— by Minor Lile, Orcas Issues reporter –
At today’s County Council meeting, the Council voted unanimously to recommend continuing limits on non-essential use of transient accommodations throughout the County until at least May 30. This recommendation will be further discussed at the SJC Board of Health meeting that is scheduled for 9 a.m. on Wednesday, April 29.
In lieu of any guidance from Governor Inslee on whether the statewide Stay at Home order that is currently in place until May 4 will be extended, the County Council agreed that it was important to provide a recommendation to the County Board of Health. Their reasoning for doing so is that it provides the public and local businesses with the information they need to plan for the next month.
Dr. Frank James, the County Health Officer, shared his perspective that he believes the order limiting the use of transient facilities is likely to be necessary until at least the end of June and perhaps for the entire summer. Dr James was very clear that in his view a significant influx of people from off-island prior to that would overwhelm the County’s capacity to ‘identify, isolate, and quarantine’ those who contract Covid-19.
Extending the order on transient accommodations would bring it into alignment with the existing ban on camping at all county parks until the end of May.
That’s the logical thing to do to protect public health. However
enforcement of the ban has been sadly lacking putting the public at risk.
I’m 72 years old. I understand what I have to do to be safe. I believe I will have to be isolated a long time. For people younger than 60 the risks are much much lower. They are truly likely to recover if they get it and everyone now knows to get a test at first signs. Contact tracing is now in place. Let those at lower risk return to work! Open business for those who want to travel and enjoy restaurants and allow us return to some degree of commerce. Yes reasonable safety precautions should and will be required. But by returning to commerce it is more likely more people will get mildly sick and recover and in time we will build our herd resiliency. Why should everyone be asked to behave as though they were 70-80 with underlying conditions? We should collectively organize to do the least harm to all involved not just the oldest people. There is grave harm, to the most economically vulnerable, in destroying our local businesses. No jobs; can’t live here. Pretty simple.
This policy recommendation is extremely shortsighted, in my opinion. Prolonging the shutdown of short-term housing, with the goal of reducing our social interactions with off-island visitors will not prevent a resurgence of the virus when things re-open, but it will almost certainly destroy the economic vibrancy of our community. Harvard just published survey results of small businesses: 60-70% of restaurants and bars surveyed will have to shut down if economic restrictions last into the summer. I’ve heard from medical staff at the 4 regional UW hospitals, and been told there’s plenty of ICU and hospital bed capacity now, so what’s the rationale for devastating our economic fabric? Seems like we’ve moved the goal-posts from “ensuring we have enough hospital capacity” to permanent virus suppression, which makes no sense when health experts say the virus will be with us for years. Open Orcas up while there’s still a vibrant business community left!
I agree with Martha and Paula. A prolonged shutdown will sacrifice the livelihoods of mainly younger folks in the county mostly for the sake of reducing the short term risk of infection by coronavirus in susceptible groups such as older folks like me, age 73. Not being able to make a living impacts a lot of human activities and health. Stimulus checks will provide financial relief for a short time. We should let all commerce resume soon. Those in susceptible groups can continue the recommended precautions including use of personal protective equipment.
“Why should everyone be asked to behave as if they were 70-80 years old [or] with underlying conditions?” Good phrasing, Ms. Farish, of what I am also thinking for many weeks now.
We do submit to regulation of our privileges in many circumstances, and the question is whether that is reasonable now in exchange for the “modeled” benefit to public welfare. Looking forward, do we have the knowledge of the COVID-19 situation to “re-model” our approach to one that emphasizes the most vulnerable risks?
Our answer must take into account how accurate we think our guessing theories may be, and what we believe is the appropriate goal of regulation.
I have no stake in transient housing.
There is a case to be made for balancing ‘public health’ with ‘community economics’.
We are rightly concerned to date with public heath – and we must continue to focus on the health of community. Doing so will require safe distancing, face masks, testing (eventually), no gathering of large groups, and a host of other sensible and easily maintained behaviors. Each of us should abide and be especial of these norms.
We should be equally concerned with the economic health of our community on Orcas. Shutting down the islands through May 31 may be reasonable – but signaling that business and hospitality will be shut down for the summer season is a prescription for the destruction of our island business communities.
Yes, some business will find a way to survive – but many more will fail. Owners of buildings and business unable to keep current on mortgages and property taxes will lose their assets. Many in the service industries will lose their jobs on a permanent basis.
Assumed risk is one thing, attempting to balance human life against the, ‘economy’ is another. Only in in a highly dependent and malleable society can we speak of a ‘balance” that never existed.
Since we live in a nation that runs of a fiat currency, and since we are getting ‘stimulated’ by wont of that fiat currency, why not a monthly guaranteed income? Since we printed trillions for the banks without inflation, why not run the “computer” presses for the benefit of all citizens?
Or would that dicencentivize the slave reflex.
Joe, you beat me to the punch….my thoughts exactly. It will be very interesting to see how this discourse ages going into fall and winter, seems quite a few people are in for a long unpleasant learning experience. Keep the presses rolling and the kool-aid flowing…
The metrics are clear that there exists opportunity, right now, to start dialing back the lockdown pressure in a safe and cautious manner where we can. We should not be simply kicking the lockdown can down the road when clear alternatives exist. The resulting implications to our community are too devastating. While we may not be able to handle tourism at a normal level right at this moment, we most certainly can manage a return of limited tourism, based on our current acceptable functional capacity to test/identify/isolate/quarantine as advised by County Health Officer Dr. James. Council members keep pounding the mantra “the safety and well-being of our community is our number one priority.” But it is their actions that are directly leading the opposite of their proposed priority. The indefinite lockdown, when reasonable concessions can and should be made, is flat out dangerous. It is a singular plan of attack that is crushing every one and every thing. We should expect more.
I vote “yes” to nuanced compromises as suggested!
An additional observation: we’re not “balancing ‘public health’ against ‘community economics’” with an across-the-board closure of economic activity. We’re prioritizing the health of the elderly and immuno-compromised members of our community over the economic livelihoods of independent business owners and younger members of the community who don’t have the luxury of retirement stipends to cushion their unemployment or under-employment. The New York Times today published a prediction that the economic consequences of the epidemic will drag billions across the globe into poverty, but these effects will happen over the long-term.
Politicians prioritize the interests of the older voters over the younger because that’s the electoral base, and this crisis is up close and visible, with horrible news coverage, while the costs in addiction, alcoholism, food shortages and poverty will play out slowly, in a harder-to-imagine future.
“Surveys indicate that 76% of voters think pandemic restrictions are working and a majority of Wa. State residents think public health is more important than the economy”
Oh boy! I’m alarmed at the amount of misinformation that is floating around.
First, isolating the old people will not work. The virus, even in mild cases is highly contagious. We wear masks primarily to protect others against the transmission from ourselves, not to prevent getting the disease. Yet I see people in public places without masks. How do they know that they don’t have a “mild” case? Maintaining social distancing and mitigation measures such as masks need to be practiced by everyone until we can adequately test, trace, and isolate.
Secondly, how important is the tourist economy? Look up the annual direct employment income from tourism and compare that with retirement income from just Social Security, teachers’ retirement and railroad retirement. Retirees in just these categories bring more money to the San Juan Islands in personal income than any other major business sector.
We are a retirement rather than a tourist community.
This is a revealing discussion.
I’m with Martha and Joe Cohen on this.
Orcas needs to save its small businesses that provide the only meaningful economic opportunity for our young adult children. They won’t stay on Orcas to push wheelchairs and collect GBI checks.
Scott…The biggest problem that workers face on Orcas Island is the limited affordable housing and that problem predates the pandemic. The surge in vacation rentals last year has removed most rentals from the market needed by our workers. It makes no sense to increase the risk to all of us by inviting a new influx of tourists. Quite frankly, our retirees represent a year-round market for our workforce. Perhaps we should pay more attention to protecting our seniors who need services and I wouldn’t want to insult them by suggesting that they only need people to “push wheelchairs.” If you want to make an argument for the economy, the jobs are there. Try hiring a tradesman! We can be smarter about what jobs (and businesses) are essential.
Simultaneously, there will be no “economy” on Orcas at all if infections spike.
This entire line of thought seems a bit reckless and premature as there is still no definitive evidence that heard immunity will progress in a familiar or predictable pattern, or that the presence of antibodies provide any or limited protection. Currently 2% of South Korea’s active cases are reinfections. Might want to wait for the knowledge base to build a bit before throwing caution to the wind with our currently low numbers of infection. It really is a revealing discussion to find so many would gladly gamble with the lives of their friends and neighbors rather than risk continued personal economic difficulty. Maybe time to start mulling the idea that things might not EVER go back to the way they were, and start making contingency plans. Happy May Day!
so let me distill your arguments to their essence:
Paul – The highest value of Orcas Island is to serve as a retirement home.
Luther – we need to lock down forever because we cannot ever be certain that another coronavirus infection will not occur.
Gentlemen, I respectfully disagree so let’s just leave it at that.
Scott, an inaccurate distillation, but it gets points for creative interpretation.
Respectfully, I think it’s quite natural that those who enjoy the luxury of second and third homes to fall back on are going to have a radically different perspective of what constitutes acceptable risk than those that have “all their eggs in one basket“ so to speak.
The notion that the virus presents a risk principally to the elderly has been shattered. People of all ages are affected, including people in their thirties and forties having strokes without respiratory symptoms.
So let me distill your argument to it’s essence:
Scott – I think economy is more important than health, and we should fully open the doors in spite of our being in the midst of a pandemic of a highly infectious disease, with no known cure, that’s killing thousands of people.
I respectfully disagree so let’s just leave it at that.
Michael, sorry to have offended you. I have said nothing about opening doors in a pandemic. My original post in this thread merely expressed support for the measured re-entry plan that was cogently explained by Martha Farrish and Joe Cohen. No need for flamethrowing.
Michael and Scott…How easily we fall into division! May I suggest that we not forget that as a community we have been cooperating during what some of us are experiencing as a very difficult time. Better, I think, to pull together. Lives and health are important, but so is the economy. Chances are that this thing is not going to be over any time soon, but there are things that we can do to live in what may be a new normal. Island Market has given us a pretty good lesson on how we can avoid infection while they still operate their business. It seems to me that viewing our aging population as a market opens additional opportunities for businesses. It is not as appealing, perhaps, as vacation rentals, but it is year round. Why do we fool ourselves into believing that our island economy is critically dependent on attracting tourists? It is not and, quite frankly, summers might be a lot more pleasant without the crowds. Personally, I think we can be better at creating new jobs.
Paul, please do not tar me with the tourism brush. I am not involved in tourism in any way. As president of my community association, I oversaw the enactment of an amendment to our CCRs prohibiting TVRs.