I have to ask the same question I've asked about the (new) total construction ban and the decision to cancel school for the rest of the year: What condition(s), if any, have changed to prompt these new and tighter restrictions?

Social distancing and shelter in place seem to be having a positive effect, looking at reliable/available data. People have embraced them.

This feels like another illogical attempt to demonstrate that govt. is "taking action".

> This feels like another illogical attempt to demonstrate that govt. is "taking action".

huh? You admit that social distancing is working (ie. saving lives and protecting the healthcare systems) yet you think improving the policy is what - some sort of Jade Helm, big gub'mint overreach?!?

What is "illogical" in improving safety and health outcomes?

I just don’t understand this one...it’s to keep MY germs off of others. I suppose if everyone actually does it, it works. However the minute someone doesn’t wear their mask and they enter your social distancing sphere of 6 ft (cause you got a mask on) their exhilation enters your mask, those germs are held against your face? I think this leads to a dangerous false sense of security.

Presymptomatic patients account only for 6.4% of infections.

Tis is the cart before horse, as we don't sanction sick people mingling with us (at grocery stores and other public places).
Fever is an excellent symptom for detecting symptomatic patients.
Where are the measures to keep us safe from the majority of sick people actually transmitting disease?
Look at Asia, some of their effective tools have been digital infrared thermometers.

Let's just presume everybody is sick. We'll get there, no rush!

CDC source for real numbers of presymptomatic transmission:

Web Link

Fighting stupidity's source for presymptomatic transmission cited in his Web Link of 6.4% is based on a study reprinted on the CDC web site of 157 locally acquired cases of COVID-19 in Singapore between January 23-March 16, 2020. The Singapore Study attributed 10 of the 157 cases to presymptomatic transmission.

The same study reported that an examination of transmission events outside of Hubei china suggested that 12.6% could have occurred before symptom onset in the source patient.

There are now 12,500 cases in California and 188,247 in the united states. A 10% reduction, less than china, but more than Singapore, would save 1,250 people in California, and 18,823 people in the US. Worth caring for and paying attention to Presymptomatic transmission by wearing masks, other inconveniences.

Updated numbers; 13,700 california, 311,148 nationally, and rising daily!

Big Gub Mint whatever-

I don’t even know what your sarcastic title and tone is intend to mean. The question I asked was a legitimate one: if the existing social distancing measures are having a positive effect in reducing spread and mortality of the virus, which the reliable data seems to support, then why are we haphazardly adding new measures without some kind of explanation or stated purpose? Don’t we deserve to know why officials made this decision now, and how it’s supposed to help? Has something changed or gotten worse to prompt these new rules?

Did you ever stop to think that people might be more likely to comply with these new restrictions if officials actually provided a rationale, other than “because we say so”? Or maybe you’re too busy belittling people for asking valid, we’ll-intended questions.

"If it saves one life" What about the unintended consequences of the media hype.

Web Link

> why are we haphazardly adding new measures without some kind of explanation or stated purpose?

Your false frame, using loaded words like 'haphazard,' ' illogical attempt' and 'without stated purpose' is absurd.

The 'stated purpose' is to flatten the curve and save lives of front-line medical personal and the citizenry, which you previously admitted was the purpose (successful!) of social distancing. Why are you using a false frame to imply that listening to health professionals and epidemiologists is an 'illogical attempt' at safety?

What are you selling?

John, don’t waste your time getting in an argument with the socialist trolls. They’re simply a waste of time. They post from different disrespectful names and different communities and like + re-like numerous their own comments numerous times to give a false impression of validity.

socialist trolls?

Supporting public safety as outlined by science and medical professionals is now socialist trolling? Who knew?

Oh, I get it - I used the word "public"! Beware! Rampant socialism!

Have a good day!

John, in my layperson understanding, I don't think they're tightening the original shelter-in-place, they're spelling out exactly what it meant for those people who apparently didn't get the message in the first place. Many people follow the restrictions very conscientiously, but many others appear to think there is slack and are erring on the side of being not cautious enough. Too many people thought the shelter-in-place meant they can still drive to the beach, for example. That was not the intent of the original order. I thought Dr. Morrow was clear in the sense of urgency he was conveying, and yet people think they can use the 'exercise' clause to go where ever they want. They think the requirement for six feet physical distance means everyone from the bay area can flock to the beaches and parks and sit on blankets six feet apart all afternoon, mill around in crowded parking lots, etc. So as long as a significant enough part of the population responds this way, the county is forced to spell out in detail the restrictions that it thought were clear in the original order. Stay home! Only go out for essentials. If you can do exercise and get some fresh air, sunshine at home, do it at home. If you absolutely have no reasonable way to exercise and/or get some fresh air in your probably large yard, then take a walk around your immediate neighborhood. The idea from the start that we were to stay at home unless absolutely necessary to go out.