[2006alum]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1276555843161468930?s=20[/tweet]

"Looking across categories of card spending, we find that the level of spending in restaurants three weeks ago was the strongest predictor of the rise in new virus cases over the subsequent three weeks," wrote Jesse Edgerton, of the bank's economic and research department. Restaurant purchases with cards presented in person, rather than online, were particularly predictive.

The opposite was true for supermarket spending, where an increase in credit card purchases was associated with a decline of the virus.

My sense is that most everyone around these parts had no intention to any time soon, but wowwie...

[2006alum]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1276555843161468930?s=20[/tweet]

"Looking across categories of card spending, we find that the level of spending in restaurants three weeks ago was the strongest predictor of the rise in new virus cases over the subsequent three weeks," wrote Jesse Edgerton, of the bank's economic and research department. Restaurant purchases with cards presented in person, rather than online, were particularly predictive.

The opposite was true for supermarket spending, where an increase in credit card purchases was associated with a decline of the virus.

My sense is that most everyone around these parts had no intention to any time soon, but wowwie...

[OutsiderFan]

Well, well, well.

Another thing to consider is did outdoor diners get infected at a lower rate than inside ones.  Have to imagine outdoors would be safer, but I don't believe it is that much safer if not wearing a mask, which is impossible when eating.

As some of you are aware, I observed a horrific scene at restaurants in West Hartford, CT two weekends ago. This coming week will be the third week since it happened.  Will be fascinating to see if our case numbers here go up. Only have had 7 new confirmed infections in the town this week.

[OutsiderFan]

Well, well, well.

Another thing to consider is did outdoor diners get infected at a lower rate than inside ones.  Have to imagine outdoors would be safer, but I don't believe it is that much safer if not wearing a mask, which is impossible when eating.

As some of you are aware, I observed a horrific scene at restaurants in West Hartford, CT two weekends ago. This coming week will be the third week since it happened.  Will be fascinating to see if our case numbers here go up. Only have had 7 new confirmed infections in the town this week.

[burger]

Newsom needs to shut down the restaurants and bars now.  We are few weeks away from being the next Arizona or Florida or New York or northern Italy or...

[burger]

Newsom needs to shut down the restaurants and bars now.  We are few weeks away from being the next Arizona or Florida or New York or northern Italy or...

[M T]

All this says is that there is an association of people eating in person at restaurants (indoor or outdoor) with increased cases of (other) people in the area.  3 weeks is long enough for the dining to be contemporaneous with the infection that lead to a case a week or more later.

It doesn't indicate that even one person got sick from eating out.  It doesn't indicate that the food supply isn't perfectly safe.  Nor does it prove the opposite.

I take that dining at a restaurant is a proxy for these:
  1) decreased concern by the people about the virus
  2) how much has the area opened up
  3) the affluence of the area to spend money on eating out
  4) getting out of the house (at least to pick up food)

They apparently included take-out meals as eating out, but with a stronger association for COVID cases with eating at the restaurant.  Presumably they can't directly tell whether people ate indoors or outdoors.  (But they could tell if they correlated the location with local regulations.)

It would have been interesting if they could have teased out whether the meals were single household or multi household (in which case this would have been a proxy for unmasked association with another household).

[M T]

All this says is that there is an association of people eating in person at restaurants (indoor or outdoor) with increased cases of (other) people in the area.  3 weeks is long enough for the dining to be contemporaneous with the infection that lead to a case a week or more later.

It doesn't indicate that even one person got sick from eating out.  It doesn't indicate that the food supply isn't perfectly safe.  Nor does it prove the opposite.

I take that dining at a restaurant is a proxy for these:
  1) decreased concern by the people about the virus
  2) how much has the area opened up
  3) the affluence of the area to spend money on eating out
  4) getting out of the house (at least to pick up food)

They apparently included take-out meals as eating out, but with a stronger association for COVID cases with eating at the restaurant.  Presumably they can't directly tell whether people ate indoors or outdoors.  (But they could tell if they correlated the location with local regulations.)

It would have been interesting if they could have teased out whether the meals were single household or multi household (in which case this would have been a proxy for unmasked association with another household).

[burger]

All this says is that there is an association of people eating in person at restaurants (indoor or outdoor) with increased cases of (other) people in the area.  3 weeks is long enough for the dining to be contemporaneous with the infection that lead to a case a week or more later.

It doesn't indicate that even one person got sick from eating out.  It doesn't indicate that the food supply isn't perfectly safe.  Nor does it prove the opposite.

I take that dining at a restaurant is a proxy for these:

  1) decreased concern by the people about the virus
  2) how much has the area opened up
  3) the affluence of the area to spend money on eating out
  4) getting out of the house (at least to pick up food)

They apparently included take-out meals as eating out, but with a stronger association for COVID cases with eating at the restaurant.  Presumably they can't directly tell whether people ate indoors or outdoors.  (But they could tell if they correlated the location with local regulations.)

It would have been interesting if they could have teased out whether the meals were single household or multi household (in which case this would have been a proxy for unmasked association with another household).

I agree that the evidence on restaurants is not 100% compelling.  But we really can't wait for a definitive study of covid-19 spread in restaurants.  Not only would shutting down restaurants and bars eliminate any spread of the virus in those places, but it would also send a clear signal that we have a real problem:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/JakeAnbinder/status/1276558598802472960[/tweet]
It's time for the state to start sending the right signals.

[burger]

All this says is that there is an association of people eating in person at restaurants (indoor or outdoor) with increased cases of (other) people in the area.  3 weeks is long enough for the dining to be contemporaneous with the infection that lead to a case a week or more later.

It doesn't indicate that even one person got sick from eating out.  It doesn't indicate that the food supply isn't perfectly safe.  Nor does it prove the opposite.

I take that dining at a restaurant is a proxy for these:

  1) decreased concern by the people about the virus
  2) how much has the area opened up
  3) the affluence of the area to spend money on eating out
  4) getting out of the house (at least to pick up food)

They apparently included take-out meals as eating out, but with a stronger association for COVID cases with eating at the restaurant.  Presumably they can't directly tell whether people ate indoors or outdoors.  (But they could tell if they correlated the location with local regulations.)

It would have been interesting if they could have teased out whether the meals were single household or multi household (in which case this would have been a proxy for unmasked association with another household).

I agree that the evidence on restaurants is not 100% compelling.  But we really can't wait for a definitive study of covid-19 spread in restaurants.  Not only would shutting down restaurants and bars eliminate any spread of the virus in those places, but it would also send a clear signal that we have a real problem:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/JakeAnbinder/status/1276558598802472960[/tweet]
It's time for the state to start sending the right signals.

[chrisk]

A day after saying he was pausing and not going backwards, the governor of Texas shut down bars today.

[chrisk]

A day after saying he was pausing and not going backwards, the governor of Texas shut down bars today.

[Genuine Realist]

A day after saying he was pausing and not going backwards, the governor of Texas shut down bars today.

I'm glad to see him reacting to evidence. Bars are one thing - I don't know about restaurants. Shutting them down ha gigantic implications to an entire industry, food supply chains, etc. 

The article speaks to a correlation, not causation. PResumably greater restaurant spending signals more social interaction of all sorts of kinds.

But EVERY social interaction increases the chance of infection - obviously. But they can't all be banned. Better to leave restaurants open, insisting on appropriate social distance, and continue to refine regulatory practice. At the dumb prosaic level, you can't even get data if you don't have some interactions.

[Genuine Realist]

A day after saying he was pausing and not going backwards, the governor of Texas shut down bars today.

I'm glad to see him reacting to evidence. Bars are one thing - I don't know about restaurants. Shutting them down ha gigantic implications to an entire industry, food supply chains, etc. 

The article speaks to a correlation, not causation. PResumably greater restaurant spending signals more social interaction of all sorts of kinds.

But EVERY social interaction increases the chance of infection - obviously. But they can't all be banned. Better to leave restaurants open, insisting on appropriate social distance, and continue to refine regulatory practice. At the dumb prosaic level, you can't even get data if you don't have some interactions.

[BostonCard]

The article speaks to a correlation, not causation. PResumably greater restaurant spending signals more social interaction of all sorts of kinds.


But EVERY social interaction increases the chance of infection - obviously. But they can't all be banned. Better to leave restaurants open, insisting on appropriate social distance, and continue to refine regulatory practice. At the dumb prosaic level, you can't even get data if you don't have some interactions.

Yup, mechanistically, it makes intuitive sense that opening restaurants up could be increasing cases, but "opening restaurants up" is a proxy for opening a whole bunch of activities, and people collectively engaging in a bunch of activities that increase risk.

I had hoped that we would be able to relax restrictions without losing control over the virus.  My hope is that the increase in cases will wake people up on the need to social distance and that this will be self-correcting (supplemented by instituting a couple of targeted measures).

The problem, however, is that what we are seeing now actually happened two weeks ago.  Since in the intervening two weeks, if anything states relaxed further, things are sadly going to get much worse before they get better.  July is going to be tough.

BC

[BostonCard]

The article speaks to a correlation, not causation. PResumably greater restaurant spending signals more social interaction of all sorts of kinds.


But EVERY social interaction increases the chance of infection - obviously. But they can't all be banned. Better to leave restaurants open, insisting on appropriate social distance, and continue to refine regulatory practice. At the dumb prosaic level, you can't even get data if you don't have some interactions.

Yup, mechanistically, it makes intuitive sense that opening restaurants up could be increasing cases, but "opening restaurants up" is a proxy for opening a whole bunch of activities, and people collectively engaging in a bunch of activities that increase risk.

I had hoped that we would be able to relax restrictions without losing control over the virus.  My hope is that the increase in cases will wake people up on the need to social distance and that this will be self-correcting (supplemented by instituting a couple of targeted measures).

The problem, however, is that what we are seeing now actually happened two weeks ago.  Since in the intervening two weeks, if anything states relaxed further, things are sadly going to get much worse before they get better.  July is going to be tough.

BC

[2006alum]

I had hoped that we would be able to relax restrictions without losing control over the virus.  My hope is that the increase in cases will wake people up on the need to social distance and that this will be self-correcting (supplemented by instituting a couple of targeted measures).

The problem, however, is that what we are seeing now actually happened two weeks ago.  Since in the intervening two weeks, if anything states relaxed further, things are sadly going to get much worse before they get better.  July is going to be tough.

BC

This, to me, was always the problem with the "hammer and dance" model - once you start dancing, you need to be able to hear the music in real time to syncopate your dance to the music. To torture the analogy, our music cues are on a two-week delay of our dance steps, so we are almost always going to be somewhat-to-very out of sync with the music.

Had we done better at contact tracing and genuinely imposed isolation, I think we could have mitigated much of this delay. But we haven't, and it doesn't appear that we will, so at this point your best bet is to stay home from the dance if you're at all concerned. Alas, for many of us, that has been the status quo for the past 4 months now...

[2006alum]

I had hoped that we would be able to relax restrictions without losing control over the virus.  My hope is that the increase in cases will wake people up on the need to social distance and that this will be self-correcting (supplemented by instituting a couple of targeted measures).

The problem, however, is that what we are seeing now actually happened two weeks ago.  Since in the intervening two weeks, if anything states relaxed further, things are sadly going to get much worse before they get better.  July is going to be tough.

BC

This, to me, was always the problem with the "hammer and dance" model - once you start dancing, you need to be able to hear the music in real time to syncopate your dance to the music. To torture the analogy, our music cues are on a two-week delay of our dance steps, so we are almost always going to be somewhat-to-very out of sync with the music.

Had we done better at contact tracing and genuinely imposed isolation, I think we could have mitigated much of this delay. But we haven't, and it doesn't appear that we will, so at this point your best bet is to stay home from the dance if you're at all concerned. Alas, for many of us, that has been the status quo for the past 4 months now...