You're complaining about a metric--"No death in the past 14 days"--that doesn't exist and merely posed rhetorically. The principle metric in California, as alm

You're complaining about a metric--"No death in the past 14 days"--that doesn't exist and merely posed rhetorically. The principle metric in California, as almost anywhere else, is access to widespread testing. Testing resources are only a fraction of what they need to be in order for the state to be able to even theoretically contain outbreaks under ideal circumstances. The Federal government should have been all over this months ago, but it refuses to accept responsibility even though it's the only entity in the nation that can make it happen anytime soon. Secondly, daily reported cases are continuing to rise in California. So to suggest the criteria is no new deaths is ridiculous. Rather, it appears they were originally hoping to wait for a cessation in the increase in daily deaths, but that appears to not be in the cards given how shelter-in-place compliance will never be as good as it was a few weeks ago. The dilemma here is either playing with people's livelihoods vs playing with their lives. These are two different things, as anyone who's lived in a war zone or famine would attest. I'm pretty sure I know which one most people would choose if they were faced with the stark choice, but they're rarely faced with that choice, or if they are they deny it and move on. That's basic human behavior and I don't expect that change, but it's important to understand the distinction when criticizing a public leader making population-wide choices. FWIW, nearly 1/3 of Americans are 55+. It's amazing how quickly we turn to infighting. How ironic, yet entirely unsurprising, that most of the people we're so quickly willing to sacrifice are the ones who literally went to war--WWII, Korea, and Vietnam--for the United States.