options having already been foreclosed.
One is unimpressed with one’s countrymen.
In hindsight, with so any outbreaks being associated with private social gatherings (or “unknown”), we should probably have gone with more curfews and less business shutdowns. Masks and lower occupancy/social distancing in well inspected public places could have allowed for supervised socialization instead of sneaking parties. But curfews are the only thing that’s going to put a dent in social gatherings.
Maybe partly that, but I also think it’s just not realistic to expect people to live without social interaction or recreation for an extended, indefinite amount of time. Human beings are social creatures. After physiological needs and safety, belongingness/intimacy is the 3rd need in Maslow’s hierarchy of basic needs. That’s a pretty huge natural instinct to wrangle with when considering policy.
Seems to be what Mayor Lightfoot is saying.
If you’re referring to private gatherings, I think this is a non-starter. Too many civil rights issues and I don’t see police being willing to knock on doors of houses with 3+ cars in the driveway after 10pm.
In public places like bars, they already implemented curfews (at least in Chicago before they were shut down). Places that used to be open until 2am closed at 10pm. Anecdotally, this led to parties ordering 3 rounds at last call… then going to continue the party in a non-ventilated, 1-bedroom apartment.
Lots of ifs, perhaps and maybes there, all speculation,Completely ignoring the effect of attendees at these venues infecting people who did not go there.
One thing we can say - once contact tracing has been done, certain trends become more apparent - and I would be quite surprised to find a trend where bars, cafes and restaurants are less likely to be zones of greater infection spread.
Are we suggesting that the Health Professionals and Epidemiologists in Wales, with their access to information are looking at keeping more infectious places open at the expense of less infectious places? Your suppositions speculations and sheer guesses make absolutely no sense whatsoever
If people are not gathering in one type of location, it does not follow that they will all gather in another type, and even if some of them do, their behaviour is the thing that matters. Places serving alcohol are more likely to have people dropping inhibitions, and are far more likely to mix across differant groups, whereas shopping for food can be much more easily controlled, there is much less likely mixing of family groups for starters.
Even IF I accept your logic (and I DO NOT), the reailty is that fewer venues means fewer opportunities for spread of infection - can we shut down shops selling essentials? Logisticly extremely difficult and how would you defend that as a public policy if you then keep bars, cafes and restaurants open - don’t bother answering because its really very obvious.
Stupid parties and gatherings are a matter of enforcement, dish out a few fines and see what happens.
It certainly isn’t a good case to make that because some people break the rules, we should drop the rules altogether.
You stop people on the roads who are out after curfew. People aren’t gathering for sleep overs.
This is completely unrealistic.
In what possible way?
But how? The underground raves in abandoned warehouses do get busted and do get fined. That’s not the type of private gatherings that are spreading the virus. It’s happening in gatherings with three households and 10-15 people hanging out in garage or having dinner. Normal stuff. I just don’t see how those types of gatherings can be stopped.
Your question is how would stopping every car on the road after 10pm be unrealistic? I don’t know where to begin.
You enact a curfew and enforce it.
Explain how.
What’s complicated? All businesses shutdown at 8:30, everyone must be home by 9:30. After that, cops have the right to pull you over and demand ID showing you work in an exempted workplace, eg emergency services. If not, you get a fine.
Ah, now we have The Law is too difficult to enforce so we shouldn’t try.
What about people on their way home from work at a McDonalds? On their way to work? On their way to get groceries after a 10 hour shift? Delivery drivers? Medical emergencies? The pipes broke at your parent’s house? Traveling for any other of the 1000s of reasons to be driving not involving socializing?
This rule would disproportionally affect the lower-class that can’t just order delivery every meal and order baby food from Amazon Prime every week.
Also, police are looking the other way on a lot of the current restrictions. The cops I know are not very pro-lockdown, to put it lightly. I don’t see them enthusiastically pulling over random citizens and demanding to see papers.
In this case, based on my understanding of reality, yes. And, I think actual enforcement of such a rule would be a net negative to society.