Fauci: it won't be safe to go to the theater until the back end of 2021

[Marcel Birgelen]

Tenet has drawn quite some crowds over the last few weeks around here. So much, that many theaters actually filled some of their auditoriums to capacity for the first week and a half. Theaters here are obliged to register personal data for contact tracing purposes. Most of them currently only sell tickets on-line and use those details for the contact tracing. If cinemas in their current mode of operation really are a danger, I suspect we hear about it rather soon, as such a thing is sure to hit the news.

In bars and restaurants, people usually don't wear masks or at least they take them off more often. There is a lot more person-to-person interaction, people roam around much more and you also touch a whole lot more surfaces. So based on simple reasoning, those places seem to be a whole lot more dangerous to me than the average theater.

But like Steve also indicated, I really miss some hands-on research about how the virus survives in common all-day environments. I hope someone is putting some research into it, but I just can't find a whole lot about it. And while I'm certain everybody is currently busy researching something, it's often boggles my mind to extremes, knowing that just all to often, nobody is really looking at the hands-on stuff. I know there was a rather large experiment in Germany, where they put about 2000 people into a concert hall with tracing equipment installed, which aimed at answering some of the questions how a virus spreads in large indoor events, but I haven't heard any preliminary results from it yet.

[Bobby Henderson]

Yeah, I have a big problem with anyone singling out cinemas as being more dangerous than other indoor service industry businesses. And I think it's pretty odd so many of these other businesses were allowed to re-open much earlier or even continue to operate the entire duration of this pandemic. I think bars and restaurants are substantially more dangerous than cinemas; their dining/drinking areas typically don't have the cubic air space of a theater lobby or auditorium. Virus particles won't disperse as well in those more closely confined environments. Yet many of those places have been allowed to re-open far earlier than cinemas.

With that being said, there is not much data on SARS-CoV-2 spread in movie theaters due to the timing of this pandemic. This disease was gaining momentum and news coverage in January and February, a time when theater business is usually pretty slow. IIRC there hasn't been any major box office hits in 2020 prior to the industry shut-down. I don't think Parasite generated much of an Oscar-bump. It's highly unlikely any contact tracing efforts have pointed to cinemas with movie-goers sitting in elbow to elbow proximity to each other. By mid-March just about all the theaters in the US were closed. Here locally our theaters in Lawton had already been closed before any of our first confirmed local cases of SARS-CoV-2 began to appear.

In short, while there is hardly any documented cases of SARS-CoV-2 spread in American movie theaters that lack of cases doesn't prove theaters to be perfectly safe either. Any indoor business serving walk-in customers is going to pose a transmission risk. The risk goes higher for any business that allows those customers to stay in the building 20-30 minutes or longer.

[Steve Guttag]

I know they are doing testing...BUT they are also spouting that cinemas are somehow less safe than other indoor businesses too. They need to stop that unless they have the data to back it up. Thus far, real world data is showing that cinemas are as safe or safer than other indoor establishments. Either correct the statements or, at least, back off of the increasingly wrong statements.

[Bobby Henderson]

It's frustrating there is still little evidence about how exactly the virus spreads.

A monumental amount of scientific research has gone into it, but unfortunately it's all still a work in progress given no one even knew the SARS-CoV-2 virus existed a year ago. What the science and medical communities truly know is evolving as their research continues. It takes considerable time for any scientific/medical theories to finally be proven as fact.

Early on much of the concern was viral spread via surfaces. Over time that view has changed. More and more evidence is suggesting the biggest factor in SARS-CoV-2 spread is direct person to person infection via respiratory droplets. If you have a bunch of people sharing the same air in a confined space for a substantial amount of time the risk for SARS-CoV-2 spread is very high. Here at Fort Sill we had nearly an entire battery of basic training recruits (over 150 young men and women) get infected in just a couple days. Thankfully most were asymptomatic; only a few soldiers had symptoms and none were hospitalized. Previously our biggest SARS-CoV-2 outbreak locally was at the city jail. There are many other documented super-spreader events that all have shared infectious air within an indoor space as a disease spread vector.

One would think we all should err on the side of caution with our activities as research continues on learning more about this virus and finding a vaccine. Nope. Some knuckleheads out there are rejecting any advice from scientists and the medical community since the scientists and doctors didn't immediately know all there was to know about this virus from the moment it was discovered. Hence all the anti-mask Karens. It's fucking ridiculous.

"They" need to move away from the speculation stage of this and do more real-world testing to better understand how it spreads and what situations really put people at risk.

Do you not think such testing is already being conducted? Scientists and doctors around the globe are working the problem. Some are in collaborative efforts while others are in competition against each other. The problem is it takes time to conduct research, develop results and arrive at things like vaccines that are safe and effective. Meanwhile the virus is still spreading right now. The science and medical fields can't wait until all the research is done and theories proven as fact before giving the public some recommended precautions.

[Steve Guttag]

Exactly! "They" need to move away from the speculation stage of this and do more real-world testing to better understand how it spreads and what situations really put people at risk. Whereas bars have been traced to spreading the virus, cinemas have not. Why? And while it may seem obvious that with bars there is inherently close proximity it is bound to also be how people are facing, how the HVAC system operates...etc. Why are cinemas seemingly low-risk? They mostly use recirculated air and are indoors. To continue to speculate when real-world data is contradicting prediction/hypothesis is irresponsible to not only the businesses but the people and the science of understanding how this and potentially future pathogens move about.

[Marcel Birgelen]

It's frustrating there is still little evidence about how exactly the virus spreads. While there has been some research about how it survives on different surfaces in several conditions and how UV light in daylight affects it on those surfaces, there is little to no published research of how it behaves in rooms, everything there is right now is based on theories, not on actual research.

What we seem to know from empirical evidence is that cold environments and badly ventilated environments are rather bad, but for all we know, a single cycle through your average HVAC system might already render it harmless. With the current capacity restrictions in cinemas, the risks seem to be minimal, as I still don't know about any spreading event that originated in a cinema up until now.

Still, the unknown factors keep people away from cinemas all over the globe. I know a few friends and family that went out to see Tenet, but that's about it and for most it was the first movie since the initial lockdowns started back in March. Not everybody liked the experience either, because they were required to wear a mask for extended periods of time.

[Bobby Henderson]

I think Dr Fauci could have phrased his response better so it didn't seem like he was singling out commercial movie theaters. Cinemas do present their own potential hazards for the spread of SARS-CoV-2. But so do many other indoor businesses and operations -many of which have been allowed to re-open in most parts of the nation. Restaurants, bars/nightclubs and churches are back in business in many places, despite the very obvious risk.

Any indoor location that allows dozens of strangers to gather in close proximity and breathe the same recirculated air for 30 minutes to 2 hours or longer is going to pose a substantial risk, and a high one at that without various safety measures (masks, social distancing, reducing seating, etc).

The evidence is increasingly clear that it takes a certain amount of viral load for someone to get infected with SARS-CoV-2. Your chances of contracting it by passing an infected person walking the opposite direction on a sidewalk are very low. But if you're eating dinner in a restaurant and that infected person is at the next table your odds of getting infected increase radically. The luck of the draw is partially determined by which direction the restaurant's HVAC system is pushing the air.

Despite the risk, dine-in service in many restaurants across the country has resumed. The churches in my town were allowed to re-open many weeks ago. But they're each taking their own approaches for in-person or remote services, similar to schools.

Currently I would only see movie theaters as a high risk location if lots of people were clamoring to go to the show and there wasn't any restrictions on seating capacity. Right now it seems like audiences are staying away in droves. It's partly out of fear. But it's also partly because movies like The New Mutants and Tenet just aren't appealing to audiences. Both might have been duds without this pandemic.

[Mike Blakesley]

We're still getting a few phone calls, although we weren't getting all that many pre-pandemic anyway -- people look at our website or Facebook. What I *AM* getting is people saying "When are you going to play a good movie?" They apparently have decided (without seeing it) that "Tenet" is not a good movie.

What bugs me about some of these inquirers is, they bugged me all summer to play some Westerns and people seemed really excited to see "The Outlaw Josey Wales," so when we played that a couple of weeks ago, we had one good night and the rest of the week it was single digits. And then since then, people saying "We really wanted to come and see Josey Wales but we were just blah blah blah..."

We really need a must-see blockbuster (that isn't going to come out on video in 17 days). I don't see one of those on the horizon until next spring.

[Scott Norwood]

However, there are now weeks that go by when not one person phones to ask what's playing. Thinking about it now, I'll estimate that I get one phone call in about three weeks. Which is a huge decrease in people wanting information. And my email mailing list is about 5% smaller than it was, too. I never really know why people un-subscribe, but there's been about 30 people who have done so over the past six months and only about three new sign-ups. That's also different since the mailing list used to constantly grow since I started it.

That could just be natural churn, as people move on and abandon old email addresses. Assuming that your mailing-list software automatically unsubscribes addresses that generate bounces, of course. The real difference is probably that you don't have any new subscribers, since people aren't going out much right now, and there aren't many movies to see if they do.

[Martin McCaffery]

We still get plenty of robocalls!

[Buck Wilson]

People aren't phoning to ask what's playing any more.

I just happened to think about the phone last night and realized as well, that I haven't taken a single call since we've reopened. I don't think I've even heard it ring at all either.

[Frank Cox]

People aren't phoning to ask what's playing any more.

Even though I have a website and a dedicated telephone line with an answering machine to tell people what's playing, I used to get one or two phone calls on most days from someone asking "What's playing" or "What time does the show start tonight?"

(Incidentally, I've always got kind of a kick out of the people who phone and ask, "What time does the 8 o'clock show start?" Me: "It starts at 8 o'clock.")

However, there are now weeks that go by when not one person phones to ask what's playing. Thinking about it now, I'll estimate that I get one phone call in about three weeks. Which is a huge decrease in people wanting information. And my email mailing list is about 5% smaller than it was, too. I never really know why people un-subscribe, but there's been about 30 people who have done so over the past six months and only about three new sign-ups. That's also different since the mailing list used to constantly grow since I started it.

[Ed Gordon]

The entire Instagram interview is available to watch at https://www.instagram.com/p/CE7tWzinTI8/ You don't need an Instagram account to view the video.

There is an long pause while Jenifer Garner waits for Dr Fauci to join the meeting online.

Even though it may be possible to go to large indoor gatherings wearing a mask in the near future, that does not mean people will feel comfortable doing it anytime soon. If the 1918 pandemic is any guide as to what to expect, it may take up to two years for large indoor venue attendance to return to "normal".

[Steve Guttag]

Leo, it would be with respect to masking versus vaccination. If people want to to be maskless around others, the "others" would need some form of immunity. There is going to be new case law surrounding this for years to come. I could see someone equally stating that since they have been vaccinated that should not be required to wear a mask as the reason for it is eliminated (since they are immune, they don't have the virus to spread to others.

As for confidence...that will vary greatly amongst the population. There are some side effects that it will take a year or more to know about, particularly with pregnant women (and that will be true for any pregnant women that happen to catch COVID-19 too).

Dr. Fauci still needs to back up his claims with facts/data and stop with the hypothesis/speculation as we are now getting statistical data based on real world conditions. NATO is just such an organization that should be hammering that to him until he notes cinemas's case record. Part of consumer confidence is NOT hearing the government proclaim that you'll die (high risk) going to cinemas.

[Leo Enticknap]

I could see businesses, until we have a herd immunity of vaccinated people, requiring proof of vaccination to enter a business as a means to remove the mask requirement and distancing.

That would be both a political and legal ass-coverage minefield. When one or more vaccines (several, developed independently, are currently in third stage trials, not to mention the ones that China and Russia appear to be rolling out already, without any of this wussy faffing around with clinical trials!) do become widely available, the big questions for each one will be:

1 - Does it work (defined as providing immunity both from developing C19 symptoms and being a vector)?
2 - Does it have any undesirable side effects?

I suspect that the reason Fauci talked of a vaccine "that has been around for almost a year" is that he suspects that it will take that long for the population as a whole to have real confidence in claims of yes to 1 and no to 2. The Andrew Wakefield/anti-vaxxer brigade will be watching like a hawk for any no to 1/yes to 2 evidence - especially the latter - and if they think they've found any, screaming about it from the digital rooftops. For a business to make proof of vaccination a condition of doing business with it before that confidence is established would at the very least be to risk some extremely negative PR, should any questions about the vaccine(s) later gain traction.

None of which is any reason why Fauci should be singling out theaters for scaremongering. Though to be fair to him, his remarks were in the context of an answer to a question from a movie actress, specifically about theaters.