To @paulkrugman: other states should follow CA’s approach - closing low-value, high-risk settings (like bars, indoor dining, & entertainment) statewide, while imposing tighter restrictions (on offices, schools, universities, & places of worship) in some counties. But...

...calling that a “lockdown” isn’t accurate or helpful.

Ordering the public to stay at home & prohibiting all on-site nonessential operations/retail statewide - the kind of “lockdowns” ordered in March - isn’t justified by what we now understand about the risks of transmission. Restrictions must be tailored to high-risk settings.

“Lockdown” is a term with zero legal or public health significance. It’s a media invention. If you mean restrictions on bars, indoor dining, & other high-risk settings, say that. If you mean orders to stay at home & prohibition on all non-essential on-site business, say that.

To debate the next steps, we need to unbundle the mass of restrictions, mandates & supports ordered in March & weigh the burdens & benefits of each one based on what we now understand about which settings/activities are driving community transmission.

That said, I totally agree w/ @paulkrugman’s point that we need financial support, legal protections & accommodations to spread the burdens of social distancing as widely as the benefits and to enable compliance with public health guidelines. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-bars.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

See, eg, this piece w/ @sbagen: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/how-the-law-harms-public-health/