[bermanoid]

If you can point to something about the situation that has changed since the shelter-in-place was initiated that would indicate it's not needed anymore, I'd love to hear it. The virus hasn't gone away, we don't have any medications to make it reliably recoverable, we don't have test + trace ability in place (anecdotally, even if you're symptomatic but not in seriously bad condition it's still very difficult to get tested, let alone if you're not), we don't have herd immunity, there is no approved vaccine, etc. If the Bay Area opens up completely, exponential spread kicks in instantly with a high replication factor and in a month it'll look just like New York.

We are not through this in any way, shape, or form, even if it sucks. We've bought some time. If we did reopen now we'd probably be better off than if we hadn't shut down at all, but it'll still rip through the whole population, and unless we're ready to accept that, we've got to keep measures in place.

[Uhhrrr]

I agree that opening up in a dumb way would let the virus rip through the population.

But we now know that surface transmission isn't as big a deal, and that spreading is much less likely when there isn't sustained contact. We also now have everyone wearing masks.

Given those things, I would think that any shop where you ordinarily go in for five or ten minutes and don't touch a bunch of things (shoe repair, sporting goods, NOT bookstores) would be very low risk.

[pasttense01]

But the employees of those shops are in sustained contact with each other.

[Uhhrrr]

Sure, if the shop is too cramped, don't open. Stick in some proviso in the order that nonessential businesses can only have 1 employee for every x square feet.