[eru]

Not sure people there have such a coherent ideology?

Restaurants NOT opening when the restrictions were lifted is actually a good sign if you are interested in small government: it tells that the restrictions were most probably non-binding as a constraint.

Ie they were telling people to do stuff that they would have done anyway.

(Compare to eg a 0.1 dollar/h minimum wage: almost no-one would actually be at that minimum wage, so it's 'non-binding' in the same sense.)

Government constraints that are non-binding or almost non-binding aren't too bad. Since they don't change market outcomes (too much).

[hippich]

I am no expert, but something to consider - in Austin a few restaurant owners said they will not reopen with 25% occupancy requirement, as it will be unprofitable. So the fact that very few businesses are open might be due to that as well (which is a direct effect of the government restriction).

[coldcode]

Exactly this, restaurants rarely make big bucks unless they have huge takeout already or get multiple uses out of each table. If you have the former you are doing well without your dining room, if you don't 25% is pointless.

[albntomat0]

I'm not sure they would be anywhere near full occupancy even without government restriction. I can imagine a significant portion of the population self-limiting to essential activities only, regardless of the level of government restrictions.

[jonfw]

if that was true- why bother with regulation in the first place?

[smileysteve]

Because a significant portion does not imply that majority of the population will exercise prudence.

[jonfw]

If a majority of the population doesn't exercise prudence, then it sounds like there is a very good chance for a restaurant to get back to full occupancy.

[eru]

In addition to what smileysteve said, the more important reason is: people like their politicians to Do Things.