Tomorrow I'll be on Good Morning America talking about dining out at restaurants. I don't know about others, but I find these types of "Should I do this? Or that?" questions particularly challenging. (They don't train us for this in grad school.) A few thoughts... 1/7
I got some great advice from harm reduction guru @JuliaLMarcus (thank you for your time!). We can lead with what we know. "The safest option is just to get takeout." But we have to acknowledge that this may not be a sustainable solution for people. 2/7
The next step is to establish the underlying need people seek to address. Do they want to catch up with friends? Tasty food? Do they want the dining out experience? Escape from the kids? From this, we can then identify a spectrum of options that address these needs. 3/7
To decide what option is best for them, they should consider (i) the level of transmission in the community, (ii) their own risk and the risk of those immediately around them, and (iii) the safety of the particular activity/venue. 4/7
We can identify ways to minimize the risk of the activity. Outdoors >> indoors. Tables spaced apart. Waitstaff not pulling down their masks to talk. And if we see evidence that a place is not safe, we should be willing to turn around and leave (vote with our feet). 5/7
Personally, I don't see myself going out to eat anytime soon (indoors or outdoors, sorry). This reflects the level of transmission in my area, but also my own perception of the pros and cons. Mostly I want tasty food, so takeout works. But others may weigh things differently. 6/7
Given the stakes of the situation, it's so hard to achieve this balance in risk communication. We don't want people to have house parties, but we also don't want people paralyzed with fear. I'm still identifying the best language to use, and I hope this helps others. 7/7
