> "misunderstandings of the threat model" > "It's surely safer than eating in a restaurant." by saying "safer", without any qualifiers on magnitude, that's ma

> "misunderstandings of the threat model" > "It's surely safer than eating in a restaurant." by saying "safer", without any qualifiers on magnitude, that's making the same mistake. most things we do on a daily basis are safe. being 0.001% less likely to get infected is technically safer, but not practically so. what's not relatively safe? gathering with random people breathing each other's direct exhaust for long periods. now, you might think a restaurant is an example of that, but it's not. yes, you'll be sharing exhaust with your tablemates, but you shouldn't be eating with people you don't know/trust in any indoor setting, not just in restaurants. and with just a little precaution (i.e., distance), tables are relatively isolated transmission-wise, despite the general misperception of the risks of aerosol transmission (most people aren't infected, but when they are, virus particles land nearby and fall apart relatively quickly). restaurants aren't particularly unsafe. the same can't be said for bars and clubs, which resist such safety mitigations by their very nature. also, if singing softer is the only mitigation, rather than distancing with an awareness of vocal exhaust flow, then it isn't really much safer. avoiding extended exposure to natural exhaust is the key, proper distancing being the easiest (and often least inconvenient) and therefore most effective measure.