[M T]

I agree that we need more data.  We shouldn't just look at our individual counties; we have the whole world as our laboratory.  Here in the US, I believe the laws about privacy, while well-intentioned, are hampering the collection and distribution of knowledge we need.

I haven't seen one yet, but I hope someone is putting together profiles of jobs and infection rates.  One of the problems is that job situations may be like collections of flammable materials.  It may seem ok until a spark is introduced, at which point it all burns up until it hits a fire break.
In addition, the risk of bad outcomes (in particular, age of individuals) needs to be a factor.

It isn't clear to me that the current "essential" workers (except HCW) have employment exposures that differ from many non-essential workers.  To me the difference is that the essential workers are being exposed now, while the non-essential workers generally aren't.  To use Snorlax94's Mission District numbers, if 10% are essential workers and have 90% of the cases, then opening up all the jobs would suggest a 9x increase in cases.

I hope elsewhere in the world, people have now realized that meat processing plants are dangerous and need to be changed.
We believe that health care workers can be protected.

What is it about congregate housing (retirement homes, prisons, military(incl. naval) barracks, fire houses) that makes it such a tinder box?  Yet, SCC is allowing summer camps???  Is it the eating together?  the spending idle time together indoors?  Something about sleeping?  Perhaps the repeated day-after-day exposure.
I would expect rehab centers (high turnover) may be more risky than retirement homes.  Jails more risky than prisons.

Police & prison-guard work has gotten even more hazardous.
I think certain sports (basketball, maybe wrestling) are going to be found too hazardous.  Arena sports fans are at risk.
I have to believe that schools, in the form as we grew up with, will be hazardous.  Indoor physical education may be very risky.
Choir singing is risky.  I wouldn't be surprised if opera and/or ballet might be found risky.  Theatrical actors may be at risk.  

I don't know that the traditional view of stock markets (people in close quarters, shouting over one another) is valid still, but that would have been risky.
I would expect that recreational "swimming" (ie, playing) in a pool will be risky.  It is unclear to me whether lap swimming will be.


Regarding congregate housing at Long Term Care Facilities, I have to say I'm relatively happy with what I see in Santa Clara County statistics.  Unfortunately, there was a very fast growth period in cases (and eventual deaths) in the first half of April.  But, since May 1, the curve has really flattened out.  Just 25 new cases in the first 21 days of May.  It seems the facilities have instituted procedures to block the rapid spread.   Currently, LTCF represent 18% of the cases (42% of deaths).

[M T]

I agree that we need more data.  We shouldn't just look at our individual counties; we have the whole world as our laboratory.  Here in the US, I believe the laws about privacy, while well-intentioned, are hampering the collection and distribution of knowledge we need.

I haven't seen one yet, but I hope someone is putting together profiles of jobs and infection rates.  One of the problems is that job situations may be like collections of flammable materials.  It may seem ok until a spark is introduced, at which point it all burns up until it hits a fire break.
In addition, the risk of bad outcomes (in particular, age of individuals) needs to be a factor.

It isn't clear to me that the current "essential" workers (except HCW) have employment exposures that differ from many non-essential workers.  To me the difference is that the essential workers are being exposed now, while the non-essential workers generally aren't.  To use Snorlax94's Mission District numbers, if 10% are essential workers and have 90% of the cases, then opening up all the jobs would suggest a 9x increase in cases.

I hope elsewhere in the world, people have now realized that meat processing plants are dangerous and need to be changed.
We believe that health care workers can be protected.

What is it about congregate housing (retirement homes, prisons, military(incl. naval) barracks, fire houses) that makes it such a tinder box?  Yet, SCC is allowing summer camps???  Is it the eating together?  the spending idle time together indoors?  Something about sleeping?  Perhaps the repeated day-after-day exposure.
I would expect rehab centers (high turnover) may be more risky than retirement homes.  Jails more risky than prisons.

Police & prison-guard work has gotten even more hazardous.
I think certain sports (basketball, maybe wrestling) are going to be found too hazardous.  Arena sports fans are at risk.
I have to believe that schools, in the form as we grew up with, will be hazardous.  Indoor physical education may be very risky.
Choir singing is risky.  I wouldn't be surprised if opera and/or ballet might be found risky.  Theatrical actors may be at risk.  

I don't know that the traditional view of stock markets (people in close quarters, shouting over one another) is valid still, but that would have been risky.
I would expect that recreational "swimming" (ie, playing) in a pool will be risky.  It is unclear to me whether lap swimming will be.


Regarding congregate housing at Long Term Care Facilities, I have to say I'm relatively happy with what I see in Santa Clara County statistics.  Unfortunately, there was a very fast growth period in cases (and eventual deaths) in the first half of April.  But, since May 1, the curve has really flattened out.  Just 25 new cases in the first 21 days of May.  It seems the facilities have instituted procedures to block the rapid spread.   Currently, LTCF represent 18% of the cases (42% of deaths).