Wednesday, June 3, 2020

“We’re hearing from our citizens that this is a government overreach,” Supervisor Don Wagner [said]

Voice of OC
   Orange County Supervisors continue to press their own county Health Care Agency officials’ over the handling of a mandated cloth mask order during the coronavirus pandemic, especially around the lack of public communication on health orders.
   “We’re hearing from our citizens that this is a government overreach,” Supervisor Don Wagner told health care staff at Tuesday’s board meeting.
   Wagner cited various surrounding counties, like San Bernardino and Riverside, that don’t require residents wear masks in public.
   “Doesn’t that undermine the evidence that is supposedly behind your order? Help us here,” he said to Orange County Public Health Officer Nicole Quick, who now participates in county supervisors’ meetings via phone after receiving a series of public threats over her mask order.
   Health Care Agency Director, Dr. Clayton Chau, said the masks help prevent the virus from spreading.
   “We don’t live in a bubble. People go from county to county — as we open up, people will travel,” Chau said. “Wearing a mask is to not protect yourself, it’s to protect other people, especially the vulnerable population.
. . .
Dr. Nichole Quick
   Wagner also pressed Quick, who issued the mask order, about what other county health officers have said about the masks.
   “I don’t feel that I should be speaking on the dynamics of other counties,” Quick said over the phone on Tuesday.
   Quick hasn’t been at a Supervisors meeting since she issued the mask order May 22, and she’s received some threats from residents because of the order.
   “Can you tell us what you’re talking about amongst yourselves,” Wagner said to Quick. “The public does not trust what is coming out of this government and there’s a good reason for that. Not that you’re wrong, but that you have been utterly erratic and failed completely to explain any kind of logic behind that erratic behavior. We just got a glimmer of explanation from Dr. Chau.”
   While Quick didn’t say what the health officers were discussing with each other on recent conference calls, she noted that Orange County is seeing a steady increase in virus cases and hospitalizations.
   “I think what our numbers are telling us, however, is that we are seeing an increase in community transmission,” Quick said. “Our hospitalization overall is trending up … It is medically necessary for people to cover their face.”
   Supervisor Andrew Do also said there needs to be more clear communication from the Health Care Agency.
   “I think the public and the board deserves a more detailed explanation,” Do said.
   But he disagreed with Wagner’s assessment of Orange County government.
   “That is a dead end position to take. What is the reason for us to be here … if we are encouraging people to say they have no trust in what we do,” Do said.
   Do then told Chau, “I don’t believe that it’s erratic. We can disagree and we can question, but eventually I hope you will bring clarity to us.”…. (continued)

3 comments:

Bob said...

Not "overreach" but under reach since a number of folks will be underground if we do not take precautions. When asked about how much land does a man need, Tolstoy replied--"six feet." Let us not make that the case in Orange County.

Anonymous said...

Apparently Don Wagner was instrumental in getting Dr. Quick ( OC Director of Health) to resign.

Anonymous said...

Is there ever a moment when Don Wagner isn't outraged about something stupid? Let's hope he's the last vestige of the Neanderthal element in our local politics.

8-14: do you regret all the lying?

✅ Trump Encourages Racist Conspiracy Theory on Kamala Harris’s Eligibility to Be Vice President NYT ✅ Orange County Sees Overall Coronavirus...

Goals and Values and Twaddle

blather: long-winded talk with no real substance*
The whole concept of MSLOs [measurable student learning outcomes] as the latest fad in education is somewhat akin to the now discredited fad of the '90's, Total Quality Management, or TQM. Essentially, the ACCJC adopted MSLOs as the overarching basis for accrediting community colleges based on their faith in the theoretical treatises of a movement.... After repeated requests for research showing that such use of MSLOs is effective, none has been forthcoming from the ACCJC [accreditors]. Prior to large scale imposition of such a requirement at all institutions, research should be provided to establish that continuous monitoring of MSLOs has resulted in measurable improvements in student success at a given institution. No such research is forthcoming because there is none….
The Accountability Game…., Leon F. Marzillier (Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, October, 2002)
In the summer of ’13, I offered a critique of the awkward verbiage by which the district and colleges explain their values, goals, and objectives —aka SOCCCD'S G&V (goals and values) blather.
I wrote a post each for the district, Saddleback College, and Irvine Valley College efforts. (See the links below.)
This verbiage—stated in terms of “values,” “missions,” “goals,” “visions,” and whatnot—is often badly written. It is sometimes embarrassingly trite.
It occasionally communicates something worthwhile.
No doubt you are familiar with the usual objections to jargon. Higher education, too, has its jargon—an irony, given typical college-level instruction in writing, which urges jargon eschewery.
Sure enough, SOCCCD G&V blather is riddled with jargon and with terms misused and abused. For instance, in the case of the district’s dubious blather, the so-called “vision” is actually a purpose. Why didn't they just call it that?
As one slogs through this prattle, one finds that "visions" tend to be awfully similar to “missions,” with which they are distinguished. The latter in turn are awfully similar to “goals,” which must be distinguished from “objectives.” But aren't goals and objectives pretty much the same thing?
These perverse word games will surely perplex or annoy anyone armed with a command of the English language. In fact, readers will be perplexed to the degree that they are thus armed. Illiterates, of course, will be untroubled.
Here's a simple point: the district and colleges’ G&V blather tends to eschew good, plain English in favor of technical terms and trendy words and phrases (i.e., it tends to be bullshitty and vague). Thus, one encounters such trendy terminological turds as “dynamic,” “diversity,” “student success,” and “student-centered.” Even meretricious neologisms such as ISLOs and “persistence rates” pop up, unexplained, undefended.
Does anyone see a transparency problem with all of this? Shouldn't the public, or at least the well educated public, be able to comprehend statements of the colleges' goals and values?
In the case of the district, to its credit, all it really seems to want to say is that it wants to teach well and it wants students to succeed. Admirable!
So why all the ugly, common-sense defying, buzzword-encrusted claptrap?

Districtular poppycock: our “vision” and our “mission” and our tolerance of twaddle - July 31, 2013

THEY BUZZ: Saddleback College's "Mission, Vision, and Values" - August 4, 2013

IVC’s vision, mission, and goals: nonsense on stilts - August 5, 2013

THE IRVINE VALLEY CHRONICLES: no ideas, just clichés & buzzwords - Sep 30, 2013

*From my Apple laptop's dictionary