I require San Francisco to spell out what their goals are! I fundamentally reject the idea that it's our duty as citizens to shut up and do whatever London Breed thinks is best. If she's not willing to explain why these emergency restrictions are necessary and how we'll know when they aren't necessary, we shouldn't comply.
Yes, even if this isn't required by the letter of the law, it certainly does seem to be required by the spirit of US law that the people are not mere subjects to be ordered around. At least in spirit, they deserve to be informed, so that they can make an informed decision about whether they believe their representatives are behaving reasonably. And if they don't agree, they can vote them out, or exercise their free speech rights to voice their dissatisfaction.
Is there a statute somewhere that requires London Breed to spell anything out to your satisfaction? I don't know what California's emergency management laws look like; maybe you're right.
Does there have to be a statute to advocate for a rational, numerical based approach to public policy?
You're a super smart, analytical guy. You don't see any problem with imposing extremely restrictive rules on a population of millions without even a basic attempt to quantify what your desired outcome is?
Why do you want this to be a simple problem? It isn't a simple problem, not by a long shot and erring on the side of caution seems to be the right way to play this because you are at most 4 weeks away from a serious disaster if you fuck it up. The fact that SF does ok is a result of the shelter-in-place order, without it SF would look like NYC or worse.
Nobody said it was going to be simple. I'm just advocating that it not be completely and totally lacking in stated goals when it's such a severe policy intervention.
Those goals could be complex, or detailed, or multivariate, or subject to contingencies and caveats. But they can't be non-existent and they can't be secret. This is a democracy.
> The fact that SF does ok is a result of the shelter-in-place order, without it SF would look like NYC or worse.
Your sentence here is making a quantitative assessment that the result is worse than NYC, without stating the metric you're using to arrive at that assessment, or hinting at the means by which it was arrived at. It's just "worse".
That's fine for an forum comment. But it's a disaster as a government policy almost six weeks into this crisis.
What's being criticized here is the parent story, which is a press release by the actual government, and appears to make no mention of the criteria used to arrive at this drastic and staggeringly expensive policy decision, and contains nary a hint of what metrics they'll use to evaluate it, or critically, determine if the schedule should be delayed or accelerated. That's crazy.
It sounds to me as though you do not trust your leaders to have your best interests at heart.
The idea that everybody will go and pick apart the underlying data to support their favorite little theories may have something to do with the decision to keep the inputs confidential.
You get one chance every so many years to vote in a government that you trust, you're going to have to accept that.
