Who decides what's reasonable? To me, "reasonable" might mean, "precautions that minimize unnecessary risk to human morbidity and mortality". Even if we were to agree on this, what do "minimize" and "unnecessary" mean? And how do we take into account second-order effects, like, maybe my workplace is primarily young people and there's relatively low risk of long-term harm, but my employees might spread the virus in the community...
> it is far easier to contain the issue in a factory floor than the supermarket
Although this claim has some logic to it, I'm not sure it is actually true. See the outbreaks at meatpacking plants, https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/06/08/cache-valley-providin..., https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/08/us/meat-proce...
That's the thing about this novel virus. There is a lot of uncertainty.
These are all hard questions. I'm not pretending that health officials have uniformly made the right call, or even good calls. I am saying that if you think it's as simple as stating the policy "let anyone taking reasonable precautions open for business", I have a bridge to sell you.