Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/21/2020 Item 11, Greening Wilbanks, Megan From:Eric Greening < To:publiccomment@arroyogrande.org; citycouncil@atascadero.org; gbadmin@groverbeach.org; cityclerk@morrobay.org; cityclerk@prcity.com; citycouncil@pismobeach.org; E-mail Council Website; ad_board_clerk@co.slo.ca.us Subject:Fwd: Eric Greening Public Comment Hello! Eric Greening here, forwarding the message I sent to San Luis Obispo County Supervisors, CAO Horton, and County Health Officer Borenstein, relative to the letter the mayors of our County's seven cities signed along with two members of the Board of Supervisors and Assemblymember Cunningham. I was unable to find an e-address on Mr. Cunningham's website and would invite whoever has one for him to forward this message to him as well. As you can see below, I am in support of the message to Governor Newsom asking that he allow our county to begin loosening shelter-in-place restrictions due to our success in "flattening the curve," the original stated goal of the statewide "shelter-in-place" order, and because the risks and damages of Covid-19 need to be balanced against the damages of excessively protracted "shelter-in-place." I encourage further steps to unite with others around the state who are ready to take measured and prudent steps in the direction of loosening restrictions. I also note, to my knowledge, no jurisdiction in our county has taken action AS a jurisdiction to seek this loosening. The letter sent yesterday did not require a public hearing or collective action because the signers signed as individuals and no quorum of any public body was represented among the signatures. For jurisdictions to agendize and, if approved, to send correspondence AS jurisdictions could be a further step, as could the seeking of concerted efforts through such organizations as CSAC, the League of Cities, and the Rural Counties' RCRC organization. Again, thanks to those who, representing a variety of political philosophies and united in wanting our viral response to be proportionate to the threat and our ability to meet it, have sought to encourage the Governor to allow local jurisdictions that have succeeded in "flattening the curve" to take the next steps toward a future worth living in. Many thanks, and STAY WELL!! Eric Greening ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Eric Greening < Date: Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 7:08 AM Subject: Eric Greening Public Comment To: <ad_board_clerk@co.slo.ca.us>, <whorton@co.slo.ca.us>, Penny E. Borenstein <pborenstein@co.slo.ca.us> Hello! 1 I may have missed last evening's deadline for official inclusion in the record of non-agenda public comment for the April 21st Board meeting, but if it is NOT too late, I would like this so included; if it is too late, then it is still in the hands of the Board members, the CAO, and the County Health Officer. The reason for the timing of my sending of this message is that I just became aware of the letter that was sent by some members of your Board along with mayors of multiple cities to Governor Newsom asking that our county be allowed to pursue a cautious, science-based process of transitioning out of "shelter- in-place." I am very much in support of this letter (as could probably be surmised by the comments I sent in relative to Agenda Item 1 on the April 21st Agenda), and would like to thank the authors for taking the initiative. I would point out that those authors come from points all across the political spectrum; the media are giving the public a probably misleading picture that the only people questioning the virtues of endlessly protracted lockdowns are on the political far right, but the harm caused by excessive response to viral threats are not only to the individual liberties championed by those on the right, but to the social equity championed by those on the left, as the least fortunate are disproportionately harmed by the economic, social, and health consequences of excessive "shelter-in- place." It needs to be brought to the Governor's attention that, if he disregards the County leaders' plea, he is moving the goal posts. At the time the statewide "shelter-in-place" order was issued, the purpose, which I supported and considered a worthy rationale for what would otherwise be an extreme suppression of commerce and sociability, was "flattening the curve." The assumption was that it was unavoidable that Covid-19 would make large numbers of Californians ill, some merely at the level of inconvenience, but a substantial minority, gravely ill. "Shelter-in-place" was needed to slow the transmission enough that our hospitals would not be overwhelmed with surges of people simultaneously needing care. The same number of people might ultimately need care, but by "flattening the curve," the ability of our medical infrastructure to save all the lives it could would be unimpaired. This strategy has worked beautifully in our county. But now the Governor has put together six "considerations" to be met prior to beginning to open the state; only one of them speaks to the original rationale of avoiding surges. Others may be near impossible to meet in any near term, such as development of "therapeutics" for this new menace; if that means the creation of a remedy specific to this disease, it could take years to get through testing and mass propagation of an effective remedy, if there is even one to be found. The original reason for "shelter-in-place" was not to shut down the state until the virus was no longer any sort of threat, but to protect our health care system from an imminent peak in demand. To assume that now "shelter-in-place" can't be ended because there MIGHT be a FUTURE surge in cases is to set up a criterion that can never be met as long as the virus exists anywhere. The potential of a future surge should not deter adapting to a present relative calm. If needed, "shelter- in-place" can always be reinstated for use as a TEMPORARY measure to spare our health care system and allow it to save all lives that intensive treatment could save. In the meantime, it is critical to preserve our state and local governments' ability to save lives in the long run by allowing commerce and the generation of tax revenues to resume, and to promote health by relieving the populace of the stress of a response that will become disproportionate to the threat it addresses if unduly protracted. In the event that Covid-19 proves to be, to some extent, seasonal, making a partial retreat as the weather warms and gathering force toward next winter, that adds to the importance of allowing the public to 2 "make hay while the Sun shines," even if "shelter-in-place" may need to be resumed for another spell toward the end of the calendar year. Speaking of sunshine, and to healthy outdoor exercise in virus-killing ultraviolet light, I quote from the World Health Organization Scientific Brief: "Modes of Transmission of Virus Causing Covid-19: Implications for IPC Precaution Recommendations" from March 29th, 2020: "In an analysis of 75,465 Covid-19 cases in China, airborne transmission was not reported." There is no rationale for keeping public outdoor recreation spaces closed to the public; the virus doesn't hang about viably in free outdoor air; it transmits in droplets, and, to some extent, from surfaces onto which the droplets may have fallen or been smeared. That said, the motorized recreation that mobilizes fine particulates does threaten worse health outcomes to virus-exposed people downwind, as documented in the Harvard study I cited in a public comment message several weeks ago; I continue to advocate keeping the La Grande Tract closed to vehicular recreation even if the state seeks to reopen it in the ODSVRA. Again, I thank Board members and city leaders for seeking to persuade the Governor to allow the citizens of San Luis Obispo County to benefit from the sacrifices we have made over the last month-plus in the interest of "flattening the curve," which we have done. I would hope we could unite with other counties that have also succeeded in containing the threat--perhaps the Rural Counties group could be mobilized for this purpose. Not all the state will necessarily be ready to begin loosening the restrictions at the same time, but jurisdictions that have succeeded should not be penalized for their success; statewide tax revenues will benefit from allowing more commerce in areas that can safely support it. (The same goes for businesses; those that are ready to meet whatever science-based social distancing criteria might be needed should not be held back from opening, and employing their staff, just because other businesses are not ready.) In my comments on Item 1 on the April 21st agenda, I suggested Mothers Day as a landmark prior to which to strive to loosen restrictions if we could, both for the boost to the economy of spending in preparation for it, and for the boost to morale if extended families could reunite on that day in prudently-sized gatherings. Perhaps other jurisdictions would join us in seeking to attain it as a goal where it can be scientifically justified. I support efforts to attain all the six goals put forward at "considerations" by the Governor (with a note of caution that I do not support a draconian China-style surveillance state under the pretext of "contact tracing"), but believe most can be accomplished while allowing prudent loosening of present restrictions on commerce and social life. I compliment our countywide elected officials from a diversity of political philosophies for uniting around this common-sense request to the Governor that our response be proportionate to, and accurately targeted toward, the viral threat while not ignoring threats embodied in the response itself. Our County has done an excellent job in "flattening the curve," and should be able to serve as an example to the rest of the state in prudently loosening restrictions while protecting public health and safety from all sorts of threats, viral and otherwise. Many thanks, and STAY WELL!! Eric Greening 3