Lockdown Lite

ABC 7 Chicago reports on Mayor Lightfoot’s latest decree:

CHICAGO (WLS) — Mayor Lori Lightfoot announced a curfew on businesses in Chicago to go into effect on Friday due to a sharp rise in COVID-19 cases in the city.

Mayor Lightfoot said the curfew will be in effect for the next two weeks. As part of the curfew, all non-essential businesses will be closed from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.

Essential businesses, such as grocery stores, pharmacies and take-out restaurants, will be allowed to operate.

Liquor sales will also be stopped at 9 p.m. Bars without a food license will no longer be allowed to have indoor service.

I would love to see the science on which that is based.

Here’s my modest proposal: if the number of new cases in Chicago does not decrease in seven days, the mayor should be removed and replaced with someone capable of doing the job.

By the way, while I’m on the subject, for the last six weeks we’ve been seeing sealed tents springing up around bars and restaurants. I can understand how open air dining and seating could reduce the transmissions of SARS-CoV-2. Can someone explain how sealed, heated tents do that? Gov. Pritzker and Mayor Lightfoot keep braying about how their policies are based on science. Can someone produce the science that supports the toleration of this nonsense?

7 comments… add one
  • PD Shaw Link

    When people say they are following “the science,” I’ve come to assume they are either lying or don’t know what they are talking about. Not that there isn’t science, but I don’t believe scientist talk that way, particularly with something new that is still subject to a lot of studies and conjectures.

    I don’t know what it all means. The night lights are going out all over Europe, except in Sweden. What are the lockdown rules in place across Europe?

  • TarsTarkas Link

    ‘I would love to see the science on which that is based.’

    Political science, of course!

  • steve Link

    Unless there is a pressing reason to test earlier we now wait 5 days to test people after exposure. You can get positive results at 2-3 days and if you wait until 7-10 days you might miss a tiny bit fewer people, but at 5 days we think you get a pretty high percentage. So if you use 7 days as your metric there is about a 100% chance it fails just because of the delay.

    We continue to have an increasing number of pts refusing to wear masks. Our admissions are picking up a bit. Intubated a guy under the age of 50 couple days ago.


  • As I’ve said, I wear a facemask and observe social distancing conscientiously. I believe that I should model the behavior I would like to see (but so rarely do) in others.

  • Drew Link

    “……..but I don’t believe scientist talk that way, particularly with something new that is still subject to a lot of studies and conjectures.”


    FWIW. In SC where I am compliance with masks is extremely high. I doubt it helps much, but people do. However, in restaurants it’s 5 seconds from the door to you table and masks off. And in many venues people in close proximity. Rather odd.

  • Andy Link

    Science ends where politics and true inconvenience begins. That’s why liquor stores everywhere are able to stay open, often with more limited restrictions than other types of businesses. Because the politicians know there will be riots and calls for their heads if they try to cut people off from their booze.

  • Greyshambler Link

    All you can do is educate people, some won’t believe it.

    Wondering, down the road a few years, will people’s perception, awareness, and tolerance for illnesses remain changed.
    Will presidential candidate Harris
    Have to answer for the 60,000 Americans dead of the flu in the winter of 23-24?

Leave a Comment