So I guess Piazza's Fine Foods, in Palo Alto, employee's do not have to wear masks? Dont you guys proof-read?
¯\(°_o)/¯

See photo

COVID kid- that photo was taken April 9, according to the story. Masks were not mandatory then.

The face mask rule was put into place by county health and Sara Cody. Do they bear no responsibility for how to enforce the rules. Typical when our lives are controlled by a career bureaucrat.

Victor,

This was coming for months.

Yes those who do not comply with masks and other COVID prevention actions are responsible for their actions.

And businesses that are not preventing spread are also equally responsible.
Better to pay a fine than having the death be traced to their business and facing involuntary manslaughter or involuntary assault charges.

Of course since we do not have proper contact tracing that is not possible. This is INTENTIONAL, because if we did have good contact tracing, perhaps hundreds of business owners could be charged with that crime and face prosecution.

Why is it that the community doesn't want to address this problem without causing so much problem by in effect attempting "herd" immunity? With more and more the Swedish model is getting criticized for its resulting more damage to health.

Instead you have people that actually want to see the most people die or get disabled?

So it's not a criminal issue it's a civil issue..?? Is that what we get from this?

To me it's still criminal. If I ran a business and a customer refused to follow a rule or policy I'd tell them to leave. If they refuse to leave they are trespassing. Then you call the cops and have them trespassed and removed.

If they come back they get arrested.

No need to get your lawyers involved. That just costs you money.

Otto,

It is is people get sick and die because the business did not follow due diligence to the extent they become a cluster point.

Realize that many people are convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The definition in the Oxford dictionary says:

"involuntary manslaughter

noun LAW

the crime of killing another human being unlawfully but unintentionally."

By unlawfully not preventing the person from coming down with COVID because you failed to follow due practices, you unintentionally killed them.

One can extend the definition of assault in a similar way you just substitute the term assaulting in the above definition which would read as"

"the crime of assaulting another human being unlawfully but unintentionally"

Remeber Bars are charged with involuntary manslaughter or assault on occasions where they let a person leave them obviously drunk and the customer causes injury or death while driving. You can read that here ( Web Link ):

"A vendor can be held liable criminally, however. California Business and Professions Code Section 25602 governs the criminal and civil liability of a third-party for serving alcohol to others. Section 25602(a) makes it a misdemeanor for a third-party to sell or give liquor to a “habitual or common drunkard” or to an “obviously intoxicated person.”

Simply put COVID is a good example of the same threat. Most businesses have laws to deal with public safety, so I would expect the Business and Professions Code would also have this kind of provision.

Another idea the supports this is no restaurant would intentionally not prepare food so as to cause food poisoning, but if they did, this would fall under the same kind of criminal liability.

The fact is that this conduct has never occurred before. Why, because in the past NO ONE would be doing what is happening now regarding COVID prevention resistance. So this kind of consequence has never been brought up. However we live in the COVID era now.

Hmm.. I think the trespassing scenario is much more likely and reasonable.

There's no way to know if the person has COVID or not. You can tell, most of the time, if a drunk should be cut off. Plus holding the bartender accountable is an incredibly rare occurrence compared to the number of DUI's.

The dictionary is not law. California Penal Code 192 is the manslaughter law for California. I still think it's a stretch and not applicable.

What's strange to me is the fact there is an order from the county health officer and there are laws about following those orders yet the county itself says business owners are on their own about enforcement. I think the county recognizes it's an unenforceable law but doesn't want to say it outright.

If you had a customer in your store refusing to wear a shirt you'd trespass them. It's the same situation just no mask instead of no shirt. You call the cops and let them deal with it.

Otto,

Thanks for your information.

Any epidemiologist would tell you under circumstances like this the assumption is that all are infected until proven otherwise.

This is also why all people should wear a condom regarding sex, it assumes that a person may carry a disease but is not symptomatic.

Only those with proven testing of being negative can be allowed to go about without a mask, but that means they risk becoming infected without it too.

I agree that NO business should provide any services to those not wearing any masks.

But if the assumption is to say everyone is a potential carrier, any business caught allowing people to do business indoors without a mask has committed a very dangerous act regarding the public health.

However, I will also say there are "moments" where the wearing of a mask may not be possible, thus those should be documented and provided to the public health offices, and there should be a video journal kept so as to record the customers and service providers for contact tracing if the worst happens and any of them are tested positive within a reasonable infections time.

I understand for example if a business uses paper based masks but a person is going to be subject to water, the masks will be destroyed or rendered unusable. This is what possibly happened regarding Pelosi for example in getting her hair done. I would need to see ALL footage of her services at that salon to determine if she took all possible precautions, prior to assuming she was FLAGRANTLY violating the mask orders.

>"So it's not a criminal issue it's a civil issue..??"

^ It's both...which means law enforcement should arrest for non-compliance and the arrestee can then argue it in court as a civil matter based on personal freedom.

And the only ones who will actually come out ahead are the parasitical attorneys...as they always do.

Hum - our Dear Nancy made a big mistake (give amo to Trump campaign by being "a clear bad example"). I have seen TV coverage of Dear Nancy wearing a fine and stylish CLOTH MASK when she makes statements to the Free press. Trump snipers will be and are All Over The Place! Watch it Big Democrats.

Thank you @Steve and @Otto for a fine (fact linked/hypertext) civic discussion!

Steven Nelson,

Yes, Nancy really made a big mistake if she was not wearing a mask whenever possible at the salon. It is going to hurt her badly. But again, I am not seeing the entire footage of the entire event. I cannot make a judgement on only a small part of video footage.

I know also I am a pain in the blank. But I TRY not to make it personal, I am not perfect either. But there are those that take it personal all the time here. They have their right to post.

My HOPE is that we can respectfully disagree in this country.

> "Hum - our Dear Nancy made a big mistake...I have seen TV coverage of Dear Nancy wearing a fine and stylish CLOTH MASK when she makes statements to the Free press."

^ Yes...NP is just another sanctimonious politician who seemingly embraces a personal sense of 'entitlement'.

The countless "Do as I say, not as I do" proclamations by politicians (regardless of their party affiliation) is simply par for the course.

All things considered, NP has to look presentable on CNN while lambasting POTUS45 so in her mind, this Covid-19 related indiscretion was most likely justifiable.

Besides and according to NP...it was all a 'set-up'. Faux paus apparently justified.

Justin Case,

When we have footage less than 3 minutes long showing one step of a hair styling appointment, you cannot claim she was without the mask during what typically takes at least 30 minutes to do.

I want to see the ENTIRE appointment before I pass judgement. BUT. If she wasn't wearing the mask at all possible points, I want her grilled to a super well done. If not burned to ash.


But your possibly drawing the wrong conclusion. What would you do if the complete footage indicated this scene was the only time she went without a mask? Would you be willing to concede you are drawing the wrong conclusion?

Or are you just against her herself and trying to exploit the situation.

Again, if the entire appointment video was viewable and I see what you claimed, lets "lock her up".

> "Or are you just against her herself and trying to exploit the situation."

My political position is immaterial and not being a 'sensationalist' CNN or Fox News 'journalist', I have no topics to defend or exploit.

> "Again, if the entire appointment video was viewable and I see what you claimed, lets "lock her up"."

^ Locking NP up is kind of an extreme measure BUT seriously....who wants to watch NP getting an entire wash/conditioning, obvious coloration, cut, set, & blow-dry just to prove she was only 'partially' in defiance of CA public health mandates?

I wouldn't even spend (aka waste) the time watching my other half undergoing a similar 'treatment' (sans the hair coloring as she is not 80 years of age) let alone our pooch during her regular cut intervals...again sans any age-defiant hair or fur coloring.

Justin,

I agree that somehow either Nancy Pelosi or her staff did not check for if it was allowed to have her hair done on that day. She is going to have to take responsibility for it.

However, it can be said that if someone gives you service on a day that you aren't approved to do so, isn't that contributory negligence. The fact was this business probably was doing service against the orders in place. If you are going to hold people accountable, ALL people are equally guilty.

The irony is that the owner is now saying she is closing the San Francisco location. Maybe because she knew it was operating against orders, and the video accidentally disclosed this problem. If it was designed to make Nancy Pelosi look bad, it equally made the Salon look worse.

The owner claims that the workers there were Independent Contractors leasing the chairs in the salon. Isn't this a violation of AB5 because they work on site? This is another reason why the salon owner in fact made a big mistake in thinking that disclosure of the video was NOT going to bite back on her business too. AB5 is forcing her out of business in San Francisco and it is really hurting her financially.

Nancy Pelosi should be fined for violating the mask order, and participating in business where the operation was against orders. She is not innocent. That is the fair enforcement of the laws. And yes her opponents are going to use this against her politically. This is the process.

> "However, it can be said that if someone gives you service on a day that you aren't approved to do so, isn't that contributory negligence."

> "The owner claims that the workers there were Independent Contractors leasing the chairs in the salon."

^ Yes and all things considered...though the salon is technically closed for business as per public health mandates, independent contractors who lease chairs at a salon often have keys to the facility to use on days when the salon owner is not there him/herself.

My haircutter/salon owner (who I haven't seen since mid-March 2020) works Monday through Thursday & on Friday through Saturday, the other stylists open up the shop to tend to their respective clients.

That said...the 'independent contractor' who serviced NP should be held accountable by forfeiting his CA cosmetology license & relieved of his chair rental at the salon. Sound reasonable?

As for NP...my earlier comments still stand.

In response to Justin Case you said:

“^ Yes and all things considered...though the salon is technically closed for business as per public health mandates, independent contractors who lease chairs at a salon often have keys to the facility to use on days when the salon owner is not there him/herself.”

WOW, you just said something that was totally wrong. Since the contractors are not owners or employees, they are not allowed to legally have the “keys” to the business. I worked in retail in the 1980s and no contractor is allowed to be able to have access to a business. WHY? Because if any injuries occur on-site even during “unauthorized” use, the owner of the business is still liable because they gave the contractor the keys. So when you said:

“My haircutter/salon owner (who I haven't seen since mid-March 2020) works Monday through Thursday & on Friday through Saturday, the other stylists open up the shop to tend to their respective clients.”

This doesn’t apply here, the “contractor” was not EVER to be granted ‘keys” to the business. ONLY EMPLOYEES ARE. If she is on site then she can allow the contractors that work there to do their jobs. So when you said:

“That said...the 'independent contractor' who serviced NP should be held accountable by forfeiting his CA cosmetology license & relieved of his chair rental at the salon. Sound reasonable?”

I say yes to ALL. Meaning the license to operate the salon should be pulled too. The Salon owner knew what she was doing was against the orders, and the laws. The simple fact is that the owner was trying to break orders, and now is trying to claim that she is not accountable. By handing the keys to the office over to the contractor, she MADE herself responsible.

Please also understand that it appears your twice as likely to contract COVID when going to eat even outdoors. THe report is found here (Web Link

The CDC is in effect saying it doesn't matter whether you eat indoors or outdoors regarding this report.

In fact this study used California as a data source.

It specifically stated:
"Asked about the CDC report, Dr. Wafaa El-Sadr, a professor of epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, said, “It is not surprising that dining at a restaurant was found to be associated with a positive test. This is likely due to the fact that eating and drinking, two activities intrinsic to visiting a restaurant, require removal of face covering."

From what I understand, the following states in the study prohibited indoor dining:

California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Minnesota appears to have no indoor dining. Maryland, North Carolina and Tennessee has restricted indoor dining. Ohio, Utah, and Washington only recently allowed indoor dining with restrictions. During the study they were closed. So out of the 10 states at least 7 had no indoor dining at all during the study, and 3 did with restrictions.

To me that seems pretty clear, the findings are mostly counting infections from outdoor dining as a source. I know I didn’t point this out a clearly as I should. But it really appears that outdoor dining is just not safe given that it increases your infection probability by 100%.

Maybe this makes it more clear to the readers too.

By the way, even though we have seen a reduction in infections in Santa Clara County, it is due to the fact that the air quality is so bad that people are not going to eat outdoors for the last 3 or more weeks. So do not assume that the improved numbers we have now are a good sample or predictors. The reality is that once we allowed outdoor dining as an option our infections increased significantly if you look at the history.

This is REAL science, we need to consider this information at least?

The CDC is not saying that it does not matter if you eat indoors or outdoors.
The article states:

“The study did not differentiate between indoor and outdoor dining. Researchers relied on interviews in multiple languages with roughly 800 people across 10 states, which did not include New York. Participating states included California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington.“

The study did not ask if people ate indoors or outdoors. That is different,
Also the study did not ask what other things the respondents are taking part in.
A flawed, inconclusive study to say the least.

Utah has allowed indoor dining since may:

Web Link

Victor,

This report was peer reviewed prior to publication, I am certain the peers would have not allowed it to be published if it had any scientific flaws as you claimed. The CDC does have a strict publication standard. So unless you are a medical doctor, in this field of study, what your opinion is is yours, but not scientific.

As far as Utah goes, your information is out of date as usual. Please read this more up to date report from Salt Lake Tribune
titled "Dining moves to parking lots, side yards and grass strips in Salt Lake City(Web Link Customer has REFUSED to eat indoors even when offered to do so, regarding this article. Thus it is highly likely that these restaurants changed their operations because no one was eating indoors.

You have to be more careful. You simply pick one article out of any you can find to justify your claims, but do not work to find any other information that contradicts you. The readers here can do more research to uncover your "half-truth" or "intentional omission" of relevant facts.

Of course you attack the CDC because it disproves the original theory that outdoor dining was safe.

Steven-

The article appeared in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports. MMWR is not a peer reviewed publication, it is as the title suggests, a weekly update

“Several other differences exist. A major one is that, unlike medical journals (with a few exceptions, i.e., certain special supplements such as this one), the content published in MMWR constitutes the official voice of its parent, CDC. One sign of this is the absence in MMWR of any official disclaimers. Although most articles that appear in MMWR are not "peer-reviewed" in the way that submissions to medical journals are, to ensure that the content of MMWR comports with CDC policy, every submission to MMWR undergoes a rigorous multilevel clearance process before publication. “
Web Link

The report itself states that indoor and out door dining was not differentiated in the report. That was my point.

And the story you link to regarding Utah is irrelevant to the study, since the Article is from September 6, well after the study was carried out.


I criticized the study, I did not attack the CDC.


And finally without discerning between indoor and out door dining in the study, the CDcmost certainly did not prove that outdoor dining is unsafe. Any doctor or scientist would understand that

Victor,

Yours story goes through so many changes, I can’t keep up. You said:

“The article appeared in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports. MMWR is not a peer reviewed publication, it is as the title suggests, a weekly update”

But you know the CDC would not publish it without a proper review, you are trying to constantly change the subject and distract the from the conclusions. The reality is it was “validated” internally and you know it. You said:

“The report itself states that indoor and out door dining was not differentiated in the report. That was my point.”

Your point was simply again a means to try to distract from the fact that in at least 6 of the ten state there was NO INDOOR DINING at all. The fact is that you try to cast doubt on information that proves that the idea that outdoor dining is unsafe. Especially when there is no evidence to prove it is safe to do either, it just simply doesn’t even exist. Should the public simply “hope” is safe, or should it wait until it is proven to “be” safe. You said:

“And the story you link to regarding Utah is irrelevant to the study, since the Article is from September 6, well after the study was carried out.”

But the report indicated that people were not even eating indoors in Salt Lake City because they knew it was not proven safe. You keep on trying to change your stories to avoid accepting reality. When you said:

“And finally without discerning between indoor and out door dining in the study, the CDcmost certainly did not prove that outdoor dining is unsafe. Any doctor or scientist would understand that”

Again, we have NO PROOF that it is safe at all. I would expect that we should have this proof before even going out to eat under these circumstances. What you are doing is gambling with other people’s safety and lives and you know it. Please provide any doctor or scientist who is willing to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that eating outdoors is as safe as staying home?

The situation is made worse, it may be at least October before the air quality will improve enough to operate outdoor dining anyway. The air quality is artificially reducing the COVID numbers because no one is leaving home.

Of course by then, i don't know whether it is feasible given the changes here that the downtown will survive.

Given that VMware, and Palantir are indicating moving their workforce out of here, and others are doing the same. This area is forever going to be changed.

Steven- not going to waste anymore time trying to discuss this issue with you.
The article was not peer reviewed (a point you brought up).
The article itself mentions 5 limitations to the study itself.
“ The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, the sample included 314 symptomatic patients who actively sought testing during July 1–29, 2020 at 11 health care facilities. Symptomatic adults with negative SARS-CoV-2 test results might have been infected with other respiratory viruses and had similar exposures to persons with cases of such illnesses. Persons who did not respond, or refused to participate, could be systematically different from those who were interviewed for this investigation. Efforts to age- and sex-match participating case-patients and control-participants were not maintained because of participants not meeting the eligibility criteria, refusing to participate, or not responding, and this was accounted for in the analytic approach. Second, unmeasured confounding is possible, such that reported behaviors might represent factors, including concurrently participating in activities where possible exposures could have taken place, that were not included in the analysis or measured in the survey. Of note, the question assessing dining at a restaurant did not distinguish between indoor and outdoor options. In addition, the question about going to a bar or coffee shop did not distinguish between the venues or service delivery methods, which might represent different exposures. Third, adults in the study were from one of 11 participating health care facilities and might not be representative of the United States population. Fourth, participants were aware of their SARS-CoV-2 test results, which could have influenced their responses to questions about community exposures and close contacts. Finally, case or control status might be subject to misclassification because of imperfect sensitivity or specificity of PCR-based testing (9,10).”

“ What you are doing is gambling with other people’s safety and lives and you know it”
Lies, lies and more lies. I am not gambling with anyone’s life. I am not telling people to dine outdoors or to do anything. I am just pointing out the issues with an MMWR report, which the authors themselves mention in said report.

Victor,

Your constant changing of your stories is getting stale.

You discussing COVID-2 tests are not addressing COVID-19. That right there shows you really do not know what your discussing

Your non-denial denial that you cannot get any doctor to sign any affidavit that it is safe to outdoor dine is apparent.

You are constantly saying people should go and outdoor dine and you know it.

Show us proof it is safe, and I will very happily apologize and agree with you.

Accusing me of being a liar does not prove your point in any way, just like when Jake Tapper asked Navarro questions and this is what happened:

"“This is not fair, Jake. You’re constantly interrupting me and you’re not letting me talk,” Navarro complained.

“You’re not answering my question,” Tapper replied.

“You just don’t like the answer,” Navarro further grumbled.

The Trump adviser whined that Tapper was “cherry-picking” and “having it both ways,” alleging that “nobody knew” how catastrophic the virus was in February.

“He knew it was deadlier than the flu and he was lying to the American public two weeks later,” Tapper sighed, adding: “I’m not cherry-picking. He was not honest with the American people. You’re not answering the question.”

Navarro, in return, accused Tapper and CNN of “not being honest with the American people,” threatening the host to “go there,” leading Tapper to finally cut the interview off while the trade aide was still talking."

The only response I get from you is that I am lying? That is not proof of anything

Steven- LOL

Victor,

YES! your laughing at everyone because you fooled them into acting in ways that are dangerous.

You ommitted this text:

"Discussion

In this investigation, participants with and without COVID-19 reported generally similar community exposures, with the exception of going to locations with on-site eating and drinking options. ADULTS WITH CONFIRMED COVID-19 (CASE-PATIENTS) WERE APPROXIMATELY TWICE AS LIKELY AS WERE CONTROL-PARTICIPANTS TO HAVE REPORTED DINING AT A RESTAURANT IN THE 14 DAYS BEFORE BECOMING ILL. IN ADDITION TO DINING AT A RESTAURANT, CASE-PATIENTS WERE MORE LIKELY TO REPORT GOING TO A BAR/COFFEE SHOP, BUT ONLY WHEN THE ANALYSIS WAS RESTRICTED TO PARTICIPANTS WITHOUT CLOSE CONTACT WITH PERSONS WITH KNOWN COVID-19 BEFORE ILLNESS ONSET. Reports of exposures in restaurants have been linked to air circulation (7). Direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow might affect virus transmission, even if social distancing measures and mask use are implemented according to current guidance. Masks cannot be effectively worn while eating and drinking, whereas shopping and numerous other indoor activities do not preclude mask use.

Among adults with COVID-19, 42% reported close contact with a person with COVID-19, similar to what has been reported previously (4). Most close contact exposures were to family members, consistent with household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (8). Fewer (14%) persons who received a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result reported close contact with a person with known COVID-19. To help slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, precautions should be implemented to stay home once exposed to someone with COVID-19,** in addition to adhering to recommendations to wash hands often, wear masks, and social distance.†† If a family member or other close contact is ill, additional prevention measures can be taken to reduce transmission, such as cleaning and disinfecting the home, reducing shared meals and items, wearing gloves, and wearing masks, for those with and without known COVID-19.§§"

And:

"This investigation highlights differences in community and close contact exposures between adults who received a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and those who received a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result. Continued assessment of various types of activities and exposures as communities, schools, and workplaces reopen is important. EXPOSURES AND ACTIVITIES WHERE MASK USE AND SOCIAL DISTANCING ARE DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN, INCLUDING GOING TO LOCATIONS THAT OFFER ON-SITE EATING AND DRINKING, MIGHT BE IMPORTANT RISK FACTORS FOR SARS-COV-2 INFECTION. IMPLEMENTING SAFE PRACTICES TO REDUCE EXPOSURES TO SARS-COV-2 DURING ON-SITE EATING AND DRINKING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO PROTECT CUSTOMERS, EMPLOYEES, AND COMMUNITIES¶¶ AND SLOW THE SPREAD OF COVID-19."

Now, who is lying here. Who is “cherry picking” here? You just want to avoid dealing with the results.

Steven-LOL

Victor,

So sad, you attack a person over and over again for just describing what is happening. You don't even understand it is the virus that is killing and disabling both people and business.

You again try to distract the readers from the reality.

Steven- LOL. You are not being attacked. You are being disagreed with. No difference to you.

In response to Victor Bishop you said:

“Steven- LOL. You are not being attacked. You are being disagreed with. No difference to you.”

Lets do an inventory of your statements:

Here is the first one found here (Web Link

“Lies, lies and more lies. I am not gambling with anyone’s life. I am not telling people to dine outdoors or to do anything. I am just pointing out the issues with an MMWR report, which the authors themselves mention in said report.”

First you call me a liar. Then you argue against the MMWR report you are in fact saying to the people, you should feel free to dine “on-site” So this was a personal attack and you know it

Here is the second one found here (Web Link">Web Link

“Goldstein has a problem with people disagreeing with him. Hence th misinformation, twisting what one said, bringing forth spurious arguments and putting words into other people’s mouth..”

Instead of discussing the topic, you simply want to “kill the messenger” with any means possible rather than discuss the situation logically. This is a perfect example of a personal attack, by constantly saying negative comments about my personal behaviors. Perfect Donald Trump logic, if you can’t address the problem attack the questioner.

Here is the third one found here (Web Link">Web Link

“Says the man who selectively copied and pasted a portion of the report, while intentionally omitting related information.”

Actually I was correcting you because you posted one paragraph out of four paragraphs from the CDC Discussion section intentionally. I was in fact ensuring the people reading were able to see the entire portion and not the “cherry picked” part you wanted to use. You already posted paragraph 2 of the discussion so I omitted it, but you KNOW this. The reality is that you got caught.

So I simply correct your claims, and every time you make it personal.

Yet, he has no,problem saying to me - “ You are probably a paid “astrofturf” sock puppet and nothing more”

LOL.

Victor,

THAT is not a PERSONAL attack, it is a point regarding that you have a conflict of interest and you are "working" for your interest.

Simply not the same and you know it. You were the one that wrote:

"Lies, lies and more lies. I am not gambling with anyone’s life. I am not telling people to dine outdoors or to do anything. I am just pointing out the issues with an MMWR report, which the authors themselves mention in said report.”

Calling someone a liar is not the same as describing conduct that implies you are one with a conflict of interest and you know it. When you said:

"“Goldstein has a problem with people disagreeing with him. Hence th misinformation, twisting what one said, bringing forth spurious arguments and putting words into other people’s mouth..”

Again claiming I am providing "misinformation, ..." is not the same as describing conduct that implies you are one with a conflict of interest and you know it. When you said:

"Says the man who selectively copied and pasted a portion of the report, while intentionally omitting related information.”

Again, claiming I am trying to deceive the public by completing the entire discussion is not the same as describing conduct that implies you are one with a conflict of interest and you know it. When you said:

The reality is that being an "astroturfer" is a conduct allowed under our system.
It cannot be a personal attack unless one knows they are guilty of trying to manipulate others by being deceptive yourself. Your conduct here is simply "implying" that it is in fact true. You really get defensive about it.

Steven- seems like you are testing yourself into a pretzel trying to claim that you did not attack me. Kettle meet pot.

Victor,

You are reminding me of Biff Tannan from Back to the Future, I think you tried to say:

"Steven- seems like you are TWISTING into a pretzel trying to claim that you did not attack me."

When you said:

"Steven- seems like you are testing yourself into a pretzel trying to claim that you did not attack me."

That is your opinion, you have the right to express it. But you cannot at the same time say that my freedom of expression should be negated by simply your opinion. Let the people reading make up their own minds, right? Do not get in their way.

Steven twisting himself into a pretzel

Victor,

Until you have SCIENTIFIC proof that it is just as safe for anyone to dine "on-site" than it is to order "Take Out, "Curbside Pickup", or "Delivery" the discussion should simply stop there.

No one should take any unwarranted risks. I hope the readers here will understand this and choose to avoid these risks.

Fortunately we had the smoke and unhealthy air force us to stay at home and prevented outdoor dining, thus it cut down on COVID 19 infections in the county given it has been 30 "spare the air" days in a row. We County people must continue to prevent spread, by taking all actions possible to prevent spread.

If that hurts the businesses, i am very sorry, but our health comes first.

You should lobby the State and the Federal government for economic life support. Given the City nor the County simply cannot fund that.

We must move using the SAFEST options possible. I think the majority of people understand and agree to it.

County of Santa Clara urges us to support restaurants by eating outdoors:

“ We urge the public to support our restaurants by using restaurant takeout, delivery options, and outdoor dining.  Pursuant to the Risk Reduction Health Order, we urge our residents to continue to avoid indoor activities whenever possible to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. ”

The MMWR report does state that a certain percentage of people that contracted COVID 19 engaged in dining at restaurants, however the report does not provide any direct evidence that the infection occurred While the person was at a restaurant. In addition, as I and others have pointed out, the report clearly states that there was no differentiation Between indoor and outdoor dining. The report does state that and other issues are a limitation to the report.

Anytime you go outside you are at risk to catch the virus. That is known by everyone. No need to do a scientific study about that. If you do not feel comfortable going out for eating, shopping, exercising, then stay at home. Businesses are suffering enough, no need to spend months trying to cripple them further

Victor,

Please I repeat it and I will do so until you provide PROOF:

Until you have SCIENTIFIC proof that it is just as safe for anyone to dine "on-site" than it is to order "Take Out, "Curbside Pickup", or "Delivery" the discussion should simply stop there.

You can try to distract the people here until I am blue in the face. But without PROOF you are saying nothing.

The DPH is simply not able to document PROOF of safety either. The phrase you said:

"“ We urge the public to support our restaurants by using restaurant takeout, delivery options, and outdoor dining.  Pursuant to the Risk Reduction Health Order, we urge our residents to continue to avoid indoor activities whenever possible to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. ”

In effect the SCC DPH has NO PROOF it is equally safe to outdoor dine as it is for takeout and delivery. The SCC DPH is trying to become a sales position because the businesses are DICTATING them to do so. Since the City and County cannot bail out the businesses.

Again provide PROOF, otherwise the people here have no basis to feel safe at all. And I would expect you to respect their safety instead of saying to them, be good children and spin the chamber of the pistol, point it to your head and pull the trigger.

THAT'S what your telling us to do, isn't it? Play Russian Roulette?

The people here understand you, hopefully they will not play that game?

These businesses have other options, get to work on them and stop complaining.

Spin, Steven, spin.
LOL. Maybe if you demand scientific proof a few more times, the scientific proof fairy will grant your wish!!! N the meantime, spin, Steven, spin.

Victor,

Just like Donald Trump. Still hoping for a miracle herd immunity as he said on ABC tonight.

stop complaining and fix your own problem, don't expect us to bail you out.

Everyone here sees now what kind of person you are, and they WILL act appropriately.

You in fact want to your customers to get themselves sick and maybe die.

You know I won't play, and now no one else will either, THANKS.

Victor,

Your just like the people that ran the Bath Houses in San Francisco during the AIDS epidemic. In the Book called "And The Band Played ON" the following took place during a San Francisco Public Health Hearing. Eddie Papasano was a Bath House owner and Dr. Don Francis worked for the CDC The reported conversation went like this:

Eddie Papasano: Let me tell you people something, no matter what happens here today, if you try to close my joint, I 'll sue the ass off you.

Dr. Don Francis: Doesn't it bother you knowing that the people who have sex in your bath-house are playing Russian roulette?

Eddie Papasano: Please just cut out this bullshit. We're all in this for one thing: money. I make'em when the guys come in. You doctors, you make'em when they go out."

Victor Bishop is behaving very similar to Eddie Papasano regarding COVID 19. But COVID 19 is so much worse since it is an air transmitted virus.

Should the readers follow this example?

Spin. Steven. Spin

Victor,

I understand that the local businesses are frustrated.

Nearly 30% of the local businesses have been closed for good in Santa Clara as described by the local Chambers of Commerce. in the following news article "Santa Clara County business owners push to open indoors" found here (Web Link


BUT.

That is actually below average normal business losses. You can read it at (Web Link

Please read the follwoing:

"Percentage of businesses that fail

According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 20% of U.S. small businesses fail within the first year. By the end of their fifth year, roughly 50% have faltered. After 10 years, only around a third of businesses have survived."

These "businesses" oversell their COVID 19 damages. the reality is that after the first year only 80% remain, and after 5 years only 40% remain and at 10 years only 33% remain.

The facts are that the local businesses have been very lucky, and COVID 19 is returning the NORMAL attrition back to the area.

To me, this is actually normal. It is the RISK of going into business, and you cannot expect the customers to take on more personal risks to their health.

Restaurants are high risk and low profit businesses, just read this report titled "ANALYZING RISK IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY By SILVIO CESCHINI(Web Link It is well known and people like yourself should know better.

Stop complaining and fix your own problems.

Spin, Steven, spin.

Now CNN reports that at least half of the businesses closed during COVID will never reopen.

These business owners are going to be out of work and find themselves a new job.

And "owners" are now in the same boat as their workers now, AND THEY HATE IT.

Time for them to figure out what they did wrong. Which was not having any "pandemic" plans arranged. The "pandemic" threat has been known for more than 100 years. Even HIV got really close to being a pandemic, and no one learned a thing regarding it.

Again these "business owners" have to take account for their decisions and move on.