Of course. The real scandal is how bean counting has failed millions of Californians. Are that many people really eking out an existence so marginal, it has no impact on prices for homes, equities, goods and services? Or is there something wrong with what we’re measuring?
Depends substantially on how many people have to work face to face with strangers, and how large households are.
Everyone living in a multi-generational household with e.g. grocery store clerks is at significantly higher risk than a couple of childless yuppies working from home.
Nine months into this it would be nice if we had good data on the risk factors of transmission. I know it’s a tricky virus to trace but shouldn’t we have better info on which activities demographics, etc are the most risky by now?
We do know the risk factors. It's a respiratory disease that spreads when people who are breathing are near each other. We don't need a random control trial to tell us that practicing with your brass band can spread it. The solution is to stay very far from everyone until the disease is wiped out. Only very intelligent libertarian contrary Americans think we don't have the information we need.
That is not very helpful advice when you have to manage risk while trying to eat, work, live, and stay healthy. Stats certainly exist on where some of the 16,000+ cases in San Mateo were transmitted.
San Carlos is white, rich, and old. East Palo Alto it not.