California’s new curfew is not as strict as a stay-at-home order, but it has raised concerns that a more restrictive mandate could still be implemented, and at least one sprawling county has indicated plans to sue to allow areas without high COVID-19 case rates to operate with fewer restrictions.
Under the curfew order, people in the most restrictive purple tier counties are barred from non-essential activities from 10 PM through 5 AM at least through Dec. 21.
While the curfew is not broad-based, so it will harm fewer businesses, it also has less support among the public health community, Wayne Winegarden, Ph.D., senior fellow in business and economics at the Pacific Research Institute, told the Northern California Record by email.
“This combination raises the risk that the policy will still impose economic costs, albeit smaller, and from a macro-sense devastating for those impacted, but without a meaningful public health impact,” Winegarden said. “It is imperative public officials rely on relevant studies and data to make these decisions.”
Like businesses that have sued to overturn the restrictions, San Bernardino County officials announced at their Nov. 17 meeting intent to draft a lawsuit seeking to exclude from purple tier restrictions parts of the county with low transmission rates, the Victorville Daily Press reported.
“The pushback comes from the large economic costs that families and businesses are feeling,” Winegarden said. “The duplicity in the Governor’s and some legislators’ actions also encourages feedback. The contrast of businesses being forced to close, but legislators can attend a conference in Hawaii or the Governor can dine in an exclusive restaurant when regular Californians cannot, is bound to create resentment and pushback.”
Los Angeles, now scheduled to start a safer-at-home order, and other counties remain concerned about the potential for more restrictions, which California Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly spoke about at a Nov. 24 news conference.
“Statewide we are trying to be thoughtful and more targeted with our approaches,” Ghaly said. “We want to make sure that any actions we recommend really allow us to do the things that are low-risk without as many limitations while limiting things that are higher risk.”
Winegarden noted that COVID mitigation while preserving economic viability is key.
“The examples from Asia demonstrate that there are options that begin with effectively containing the virus,” Winegarden said. “South Korea, Taiwan, Japan are all prospering (relatively) because they implemented effective containment measures upfront that could avoid the larger outbreaks that have led to the shutdowns in Europe and the U.S. This opportunity is lost, obviously. But, pandemic control measures, such as the widespread use of masks, and targeted relief that focuses on only those families who are impacted by the virus will meaningfully help.
“The focused support means that the federal government should not waste money supporting state and local governments, nor should it send out random checks to people based on income,” Winegarden said. “A policy approach that focuses on the core needs will make a difference mitigating the impacts from the virus and help the economy bridge the gap until mid-2021, when widespread availability of the vaccine (if rolled out well) will finally control the virus here in the U.S. and enable the economy to begin healing unimpeded by the pandemic.”