As we all know, Governor Charlie Baker has set some new COVID-19 restrictions, and it was quite the topic of conversation in the studio today. The rules are as follows:

  1. Mask mandate for those five years and older
  2. Indoor gatherings limited to a maximum of 10 people
  3. Curfew from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.

The mandatory masks, I understand. I might not 100 percent agree with it, but I can understand why this would be a thing. Same with the restrictions on gatherings; it's a restriction that I understand would be a benefit to slowing the spread.

I'm sincerely having a hard time understand the logic behind a COVID curfew.

If I understand social distancing correctly, the idea is to spread people out. We are trying to avoid doing things at the same time. A curfew seems to contradict that effort. Normally, people don't do much between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., but the few that do will now have to do them with the rest of the world. It seems to fly in the face of social distancing.

In my opinion, Governor Baker's advisory was poorly packaged; it came across as the governor flexing his power. It's almost like a dad enforcing a curfew on his kids. If this is about placing curfews on bars and nightclubs, then place curfews on bars and nightclubs. Don't implement an across-the-board curfew as if Massachusetts residents are a bunch of punished teenagers.

Baker continues to pick and choose the winners and losers in the COVID response.

I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it's hard not to see a slight coincidence that the curfew was put into place the day before one of the most controversial elections in modern American history (even though the curfew doesn't go into effect until Friday). It's also not lost that the curfew announcement coincides with the activation of 1,000 National Guard members to help control any potential riots that may occur after the election results are released.

Could that be what this really is about?

Enter your number to get our free mobile app