[Goose]

It is hard for me to understand when "Guidance" is a recommendation and when it is required.

In light of this, it would seem blatantly wrong for MLB or the PAC-12 to buy testing if California is struggling (as it is now) to get Tier 1 to 3 tests done within 48 hours.  Do any of us think testing should be prioritized for wealthy businesses?

Wealthy businesses (and people) can buy their own testing kits and PCR machines. Probably the Abbot Labs tests could be used as well if you are on a lower budget. Won't use any "public" testing capacity at all. If I were MLB, that is what I would do. Only way to ensure fast turnaround.

No "public" about it.  The guidance says "laboratories".  I don't think that Google or SF Giants having testing kits or PCR machines means that the processing of results would be considered something other than a laboratory.   Read the SCC order on laboratories having to report results to the Public Health Officer.  ""Laboratory" means any facility meeting the requirements to perform testing classified as high complexity under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of section 353 of the Public Health Service Act".  If such a facility is being run by MLB, SFGiants, or Google, it would apparently still be a Laboratory.  (Btw, that order doesn't specify that the lab is in SCC or California, only that the person whose test it is, is from SCC.  So, if the state specifies it similarly, it won't matter if the tests are run in a 3rd world country.)

You might now say, "What about spit test machines?"   I think the Public Health Departments (specifically, CADPH) will define testing to include any mechanism that gets results while such mechanisms are in short supply.     If spit test machines become widely available next week, then that's great.  But if money buys tests when others can't get them, this seems contrary to the intent of the California guidance.

The SCC order is a reporting requirement. The lab run by Google and/or the Giants would be required by the order to report the results to CalRIDIE and the "Health Care Provider (If any) that ordered the test" for any resident of the County or for any test performed/collected in the county. OK, fine, they could do that. The State "guidance" specifies the order in which tests should be prioritized. OK, fine. However, if a Lab is run by and dedicated to supporting only the Teamsters Union (or the Giants), the only samples they have will probably be Tier 4 and there is no issue. The number of tests would be low enough that the priority wouldn't matter anyway. You may take issue with a Lab being owned by and/or servicing a limited group of individuals, but AFAIK it isn't illegal in any way. A lab need not be "public", i.e. sell its services to all comers.  The State could make a law against such things (good luck in the 9th circuit), but AFAIK, there isn't one.
I think it also should be pointed out that the jurisdiction of SCC Health Department is limited to SCC. The SCC order makes it a misdemeanor to not follow the reporting requirements. However, if the test is sent to a lab out of the county (i.e. the company has no presence in SCC), the order is not enforceable. County Health Departments do not have unlimited jurisdiction. What they can do is prevent Health Care Providers from sending samples to labs that don't comply, but they can't do anything about how labs outside the County operate. The State may have some "reciprocity" law I am unaware of that would allow enforcement by another County in the State. Why any sane lab wouldn't comply is another issue.
The State of California also has limited jurisdiction. A lab operating in Nevada doesn't have to follow California's priorities unless it has a presence in the State where California can punish it for non-compliance. Interstate Commerce. As for international labs, even the Federal Government can't do much. Look at all the nonsense available on the internet.

[Goose]

It is hard for me to understand when "Guidance" is a recommendation and when it is required.

In light of this, it would seem blatantly wrong for MLB or the PAC-12 to buy testing if California is struggling (as it is now) to get Tier 1 to 3 tests done within 48 hours.  Do any of us think testing should be prioritized for wealthy businesses?

Wealthy businesses (and people) can buy their own testing kits and PCR machines. Probably the Abbot Labs tests could be used as well if you are on a lower budget. Won't use any "public" testing capacity at all. If I were MLB, that is what I would do. Only way to ensure fast turnaround.

No "public" about it.  The guidance says "laboratories".  I don't think that Google or SF Giants having testing kits or PCR machines means that the processing of results would be considered something other than a laboratory.   Read the SCC order on laboratories having to report results to the Public Health Officer.  ""Laboratory" means any facility meeting the requirements to perform testing classified as high complexity under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of section 353 of the Public Health Service Act".  If such a facility is being run by MLB, SFGiants, or Google, it would apparently still be a Laboratory.  (Btw, that order doesn't specify that the lab is in SCC or California, only that the person whose test it is, is from SCC.  So, if the state specifies it similarly, it won't matter if the tests are run in a 3rd world country.)

You might now say, "What about spit test machines?"   I think the Public Health Departments (specifically, CADPH) will define testing to include any mechanism that gets results while such mechanisms are in short supply.     If spit test machines become widely available next week, then that's great.  But if money buys tests when others can't get them, this seems contrary to the intent of the California guidance.

The SCC order is a reporting requirement. The lab run by Google and/or the Giants would be required by the order to report the results to CalRIDIE and the "Health Care Provider (If any) that ordered the test" for any resident of the County or for any test performed/collected in the county. OK, fine, they could do that. The State "guidance" specifies the order in which tests should be prioritized. OK, fine. However, if a Lab is run by and dedicated to supporting only the Teamsters Union (or the Giants), the only samples they have will probably be Tier 4 and there is no issue. The number of tests would be low enough that the priority wouldn't matter anyway. You may take issue with a Lab being owned by and/or servicing a limited group of individuals, but AFAIK it isn't illegal in any way. A lab need not be "public", i.e. sell its services to all comers.  The State could make a law against such things (good luck in the 9th circuit), but AFAIK, there isn't one.
I think it also should be pointed out that the jurisdiction of SCC Health Department is limited to SCC. The SCC order makes it a misdemeanor to not follow the reporting requirements. However, if the test is sent to a lab out of the county (i.e. the company has no presence in SCC), the order is not enforceable. County Health Departments do not have unlimited jurisdiction. What they can do is prevent Health Care Providers from sending samples to labs that don't comply, but they can't do anything about how labs outside the County operate. The State may have some "reciprocity" law I am unaware of that would allow enforcement by another County in the State. Why any sane lab wouldn't comply is another issue.
The State of California also has limited jurisdiction. A lab operating in Nevada doesn't have to follow California's priorities unless it has a presence in the State where California can punish it for non-compliance. Interstate Commerce. As for international labs, even the Federal Government can't do much. Look at all the nonsense available on the internet.