[82 Card]

I find it interesting that based on this order, taken literally, one must now use a  face mask in a conference room even if they go in that room by themselves and it will not be used again for a week.

The messaging on facemasks has been inconsistent from day one.

Not clear. Is the conference room "public space"? Is it visited by "the public."  Is it a "common area?"

This order is so poorly written, I cannot tell you for sure whether a person walking through a building lobby and taking an elevator up to their office must wear a mask. The argument that it isn't required: Lobby is privately owned and open only to tenants and people doing business with the tenants, not the general public. Sure, it's a common area but the people walking through it are not engaged in work; they are just going to work (other than the security guard and the janitor).

Yea, I know that's not what they meant. But is it too much to ask for them to write what they meant?

If members of the public can do business in a lobby or ride an elevator to a business office, it's a public accommodation, and therefore a public space. I think we're overthinking things. Unless it is private property that does not provide services to members of the public (i.e. your house), wear a mask when you're indoors.

Sure, your interpretation is more reasonable. However, I don't understand why San Francisco can write the same thing up without room for argument but the state cannot. In my job, I have to tell people what it means. Some of those people are highly motivated to see it the other way. The state would make my life a lot easier if they learned to write.

[82 Card]

I find it interesting that based on this order, taken literally, one must now use a  face mask in a conference room even if they go in that room by themselves and it will not be used again for a week.

The messaging on facemasks has been inconsistent from day one.

Not clear. Is the conference room "public space"? Is it visited by "the public."  Is it a "common area?"

This order is so poorly written, I cannot tell you for sure whether a person walking through a building lobby and taking an elevator up to their office must wear a mask. The argument that it isn't required: Lobby is privately owned and open only to tenants and people doing business with the tenants, not the general public. Sure, it's a common area but the people walking through it are not engaged in work; they are just going to work (other than the security guard and the janitor).

Yea, I know that's not what they meant. But is it too much to ask for them to write what they meant?

If members of the public can do business in a lobby or ride an elevator to a business office, it's a public accommodation, and therefore a public space. I think we're overthinking things. Unless it is private property that does not provide services to members of the public (i.e. your house), wear a mask when you're indoors.

Sure, your interpretation is more reasonable. However, I don't understand why San Francisco can write the same thing up without room for argument but the state cannot. In my job, I have to tell people what it means. Some of those people are highly motivated to see it the other way. The state would make my life a lot easier if they learned to write.