Social Distancing
"Social distancing" has been with us for over two months, but it is an inaccurate term. In the age of social media, "Physical distancing" is much more accurate and it is nice to see many people and agencies switching to this term.
Shelter-in-place
It has been six weeks since the poorly-named "Shelter-in-place" orders were issued. The consequences of the misnomer "Shelter-in-place" really hit me when I spoke to my mom one day, and she told me she was afraid to go outside in her yard, and that the Coronavirus was washing up on the beaches from the ocean. Now, the latter belief was a result of a single person's ill-chosen remarks that were widely reported in the Southern California media and quickly retracted. But the former--fear of going in the yard--was certainly related to the "Shelter-in-place" terminology, since "stay home" does not equal "stay inside," but "shelter" implies staying inside.
This is a poor name because it is inaccurate--depending on where you live, it is generally safer outdoors than indoors. The purpose of the shelter orders is to keep us away from each other, not to keep us away from the outdoors.
For most of my life, I have lived in situations and locations and cultivated hobbies where the closer to home I get the more people I'm around, and the farther from home I get the fewer people I'm around. One of my favorite things to do is go on a long all-day solo hike. When I do this, I generally see few people, and almost never get within six feet of them. In many situations, there is no public health reason to keep people indoors (or even at home), and the negative effects of staying indoors could outweigh the positives. But there needs to be a simple message for how to stay away from other people, and "stay home" was it.
In addition, this virus is new, and we really don't know a lot about it. I read somewhere that you can imagine everyone is smoking and stay far enough away to not breathe in the imaginary second-hand smoke. That is really helpful, but is it an overreaction? The other day I was fishing on a pond, and another fisherman was smoking 50 to 100 feet away and I could smell the smoke. Does that mean I was at risk if he was exhaling Coronavirus? The quote above implies not, but there is a difference between "low risk" and "no risk," and I was probably in a "low risk" situation. The personal decisions ("no risk") people make need to layer on top of the public health decisions ("low risk") made by public health departments.
So why call it "Shelter in Place?" It could be lack of imagination--that is one option public safety agencies have for controlling public movement, with evacuation being the other. I think that terminology also gets the attention of people having a hard time following instructions. If you want people to develop new habits, the best way to get people's attention is to shut everything down (think of a teacher in a rowdy classroom or a parent dealing with a dangerous situation). Once a baseline of no travel becomes a habit, then when they do go out, people will pay more attention--to every human interaction when they are away from home--which is important for survival during a pandemic.
Why shut down low-risk businesses?
So why were low-risk nonessential businesses shut down? For the same reasons--we needed time to figure it out and contain the chaos, and we had to act quickly. Now that we have everyone's attention, today's Public Health Order reopens many construction and landscaping businesses (or, in our classroom analogy, now that everyone is paying attention to the teacher, the kids doing okay things can continue, and those doing dangerous things need to go to the principal's office and figure out how to modify their behavior).
It has been six weeks since the poorly-named "Shelter-in-place" orders were issued. The consequences of the misnomer "Shelter-in-place" really hit me when I spoke to my mom one day, and she told me she was afraid to go outside in her yard, and that the Coronavirus was washing up on the beaches from the ocean. Now, the latter belief was a result of a single person's ill-chosen remarks that were widely reported in the Southern California media and quickly retracted. But the former--fear of going in the yard--was certainly related to the "Shelter-in-place" terminology, since "stay home" does not equal "stay inside," but "shelter" implies staying inside.
This is a poor name because it is inaccurate--depending on where you live, it is generally safer outdoors than indoors. The purpose of the shelter orders is to keep us away from each other, not to keep us away from the outdoors.
Your chances of catching the virus when you go outdoors is extremely low, provided you’re keeping a safe distance from others. “Outdoors is safe…unless if we are in a very crowded place — which is not allowed now anyway. It is safe to go for a walk and jog and not to worry about the virus in the air..." Lidia Morawska, professor and director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia.
NYT 4/17/20
For most of my life, I have lived in situations and locations and cultivated hobbies where the closer to home I get the more people I'm around, and the farther from home I get the fewer people I'm around. One of my favorite things to do is go on a long all-day solo hike. When I do this, I generally see few people, and almost never get within six feet of them. In many situations, there is no public health reason to keep people indoors (or even at home), and the negative effects of staying indoors could outweigh the positives. But there needs to be a simple message for how to stay away from other people, and "stay home" was it.
In addition, this virus is new, and we really don't know a lot about it. I read somewhere that you can imagine everyone is smoking and stay far enough away to not breathe in the imaginary second-hand smoke. That is really helpful, but is it an overreaction? The other day I was fishing on a pond, and another fisherman was smoking 50 to 100 feet away and I could smell the smoke. Does that mean I was at risk if he was exhaling Coronavirus? The quote above implies not, but there is a difference between "low risk" and "no risk," and I was probably in a "low risk" situation. The personal decisions ("no risk") people make need to layer on top of the public health decisions ("low risk") made by public health departments.
So why call it "Shelter in Place?" It could be lack of imagination--that is one option public safety agencies have for controlling public movement, with evacuation being the other. I think that terminology also gets the attention of people having a hard time following instructions. If you want people to develop new habits, the best way to get people's attention is to shut everything down (think of a teacher in a rowdy classroom or a parent dealing with a dangerous situation). Once a baseline of no travel becomes a habit, then when they do go out, people will pay more attention--to every human interaction when they are away from home--which is important for survival during a pandemic.
Why shut down low-risk businesses?
So why were low-risk nonessential businesses shut down? For the same reasons--we needed time to figure it out and contain the chaos, and we had to act quickly. Now that we have everyone's attention, today's Public Health Order reopens many construction and landscaping businesses (or, in our classroom analogy, now that everyone is paying attention to the teacher, the kids doing okay things can continue, and those doing dangerous things need to go to the principal's office and figure out how to modify their behavior).
Why shut down parks?
So why shut down parks, and driving to parks and open space, when we are unlikely to contract the virus outdoors? Minimizing travel is key--that keeps the virus from spreading to new areas. If no one goes to Bolinas, no one in Bolinas will get sick. Many people don't just drive to a trailhead, walk, and then drive home--they stop along the way, get gas, use the restroom, go to a restaurant, etc. They congregate in popular locations where physical distancing may be difficult--although now that we have mask-wearing in the order, this should be much more manageable and closures could be much more targeted. Close every other parking spot. Keep Muir Woods and Yosemite Valley visitation very limited to avoid crowds.
Back when we were still allowed to drive to trailheads, I came up with this Outdoor Recreation Decision Tree and Risk Activity Matrix, with the bottom line being: be very careful to not spread the virus, and don't burden the EMS system by getting hurt doing risky activities. I think it might be time to have an official version of this so that we can open up most of our less-popular recreation areas. Here is Inyo County's warning not to engage in high risk activities, and here is the guidance from the Inyo National Forest, where all developed recreation sites are closed:
"If you do plan on visiting the Inyo National Forest, please be aware that:
- No trash removal is currently offered – please pack out all trash and waste
- All toilet facilities are currently closed – please plan accordingly
- Avoid high-risk activities – law enforcement and search and rescue operations may be limited
- If an area is crowded, please search for a less occupied location"
Golf Courses Get Preferential Treatment?
Today's new Shelter-in-place order in Marin County allows golf courses to operate under certain conditions. While I agree allowing more outdoor activity is a good development, it has the appearance of golf getting preferential treatment over other outdoor recreation. What if I want to drive to Nicasio Reservoir to go fishing--how is that more of a public health hazard than me driving to a golf course to go golfing?
The difference appears to be in the supervised nature of the outdoor activity: "The owner or manager of each golfing site shall provide security or patrolling to ensure golfers’ compliance with the requirements" (April 29th Order Appendix A). Clearly there aren't enough rangers to patrol all our wildlands to ensure compliance with physical distancing... although I hear there are people out of work looking for jobs. Let's hire a bunch of new rangers and open up all our parks again! It actually wouldn't take many, since most people want to keep their distance.
Own Your Decision About Where to Live
The golf exception also requires golfers to stay in their county of residence. The intent appears to be minimizing travel and movement--again, containing the virus' spread. This provision should probably be extended to all parks when they open, at least initially. But until parks are opened, people can't drive to parks, and have to stay near home. This means parks in urban areas will be more crowded than parks in rural areas--an inequitable situation caused by the pandemic and California's history of development patterns, but one that we can overcome with some creativity (trailhead reservation system? each of 7 Bay Area counties (combine Marin-Sonoma and Napa-Solano) gets its own day of the week in Point Reyes National Seashore?).
Our decision for where to live is often coerced (by economics or other factors), but right now we all have no choice but to own this decision. I'm lucky enough to live in a rural area, with lightly-traveled open space and trails easily accessible. Unfortunately, this isn't as advantageous in other aspects of life. Normally a long commute would be the main drawback. Even without a commute, our family has still driven our car 90 miles in the past month. That is an average of 3 miles a day! While "sheltering-in-place"! If these essential miles are an indicator of the minimum miles of what a sustainable future looks like, that means 24 gallons of gas per year. How will I ever get my fossil fuel use down to zero? I really don't want to be buying the stuff at all. While that carbon footprint would be low compared to our usual one, it is still 24 gallons of polluting dangerous expensive destructive fossil fuel every year. We'd have to get a plug-in electric vehicle to get this to go to zero. I digress... These are some of the structural challenges presented by California's patterns of development, and hopefully we can address these as we strive to achieve a sustainable future, with or without a pandemic.
Stay safe... stay alone outside!
Stay safe... stay alone outside!
No comments:
Post a Comment