[teejers1]

A problem with very high prevalence rates is that everything begins to become dangerous because so many people are infected. If people are vulnerable and the rates across the county are high it becomes hard to avoid infection even if you are very careful — multiple shoppers around you may be shedding virus even if you limit  yourself to essential shopping, more patients could be infectious in doctors’ waiting rooms, more employees at long term care facilities will get infected by household members.

Even if SCC had an ICU bed and ventilator for every single resident, we shouldn’t keep everything open until we have used them all.

And no one (least of all I) said you should.

BTW, I 'get' and agree with your comments about high prevalence rates and ramifications of same; thus, fully on board with being smart, wearing masks, etc.  What I disfavor is knee-jerk reactions on closures, w/o risk-benefit analysis.  Take for example, those poor owners of hair salons.  They're open 2 days (by definition, no way are they're contributing to surges), and then closed.  Now, maybe they're viral incubators/spreaders up the wazoo.  But it strikes me that distancing (and even better, outdoor haircuts) could be at least tried before the prophylactic (and crippling for them) shutdown order is re-imposed.

Have no problem with indoor bars or workout facilities; no problem with mass gatherings indoors (think outdoors can be spaced by capacity - e.g., sporting events); not much of a problem with indoor restaurants (though I think that could possibly be done with reasonable safety protocols).  But as Goose (or someone else) said above, how about a little analysis in the decision-making?  Is that too much to ask?  But maybe OF is right in terms of lack of knowledge about spread leads to "Big Categories" of regulation.

[teejers1]

A problem with very high prevalence rates is that everything begins to become dangerous because so many people are infected. If people are vulnerable and the rates across the county are high it becomes hard to avoid infection even if you are very careful — multiple shoppers around you may be shedding virus even if you limit  yourself to essential shopping, more patients could be infectious in doctors’ waiting rooms, more employees at long term care facilities will get infected by household members.

Even if SCC had an ICU bed and ventilator for every single resident, we shouldn’t keep everything open until we have used them all.

And no one (least of all I) said you should.

BTW, I 'get' and agree with your comments about high prevalence rates and ramifications of same; thus, fully on board with being smart, wearing masks, etc.  What I disfavor is knee-jerk reactions on closures, w/o risk-benefit analysis.  Take for example, those poor owners of hair salons.  They're open 2 days (by definition, no way are they're contributing to surges), and then closed.  Now, maybe they're viral incubators/spreaders up the wazoo.  But it strikes me that distancing (and even better, outdoor haircuts) could be at least tried before the prophylactic (and crippling for them) shutdown order is re-imposed.

Have no problem with indoor bars or workout facilities; no problem with mass gatherings indoors (think outdoors can be spaced by capacity - e.g., sporting events); not much of a problem with indoor restaurants (though I think that could possibly be done with reasonable safety protocols).  But as Goose (or someone else) said above, how about a little analysis in the decision-making?  Is that too much to ask?  But maybe OF is right in terms of lack of knowledge about spread leads to "Big Categories" of regulation.