The problem with "dialing back" over shutting down is it assumes the entire population will act both in good understanding and good faith, while simultaneously ensuring it is more difficult to do the former and easier to shirk the latter. 1/7

Complex rules are inherently hard to commit to memory and habit. Simple rules ("Wear a mask"/"Don't go out") are simple to adopt. Rules with stages, exceptions, and details ("No receptions over 50 people at one date, 25 at another, but ceremonies are still ok") are not. 2/7

Similarly, and more nefariously, rules with exceptions encourage personal exceptions ("they said 8 people, but it's 12 people, so I'm sure we're fine") and bad-faith noncompliance ("fuck this, they keep changing the capacity of my bar, I'm just going to stay open".) 3/7

Bad-faith noncompliance will happen no matter what, this is true. But if you have simple, concrete rules in place, it's MUCH easier to regulate, which is what you need to be doing to curb it. The other thing you need to curb it? Ability to report. 4/7

Workers are *technically* protected if they complain/refuse to work due to employers being unsafe. But until they can get fast, guaranteed, full-coverage unemployment in such a situation, we can neither ask nor expect people to risk their livelihoods in the name of safety. 5/7

So what are good rules? Well, they're just--they should protect everyone from negative fallout, not just some. They're simple and clear--easy to memorize, follow, and regulate. They're consistent--there shouldn't be too many exceptions or caveats. 6/7

"We are shutting down, and we are paying you to stay inside" has worked for others. State and federal powers must allow people the financial means (unemployment insurance) and physical means (secure, consistent housing for all) to be safe, and shut the damn system down. 7/7