Due to a rapid increase in coronavirus cases from October to November, San Mateo, Calaveras, San Francisco, Plumas and Modoc counties moved into the purple tier, the most restrictive coronavirus regulation tier, on Nov. 29. Marin County is now the only Bay Area county that is below the purple tier as they are currently one tier below, in red.
Purple-tier counties are required to shut down non-essential indoor businesses such as indoor-only restaurants, places of worship, gyms, movie theaters, zoos, aquariums and museums. Furthermore, all retail stores will only allow 25% capacity and gatherings can only happen outside with no more than three different households together, still following social distancing protocols.
San Mateo County and San Francisco County will also have to comply with Gov. Newsom’s 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew starting Nov. 30 at 10 p.m. and potentially ending on Dec. 21. This means that residents are only allowed to leave their houses between these times for essential activities or jobs.
It’s hard to see that coronavirus cases are rising again and I think the movement into the purple tier is very justified but I’m not quite clear on how the curfew will help. I understand it’s to try to help limit exposure, but I don’t think many people are going out and risking exposure between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. I’m not sure how effective it’s going to be and if it’s really necessary.
Discussion Questions:
1. What do you think about the curfew?
2. Which restrictions do you think will be the most or least effective and why?
3. Do you think San Mateo County is handling the coronavirus the best it can? What can it do better?
I think that the 10PM - 5AM curfew will have little impact on the course of the pandemic in California. Few people leave the house often during those hours, and those that do tend to be young adults who mostly mingle within their own age group (a low-risk sector of the population). In addition, in the spring I heard of at least one California mayor or country official (I can't remember exactly who) saying the curfew would not be mandated or enforced in their region, further diluting the curfew's effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteI think that in general, simple curfews like this one are mainly just precursors to full lockdowns. They prepare the public for the possibility of staying indoors more often and cause people to decrease movement outside their household, gradually transitioning into lockdowns once the situation calls for it (which it almost definitely will at some point, considering how things are going). So in that regard, I do think curfews are partially effective and make sense as a temporary safety measure.
I think it's really interesting how you brought up that curfews seem like precursors to full lockdowns. I think that if they find the curfew to be ineffective, it's possible that we will go back into a short lockdown. I've never thought of curfews as a way to transition into shelter-in-place orders or lockdown and I think you brought up a really good point with that too. If we do go into those stricter restrictions, I think that yes, this curfew could possibly help people who are out late at night adjust. But I don't think it will really affect anyone who is inside already before 10 p.m. I also heard that some counties and police officers are not enforcing the curfew and I think that if they're not enforcing it, then there's really not a good point to it. Just like wearing masks, if people are expected to follow curfew, it should be enforced.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and Rohan that this 10 pm - 5 am curfew will not really have much impact on preventing cases, but perhaps there are lesser known reason Newsom implemented it. In terms of restrictions, I think that the closure of non-essential businesses is very effective, because it limits places where exposure to the virus can happen. However, I do think there can be more done. Public outdoor spaces, like parks and hiking trails, should make it mandatory that people carry and wear masks at all times. In addition, I honestly think gatherings of any size (and no matter how many households involved) should not be allowed. Right now, we should be doing everything we can to limit corona cases. I think seeing maybe 1 or 2 friends could be okay, but maintaining small circles will be key in coming months. In addition, all non-essential travel should be completely banned. Personally, I have seen many people traveling for non essential reasons lately, which is only contributing to the problem at hand, which urges action to stop this. Other than that, trying to stay positive and strong as a community will be very important until vaccines can be distributed.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you that public outdoor spaces like parks and hiking trails should require people to at least carry a mask with them and people should wear those masks when the trails are crowded and when they're coming in close contact with others. I also agree that only meeting a few close friends and staying socially distanced while following all regulations is a smart idea to reduce the spread of the virus. Especially with the holiday season coming up, people should keep in mind that there are people that are going to be traveling no matter what so everyone needs to be a bit more careful. Zoom calls with family and friends or FaceTime calls have been suggested in the past for connecting with people during the holidays. And although it's not the same, I think it's one of the best alternatives we currently have to seeing people in person.
DeleteIn my opinion this is decently simple. If we want cases to really go down, we need a full lockdown. It's the only way, the gradual lifting of restrictions doesn't really make sense to me. Whenever you lighten restrictions the cases are going to go back up. Outdoor dining may be more safe than indoor dining. But it will still definitely spread the virus. People have been getting more lazy about the virus, there are more cars on the roads, people about, of course the cases are going to go back up. The Pandemic is only going to take hard hits with hard restrictions. As for San Mateo's handling of the virus. Look, the county can only do as good as the county next to it, as long as free travel is in place. So relative to other counties and the rest of the country we're doing the most, and as long as free travel is allowed.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't really go out after curfew besides casual walks around the neighborhood, so personally it won't have much of a toll on me. But I do agree that this curfew won't really affect the amount of cases. Closure of businesses that aren't essential seemed to work well in the past, and I think should remain in effect. I think closes most stores on curfew might also make curfew more effective because it gives people less incentive to get out.
ReplyDeleteThe simplest and most effective way to prevent more coronavirus cases is to have a complete lockdown. If everyone stayed inside for a month, there would undoubtedly be a reduction in coronavirus cases. With no one going anywhere, there would be no interaction and no chance of getting coronavirus. Going on vacations is both unsafe and unnecessary, and so are the trips people are taking to salons, bars, and restaurants. What seem like safe interactions with others may actually be transmissions of the virus – we already know that people who have the virus may be asymptomatic. In regards to the curfew, I am not sure how largely it will affect the number of cases, but I presume it will decrease them if anything. Even if the curfew does not have a significant impact on the number of cases, I think it is still helpful and a step in the right direction. Also, by having a curfew now and giving people time to adjust to it, it might make it easier to more effectively institute more restrictive measures in the future.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that a total lockdown is needed to slow the rise of COVID-19 cases. As seen previously early on in the pandemic, a full lockdown did temporarily flatten the curve. I think that San Mateo County is doing a relatively good job compared to other surrounding counties. While, curfews are a good idea in theory, I have trouble understanding how they will work logistically. It is very difficult to enforce a curfew and regulate where people could have been possibly exposed. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to ensure that they aren't putting others at risk and holding themselves accountable for taking proper precautions.
ReplyDeleteI think that the curfew is necessary in preventing the spread of COVID. I do, however, disagree with the way that Gavin Newsom is implementing and encouraging the public to follow the restrictions. They are just listening to the doctors, who want a complete lockdown, because in a perfect world that would work, but we live in a world where that just isn't possible. I think that we should be telling people ways to do things and meet people safely instead of just telling them that they can't do it. People are just going to do things anyway and instead of telling them they can't they need to tell people ways to do what they want while also staying safe, which has been proven possible.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the curfew's purpose is not very clear. I believe they are trying to limit any sort of gatherings that may take part during this time, such as parties or people visiting. I believe limiting the amount of open businesses is going to be the most effective precaution because it will lower the exposure and make the people only go out when they absolutely need to. I don't think San Mateo is handling COVID-19 the best they can. I think most places aren't handling the situation well because they don't know how to compromise with what the public wants. Many people still don't wear masks which puts them at risk and everyone they have contact at risk. People still don't understand that the coronavirus can stay on surfaces for a long time and still be able to transfer to a host. This situation that we find ourselves in and the level that it has reached is greatly caused by our lack of acknowledgement of this virus.
ReplyDeleteThe curfew is unnecessary for the most part in our county. It makes sense for larger counties with a boisterous night life; here, it's just a consequence of using generalized procedures for a large area. It doesn't matter much, I strongly doubt that police will actually effectively enforce a curfew unless you're making a big deal out of it.
ReplyDeleteThe restrictions on gatherings are provably effective. I would however argue that places of worship are essential for many and banning them is bordering on 1st amendment unconstitutionality, but I'm not a lawmaker nor a judge; if it isn't struck down by our courts, I'll assume it's a-okay.
I think San Mateo county is doing its best. Elementarily, you can't stop people from flaunting curfew or meeting with friends and family without something probably unconstitutional.
This post is closed.
ReplyDelete