Coronavirus: California Politicians Don't Seem to Practice what They Preach

California politicians are advocating COVD-19 lockdowns that they themselves don't appear to want to adhere to. I previously discussed Governor Gavin Newsom. Now other politicians are being caught skirting the law. 

KUSI (Dec 1) reports:

San Francisco Mayor London Breed dined at a posh Napa Valley restaurant the day after California’s governor was there. San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo went to his parents’ house for Thanksgiving. And a Los Angeles County supervisor dined outdoors just hours after voting to ban outdoor dining there.

All three local officials were on the hot seat Tuesday after various reports that they violated rules aimed at controlling the spread of the coronavirus — or at a minimum, violating the spirit of the rules as they repeatedly urged others to stay home.

Newsweek (Dec 1) expands on the Los Angeles County supervisor:

Los Angeles residents and others have expressed outrage after LA County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl was seen eating outdoors hours after voting to ban outdoor dining throughout the county.

On November 24, Kuehl voted to ban all in-person dining at L.A. County restaurants for the next three weeks as the county experienced a dramatic resurgence in cases throughout November. 

. . . "This is a serious health emergency and we must take it seriously," Kuehl said at the meeting before the measure passed in a 3-2 vote. 

What is the probability that all three politicians will win their next election? 

Honestly, one has to wonder if California politicians even know what they're doing when it comes to their attempt to control the spread of the virus. The Los Angeles Times (Dec 9) had this article on the policy reversal around playgrounds:

Following an outcry from parents and some legislators, California will keep playgrounds open despite a surge in coronavirus cases.

Playgrounds had been closed in some areas under a stay-at-home order that took effect last week. Los Angeles County had closed its playgrounds before that, but officials there confirmed they will follow the state’s lead and allow them to reopen.

. . . In a letter to Newsom last week, some California lawmakers also noted that lower-income areas would be hit hardest by the rule because many residents don’t have backyards and other open spaces to take their kids.

. . . Though the county has not publicly linked outbreaks to playgrounds, officials previously said they believed the closures were necessary.

I have no doubt that playgrounds spread viruses around, but at this point shouldn't we have some data points on what is driving the spread of the virus the most? If we're only doing partial lockdowns in California, then we should have the data on what drives the spread of the virus the most and report that information so everyone is aware of why decisions are being made. Perhaps that info is out there and I've just over-looked it (I don't think the color coded system we have really provides the data on the drivers, but just indicates what will be shut down or opened up at each level).

Does someone really think that outdoor dining or kids playing at the playground is more likely to spread the virus than shopping indoors at the mall for Christmas gifts? Admittedly, when dining outdoors you do have the issue of no masks, but on the other hand, isn't it safer to be outdoors than indoors? Stopping outdoor dining may be partially driven by the idea that you stop people from different households from gathering, but isn't that likely happening with those shopping at the mall?

If we're trying to lower the curve, then we should be targeting the most high risk situations and not just cherry-pick. If we want to eliminate the virus, then everything just needs to shut down. The current situation where there are flip flops (playgrounds) and politicians can't even follow their own rules and suggestions (outdoor dining and visiting relatives) makes no sense.