Note that not one law was passed by the CA Legislature concerning these mandatory conditions. They were made by the Governor (Comrade Newsom) through an unconstitutional (both State & Federal) dictatorial edict.
No “non essential” businesses will be allowed to operate in the State of California until the Governor decides all six of these conditions are met.
No Nail & Hair Salons
No workout & yoga gyms
No sit down restaurants
No barbers
No clothing stores
The list of small privately owned businesses put out of business could go on and on.
(Could we all grow up and not try to shoot the messenger here and focus on whether these edicts are good for the State of California or maybe whether or not these edicts actually exist or whether or not they are in line with the Constitutions?)
Tell us what these six conditions are. Then pick one or more of them and give us your opinion on them. Or give us your own criteria for opening up the state.
(1) The ability to monitor and protect our communities through testing, contact tracing, isolating, and supporting those who are positive or exposed.
(2) The ability to prevent infection in people who are at risk for more severe COVID-19.
(3) The ability of the hospital and health systems to handle surges.
(4) The ability to develop therapeutics to meet the demand.
(5) The ability for businesses, schools, and child care facilities to support physical distancing.
(6) The ability to determine when to reinstitute certain measures, such as the stay-at-home orders, if necessary.
These sound fine to me as general guidelines. And if they are violating anyone’s constitutional rights there’s a system for dealing with that, a system this action does not impede in any way. Nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily cooperating.
They are good for California because it looks like things are turning a corner, and they are constitutional because the fringes of society can’t string four coherent, factually based sentences together for why they are not.
FWIW, if you hadn’t poisoned the well with the thread title alone (“impossible conditions” and implying that Californians are not free), your plea for considered debate would resonate more.
I’d like to see these “impossible conditions” in a less biased site. Are they listed on the state government website? And how do the rules in California compare to those in Republican-led states? Are they much different?
Here’s an article from an actual news source, the San Francisco Chronicle.
The OP inaccurately characterizes these as “mandatory conditions.” They are just guidelines for developing a plan for reopening. As a basis for planning, they seem good.
Given that there are no “edicts” to discuss, but rather guidelines, this thread seems to be based on an entirely false premise.
I would suggest you would be better off getting your news from an authentic source rather than after being passed through a clearly biased filter.
I agree with all of these conditions. Avoiding peaks that overwhelm our health system is vital.
I’ll just note that California has entered a pact with Oregon and Washington. All three states agree on these items and will decide together when and how to “re-open”.
Thank you for that. Now how are Republican-led states handling the question of how to re-open? What is Texas doing or not doing, for example, that’s not raising the ire of the OP?
As a Californian over 65, these guidelines seem reasonable to me. I’m quite grateful to my county and the state for issuing the restrictions early.We are leveling out, and I can go to the grocery store, as needed, without being too worried.
I don’t understand why some people want to put my life at risk so that they can go to the barber or eat in a restaurant. If I do get sick, maybe I can reward them with a nice big hug.
There’s an old saying that goes something to the effect that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. With Covid-19 gathering in public is metaphorically swinging your fist at someone else’s nose. A few people have come out and straight up admitted that they don’t care about violating others rights in this situation (see Dan Patrick, Glenn Beck, and just today Indiana Republican representative Trey Hollingsworth). At least those guys don’t deny what the underlying argument is. They care more about the economy than other people’s right to life. Those who argue about opening the economy before a good plan is in place for dealing with the coronavirus are essentially making the same argument without openly admitting that they care more about the economy than the lives that Covid-19 would take in a massive outbreak.
Let me rephrase that since I was unable to edit. People don’t want to put your life at risk and I don’t see how they would be doing so if they went to the barber or a restaurant. I could see it if they insisted on hugging you and shaking your hand. But I’ve been socially isoated here for three weeks. If I’m putting someone at risk if I go out and get a haircut then social isolation isn’t working.