That, and Capybara’s comment on the previous page, are very reassuring, If these dates are dependent on case counts and hospitalisations behaving as predicted, and will be pushed back if necessary, then it sounds like the kind of rational, proper process for reopening that they should have implemented last April or May. They’re very late to the party, but I’m glad that they are finally doing it the right way.
That was pretty much how California’s “reopening” was described by the governor last April - which was reassuring at the time, except we didn’t know that he had no political will at all and caved completely to opening one thing after another in rapid succession without time to observe the impacts of the previous change.
That was pretty much how California’s “reopening” was described by the governor last April - which was reassuring at the time, except we didn’t know that he had no political will at all and caved completely to opening one thing after another in rapid succession without time to observe the impacts of the previous change.
Comment