Read on Twitter
When people ask if it's safe to dine indoors, Oregon officials say there's "no clear evidence of significant transmission in bars or restaurants" in Oregon's data. #thread
Rule #1 of science journalism: always read the methods section. So I asked them to tell me more.
Rule #1 of science journalism: always read the methods section. So I asked them to tell me more.
I figured there'd be some selection bias at work here, like I described in this thread: https://twitter.com/ErinEARoss/status/1289236344162488320
Turns out there's a simple reason there's no clear transmission in Oregon's indoor dining. It's not that we're magically safer than other states.
We aren't actually tracking cases in patrons of bars or restaurants. Case investigators don't ask about it. https://www.opb.org/article/2020/08/07/bar-restaurant-coronavirus-safe-oregon/
We aren't actually tracking cases in patrons of bars or restaurants. Case investigators don't ask about it. https://www.opb.org/article/2020/08/07/bar-restaurant-coronavirus-safe-oregon/
It might come up peripherally in interviews, if people mention that's where they gathered with a group of friends. But when investigators look back, they don't check if someone might have gotten sick at a restaurant. And they don't notify patrons who were there at the same time.
This is somewhat understandable: we just do not have the manpower to do that type of contact tracing.
What the data does show: We know that transmission has occurred among groups who visit restaurants together. But OHA says they could also have shared it hanging out other times.
What the data does show: We know that transmission has occurred among groups who visit restaurants together. But OHA says they could also have shared it hanging out other times.
We also know that there have been workplace outbreaks at restaurants.
OHA data also shows a lot of transmission in at-home gatherings, small and too large, where people shared food.
That is also not surprising: it's very easy to contact trace a party. You know guest's names.
OHA data also shows a lot of transmission in at-home gatherings, small and too large, where people shared food.
That is also not surprising: it's very easy to contact trace a party. You know guest's names.
Right now, OHA says that bars and restaurants should stay open. They say that since there's *clear* data of transmission happening in one place, but there *isn't* clear data of it in another -- they're going to focus on at-home gatherings.
They want people to wear masks in at-home gatherings, and say people aren't. So 1) DO THAT, SERIOUSLY.
2) You can't eat with a mask on. If people are eating at home, masks are coming off.
2) You can't eat with a mask on. If people are eating at home, masks are coming off.
OHA also says that in restaurants, you're with "carefully selected friends" and "mask-wearing is enforced."
But in restaurants, you also take off your mask to eat. And six feet away from you, there's groups of strangers. Talking loudly, possibly breathing virus.
But in restaurants, you also take off your mask to eat. And six feet away from you, there's groups of strangers. Talking loudly, possibly breathing virus.
Data in other states and countries makes it very clear: there is virtually no difference between dining in your home and dining indoors at a restaurant.
As Fauci so eloquently put it: "bars are bad."
As Fauci so eloquently put it: "bars are bad."
OHA would really appreciate it if you stopped gathering indoors with friends at home, and hang out outside instead.
But public health regulations also influence public opinion. Try to convince certain people to mask-up at home, they'll just point at restaurants and ignore you.
But public health regulations also influence public opinion. Try to convince certain people to mask-up at home, they'll just point at restaurants and ignore you.
The other thing that I want to address here is the very high bar (ha... ha... bar.) Oregon officials have set to close indoor dining. They want to wait for that clear, strong, significant signal in the data.
This is something that should be very familiar to anyone who has written about toxicology, or pesticides, or smoking, or carbon emissions.
Humans, especially in the US, take "innocent until proven guilty" and apply it to disease agents.
Humans, especially in the US, take "innocent until proven guilty" and apply it to disease agents.
Glyphosate got you down? Don't worry -- try this new herbicide. Is it safer? Well, there's no clear evidence it isn't.
And until you look for that evidence, in a thorough, standardized way, you're not gonna find it.
And until you look for that evidence, in a thorough, standardized way, you're not gonna find it.
Last thought: I'd love to hear from other local/regional reporters about how contact tracing in their area is going. Public health has been chronically underfunded for decades everywhere in the US.
Public health officials are working their asses off. But they just don't have the resources to do the type of contact tracing you need to actually control a disease. We're not gonna see 46K people get tested cos one dude went to a lot of clubs, unless something changes.
And seriously, y'all: Ask about the methods. It honestly blows my mind someone else hadn't already reported this story. It's always there if you ask.
