An LA Judge Asks Questions

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James Chalfant is asking questions few others have posed -- just what is the "science" behind the lockdown orders being promulgated in many US states? LA County banned outdoor dining at restaurants this week in response to a surge in COVID cases. While there is sketchy evidence for COVID transmission at indoor restaurants, there is apparently none at all in the literature for outdoor dining. Banning any restaurant business just before Christmas is, of course, economically disastrous. The judge thinks there ought to be good reasons to do it.

The Daily News reports Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant “appeared sympathetic” to separate lawsuits seeking to lift the restriction filed by the California Restaurant Association and famed attorney Mark Geragos, who owns the Engine Co. No. 28 restaurant in downtown L.A. However, according to the outlet, “Chalfant said he was reluctant to issue an order that could have a major impact on public health without first reviewing scientific data about the danger of coronavirus transmission at an outdoor dining establishment.”

He scheduled another hearing for next Tuesday when public health officials will have an opportunity to bring forth information that backs up their decision to issue such a directive.

“An order to show cause means that Los Angeles County, which has banned outdoor dining at restaurants, must finally step forward and show evidence linking outdoor dining to the ongoing rise in coronavirus cases,” said Jot Condie, president and CEO of the California Restaurant Association. “Their order was arbitrary and targeted restaurants unfairly, without supporting evidence.”

“It is our expectation that if the county is unable to produce evidence justifying this decision, then outdoor dining should be allowed to resume as soon as the stay-at-home order is lifted.”

Wednesday's hearing covered a great deal of ground. Another story gives more detail:

The county, Chalfant said, provided a declaration from Public Health Chief Medical Officer Dr. Jeffrey Gunzenhauser. He said the county could be overwhelmed with Covid-19 patients but didn’t offer anything to back up his conclusion.

The basis for those conclusions are vital to the county’s argument, Chalfant said.

. . . The county’s attorney Amnon Siegel told Chalfant it would be difficult to provide the “type of scientific certainty and precision” on data the court seeks because infections and hospital bed availability are based on projections that often change.

Chalfant agreed it’s a fluid situation, but not when it comes to intensive care unit beds.

“Those are fixed. It’s not hard to estimate the number of ICU beds,” said Chalfant.

Chalfant said the county also did not provide any evidence it took a risk-benefit analysis on the harm its health order could have on the economy and the mental well-being of Angelenos who lost jobs or can’t go out to eat at a restaurant.

“Which is frankly a big hole” in the county’s case, said Chalfant.

. . . he asked why the county didn’t have more information on the risks of outdoor dining, nine months into the pandemic.

This last question is one other key players are finally beginning to ask -- why, after nearly a year of COVID, do the highly paid health experts still know so little about the virus and how it's spread? Where is the actual research behind all the unprecedented restrictions?

Judge Chalfant has also presided over the separate Grace Community Church case, where he has allowed that church to continue to hold indoor services while the case moves through the system.