> it's difficult to pinpoint the actual criminal violation he could be charged with.

Doesn't seem to be. These businesses in LA county have been charged:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavi...

https://www.dailynews.com/2020/05/12/60-nonessential-l-a-bus...

Alameda county could do the same.

The articles and their references don't quote any statute (the LADN has a list of defendants but no reference to criminal charges; the article specifies only that they are pursuing cutoff of utilities to those properties).

> the article specifies only that they are pursuing cutoff of utilities to those properties

No, it doesn't. Here are some case numbers:

https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-charges-10-more-al...

Look up the criminal case summary using the case number:

http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/index.aspx

  No, it doesn't. Here are some case numbers:

You say "No", as if the article says otherwise, then quote a different source altogether. I was addressing specifically what the article did and didn't reference.

Anyway, this confirms my earlier point about these articles not identifying a related state criminal statute.

These charges are from the L.A. Administrative Code, and there is a statute specific to Los Angeles:

"Sec. 8.77. Punishment of Violations. It shall be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both, for any person, during a local emergency declared pursuant to this chapter, to: ... 8.77(b). Do any act forbidden by any lawful rule, regulation, order or directive issued pursuant to this chapter, if such act is of a nature as to give, or be likely to give, assistance to any national enemy, or imperil the lives or property of other inhabitants of this City, or to prevent, hinder or delay the defense or protection thereof."

> You say "No", as if the article says otherwise

Yes, because the article says otherwise.

> then quote a different source altogether

Yes, it's additional information because you're still not getting it.

I wonder what kind of lawsuit payoff employees would get if they went to work and caught coronavirus?

They can catch it at home just as easily, so it would be difficult to prove their claim. So I would think it would be a non-starter.

I agree it would be difficult to prove that they caught it at work, but saying they can catch it as easily at home just sounds like 'reopen' rhetoric to me.

I think it's best to look at individual facts and claims as they are, without reference to their attachment to some political side or movement. It frees your mind so you can more easily think for yourself.

Alright, without any evidence to back it up there is no reason to believe that you are likely to catch covid at home as anywhere else.

Edit: I don't even understand why there are 'political sides or movements' to this in the US. I am in Australia where there has been broad cooperation between politicians and people of different political beliefs. It hasn't been perfect of course but for the most part we have been listening to the medical and scientific experts.

The evidence to back it up is there though. The majority (in fact 66%) of new COVID-19 hospitalizations in New York state recently have been people who have been staying inside their home. Based on data from a sample of 1,000 patients at 100 hospitals.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocki...

Interesting, but it's not enough to come to a general conclusion. Without understanding what the mechanism of infection was you can't say that's how it works for everyone, everywhere. Are we seeing this anywhere else? We're not seeing it here in Australia.

You don’t need to prove you contracted it at work, you just need to prove that being compelled go to work including traveling was the most likely cause and was against the directive of the local government and medical experts which will be very easy to do so.

Civil court has very different burden of proof and if it goes to trial the jury would nearly certainly vote in favor of the plaintiffs.

If they will get sued they will settle and settle fast.