On Monday, Gov. Mike DeWine revealed the states layered economic reopening plan, starting this week with hospitals and dental offices, continuing Monday with factories and offices, and moving on May 12 to many of the retail and service firms currently deemed nonessential. But some business categories will remain closed for now, including salons and barber shops, restaurants and bars. Many are small businesses at risk of never reopening but that may have the most trouble maintaining social distance.

The plan DeWine originally announced included mandated masks at reopened businesses. On Tuesday, he appeared to back off that. On Wednesday, the state clarified that face coverings would be required at reopened businesses with certain exceptions, but that customer masks would not be mandated.

The plan as yet has no provision for child care. And, asked about employees with underlying conditions that could make them vulnerable to lethal COVID-19 infection, DeWine said he hoped employers would provide the needed accommodations.

Yet those suffering from ailments that render some especially at risk -- including asthma, diabetes, chronic lung disease, severe obesity, serious heart disease, kidney disease or being immunocompromised -- may include a sizable number of Ohio workers.

if these employees fear that going back to work will expose them to COVID-19 from which they could die, and their employer isnt accommodating, they appear to have little recourse but to comply with the bosss orders, be fired, sue or quit. In court, theyd likely have to prove that their employers put them in danger knowingly and that they had no recourse but to refuse to work in those conditions.

Does that sound wrong? To many, it will. But could it be equally wrong to carve out a health- or age-related exception for such employees, putting them in a different category and requiring different treatment by their employer?

So, did Ohio choose aright in leaving it up to employers -- and employees -- to choose? Should any special accommodations be made for the highest-risk among us? Or, if none, will it forever be a taint on our generation that we left the most vulnerable to suffer the consequences, up to and including death, so that the rest of us could get back to work?

Our editorial board roundtable weighs the goods and bads.

Jarvis DeBerry, cleveland.com columnist:

When businesses reopen, some folks with pre-existing conditions might be forced to choose between employment and a higher risk for illness. While some employers might be inclined to be understanding, employees shouldnt be put in a position to have to prove their vulnerability. If reopening now is too dangerous for the most vulnerable, then its too dangerous, period.

Thomas Suddes, editorial writer:

Fairness is an ideal we should, and mostly do, all strive for. But there are circumstances when an ideal must yield to practicalities. This is one of those circumstances -- remembering, always, to apply the Golden Rule whenever possible.

Ted Diadiun, cleveland.com columnist:

Theres no point in dancing around the edges here: As government tries to manage the reopening, whether quickly or cautiously, there will be a significant cost in human life. This has all been about slowing the infection rate not preventing it. Most of us will eventually get infected. So, line up, lawyers: Your times coming.

Lisa Garvin, editorial board member:

Without widespread public testing, any plan to reopen the economy will be a crapshoot. While I applaud Gov. DeWines measured approach, making masks voluntary is a serious misstep. Yes, people need to get back to work, but If were going to be serious about a sustained economic recovery, workers need protection from the public.

Victor Ruiz, editorial board member:

This is certainly a difficult situation, and while I believe that most employers will do right by their employees, we cannot assume that all will. With that said, the government does bear a significant share of the responsibility to ensure that all citizens are safe, and that employers can easily meet all of the requirements.

Eric Foster, editorial board member:

Child care has to be prioritized. DeWine understood that when he allowed for temporary licenses to serve essential workers. Opening up businesses has to correspond with opening up child care providers, as well. As far as high-risk employees, employment lawyers have suggested there exists some legal protection if they chose not to work due to coronavirus concerns.

Mary Cay Doherty, editorial board member:

Existing laws protect all employees. Ohio has mandated coronavirus safety protocols. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission includes coronavirus concerns in its Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines. And unemployment or Social Security Disability could be temporarily modified for workers who cannot perform the essential functions of their jobs. Although the coronavirus is novel, health issues in the workplace are not.

Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, cleveland.com:

Short of ordering employers to make accommodations that might not be feasible or economical, Ohio could have done more for high-risk workers -- for instance, setting up a hotline; mediation on a voluntary basis; or highlighting employers potential legal liability when at-risk workers must interact with customers not required to wear masks.

Have something to say about this topic?

* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.

* Email general questions about our editorial board or comments or corrections on this editorial board roundtable to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, at esullivan@cleveland.com.

Originally posted here:

In reopening Ohio, what about those at highest risk of dying from the coronavirus? - cleveland.com