dining, but I'm not sure I see the endgame.

First, we don't even know with certainty that indoor dining is absolutely a key core spreading event. It does make sense to me that it can be and I know we can only go on our best guesses, but it would have been really nice to have a little more statistical based evidence behind this -- things we could have done with additional contact tracing and analysis. For all we read about sensible theories, we have also read tons of other things like, for example, how a small number of people seem to be responsible for some larger percentages of spread.

It does then make sense than this could be greatly helped by legit limits inside restaurants, although I understand the practical issues actually enforcing this -- coupled unfortunately with too many who simply will not on their honor try and adhere to capacity limits. So it seems to leave us with no choice but full indoor shutdown in an effort to get ANY adherence.

Then -- you are right -- what really is the endgame? There is always talk about trying to just relieve the strain and I agree with this, but is it even remotely realistic that if restaurants are then allowed to open up to some capacity limits in the middle of winter that we won't just spike up again, assuming we really think this is a primary driver? If not, is the plan to tell them to stay closed until essentially the weather warms enough so people can eat outside again, 4-6 months from now?

I am not assuming the worst and I know people are just trying to make the smartest decisions possible with imperfect information. But I do understand the anxiety.