[ad_1]
Al fresco dining teeter on the brink of another California ban as coronavirus cases continue to rise. But experts are divided over the likelihood of alfresco dining spreading the virus, especially as many forms of dining spaces have evolved during the pandemic.
The new stay-at-home order Governor Gavin Newsom announced Thursday to divide the state into five regions and apply strict restrictions – including the closure of all sit-down meals – to those with the unit’s capacity of intensive care falls below 15%. Most of the state is expected to fall under order early this month, with the Bay Area following as early as mid-December.
The move is the latest in California’s mercurial restaurant policy, with many stops and starts since the start of the pandemic. Take-out and deliveries would still be allowed, but parklets, heaters and other outdoor eating places would be put on hold for at least three weeks in areas affected by the ban.
The news follows a legal battle in Los Angeles County, where a judge ordered public health officials to return to court on Tuesday with scientific evidence that justifies the county’s recent outdoor dining ban, a reported the Los Angeles Times.
But do these data exist? Bay Area infectious disease experts aren’t so sure.
Restaurants have been mandated by the state to impose certain regulations and hygiene measures. They follow the general principles of risk reduction that Monica Gandhi, infectious disease expert at UCSF, uses: masks, distancing, ventilation and hand hygiene.
“There is no evidence that I can find anywhere in the world that eating outdoors with these four procedures in play increases the risk of COVID-19,” she said.
The existing data is minimal and has not looked specifically at outdoor dining, Gandhi said, and the two most frequently cited studies have not been nuanced enough.
A recent control study conducted by the CDC included eating as a risky activity, but did not distinguish between eating out and eating inside. In a nature study, eating was included as a higher risk activity, but the document did not model any of the mitigation procedures for ventilation, masking and more, she said.
And these metrics can vary widely depending on the scenario.
“There is a wide range of what it means to be outdoors,” said Peter Chin-Hong, an infectious disease expert at UC San Francisco. “Outdoor meals have different meanings to different people. Eating out is probably several orders less risky than eating inside, but you can also make eating out very risky. “
Dining scenarios have many variables that can turn what could be a safe and enjoyable alfresco dining experience into a very dangerous one, Chin-Hong said. Most important is individual adherence to standard coronavirus protocols, followed by a long list: how crowded is it? Does everyone, including clients and servers, exercise good judgment in wearing their mask? Is it loud, with a lot of screaming and screaming? Is alcohol involved?
The ideal for a safe outdoor dining experience would be a far cry from today’s reality on Valencia Street in San Francisco, where pedestrians walking their dogs have to squeeze through small tables on the sidewalk, and overcrowding is common, Chin-Hong said.
A better option, he said, is closer to something with tables spaced apart for small groups, ideally in a park with walls separating parts (which allows for better drivetrain control without sacrificing ventilation) , and away from a main thoroughfare where many others walk or run through.
Of course, there are hidden risks, as the behavior of individuals is often unknown – but it is the most difficult element to control, Chin-Hong said.
“Valencia and Dolores would be the riskiest interpretations of al fresco dining,” he said. “But a crowded beach with people having snacks is also a risky proposition in the open air.”
Gandhi said that during the push, the tendency is to want people to stop all activity. “But given the long-term impact on the economy and businesses, I think it’s fair for us as infectious disease experts and public health officials to use data. “
When the principles of harm reduction are followed, she said, “there is no data with these four procedures that (shows) that outdoor eating has caused this increased risk and this surge. . “
The judge in the Los Angeles County case reportedly expressed doubts over the outdoor eating ban, saying studies he had read indicated minimal risk. A county prosecutor argued that the inability to wear masks and social distancing made public meals inherently risky, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Experts fear eating al fresco creates a false sense of security, according to the New York Times. But Gandhi fears that an “arbitrary” ban on al fresco dining may make the push even worse, with more people forced to congregate secretly and indoors.
She also fears that collective mistrust of public health – particularly in light of two French Laundry events attended by Newsom and the Mayor of San Francisco London Breed – will only lead to more rebellious and dangerous activity. .
“There has been an erosion of public trust 11 months after the start of a pandemic where the public has been repeatedly told that the outside is safer than the inside,” Gandhi said. “It is eroded by arbitrary decision making that is not driven by data. People will sneak in if the restrictions are arbitrary. “
Annie Vainshtein is a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @annievain
[ad_2]
Source link