1) Since I don't have the same audience as @RIHospitality, I wanted to use twitter to respond to the recent letter that they sent to @GovRaimondo regarding the current rise in COVID cases and indoor dining (attached).
cc @TedNesi @StephMachado @wpri12 @RadioFreeTom @ashishkjha

2) As a restaurant owner that RIHA supposedly speaks for, I wanted to take this opportunity to voice my own opinions, which differ significantly from RIHA. I do not know who they consulted with, but it wasn't me or any of the many restaurateurs that I speak with regularly.

3) RIHA's main claim is that "...the data has shown that [restaurants] are not the culprits of the [COVID] spread."

They do not provide any evidence to support this claim. Here are many sources supporting the actual facts, which are that indoor dining/bars are arguably the

4) riskiest form of socialization and a massive culprit of COVID spread.

https://www.eater.com/2020/6/26/21304386/texas-florida-idaho-roll-back-reopening-stages-due-to-increased-coronavirus-cases

https://sf.eater.com/21561143/covid-19-restaurants-indoor-dining-stanford-chan-zuckerberg

https://www.nrn.com/operations/indoor-dining-major-cause-covid-19-superspreader-events-stanford-led-study-suggests

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/business-employers/bars-restaurants.html

5) They go on to claim that "as restaurants have been further restricted across the country, nationwide, the cases have consistently increased, demonstrating that restrictions placed on restaurants do not have an immediate impact on case transmission..."

6) They must be putting money to use on a good lawyer, because this is a tortured statement. Very few counties, nevertheless states, have restricted indoor dining except for the last few days. Nationwide cases is not a good measurement of the impact of these localized closures.

7) Furthermore, previous data suggests that any decision takes 1-2 weeks at a minimum to have an impact. So while RIHA's claim that restrictions do not have an "immediate" impact is true, it is also pointless.

8) RIHA then decides to throw their hands up in a "what about THEM!" temper tantrum, as they complain about being singled out while the rest of retail is put under lighter restrictions. This further highlights their ignorance (or worse); non-dining retail can be safely

9) carried out with masks, a vital level of protection. Indoor dining/bars necessitates removing masks to eat/drink, which is where the danger lies.

Finally, a note about outdoor dining...

10) Yes, outdoor dining is safer because it is open-air which provides significantly better ventilation. However, many restaurants have created sophisticated tents/structures with roofs, 4 walls, and doors. These do not help nearly as much as one might expect.

11) A simple, fun, and a bit childish analogy can be drawn to peeing while swimming. It might be ok to pee in the ocean, where it dilutes to nothingness, but it is not ok to pee in the town pool.

12) Both involve "peeing [outdoors] in the water", but only one involves swimming in the community toilet bowl. I hope that restaurants and government officials can keep this in mind as they build and approve outdoor dining spaces.

13) There has been a deluge of incredibly positive news recently surrounding vaccine, which highlights that there is a large, bright light at the end of this COVID tunnel, and we are nearing the end. It is as important as ever to get through it safely now with an end in sight.

14) I would now like to argue specifically why indoor dining/bars SHOULD be closed temporarily, from the point of view of somebody that matters - a restaurant owner. We have been fortunate to not have any COVID cases emerge among our staff; others have been less lucky.

15) For most restaurants, if one staff member tests positive, the whole restaurant has to shut down for ~2 weeks unexpectedly. As community spread increases, this is more and more likely to happen. We've had scares, but tests have fortunately proved negative. At the current

16) rate of COVID growth, it is likely a matter of "when" a staff member gets infected, not "if".

To that end, we (and many other restaurants we know) have voluntarily stopped indoor dining. This is because it is the right thing to do, and it helps protect our staff which allows

17) us to hopefully stay open for takeout/delivery. But while we suffer without indoor dining, other restaurants stay open, benefitting from reduced competition and "free ride" off our decisions. By shutting down all indoor dining statewide, community spread would fall rapidly.

18) This would be short-term painful for all restaurants (financial support from State/Federal is appreciated), but it is a pain shared equally, not only by those who try to do the right thing. In conclusion:

19) Many restaurant owners are being forced to close down temporarily anyway due to COVID infections among staff (this affects indoor dining AND takeout). Shutting down indoor dining helps reduce COVID spread and save lives. Reducing COVID allows all restaurants to open safely...

20) thus reducing burdensome individual decisions and removing the 'free rider' problem.

21) While RIHA asks that we do NOT "[allow] data alone to be the driving factor...", I plea that we do in fact listen to the data, and do what is best for the state/people. This will prove, long-term, to be the best for the RI Restaurant industry.

Thank you.