Front Page  »  

Gov. Newsom announces plans to loosen shelter rules on Friday

May 4, 2020

Gov. Gavin Newsom

Following dozens of protests throughout California, Gov. Gavin Newsom today announced plans to begin to reopen the economy on Friday.

Under modification that will be announced on Thursday, Newsom is scheduled to allow some manufacturing and retail stores to reopen. This includes clothing stores, toy stores, flower shops and sporting goods stores, utilizing curbside pickup.

Newsom also plans to allow county’s that have met benchmarks related to stabilizing hospitalizations, securing medical supplies, and having the ability to track and trace coronavirus infections, to move further into phase two. In those select counties, restaurants and hospitality businesses will be permitted to reopen with modifications.

Newson also removed his order closing beaches in Orange County. Following his beach closure order, multiple members of the public went to the closed beaches, while local law enforcement refused to enforce the order.

Several California counties also refused to follow Newsom’s order, relaxing their shelter at home rules last week.


Loading...
Related:


24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

WATCH for the rising tide …” Recall Newsom”….Gray Davis was ousted for less. “Gavin Newsom, making California LAST again”, Last in reopening, Last in recovery, Last in jobs.


16

“In those select counties, restaurants and hospitality businesses will be permitted to reopen with modifications.”


So if a restaurant (for example) is allowed to open their dining areas (presumably still under social distancing), does that mean by being “allowed” to reopen they no longer qualify for insurance loss claims or for government assistance? Does that mean that employees of said business now must be forced to go back to work or will otherwise then fail to qualify for unemployment during the height of a global pandemic?


-7

Why should an employer or the state pay for you to stay home because you are scared to go to work? If you choose to stay home for whatever reason, you should not be paid!


14

Because it’s the socially responsible thing. Obviously you are just opposed to a quarantine and/or don’t really care if the virus is spread.


If the virus is serious, and if a quarantine is warranted, then it’s incumbent upon the state in such a time of emergency to take such measures as to secure the well being and public health of the people at risk. The virus is killing more people than ever right now. People are at a greater risk from it than ever.


You can pretend that people who don’t want to risk getting a virus that if it A) doesn’t kill them might B) infect and kill their loved ones or C) cause lifelong harm from lung-tissue scarring are cowards, but you aren’t going to do or support anything to help them either way because you–like so many–have adopted a GFY attitude.


-19

The socially responsible thing to do? Hmm. Let’s think about this. In order for this world to be quarantined, some people still have to work. This world runs on manpower. Someone is working so you can stay home. What if every nurse, Doctor, police officer, firefighter, mailman, grocery worker, preschool teacher etc..wanted to stay home because they didn’t want to “risk” their lives?

I’m sure it would be ok for a firefighter to risk his life if your house was on fire.

So yes, if someone has the opportunity to work and they CHOOSE not to, for whatever reason- someone else should not be responsible for their financial well being.

And, just like you assume that I have a GFY attitude, I’m assuming you’re one of those people who don’t like to work regardless of the risks involved and are expecting a free ride.


9

You’re describing the difference between essential workers and nonessential workers. Do *some* people need to work during a pandemic to maintain essential services? Yes, particularly if their job is described as emergency services. During a pandemic, it would be a false equivalence to equate the doctor or firefighter who refused to do their job with the waiter who refused to do their job. One group entails risk as part of their job description, the other doesn’t. When there is a higher risk to one’s safety, something else must be introduced to offset the increased risk, e.g. hazard pay, improved sickness/injury insurance, or effective employer-sponsored PPE/safety protocols. If a person is working in the private sector, to accept anything less is to risk one’s safety for the profit of someone else. This is why we have OSHA. This is why we had labor protests over a century ago. People refused to accept such terms of labor. People SHOULD refuse to accept them.


“[I]f someone has the opportunity to work and they CHOOSE not to, for whatever reason- someone else should not be responsible for their financial well being.”


Which brings me to my point why such a position is completely disingenuous. There are GOOD reasons why someone *should* choose not to work. We have laws related to such reasons, that when violated means that yes, someone becomes responsible for the now unemployed person’s financial well being. Forgive me if I think that a global pandemic also qualifies as a legitimate reason why people should not be forced to choose between risking one’s own life (and the lives of others) and going homeless. The responsible party in such circumstances is the government. We all paid into unemployment insurance for our working time; if ever there was a time to recollect it, this is such a time.


I can also flip the question around. What if everyone went to work during a pandemic who didn’t need to? Are *all* jobs essential? That’s certainly what some are arguing. You have protests demanding the reopening of “nonessential” businesses. Businesses that in order to operate must introduce higher levels of risk to the employees. The employees are not getting hazard pay. For a lot of businesses to operate, you can guarantee corners are going to be cut in regards to health and safety of both employees and customers. Their very business models necessitate such violations. People have already pointed this out here in other posts. Who is going to buy clothes without trying them on? What kind of restaurant can survive on curbside pickup alone?


Guess what? You think I’m making some argument for the poor; well I am, but I’m also making one for small businesses. These businesses are not going to survive reopening during a pandemic unless people throw all caution to the wind. Reopening them is their death sentence because now they’re going to be expected to be on a paying basis–meaning they must now bring employees back off unemployment rolls or fire them. Businesses aren’t going to make what they used to, so many these employees are going to be terminated. Will these businesses receive financial assistance for their impacted status? Should they? I would argue if Wall Street corporations are getting trillions in bailouts, sure these businesses should. And if both of those groups get support, why is Joe Average not entitled to financial support during a GLOBAL PANDEMIC?


And before you make the point, yes grocery clerks should have been receiving hazard pay. And the corporate stooges who spend millions on advertisements calling them heroes mislabel them. They are not heroes; they are hostages. Work and risk death. Or quit and risk death.


I also personally look forward to the coming lawsuits that result from employers doing stupid stuff with their employees during a pandemic.


And people have made the point (I think somewhat accurately) that the demand to reopen is not about wanting to go back to work in the face of things getting better, but about forcing *other* people to go back to work and to get off unemployment in the face of the height of the pandemic. Your posts illustrate this.


-8

Our county saying they will open when the state lets them just shows they have no backbone and are passing the buck. Our county officials won’t stand up to the tyrant.


23

Meh.


Who’s going do “curb pickup” for clothes before trying them on, books and albums without checking out other stuff….


Although I guess I should be thanking King Newsome for throwing us rubes a bone.


29

Go in, try them on, check the stuff out, cough all over … i ain’t buying no fungus amungus


-31

Have to say Mazin, you are just scared all the time. This event has created millions of Monk-styled OCD-suffering germaphobes. Sad, because those types NEVER feel safe.


17

It’s actually “Newsom’ but we know you don’t pay attention to the deets. Cheers!


1

Newsom is diabolically clever and is an excellent politician!


Here he shows his remarkable sense of timing; just as people are beginning to show they’re fed up with the lockdown, Newsom gives back some–not all–of the liberty he stole from his subjects. People actually think they “stood up for their rights” and got Newsom to “blink” or “give in.”


Nonsense. He’s not giving back 100% of what he took. He’ll loosen restrictions slowly and won’t ever give permission for us to live like we are used to.


He’ll have taken away our rights; well more like we willingly flung away our rights when asked to do so…..and make us think we fought for them and got them back….well, 90% anyways.


It’s tantamount to thanking thief for leaving one item of jewelry behind….


43

Waaayyy better than the dim bulb in the White House


-41

I agree, power taken is rarely ever given back without bloodshed.


That said, I’m beginning to wonder if this (and several past legislative measures) were simply a test and/or means for the “authorities” to discern who is compliant vs. the non-compliant. I mean this on a grand scale (national / global). Obviously in California we have a LOT of “compliant” types.


Sadly, these compliant types are popping up everywhere – just read about the waves of “snitching” in various areas around the country and the world. If one thinks about it, how far away from “suspension of the Constitution for your safety” are we when so few even BLINK at being asked to report your neighbors.


Frightening.


14

“power taken is rarely ever given back without bloodshed”


That’s a ridiculous statement and the history of the United States is proof that you are seriously mistaken. We have elections every two to four years and there has never been anything other than a peaceful transfer of power. The only time that wasn’t totally true was when Lincoln was elected in 1860 and I pray the American people are smarter than to repeat that historical folly.


-7

Let the experiment begin.


1

I love the smell of anarchy in the morning.


26

What most people fail to realize is that Newsom doesn’t have the legal authority to shut down anything except state run facilities. He, like all public servants in this country, is bound by the Bill of Rights. In fact he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, which he apparently doesn’t take very seriously. The protesters around the country have figured this out and we all owe them a debt of gratitude.


“Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.”

Benjamin Franklin 1755


51

The protesters, oh yeah right, which spank me skin head do you like, bro?

https://www.theweek.com/speedreads/912056/guntoting-protesters-dramatic-stand-inside-michigans-statehouse-5-photos-videos


-35

Hey man, stop the hate. Opening gradually with mitigation is something we have to do. Yes it’s risky but there really isn’t a choice. Again, gradually with mitigation.


Stop the hate.


14
1 2