I'm not going to make the case that either is good policy, just that they can coexist as sensible with what we roughly know.

Some will argue over some of the foundation to it, but they aren't wrong on their face (masks matter, vulnerable people should have some ability to move about, restaurants operating has a value, wearing a mask is trivial to do, etc.). Granted "masks matter" is perhaps different from "masks matter outside" but that's different from "masks matter outside in a crowd".

Sure, it's a high risk is allowed and a low risk that isn't; that doesn't make sense from that perspective alone. However, factor in cost, compounding risk, and ability for vulnerable folks to not be completely cut-off.

First, it's just cost-benefit. The mask policy has little cost and some value. On the other hand, dining out seems to have quite a bit of value while the cost can be controlled by other rules. It's somewhat subjective, but not illogical to arrive at.


Second, the fewer risks you take, the better off you are; so even if you won't refuse one risk, the others you do refuse matter:
P(Not Sick with the rule) = P(Not sick while dining)
P(Not sick without rule) = P(Not sick while dining)*P(not sick walking down the street)
0 < P(X) ()= P(Not sick without rule)

Third, it's a lot easier for an individual, say someone particularly at risk, to choose not to dine out then it is for someone to avoid all businesses/public/where they might live.

[Post edited by jmanatVT at 09/09/2020 11:55AM]