[oldalum]

I suspect that the good quality, fine-grained evidence of effectiveness of specific interventions that we would like to see mostly does not exist. But doing nothing differently is not an option, either, when SCC is experiencing such exponential growth of infections. I suspect (but have no idea) that there is informal networking between our public health officers and those beyond the Bay Area, and there is some exchange of ideas and experiences. There has been some learning and changes over time, such as keeping hair salons and barber shops open when formerly they were closed. I agree that it would be good to know more of the basis for individual actions: some other area's experience, studies, anecdotes, hunches, what was served for breakfast that morning? But it seems to me much of it is necessarily just judgment. Will there ever be evidence that 10% occupancy in indoor gyms is safe but 25% is not?--or more precisely, what the expected rate of new infections is from either limit? Bottom line is that sustained proximity of people to others from a different household is fueling the infection and it has to be restricted in some manner and to some extent, and the line-drawing is difficult. We might think that exempting NCAA athletes from the "pause" is a no-brainer, but I'd bet there are a thousand other such no-brainers in different fields and situations, and they can't deal with that many exceptions. Plus, the carving out of exceptions can serve to loosen the tightness with which others keep to the rules. This is clearly not an easy task, and almost any action can be criticized. 

[oldalum]

I suspect that the good quality, fine-grained evidence of effectiveness of specific interventions that we would like to see mostly does not exist. But doing nothing differently is not an option, either, when SCC is experiencing such exponential growth of infections. I suspect (but have no idea) that there is informal networking between our public health officers and those beyond the Bay Area, and there is some exchange of ideas and experiences. There has been some learning and changes over time, such as keeping hair salons and barber shops open when formerly they were closed. I agree that it would be good to know more of the basis for individual actions: some other area's experience, studies, anecdotes, hunches, what was served for breakfast that morning? But it seems to me much of it is necessarily just judgment. Will there ever be evidence that 10% occupancy in indoor gyms is safe but 25% is not?--or more precisely, what the expected rate of new infections is from either limit? Bottom line is that sustained proximity of people to others from a different household is fueling the infection and it has to be restricted in some manner and to some extent, and the line-drawing is difficult. We might think that exempting NCAA athletes from the "pause" is a no-brainer, but I'd bet there are a thousand other such no-brainers in different fields and situations, and they can't deal with that many exceptions. Plus, the carving out of exceptions can serve to loosen the tightness with which others keep to the rules. This is clearly not an easy task, and almost any action can be criticized.