why haircuts and manicures? Its a low population setting (1:1). If there is proper hand washing between clients, each new client gets a squirt of sanitizer, and both clients and stylists wear a mask? Require every haircut to start with a shampoo for mechanical disinfection.
That's a decision for those in government, but personally I see it as a balance of risk vs reward. There is a high risk of infection and relatively little benefit. It is probably better, for society as a whole, to pay the unemployment payments and have long hair for a while.
Shampoo doesn't remove the virus from one's lungs or exhalations. I'm not sure what benefit shampoo would have over, say, gloves. PPE is good but hairstylists aren't usually trained in its proper use.
I would hope dentists' offices reopen before hairstylists. Dentists are presumably more able to properly use PPE and disinfectants.
> PPE is good but hairstylists aren't usually trained in its proper use.
Higher end salons use PPE for keratin treatments and offer them to their clients due to the straightening chemicals (allegedly not formaldehyde but many products still contain).
Also, nail salon techs had been starting to wear masks and even face shields due to powder coating and dust from dremeling gel coating and acrylics.
I don't think there would be a high barrier to entry to transition wider PPE rollout across the field, because it's already implemented among some of the treatments.
” There is a high risk of infection and relatively little benefit. It is probably better, for society as a whole, to pay the unemployment payments and have long hair for a while.”
Citation absolutely required. We’re talking about people’s lives here, and there’s zero evidence for this kind of intervention.
Everyone says they’re “listening to the science” to make these kinds of decisions, but where is it? Why can’t we be letting people get haircuts while wearing masks?
Particularly in a place like San Francisco, where there have been 1,400 cases total and 23 deaths. It’s simply irrational now, and a lot closer to virtue signaling than anything with a scientific basis.
Don’t just downvote: provide affirmative evidence.
> there’s zero evidence for this kind of intervention.
Citation absolutely required. While there is definitely a ton of uncertainty around what causes spread, the one thing that there seems to be broad agreement on is that sustained time in a shared pocket of air with an infected person is the most likely transmission vector.
The virus is tanking the economy, not the lockdown. Air travel is down 97% even though they are no laws against flying places. You can lift the lockdown if you want, but if people are too afraid to board planes and go to restaurants and bars, you are not going to magically bounce back to 4% unemployment and 2% GDP growth overnight.
> If you want to take people’s livelihoods away from them, you have to justify the seizure, not the other way around.
Conversely, you could argue that if you want to take actions that risk killing hundreds of thousands of people, then the onus is on you to prove that your actions won't cost hundreds of thousands of lives. You can't claim that enacting a lockdown requires scientific proof but lifting one does not, when the potential consequences for the latter are even higher than the former.
> Sure there is. It's called mass unemployment and closure of non-essential businesses. Why would people fly to branch offices if they're closed?
Sweden didn't "lock down" (as people often point out), but travel is down 90% from normal [1]:
> "The biggest myth and misconception is that life goes on as normal in Sweden," she said. "It absolutely does not."
> "We have seen Easter travel decrease by 90 percent, we have businesses going bankrupt, a record number of temporary layoffs, and a lot of unemployed people."
I agree that lockdowns seem to have limited or no impact, but not for the reason you think. Where I am, restaurants and retail shops were already in dire straits before the lockdowns came into force. I think the lock downs have limited impact because they aren't very different from the way most people would be behaving anyways, given the information they have.
> Particularly in a place like San Francisco, where there have been 1,400 cases total and 23 deaths. It’s simply irrational now, and a lot closer to virtue signaling than anything with a scientific basis.
I live in a state with a very low number of cases and deaths, much less than SF. We began the process of reopening today. Which would be fine if our borders were sealed, if quarantine for travelers was enforced, if our systems for contact tracing and testing were adequate. However, none of these requirements have been met. It is only a matter of time before this state, which relies heavily on tourism, sees a rebound of cases and we are once back in the situation we were in a month ago.
