Read on Twitter
“Essential” was an unproductive framing for what we need to do in the first place. It was slippery, not about risk, and highly individual. This would have been obvious to anyone in government thinking not about what government needs but about how people live.
That said there is no safe way for houses of worship/prayer to open their doors and let people in. No amount of limiting the numbers, no amount of ppe, no sitting six feet away. It doesn’t work. Don’t do it.
Congregations that want to meet are doing to have to get creative- meet outside, wear ppe, use your parking lot as a drive in, find a park, have smaller meetings of smaller subgroups. Decide to meet once a month rather than every week or spread smaller meetings across a month.
And the most important role for any faith/religious leader is to help guide their congregation and keep them from harm and from harming others. So this really outta be pretty clear.
And there are important equity issues-congregations with resources will be able to afford ppe, extra janitorial services, plexiglass barriers etc and those without wont. This means the “essential” service will be available to those who can afford it.
And a final point - guidance to congregations that is complex, full of government speak, doesn’t offer realistic, safe and easy alternatives will not be followed and will thus put more people at risk.
