I did answer the question you asked. The answer for "how many lives would be saved" and "how many lives would be lost" if outdoor dining is/isn't banned is the

I did answer the question you asked. The answer for "how many lives would be saved" and "how many lives would be lost" if outdoor dining is/isn't banned is the same; approximately zero based on the evidence. You also have to consider that even if all restaurant dining is banned, that doesn't mean people are suddenly going to stop eating together, they'll just do it elsewhere, somewhere that's probably much riskier than an outdoor patio such as a car or inside someone's house. >I don't see how it can be made safe, since as far as I know people can't eat or drink with masks on. Clearly the principles of harm reduction discussed in the article account for patrons eating without a mask on while they are seated at a table, but I suspect you already knew that. >I'd love to have asked that UCSF expert what she had to say about this. I'd love to hear what she would have to say as well. Though seeing as she has a long career studying infectious diseases and has studied covid extensively over the past year, I'm inclined to think she has a good understanding of the risks involved in certain activities, certainly beyond the anecdotal evidence of commenters on HN. >I'm still waiting to hear someone tell me how many lives would be saved by allowing restaurants to open. Is it going to be anywhere near 3,000 in a single day? Somehow I very much doubt it. I'm not sure why you're waiting for this answer. The number of deaths in a day(3000) is unrelated to restaurants allowing outdoor dining, so why are you comparing them? Closing restaurants will not bring that number down, based on the science we have available, but if you have evidence that suggests otherwise feel free to share.