5 ms·

It wasn't even across the street. Same parking lot. The city or county attempted to justify it by saying film production staff are tested regularly (can't make

by us0r 6y ago

It wasn't even across the street. Same parking lot. The city or county attempted to justify it by saying film production staff are tested regularly (can't make this up!)

bonestamp2 6y ago
Is that not significant though? All of the people eating together in one setting are tested multiple times per week and screened each day. All of the people eating on the other patio have no oversight of testing and screening. Whether I agree with it or not, I can't deny those are very different risk profiles.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  You might bump into equal protection issues with that.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    No you wouldn't. A different testing regime and day-to-day tracking easily meets the rational-basis standard for discrimination based on objectively different conditions.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  (Layman here, take everything with a truckload of salt.) I'm actually not sure they're "very" different risk profiles, though it isn't unreasonable to assume that before you analyze the situation further. My reason is that contagiousness peaks around 2-3 days before symptoms appear, and the false negative rate for a test is 100% just 4 days before symptoms appear. [1] Now consider that tests themselves normally take around 3 days to come back. That means if you find out your test results just 1 day before symptoms appear, they'll be based on your viral load from three days prior, where (as mentioned above) the test would've had a ~100% chance of producing a false negative! (Things improve a little for a 2-day turnaround, not that much.) In other news, the only time you can really expect useful results is on (or after) the day of symptoms... at which point you would already be staying home. I do see 2 places where this argument breaks down: - For asymptomatic carriers. I don't know what the rates are like, but asymptomatic people won't know to stay home without a test, so tests would seem to have some value there for the purpose of making public gathering safer. However, intuitively, I wouldn't expect it to be a game-changer—I'd only expect it to stretch the runway a little bit (say, get you a few extra days/weeks), but you'd still be back at square 1 having to shut things down afterward. - For people who aren't cautious and would go out to dine even amidst symptoms, but wouldn't go if they test positive. Which seems ironic because you could say reckless behavior here would (in some sense) seem to create a positive feedback loop justifying more reckless behavior. That not only seems like a questionable way to justify public policy, but it also seems to suffer from the same problem as the last item: it'd only delay the inevitable by a few days/weeks. - For rapid tests (< 1 day, preferably < 1 hour). I don't expect rapid tests will be available to the masses for everyday activities. So, at least on my end, with traditional testing that takes 2-3 days to come back, it's entirely plausible (and moreover, likely) to me that testing has low utility for these particular purposes. But I would love to hear an expert's explanation that takes all these factors (and more) into account. [1] https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/07/when-should-i-be-tested https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/07/when-should...
- prawn 6y ago
  Beyond the regular testing, I imagine the contact tracing would be easier for a production set than a restaurant. Are diners in American restaurants required to register name and contact details before entering? We have that in South Australia (takes a few seconds via QR code), and we currently have no active cases state-wide. Last time, they showed a list of particular hot spots (bus stops, shopping centres, schools) and asked if we'd been at any of those locations recently. Though I imagine there wouldn't be much of the US right now that isn't some level of hot spot!
Rebelgecko 6y ago
I would feel a lot better about outdoor dining if I knew that the people at the table 2 feet away were being tested 3x per week and that I'd hear about it if they tested positive in the next few days
- cmurf 6y ago
  Where are the spit tests? 36-48 hours for PCR results isn't practical for the kind of testing regime needed for restaurants, and bars. Gyms, shops, shopping malls are open. No testing and no limits. States have a legal and ethical pubic health obligation. They're also on the hook financially via lost sales taxes and medicaid costs. Each covid case is bad for states. But they can't pay businesses to close. And they federal government won't pay even though they could. A 10 minute spit test would make this allot more doable.
  - zwily 6y ago
    The spit tests aren’t all rapid - some are PCR.
- reshie 6y ago
  from what i have seen most places have bubbles over each dining table. its still a gathering though.
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    Wow, I haven't seen that anywhere. The closest I've seen is the places that cram all the tables together under a giant test. Here in LA the inspectors found that about 80% of restaurants weren't following guidelines for things like table distance
dubyah 6y ago
But they are tested regularly. Each production is also supposed to have a dedicated person to handle Covid-19 compliance with final authority on such matters and separation/segmentation of bubbles/zones for those that closely or without masks and the rest of production. http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/docs/protocols/Reopening_MusicTelevisionFilmProduction.pdf http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/docs/... They're in essence, supposed to work in as much of a bubble as they can whereas you cannot say the same about a restaurant. It's an unfortunate situation, but they really are quite different.
PeterisP 6y ago
I'd argue that there is a substantial difference - if the staff of a film production (or any business, really) are already working on-site together, then them also eating lunch together does not create additional "connections" like a dining place that's open to the general public does. The policy goal is to minimize the number of people you meet. You meet your household, if you have to work non-remotely, then you meet some coworkers (preferably a limited amount and always the same, separating a company in teams/"bubbles") and ideally that's it - it makes all sense that places where you'd be eating together with random strangers should be restricted much more than work lunches where outsiders are excluded.

by us0r 6y ago

It wasn't even across the street. Same parking lot. The city or county attempted to justify it by saying film production staff are tested regularly (can't make this up!)

bonestamp2 6y ago

Is that not significant though? All of the people eating together in one setting are tested multiple times per week and screened each day. All of the people eating on the other patio have no oversight of testing and screening. Whether I agree with it or not, I can't deny those are very different risk profiles.

dehrmann 6y ago
You might bump into equal protection issues with that.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  No you wouldn't. A different testing regime and day-to-day tracking easily meets the rational-basis standard for discrimination based on objectively different conditions.
mehrdadn 6y ago
(Layman here, take everything with a truckload of salt.) I'm actually not sure they're "very" different risk profiles, though it isn't unreasonable to assume that before you analyze the situation further. My reason is that contagiousness peaks around 2-3 days before symptoms appear, and the false negative rate for a test is 100% just 4 days before symptoms appear. [1] Now consider that tests themselves normally take around 3 days to come back. That means if you find out your test results just 1 day before symptoms appear, they'll be based on your viral load from three days prior, where (as mentioned above) the test would've had a ~100% chance of producing a false negative! (Things improve a little for a 2-day turnaround, not that much.) In other news, the only time you can really expect useful results is on (or after) the day of symptoms... at which point you would already be staying home. I do see 2 places where this argument breaks down: - For asymptomatic carriers. I don't know what the rates are like, but asymptomatic people won't know to stay home without a test, so tests would seem to have some value there for the purpose of making public gathering safer. However, intuitively, I wouldn't expect it to be a game-changer—I'd only expect it to stretch the runway a little bit (say, get you a few extra days/weeks), but you'd still be back at square 1 having to shut things down afterward. - For people who aren't cautious and would go out to dine even amidst symptoms, but wouldn't go if they test positive. Which seems ironic because you could say reckless behavior here would (in some sense) seem to create a positive feedback loop justifying more reckless behavior. That not only seems like a questionable way to justify public policy, but it also seems to suffer from the same problem as the last item: it'd only delay the inevitable by a few days/weeks. - For rapid tests (< 1 day, preferably < 1 hour). I don't expect rapid tests will be available to the masses for everyday activities. So, at least on my end, with traditional testing that takes 2-3 days to come back, it's entirely plausible (and moreover, likely) to me that testing has low utility for these particular purposes. But I would love to hear an expert's explanation that takes all these factors (and more) into account. [1] https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/07/when-should-i-be-tested https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/07/when-should...
prawn 6y ago
Beyond the regular testing, I imagine the contact tracing would be easier for a production set than a restaurant. Are diners in American restaurants required to register name and contact details before entering? We have that in South Australia (takes a few seconds via QR code), and we currently have no active cases state-wide. Last time, they showed a list of particular hot spots (bus stops, shopping centres, schools) and asked if we'd been at any of those locations recently. Though I imagine there wouldn't be much of the US right now that isn't some level of hot spot!

Rebelgecko 6y ago

I would feel a lot better about outdoor dining if I knew that the people at the table 2 feet away were being tested 3x per week and that I'd hear about it if they tested positive in the next few days

cmurf 6y ago
Where are the spit tests? 36-48 hours for PCR results isn't practical for the kind of testing regime needed for restaurants, and bars. Gyms, shops, shopping malls are open. No testing and no limits. States have a legal and ethical pubic health obligation. They're also on the hook financially via lost sales taxes and medicaid costs. Each covid case is bad for states. But they can't pay businesses to close. And they federal government won't pay even though they could. A 10 minute spit test would make this allot more doable.
- zwily 6y ago
  The spit tests aren’t all rapid - some are PCR.
reshie 6y ago
from what i have seen most places have bubbles over each dining table. its still a gathering though.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  Wow, I haven't seen that anywhere. The closest I've seen is the places that cram all the tables together under a giant test. Here in LA the inspectors found that about 80% of restaurants weren't following guidelines for things like table distance

dubyah 6y ago

But they are tested regularly. Each production is also supposed to have a dedicated person to handle Covid-19 compliance with final authority on such matters and separation/segmentation of bubbles/zones for those that closely or without masks and the rest of production. http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/docs/protocols/Reopening_MusicTelevisionFilmProduction.pdf http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/docs/... They're in essence, supposed to work in as much of a bubble as they can whereas you cannot say the same about a restaurant. It's an unfortunate situation, but they really are quite different.

PeterisP 6y ago

I'd argue that there is a substantial difference - if the staff of a film production (or any business, really) are already working on-site together, then them also eating lunch together does not create additional "connections" like a dining place that's open to the general public does. The policy goal is to minimize the number of people you meet. You meet your household, if you have to work non-remotely, then you meet some coworkers (preferably a limited amount and always the same, separating a company in teams/"bubbles") and ideally that's it - it makes all sense that places where you'd be eating together with random strangers should be restricted much more than work lunches where outsiders are excluded.