[76lsjumb]

I believe there are two factors involved here that are pushing us in a direction that probably we shouldn't go. One important factor is we have no definite statement from the counties as to how low the number of new cases per day (or smoothed average thereof) must fall before they (at least believe that they) will be able to contain the outbreak via contact tracking and tracing. Without knowing that, the population feels that one number is as good as another so why not open now? Hard to argue when nobody knows what the alternative will be.
Second, the politicians know they have received the support of the population during this economically difficult shutdown. However, there is a limit to how long they can retain that support. The "people" of California are starting to unilaterally quit following the rules. It isn't real overt yet, but it is happening. The politicians are sensitive to the idea that if they don't somehow keep the people at least mostly believing in what is recommended, they will lose control of the situation. Therefore, the politicians are trying to have a "safety valve" that will keep things under control. That is fine as long as the people still buy in and the recommended loosening is not so large it is in effect no regulation.
These two effects taken together may cause us to open up sooner than is prudent. However, failing more and better information about the way ahead, I think that is exactly what we will do.

There's the rub.  I'm not sure that "prudence" is a scientific concept...  Nor that your concept of "prudence" is the same as the next guy's.  Of course, we could decree that the Government's idea of "prudence" should be all-powerful.  But then, I'm not sure Newsom's concept of "prudence" is the same as Trump's.  So, the insistence on doing what "science," rather than politics or economics, says should be done, ultimately and necessarily, must give way to the "prudence" of whomever wields the power.  In the United States, that's the people.

[76lsjumb]

I believe there are two factors involved here that are pushing us in a direction that probably we shouldn't go. One important factor is we have no definite statement from the counties as to how low the number of new cases per day (or smoothed average thereof) must fall before they (at least believe that they) will be able to contain the outbreak via contact tracking and tracing. Without knowing that, the population feels that one number is as good as another so why not open now? Hard to argue when nobody knows what the alternative will be.
Second, the politicians know they have received the support of the population during this economically difficult shutdown. However, there is a limit to how long they can retain that support. The "people" of California are starting to unilaterally quit following the rules. It isn't real overt yet, but it is happening. The politicians are sensitive to the idea that if they don't somehow keep the people at least mostly believing in what is recommended, they will lose control of the situation. Therefore, the politicians are trying to have a "safety valve" that will keep things under control. That is fine as long as the people still buy in and the recommended loosening is not so large it is in effect no regulation.
These two effects taken together may cause us to open up sooner than is prudent. However, failing more and better information about the way ahead, I think that is exactly what we will do.

There's the rub.  I'm not sure that "prudence" is a scientific concept...  Nor that your concept of "prudence" is the same as the next guy's.  Of course, we could decree that the Government's idea of "prudence" should be all-powerful.  But then, I'm not sure Newsom's concept of "prudence" is the same as Trump's.  So, the insistence on doing what "science," rather than politics or economics, says should be done, ultimately and necessarily, must give way to the "prudence" of whomever wields the power.  In the United States, that's the people.