[terry]

That’s why on June 5 the Contra Costa County Order said it was ok to have gatherings of up to 100.  As long as you were protesting. Outdoor services- no.  That was a no-no.  Makes perfect sense from a health standpoint. Right?

Contra Costa County's June 5 health order allowed outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, as well as protests of up to 100 people.

EDIT : I was off a couple days. The order i was referring to was June 2.  Amended as Terry points out on June 5.

This issue requires some context. Contra Costa County issued a health order on Tuesday, June 2, which approved outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, effective on June 15. The same June 2 order also approved protests of up to 100 people, with no effective date specified, so it was effective immediately.

So, the June 2 order approved both outdoor religious services and protests, and the order established the same attendance limit for both of them. This apparently indicated a belief that outdoor religious services and protests carried similar levels of health risk. But there were slightly different effective dates. 

Three days later, on Friday June 5, the county changed the effective date for religious services, allowing religious services to begin immediately. This change was made in time for weekend services. So, there was a three-day period, from Tuesday through Thursday, when protests were allowed but religious services were not yet allowed. After that, they were treated similarly.

To me, the similarity in treatment is a more significant indication of the county's public health assessment than is the difference in effective dates. 

So, why was there a difference in effective dates? I don't know, but here's my guess. I believe the county probably had been working on this public health order for several weeks, and had been targeting the June 15 date for resumption of religious services. I suspect the county wanted to give churches some lead time to plan their safety protocols. 

Then, shortly before the June 2 order was issued, George Floyd was murdered and protests broke out. I suspect that the provision approving protests of up to 100 people was added at the last minute in response to the protests that already were happening. There was probably some urgency around adding this provision. I'm guessing that nobody really thought through the difference between the effective dates of the protest provision and the religious services provision. These provisions appeared in two different appendices to the health order. To me, it looks like the people who prepared the document failed to coordinate the two provisions, then fixed it when the issue was pointed out. I'm reluctant to attribute to malice that which can be explained by bureaucracy or incompetence.

June 2 order -- 

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...d346a9.pdf (see part 3)

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...562dab.pdf (see part 2)

[terry]

That’s why on June 5 the Contra Costa County Order said it was ok to have gatherings of up to 100.  As long as you were protesting. Outdoor services- no.  That was a no-no.  Makes perfect sense from a health standpoint. Right?

Contra Costa County's June 5 health order allowed outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, as well as protests of up to 100 people.

EDIT : I was off a couple days. The order i was referring to was June 2.  Amended as Terry points out on June 5.

This issue requires some context. Contra Costa County issued a health order on Tuesday, June 2, which approved outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, effective on June 15. The same June 2 order also approved protests of up to 100 people, with no effective date specified, so it was effective immediately.

So, the June 2 order approved both outdoor religious services and protests, and the order established the same attendance limit for both of them. This apparently indicated a belief that outdoor religious services and protests carried similar levels of health risk. But there were slightly different effective dates. 

Three days later, on Friday June 5, the county changed the effective date for religious services, allowing religious services to begin immediately. This change was made in time for weekend services. So, there was a three-day period, from Tuesday through Thursday, when protests were allowed but religious services were not yet allowed. After that, they were treated similarly.

To me, the similarity in treatment is a more significant indication of the county's public health assessment than is the difference in effective dates. 

So, why was there a difference in effective dates? I don't know, but here's my guess. I believe the county probably had been working on this public health order for several weeks, and had been targeting the June 15 date for resumption of religious services. I suspect the county wanted to give churches some lead time to plan their safety protocols. 

Then, shortly before the June 2 order was issued, George Floyd was murdered and protests broke out. I suspect that the provision approving protests of up to 100 people was added at the last minute in response to the protests that already were happening. There was probably some urgency around adding this provision. I'm guessing that nobody really thought through the difference between the effective dates of the protest provision and the religious services provision. These provisions appeared in two different appendices to the health order. To me, it looks like the people who prepared the document failed to coordinate the two provisions, then fixed it when the issue was pointed out. I'm reluctant to attribute to malice that which can be explained by bureaucracy or incompetence.

June 2 order -- 

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...d346a9.pdf (see part 3)

https://813dcad3-2b07-4f3f-a25e-23c48c56...562dab.pdf (see part 2)