[burger]

And no one said (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.

We all want better information about how to decide what should be open and closed.  The bottom line is that there is no good data on exactly what sorts of facilities are safe to open.  Most of the studies for things like restaurants are basically anecdotes, with n=1.

What is strongly suspected (with some data to back this up) is that: 1) extended contact is bad, 2) enclosed spaces are bad, and 3) doing things that make you speak loudly, sing, or breath hard might be bad.  Add up those three items, and you end up closing the sorts of facilities that Newsom did.  In hindsight, some of these closings may be unnecessary.  Alternately, these closings could turn out to be totally inadequate.  We won't know the answers to that for some time, and maybe never.  Based on what I've been reading, what Newsom has done here seems reasonable.  I don't think that additional analysis would help because there is not enough data to do any real analysis.

[burger]

And no one said (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.

We all want better information about how to decide what should be open and closed.  The bottom line is that there is no good data on exactly what sorts of facilities are safe to open.  Most of the studies for things like restaurants are basically anecdotes, with n=1.

What is strongly suspected (with some data to back this up) is that: 1) extended contact is bad, 2) enclosed spaces are bad, and 3) doing things that make you speak loudly, sing, or breath hard might be bad.  Add up those three items, and you end up closing the sorts of facilities that Newsom did.  In hindsight, some of these closings may be unnecessary.  Alternately, these closings could turn out to be totally inadequate.  We won't know the answers to that for some time, and maybe never.  Based on what I've been reading, what Newsom has done here seems reasonable.  I don't think that additional analysis would help because there is not enough data to do any real analysis.