CALIFORNIA: MORE LOCKDOWNS. NO SCIENTIFIC DATA REQUIRED

California announced last week another sweeping lockdown due to the coronavirus threat that focused – once again – on restaurants and salons. As with other nations, states, and cities which impose lockdown rules, government and health officials were unable to back up their decision with scientific data. 
KTTV’s Elex Michaelson asked California Governor Gavin Newsom to explain how he came up with the new lockdown orders. Dodging the questions, Newsom replied,
“I’m wondering what you say to these people who say, ‘Look, I’ve done everything you’ve asked. I’ve followed the rules, I spent a lot of money on PPP, my staff is on the brink of losing their jobs, we’re on the brink of losing our business, it’s the holiday season.’  What do you say to these people who are really desperate and confused and angry right now?”
As reported by the Los Angeles Blade, the California Restaurant Association sued the Los Angeles Department of Public Health, asking its Director, Dr. Barbara Ferrer, to cite exactly what scientific data or studies show there were increased risks associated with people dining outdoors. 
Last Tuesday, L.A. Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant took issue with Ferrer’s order labeling it an abuse of emergency powers:
“The Restaurant Closure Order is an abuse of the Department’s emergency powers, is not grounded in science, evidence, or logic, and should be adjudicated to be unenforceable as a matter of law,” Chalfant wrote in a 73-page assessment in which he also wrote that the county’s logic behind the closure “ignores the outdoor nature of the activity, which the CDC says carries only a moderate risk.”
“Outbreak data provided to the court,” Chalfant wrote, “showed that cases traced back to bars and restaurants accounted for just 3.1 percent of the non-residential outbreak locations and that the vast majority of those were chain/fast food type restaurants and almost exclusively involved employees rather than customers.”
While Chalfant is letting the order stand, for now, he has ordered Ferrer to provide the court with greater detailed information. The Judge went on to say, “I am shocked that in nine months, [government officials] have not looked seriously at outdoor dining. I am not laying this at the county’s feet but that is a failure of government.”
He wrote that the county’s Restaurant Closure Order “is an abuse of the Department’s emergency powers” and is “not grounded in science, evidence, or logic, and should be adjudicated to be unenforceable as a matter of law.”
LAist reported the lawyer for the county admitted that trying to prove a link between outdoor eating and virus transmission is “borderline impossible.”
TRENDPOST: Last week, California Health and Human Service Secretary Mark Ghaly admitted during a press conference that these restaurant closures are not “a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining,” but “really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home.” 
Again, despite the evidence that keeping people at home is proving deadlier than being outdoors, as articulated in numerous Trends Journal articles since the COVID War was launched in March, arbitrary rules are being made up and enforced. And, if the citizens disobey them, they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.