Finally, someone with a medical background said what I was talking about months ago.

"During a press conference on Friday, Contra Costa Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano said "any kind of activity that involves taking off your mask to eat or drink — even though outdoors is safer, even outdoors poses a risk for COVID spread. With the high risk of transmission in our communities, outdoor dining is more risky than it was two months ago."

WHY DID WE HAVE TO LET IT GET MORE RISKY?

This was the slow boil of the frog.

And watch, I will have a dozen posters attack me for saying this.

Web Link

"Restaurants have been mandated by the state to impose certain regulations and hygiene measures. They follow the general principles of harm reduction that Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease expert at UCSF, goes by: masks, distancing, ventilation and hand hygiene.

“There is no evidence that I can find anywhere in the world that outdoor dining with those four procedures in play increases the risk of COVID-19,” she said."

In response to Victor Bishop you wrote:

“Web Link

"Restaurants have been mandated by the state to impose certain regulations and hygiene measures. They follow the general principles of harm reduction that Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease expert at UCSF, goes by: masks, distancing, ventilation and hand hygiene.”

“There is no evidence that I can find anywhere in the world that outdoor dining with those four procedures in play increases the risk of COVID-19,” she said."”

Based on WHAT research, did she do any scientific experiments to prove this opinion? Again, this reminds me of NASA and Morton Thiokol when they said the needed proof of unsafe Solid Rocket Boosters to avoid launching the Space Shuttle Challenger. In the end the Challenger presidential commission stated that mentality was the final major fault that caused the Challenger Explosion. Their approach of “Risk Management” versus “Risk Avoidance” led to the Challenger Explosion.

For example the Hartford Healthcare website ranks the risk of 37 routine activities regarding Covid 19 and it is found here (Web Link It ranks the risk of eating at an outdoor restaurant as level 4 of 9. It also states that getting restaurant takeout is ranked 2 of 9, a clear indication that eating out doubles your chance of getting infected. And MANY research studies have proven this, AND YOU KNOW IT.

Your constant approach of “Risk Management” versus “Risk Avoidance” has no doubt proves that this ranking is correct. Ghandi simply has NO DATA to base here conclusions on. Here own words were:

“When the principles of harm reduction are followed, she said, “there is no data with these four procedures that (shows) outdoor dining has driven this increased risk and surge.”

She is just saying she wants the PROOF first? Tell this to anyone that has gotten sick, or died, or knows someone who has gotten sick or died since the pandemic. I think a person’s health or life is a HIGH price to pay, and there is NO acceptable levels of RISK where PREVENTION can be achieved.

By the way here are the standards regarding eating at UCSF posted here (Web Link

"Updated Sept. 21, 2020

To ensure the health and safety of our community, UCSF requires everyone who eats or drinks onsite to adhere to the following safety guidelines and protocols in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Remember, eating or drinking when others are nearby puts you and those around you at increased risk for COVID-19 because you must remove your face covering to eat or drink. People often touch their faces with their hands when eating or drinking. In addition, meals are usually considered a time for conversation, which further increases risk, especially if you are talking to others during a meal at which you and those around you are not wearing your face coverings.

When convening in any shared space, including a break, conference, charting or team room:

WEAR A FACE COVERING AT ALL TIMES

WEAR EYE PROTECTION WHEN NOT PHYSICALLY DISTANCED AND WHEN OTHERS ARE UNMASKED

Wash your hands or use hand sanitizer before and after convening

Maintain physical distance of at least 6 feet

When eating or drinking in a shared space or outdoors, please make sure you:

Maintain physical distance of at least 6 feet

REPLACE YOUR MASK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER EATING OR DRINKING

WEAR EYE PROTECTION WHILE AROUND OTHERS WHO ARE UNMASKED WHILE THEY EAT OR DRINK
CLEAN SURFACES BEFORE AND AFTER EATING OR DRINKING

When feasible, eat meals outdoors instead of using cafeterias or dining rooms

USE INDIVIDUALLY PLATED OR BAGGED MEALS

DO NOT USE SHARED TABLES OR SELF-SERVICE BUFFETS

Make sure to wash your hands or use hand sanitizer immediately before and after eating”

At least it would appear that the general public is not following the procedures that are described. Was Ghandi ASSUMING that outdoor restaurants were following these guidelines? I would be able to easily prove they were not.

“ Based on WHAT research, did she do any scientific experiments to prove this opinion? ”

Based on what research did dr Faritano do to prove his opinion.
Plus if you call it an opinion, then you do not need to have any research.
But if you read the part that you recopied and repasted it says: “There is no evidence that I can find anywhere in the world that outdoor dining with those four procedures in play increases the risk of COVID-19,” she said."”
She looked for proof and did not find any.
But according to SG, Dr Faritano is correct because he agrees with SG, but Dr, Gandhi is wrong because she disagrees with our forum expert!!!!!!

Not sure what the whole thing with UCSF has to do with it, but according to what SG copied and pasted, indoor dining is allowed:
“When feasible, eat meals outdoors instead of using cafeterias or dining rooms”

Oh and stop trying to bully me, not going to,work

Victor,

I will just wait until the LA court case proceeds.

If LA Dept. of Health does provide the court the "Data-Driven" evidence to overcome the current temporary restraining order, that probably will be the final end of this discussion.

I just have a good feeling about this, given that just about every state and the CDC has determined it from the report published by Restaurant Business Online the story titled "NEW CDC REPORT CITES DINING OUT AS A SIGNIFICANT COVID RISK" (Web Link

It stated:

"Adults who contract COVID-19 are twice as likely as the general population to have eaten at a restaurant in the two weeks beforehand, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in a report on Friday.

Both INDOOR AND OUTDOOR DINING POSE A RISK OF INFECTION BECAUSE PATRONS CAN’T EAT OR DRINK WITH A MASK ON, THE CDC NOTED. It advised that alternative defenses against coronavirus be considered “to protect customers, employees, and communities.”

The CDC report looks at onsite restaurant dining of all sorts, with no differentiation between eating outside or being seated indoors. IT COMES AS RESTAURATEURS IN MANY AREAS ARE CLAMORING FOR RESTRICTIONS ON INDOOR TABLE SERVICE TO BE LIFTED. Restaurants in New York City and many areas of California have yet to be allowed to reopen even a portion of their dining rooms. Operators elsewhere are pushing to raise imposed capacity caps of 25% or 50%. Nationally, many establishments have been offering onsite service through patios, parking lot seating or other open-air accommodations.”

Also Good Morning America did a story found here (Web Link and it states:

“Would you dine out in an area with low rates of transmission?

For this scenario, five experts said yes and only two of the experts said no.

Dr. Natalie Dean, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, explained that there are still risks by being in close proximity with staff.

"You're still interacting with the waitress or waiter, and then you're also still nearby whoever you are dining with," she said.

Would you dine outside in an area that's a COVID-19 hot spot?

All seven experts said they would not.

Dr. Anne Rimoin, an epidemiology professor at UCLA, told ABC News that people in areas with higher rates of infection should proceed with caution in public settings, especially at restaurants.

"In a hot spot state, everybody needs to be doing what they can to reduce the spread of the virus," Dr. Rimoin said. "That means social distancing, masks, all of the things that are really hard to do when you're out, when you're eating out."

Does the UCSF claim that the CDC and those 7 Doctors are wrong?

SG- refers to a report that was not peer reviewed ( note that Sg always attacks research he does not agree with with the “peer reviewed” argument)
“ I just have a good feeling about this, given that just about every state and the CDC has determined it from the report published by Restaurant Business Online the story titled "NEW CDC REPORT CITES DINING OUT AS A SIGNIFICANT COVID RISK" (Web Link).”

This report and another were addressed in the article I posted, by Dr Gandhi
“ The data that does exist is minimal and hasn’t looked specifically at outdoor dining, Gandhi said, and the two most frequently cited studies have not been nuanced enough.

A recent control study by the CDC included dining as a risk activity, but didn’t distinguish between outdoor and indoor dining. In a Nature study, dining was included as a higher risk activity, but the paper did not model any of the mitigation procedures of ventilation, masking and more, she said.”

Victor,

When are you going to understand, we are now seeing as many people that died in the Pearl Harbor attack every day now, yesterday it was 2600 people.

It is now the leading cause of death in the U.S.

No matter how much you want to say things are ok, or that we aren't in the kind of danger that warrants all measures to be taken to prevent spreading COVID, it simply is not true.

When you see a fire, grab a hose.

But you have the gas tank and are pouring it on the fire, aren't you?

I think the most important data is the present capacity of local ICU's. The situation continues to get worse. In the words of Winston Churchill (1940)"never in the history of human conflict has so much owed by so many to so few", except the "few" here are putting us all at risk rather than saving us.
But local government leaders don't seem to believe that the rules apply to them.
If you are still getting paid by working online you need to understand that the thousands that are unable to work are becoming more desperate Avery day.

SG- but you loved the fires in September , the smoke kept people indoors.
Not pouring gas, just wanting see evidence. You seem to like to bully people who disagree with you. I am pouring gas on a fire? How ridiculous and uncivil.

[Post removed due to violation of terms of use]

[Post removed due to violation of terms of use]

Victor,

Per your own linked resource here is some VERY critical information (Web Link

[Portion removed due to copying at length from another website.]

That photo of lunchtime on California Street shows a bunch of people close together, not wearing masks. It is extremely risky. Do you believe in science? Science says that what we are doing now: hand washing, social distancing, and wearing masks, isn't sufficient to stop the spread. We should have taken more drastic action before now.

The restaurant owners are in no worse shape than anyone else. It's silly to think about subsidizing that kind of business because no one can eat out anyway. They can come back after the pandemic, or switch to a take out/delivery model. Restaurants are the #1 source of new infections.

Tal Shaya,

I know Victor will post something any minute now to say that there is no proof of restaurants being the #1 cause of COVID. But the fact that even the pictures showed ANY people not wearing a mask is important. The reality also is that COVID is the number one cause of Death now in the U.S.

The brutal reality is that COVID is now out of control and our medical resources are now in a critical shortage again.

And I am very surprised and grateful that you at least see the bigger picture. We have had disagreements in the past, but I also noticed you NEVER took it personal, nor attempted to make personal comments either.

WE all need to get our acts together. I hope we may have a vaccine soon, but it will take a long time to implement it.

WOW,

I was in Castro Street today, and it is flooded with people. I have no problem with it.

But more than 50% were NOT wearing masks. I understand they want to be able to go there because tonight at 10PM they will be closed to outdoor dining.

They are going to have to clear the street if they want pickup/take-out because there is nowhere for anyone to park there now. The street is cut off from car traffic. They are going to have to clear the street.

Even the restaurants Delivery/UBER/Door Dash vehicles can't get in.

And we really don't know when it will end either, do we?

The falsehood:

“Peter, in order for it to work the mRNA must produce an ANTIBODY not a protein on an immune cell membrane. But if the mRNA injection stops producing the ANTIBODYS within one day, that means you are only stuck with a limited supply that will destroy itself in short time. If proteins have a half life of 5 days and you manage to produce 1,000,000,000 antibodies in 140 days they will all be gone. Less than a half of a year.”


The truth:

Web Link
“ Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19.”

Beware of tarnished gold

[Post removed due to violation of terms of use]

Victor Bishop,

It took less than 2 days for a significant adverse reaction that was not disclosed in the Pfizer research to appear in Britain. The story is by the Associated Press found here (Web Link It stated:

"LONDON (AP) — U.K. regulators said Wednesday that people who have a “significant history” of allergic reactions shouldn’t receive the new Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine while they investigate two adverse reactions that occurred on the first day of the country’s mass vaccination program.

Professor Stephen Powis, national medical director for the National Health Service in England, said health authorities were acting on a recommendation from the Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

“As is common with new vaccines the MHRA have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history of allergic reactions do not receive this vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday,” Powis said in a statement. “Both are recovering well.”

Why wasn't this identified prior to mass injections? Because they are RUSHING the process. In fact 50 million people have significant issues with allergies in the U.S. as seen here (Web Link Which is 15% of the country.

It looks like the "SAMPLES" of the Pfizer study didn't seem to have these people in it, right? They don't even know what causes this problem and what allergies

I hope the FDA takes this into account