But there have been a lot of little things beyond that. A couple of weeks ago a 77-year-old barber opened his shop. He couldn't pay bills, couldn't support himself, so took all the precautions that he could then defied the shutdown order. In what was probably a foolish adherence to law, the State suspended his license and the police cited him. As far as I know, he is still cutting hair in defiance of everything.
"I've been through so many of these things. I remember as a kid my mother used to make us sit in the basement because of the polio virus. I've been through the Hong Kong flu and the swine flu," he said.Subsequently, a local judge issued a ruling that allowed him to stay open because he believed the health officials needed to show this specific shop was spreading the virus, not just force a general order on it. Here's the full timeline, surprisingly (or perhaps not) from the UK.
Since he opened his shop again, business has skyrocketed, and a lot of people support his decision, he said. One customer drove from California just for a haircut...
I suppose that the judge's ruling is not indefensible but it strikes me as dubious. Another court affirmed the Governor's right to extend her emergency powers. So it seems there is this push-and-pull on who is allowed to do what. Many local police organizations are actively stating that they do not have the manpower or the inclination to harm their public relations by comprehensively enforcing those orders. The Governor has since extended our lockdown through mid-June, and it's getting increasingly hard for me not to see this, charitably, as an overreaction, or uncharitably as a middle finger to her opponents. Whether it's really what's best for everyone doesn't seem to be the main issue.
This is not really a big deal except as a way to point out that it never needed to come to this. Whatever the merits of her position, the Governor, who was elected as a compromising centrist, has positioned her messages negatively. She has spoken from a place of fear, wherein we all must suffer until we are safe, and as though the only thing saving us is to stay sheltered. The subliminal message is that we are at the virus's mercy. It would be a different story if she had said, "Michigan is opening. Here is the timeline for getting back to normal. Unless something terrible happens, nothing will stop that." From a practical standpoint there is no difference in policy, but putting forward the image of having a strong plan to open rather than a shelter-in-fear-until-it's-over message would have made all the difference in the world.
And, honestly, how on Earth did we make some grandfatherly barber who is desperate to make a living the symbol of lockdown defiance? Even though I question how much of a poor, sympathetic old soul this guy really is (note: he's got himself a high-end lawyer, he's also a part time novelist -- never trust a novelist), the "optics" here are atrocious. Would it not have been better to focus on high profile or overly egregious violations? Good grief.
The ultimate downside to all this is to remove the teeth from any future emergency orders. Suppose we open up a bit in June but things take a turn for the worse and we are ordered to go back on full lockdown after a month. Is anybody going to pay attention? The lawsuits against the lockdown continue to pile up and I know of at least one gym that has opened in stealth already.
Apart from the foibles of my pathetically mismanaged State, there is little new info. The CDC is now saying that it doesn't look like object contact is the main vector of transmission. Also, transmission outdoors seems to be pretty rare. People are looking at maps of the spread now and are slowly coming to the idea that broad-based transmission is not the big enemy, but the spread is focused in clusters along with all the implications that has for policy. We are still at a point where we don't know what is good or bad, or what is or isn't working. Every piece of data still has a confounding piece of data. Every story still has a valid counter-story. At this point, you have no justification to shame and sneer at the people who oppose you as being against science because science doesn't know yet. Meanwhile, unemployment remains historically high and the nation's economy remains on edge.
I continue to believe restrictions should be targeted, not state-wide. Rural counties have different issues than Detroit, why treat them the same? I know plenty of small retailers who have never had more than 10 people in their store at once, why treat them like Nordstrom? I know gyms that never have more than 6 clients in at the same time, why treat them like Equinox? I know lots of local restaurants that have outside seating (some exclusively), why treat them like Chilis? Base the policy on the ability to function safely rather than blanket by type of business.
I also think focusing on nationwide testing is probably not feasible and preparing for rapid reaction to new outbreaks is more practical, which follows along with the clustered outbreak evidence. I still think variolation should be in our toolkit.
But mostly, I think nobody cares what I think and everyone has already subsumed their opinion into their moral self-image and no argument -- scientific, statistical, or otherwise -- will change anyone's mind. At this point, beneath the surface of our grand proclamations and policies, we are a nation of people praying that, in a year or so, we'll be the ones who can say I told you so.
Addenda: Michigan is still on lockdown but Texas, where I spent a few days, is opening up. Restaurants are allowed 50% capacity so it was no trouble eating out. Of the three restaurants I ate in, only one took my temp on the way in. They were more strict where I got my haircut. They made me wait outside until a chair was available, checked my temperature, and had me keep my mask on throughout. Swimming in the pool was allowed but half of the lounge chairs had been removed. Again, I am impressed by the sense of positive action in Texas vs. places like California, New York, and, sadly, Michigan where the policy seems to be to duck and cover with righteous pride. Of course, that was rather the case before the plague too.
Addenda 2: After I wrote this we decided to have social justice protests and riots in a few big cities. Not much social distancing going on there (and, in fact, our Governor joined in). Above I questioned whether any future orders to return to lockdown would be followed by anyone. I think the protests have pretty much removed lockdowns as an option if there is a second wave.
I supposed one thing that will come out of this is finding out whether the restrictions really made a difference. Honestly, if there are no major breakouts in the places of mass protest, some health officials will have a lot to answer for. If there are major outbreaks the protestors are going to have lives to answer for.
