[BostonCard]

Looking back a few months, Santa Clara County and San Mateo were in roughly similar positions. San Mateo permitted the movie theaters to re-open, subject to some restrictions on attendance, masking, etc. Santa Clara County also permitted reopening, but forbade food and beverage sales, which effectively meant no reopening.

Because it is a short drive from Santa Clara to San Mateo, I would say the restriction had a minimal impact.  If you were a Santa Clara resident and wanted to watch a movie, you could just go to a movie theater in Redwood City.  Thus, the effect of closing movie theaters in Santa Clara county is mostly symbolic.

That being said, the cumulative state and local restrictions on movie theaters had a very large effect nationally, because they made it so that it was not worth releasing big blockbuster tentpole movies.  And because the selection of movies was limited, even in places where theaters were open, my guess is few people watched.

For those two reasons, I would expect that the difference in restrictions had a small or non-existent effect on the proportion of residents who went to the movies between the two counties, which is what actually affects transmission.

By the way, that is the one place where I disagree with Marrow (who I agree, wrote a very well-reasoned and strong justification for his decision).  Because the Bay Area counties are so tightly knit together and it is so easy to go between one and another, to some extent San Mateo runs the risk of being the "weak link" in the region.  It does no good fro Santa Clara and San Francisco to put in stay at home orders, when it just means their residents drive up (or down) 101 and go to San Mateo.  Agree or disagree, it would have been more effective for all the county health commissioners to agree to be on the same page.

BC

[BostonCard]

Looking back a few months, Santa Clara County and San Mateo were in roughly similar positions. San Mateo permitted the movie theaters to re-open, subject to some restrictions on attendance, masking, etc. Santa Clara County also permitted reopening, but forbade food and beverage sales, which effectively meant no reopening.

Because it is a short drive from Santa Clara to San Mateo, I would say the restriction had a minimal impact.  If you were a Santa Clara resident and wanted to watch a movie, you could just go to a movie theater in Redwood City.  Thus, the effect of closing movie theaters in Santa Clara county is mostly symbolic.

That being said, the cumulative state and local restrictions on movie theaters had a very large effect nationally, because they made it so that it was not worth releasing big blockbuster tentpole movies.  And because the selection of movies was limited, even in places where theaters were open, my guess is few people watched.

For those two reasons, I would expect that the difference in restrictions had a small or non-existent effect on the proportion of residents who went to the movies between the two counties, which is what actually affects transmission.

By the way, that is the one place where I disagree with Marrow (who I agree, wrote a very well-reasoned and strong justification for his decision).  Because the Bay Area counties are so tightly knit together and it is so easy to go between one and another, to some extent San Mateo runs the risk of being the "weak link" in the region.  It does no good fro Santa Clara and San Francisco to put in stay at home orders, when it just means their residents drive up (or down) 101 and go to San Mateo.  Agree or disagree, it would have been more effective for all the county health commissioners to agree to be on the same page.

BC