[teejers1]

Oh come on teejers...there are various enforceable restrictions on gathering size, indoor occupancy %s, etc etc that could be relaxed if community transmission were much reduced and if testing/contact tracing were highly capable of quick detection and early warning.

I'm not sure if meaningful college football stadium occupancy would be advisable even with masks + every-other-seat distancing + low community prevalence/transmission, but it would at least be in the conversation.  Restaurants/live music venues would certainly see a better lifeline.  I think public K-12 schools could be back to in-person with masks and more prevalent outdoor options/rotations.

Although new case counts are rebounding in various spots outside the US, we've seen life in countries with sober public health responses return to a semblence of normalcy not currently seen in the US.  It just takes a team effort.

And therein lies the rub.  Where in the US do we have "testing/contact tracing were highly capable of quick detection and early warning."  Nowhere.  Thus, under your criteria, we can't ever ease up on what we have until there's a widespread vaccine.

And I hate to break it to you, but there are going to be fans in stands, in lower %s (I agree with you that the wisdom of those moves is questionable).  Regardless, fans in the stands is "in the conversation" already - and in places doing less well than Santa Clara County on community spread.

But what is your threshold level of community spread that would embolden you to open more things up?  What is the threshold criterion/criteria, and perhaps more importantly why is that your criterion/criteria? What would comfort you enough to open up indoor dining?  Indoor bars?  Fans in stands at football games?  At hoops games?

It inevitably returns to what is it you're trying to avoid or ensure, right?  If it is "avoid deaths, period," then nothing suffices except total lock down for everyone.  After that, it's line drawing.  So a little clarity on how and why  lines are being drawn would be incredibly useful - we've had none of that.

And HC seems to be a pretty clear line that people can see, track, and understand.  You want to be able to ensure that people who need hospital care to recover from the virus to receive it.  (And in fact, I believe that is ultimately what all the "we must crush the curve" folks use as basis for demanding same - i.e., if we don't crush the curve then we risk Hospital Armageddon, eventually, when we open thing up).  Well, we haven't "crushed the curve" and HC has been remarkably good (and ridiculously good in SCC, throughout the entire time period).  

Bottom line: the "policy" response to this pandemic has been a disaster, starting (of course) with the White House.  But CA has been less than consistent, and no one has articulated reasoning for their decisions (especially the Tsar Bureaucrat in SCC).

[teejers1]

Oh come on teejers...there are various enforceable restrictions on gathering size, indoor occupancy %s, etc etc that could be relaxed if community transmission were much reduced and if testing/contact tracing were highly capable of quick detection and early warning.

I'm not sure if meaningful college football stadium occupancy would be advisable even with masks + every-other-seat distancing + low community prevalence/transmission, but it would at least be in the conversation.  Restaurants/live music venues would certainly see a better lifeline.  I think public K-12 schools could be back to in-person with masks and more prevalent outdoor options/rotations.

Although new case counts are rebounding in various spots outside the US, we've seen life in countries with sober public health responses return to a semblence of normalcy not currently seen in the US.  It just takes a team effort.

And therein lies the rub.  Where in the US do we have "testing/contact tracing were highly capable of quick detection and early warning."  Nowhere.  Thus, under your criteria, we can't ever ease up on what we have until there's a widespread vaccine.

And I hate to break it to you, but there are going to be fans in stands, in lower %s (I agree with you that the wisdom of those moves is questionable).  Regardless, fans in the stands is "in the conversation" already - and in places doing less well than Santa Clara County on community spread.

But what is your threshold level of community spread that would embolden you to open more things up?  What is the threshold criterion/criteria, and perhaps more importantly why is that your criterion/criteria? What would comfort you enough to open up indoor dining?  Indoor bars?  Fans in stands at football games?  At hoops games?

It inevitably returns to what is it you're trying to avoid or ensure, right?  If it is "avoid deaths, period," then nothing suffices except total lock down for everyone.  After that, it's line drawing.  So a little clarity on how and why  lines are being drawn would be incredibly useful - we've had none of that.

And HC seems to be a pretty clear line that people can see, track, and understand.  You want to be able to ensure that people who need hospital care to recover from the virus to receive it.  (And in fact, I believe that is ultimately what all the "we must crush the curve" folks use as basis for demanding same - i.e., if we don't crush the curve then we risk Hospital Armageddon, eventually, when we open thing up).  Well, we haven't "crushed the curve" and HC has been remarkably good (and ridiculously good in SCC, throughout the entire time period).  

Bottom line: the "policy" response to this pandemic has been a disaster, starting (of course) with the White House.  But CA has been less than consistent, and no one has articulated reasoning for their decisions (especially the Tsar Bureaucrat in SCC).