the researchers' recommendation:

> "'Implementing safe practices to reduce exposures to SARS-CoV-2 during on-site eating and drinking should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities and slow the spread of COVID-19,' Fisher and colleagues concluded."

which is exactly in line with opening restaurants with modest measures.

the study only provided impetus to look closer at restaurants as potentially not insignificant localities of spread due to self-reports citing slightly higher restaurant patronage in the 2 weeks prior. they declined to put forth any conclusions on prevalence or mechanisms for spread in restaurants because they didn't study those things. they only presented some statistics on the self-reports. that's it.

It's easy to point out risk. Anyone can do that.

At what point do we fully re-open? Winter 2022 after everyone has had a mandatory vaccine?

It's not enough to just point out or dismiss different risk factors as if they're all the same, and both sides of this debate on restaurants seem to be guilty of this in some circles. Evaluating risk, done appropriately, is more complicated and involves at least weighting the risks of specific dangers of different options.

Is there a particular portion of this study you're referring to? I don't see anything about risk at vs. beyond your table here.

The CDC just said yesterday that they confirm airborne transmission, and from the case of the choir whom was 6 feet apart, it sure makes it seem beyond one table worth.

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Monday took down its guidance warning on possible airborne transmission of the novel coronavirus, saying that the draft recommendation was posted in error."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-cdc-ai...

The question isn't whether it's possible at all. It is, I don't dispute that, but even post-vaccine we'll never reach a point where it's impossible to transmit the virus. The question is how high the risk is relative to other things.