Somewhere along the way I was taught, if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. So I am wondering if you have any suggestions about easing back into the new normal.

I am among the retired and declared to be in an at-risk age group, so I am happy to wear a mask if I am out and about and to support a variety of businesses, particularly local ones. I might consider going to a restaurant or other establishment if there is enough distance (at least for some time) between me and any other customer. However, what I recently experienced in a foray to Target is people didn't wear masks (wasn't mandatory yet) and basically didn't give a rip about how close they got to me. And there are the photos of all those people hitting the beaches. And today's news has announced that Germany has seen an uptick in cases since they relaxed SIP.

For the most part, I can order online and keep out of the way. However, I imagine there will be a lot of chaos caused by those who think everything is fine.

Great question Kathleen.

My recommendations
- characterize all businesses by population density.
- establish operating policies based on population density
- keep “high risk “ pop shopping hrs for those that need it
- as part of operating policy establish cleaning frequency/cleanliness metrics to be maintained

Not hard, we love to regulate, so put it in effect to get the state moving again.

Kathleen, I agree! How about we set up some criteria and call it "Guidelines for Opening Up America Again". We could divide it into three parts, the first one even called "Gating Criteria", then follow with "Preparedness Responsibilities" and finally a "[3]Phased Approach".

We could base the "Gating Criteria" on a 14-day period of declining coronavirus reported symptoms and cases, the ability of hospitals to treat all patients without crisis care, and a "robust testing program in place for at-risk healthcare workers, including emerging antibody testing". And so on . . .

Well, good news! The White House has already issued those guidelines, and, according to Trump and his VP at their daily "It's all about Trump Show" disguised as a Coronavirus Briefing, it's been shared with all Governors. It's also posted on the White House website. (Web Link

Based on what Newsom has done so far, I would bet we are seeing something very similar followed here. The problem is that Trump and his acolytes undermine their own guidelines at every opportunity, whether by conflating gun rights issues with shelter in place ("Liberate Virginia"), OK'g Georgia's plan to open tattoo and massage parlors (because those aren't up close and personal) and then ripping it, pretending to be a doctor and touting coronavirus cures that kill (why did the VA use vets as hydroxychloroquine guinnea pigs?), or refusing to wear a mask in a medical facility (the Mayo Clinic, for God's sake!).

I am not a Trump supporter. Never have been, never will be. However, fortunately, it looks like saner, smarter, medical minds were involved in putting together the White House "Guidelines".

For California specific, the Department of Public Health has a tracking website for the state and by county. (Web Link
I don't see that either Alameda County, or surrounding counties, meet the initial 14-day White House "Guidelines" criteria.

Too bad Pleasanton Parent, those feeling "the moral obligation and duty of the individuals seeking to contribute positively to current and future society should not be persecuted for pursuing their interests in creating a better life for themselves and their family" don't ONLY interact with like-minded individuals. Because we all know they don't/won't, and it's the rest of us, the essential workers including medical, postal, grocery, public transportation and delivery folks, as well as the vulnerable groups, who end up at-risk and "persecuted" by having to deal with these moral, duty-bound individuals.

ps Wrote and posted this before I saw that Newsom has published his shelter in place guidelines. Looks familiar.

He’s finally given some visibility into a plan. This is good.

I don’t agree with phase 4. Unrealistic.

I don’t agree with the decision only being informed by medical interests, it should include economic input as well.

We still haven’t seen the bill for how this is being paid for either.