I didn't see the commenter arguing on behalf of outdoor dining, so that's a bit of a straw man argument. Additionally, there's a difference between people opting to participate in mutually risky behavior (eating maskless in a restaurant during a pandemic) vs. imposing their risky behavior on people not participating (maskless jogging in shared spaces where others are acting responsibly by wearing masks).

I see it all the time and I personally think it's incredibly irresponsible. But hey - we have to keep the restaurants in business...at the expense of prolonging the pandemic.

Here's an idea, you can already keep them in business, order delivery w/ no-contact delivery.

Yes, life is certainly inconvenienced, but what's the alternative? Is going out to dinner worth directly or indirectly killing another human being over?

> But hey - we have to keep the restaurants in business...at the expense of prolonging the pandemic.

Could you elaborate on what "prolong" means? Say we shut down the entire country for 4 weeks and get the virus under control. Is the pandemic now "over" (i.e. no longer prolonged) and we can reopen restaurants again at full capacity and just treat individual outbreaks? Or is it going to be cyclical where cases start rising again and the governors start cracking down again ad infinitum? For island nations that can control who goes in and out it's one thing, but it's going to be very hard for USA or EU which has open borders between states to control spread of contagious disease.

Or the people who don't want to eat at restaurants and walk past people on a trail should just stay home. I certainly haven't seen the evidence that these are risky activities. You can't eliminate any risk without literally putting everyone in quarantine by themselves.

> Or the people who don't want to eat at restaurants and walk past people on a trail should just stay home.

Spoken like a true narcisist. This is the exact behavior that produces the continued rise in cases across the country.

> I certainly haven't seen the evidence that these are risky activities.

Well, I'm glad you've appointed yourself epidemiologist-in-chief.

> You can't eliminate any risk without literally putting everyone in quarantine by themselves.

No, you can eliminate much of the risk by isolating with your household, occupation permitting.

A little compassion for people would go a long way.

I am following the rules in my very blue state. ADDED: (And, in fact, going beyond them as I'll pull up a neck gaiter on a trail if I'm approaching although distanced from people wearing masks--to increase their comfort level.) I also mostly avoid busier recreation areas and have only done outdoor dining a couple of times. But, yes, I think that so long as people are following what seem to be fairly conservative government guidelines, those who don't agree with the government's assessment should stay home rather than expect people en masse to behave in ways that go beyond state mandates and recommendations.