Coronavirus

[The Walrus]

Why shouldn't heat lamps and tents be set up? How does anybody expect restaurants to survive the winter if they can't do this? You're going to see the entire industry collapse by December if they can't do something to bring in business. At the very least it might keep away a good number of people who simply don't want to eat outside even in a tent with heat lamps.

[MoraWintersoul]

How does anybody expect restaurants to survive the winter if they can't do this? You're going to see the entire industry collapse by December if they can't do something to bring in business.

They should be closed for business, and (this is the key part) paid to remain closed. This way they get to shop for tents and heat lamps and cleaning supplies and pay for three mask changes per day per employee and deal with increased stress, and on top of it all, have people on TV saying "going to restaurants isn't safe, you really should avoid going there". And if at the end of it all they have to close, they will just be another business that didn't survive the difficult times.

[DragonAttack]

Also with the tents....when dining with friends, my wife and I could move our chairs so that we were 4-5 feet away from the other couple, instead of less than three.  When it was just the two of us, we'd dine indoors since every other table or booth was made unavailable.  We tried to support while being safe.  Smaller places we have simply shied away from.  The only inside dining with friends for the next 4-6 months will be from our garage with carry out or deliveries.  That will continue to help some, but not getting that extra cash from all beverages really bites into whatever profit margin they may have had.

The real sh*t storm for restaurants will be next year.  Those that haven't already shut down will have to, and those that my rise back up will be doing so under different management,  perhaps after cleverly navigating the bankruptcy laws.

[The Walrus]

How does anybody expect restaurants to survive the winter if they can't do this? You're going to see the entire industry collapse by December if they can't do something to bring in business.

They should be closed for business, and (this is the key part) paid to remain closed. This way they get to shop for tents and heat lamps and cleaning supplies and pay for three mask changes per day per employee and deal with increased stress, and on top of it all, have people on TV saying "going to restaurants isn't safe, you really should avoid going there". And if at the end of it all they have to close, they will just be another business that didn't survive the difficult times.

This is a lovely idea to just toss out there for conversation, but do you have any idea how much money you are asking for right there? To pay restaurants, their employees, their taxes, their overhead, to stay closed indefinitely? You're literally talking about floating an entire industry with magic money in a country that's deeper in debt than it has ever been before. Where do you expect all this money to come from, and do you not think there will be any economic repercussions in the future from doing something like that? And then saying, "they'll just be another business that didn't survive" because you expect everybody to hide in a bunker - how callous is that? Restaurants already, pre-covid, operate on INCREDIBLY thin margins, walking the razor's edge. This is nuts to me.

[ErHaO]

Our government is giving the hospitality sector a stimulus. Some restaurants, even fancy ones, converted to take away for the time being. But in the end for sure many restaurants, bars etc. will not survive and the damage to the branche will last for years to come.

[cramx3]

One thing I've noticed around here is that many restaurants are setting up tents outside...with sidings, being heated by propane heaters.

Can I ask a dumb question? How is this any safer than actually eating inside?

I think it's because the air filter systems on restaurants are likely not very good for circulating and filtering the air so if someone's got the corona, its way more likely to spread indoors than outdoors.  So I guess even if you surround yourself in a tent, there's probably still better airflow than indoors.  I may be wrong, I can see some people creating these tents that have no airflow.  The one tent I ate in when I was on vacation in Portland Maine, seemed not much different than just being indoors but maybe there was a good design on the air circulation.  I can't find it now, but I saw an article about how one gym instructor had covid but no one in the gym got sick because someone designed the air circulation so that it was more "open air" and lead to better air flow.

As much as I want to celebrate Thanksgiving with my parents an siblings, part of me wishes they'd just make us all stay home again. Announce it in a way that makes it clear that we're sacrificing Thanksgiving so we can save Christmas. That said, I'll be celebrating Thanksgiving with a smaller than normal crew as long as we're able to.

I think even if we all stayed in for Thanksgiving, it may be too late to save Christmas given how the numbers lag by so much.

[MirrorMask]

How does anybody expect restaurants to survive the winter if they can't do this? You're going to see the entire industry collapse by December if they can't do something to bring in business.

They should be closed for business, and (this is the key part) paid to remain closed. This way they get to shop for tents and heat lamps and cleaning supplies and pay for three mask changes per day per employee and deal with increased stress, and on top of it all, have people on TV saying "going to restaurants isn't safe, you really should avoid going there". And if at the end of it all they have to close, they will just be another business that didn't survive the difficult times.

This is a lovely idea to just toss out there for conversation, but do you have any idea how much money you are asking for right there? To pay restaurants, their employees, their taxes, their overhead, to stay closed indefinitely? You're literally talking about floating an entire industry with magic money in a country that's deeper in debt than it has ever been before. Where do you expect all this money to come from, and do you not think there will be any economic repercussions in the future from doing something like that? And then saying, "they'll just be another business that didn't survive" because you expect everybody to hide in a bunker - how callous is that? Restaurants already, pre-covid, operate on INCREDIBLY thin margins, walking the razor's edge. This is nuts to me.

This is basically the short blanket scenario. You have a blanket that's too short, you cover your feet but you get cold in your chest. Then you pull up the blanket to cover your head, but then your feet get cold.

Mora didn't suggest a nuts scenario, she just laid out the perfect one in an ideal world. Pay everyone to stay home and stay closed and support them. Of course this clashes with the reality of the economics and the lack of an infinite fund of money to take from. This is where all the politics come into play and basically every government is stuck in that game of keeping the plates rotating on top of sticks and chasing after them, and often making them fall to the ground anyway in the very intent to keep them spinning.

[Ben_Jamin]

How does anybody expect restaurants to survive the winter if they can't do this? You're going to see the entire industry collapse by December if they can't do something to bring in business.

They should be closed for business, and (this is the key part) paid to remain closed. This way they get to shop for tents and heat lamps and cleaning supplies and pay for three mask changes per day per employee and deal with increased stress, and on top of it all, have people on TV saying "going to restaurants isn't safe, you really should avoid going there". And if at the end of it all they have to close, they will just be another business that didn't survive the difficult times.

This is a lovely idea to just toss out there for conversation, but do you have any idea how much money you are asking for right there? To pay restaurants, their employees, their taxes, their overhead, to stay closed indefinitely? You're literally talking about floating an entire industry with magic money in a country that's deeper in debt than it has ever been before. Where do you expect all this money to come from, and do you not think there will be any economic repercussions in the future from doing something like that? And then saying, "they'll just be another business that didn't survive" because you expect everybody to hide in a bunker - how callous is that? Restaurants already, pre-covid, operate on INCREDIBLY thin margins, walking the razor's edge. This is nuts to me.

This is basically the short blanket scenario. You have a blanket that's too short, you cover your feet but you get cold in your chest. Then you pull up the blanket to cover your head, but then your feet get cold.

Mora didn't suggest a nuts scenario, she just laid out the perfect one in an ideal world. Pay everyone to stay home and stay closed and support them. Of course this clashes with the reality of the economics and the lack of an infinite fund of money to take from. This is where all the politics come into play and basically every government is stuck in that game of keeping the plates rotating on top of sticks and chasing after them, and often making them fall to the ground anyway in the very intent to keep them spinning.

Yeah it's a pipedream. And one that will never happen in REALITY.

The Reality is we are making ourselves further into debt. People are expecting or wanting the government to give them money. But where exactly is this going to come from, later on down the line they could collect their debt and what will they take?

People realize this and are wanting to rather work than fear the Covid. It's actually odd when you factor in those "essential" workers. It explains the rise in Hiring as wellz because employees either quit or can't work anymore because they're sick and the company has no choice but to let them go, because the labor demand is high.

[MoraWintersoul]

And then saying, "they'll just be another business that didn't survive" because you expect everybody to hide in a bunker - how callous is that?

That's not what I'm saying, that's what the economists will be saying when all of this is over. Whomp whomp, the times were so hard that they had to close, wish this could have been avoided.

Clearly restaurants are important enough to us that we're ready to risk infection to keep our favorite ones in business (I'm not kidding - that's the only reason why I went out anywhere, before things were closed, even though I didn't particularly want to), so why can't we brainstorm another way to keep them open? What's the alternative? When all this is over, people won't have any money to start new restaurants and gyms unless you give them some sort of a stimulus anyway. Again, the only alternative is keeping them "open" but encouraging people not to go there and expecting them not to go there but the restaurants foot the bill of remaining open with no money coming in.

The only reason why we're even talking about restaurants is because that's what 90% of people do, at least sometimes, they go out to eat. No one asked venues which hosts events if they wanna close, no one asked independent theatres, movie theatres, no one asked bands if they wanna stop touring, no one asked conventions, festivals. If we can't agree that something 90% of people do deserves to be protected in some way, what hope is there for other things.

[lordxizor]

As much as I want to celebrate Thanksgiving with my parents an siblings, part of me wishes they'd just make us all stay home again. Announce it in a way that makes it clear that we're sacrificing Thanksgiving so we can save Christmas. That said, I'll be celebrating Thanksgiving with a smaller than normal crew as long as we're able to.

I think even if we all stayed in for Thanksgiving, it may be too late to save Christmas given how the numbers lag by so much.

If they shut things down today, numbers should be lower within a month if people actually stay home. The lag is only a couple weeks. But honestly, I think a stay at home order would maybe prevent 20% at best from cancelling their Thanksgiving plans. Given that the orders are not really enforced in any real way, most are just going to do what they want anyway. And I don't blame them really. Getting together with loved ones at holidays is one of the last things that should be taken away.

[Implode]

I agree that the impact on the economy and national debt if we were to shut down everything is not insignificant, but shouldn't human lives be more important than that? I know it's an incredibly complicated issue, but something doesn't sit right with me that one of the prices we put on human lives now is that which we are unwilling to pay to allow restaurants to temporarily close down without them going out of business.

But I guess that's part of American culture; we like to put the onus on the individual to save money, keep their business afloat, and stay alive rather than the government, even during a global pandemic. I would like to think that protecting its citizens from an event like this as best as it can is one of the purposes of government in the first place.

[Stadler]

And then saying, "they'll just be another business that didn't survive" because you expect everybody to hide in a bunker - how callous is that?

That's not what I'm saying, that's what the economists will be saying when all of this is over. Whomp whomp, the times were so hard that they had to close, wish this could have been avoided.

Clearly restaurants are important enough to us that we're ready to risk infection to keep our favorite ones in business (I'm not kidding - that's the only reason why I went out anywhere, before things were closed, even though I didn't particularly want to), so why can't we brainstorm another way to keep them open? What's the alternative? When all this is over, people won't have any money to start new restaurants and gyms unless you give them some sort of a stimulus anyway. Again, the only alternative is keeping them "open" but encouraging people not to go there and expecting them not to go there but the restaurants foot the bill of remaining open with no money coming in.

The only reason why we're even talking about restaurants is because that's what 90% of people do, at least sometimes, they go out to eat. No one asked venues which hosts events if they wanna close, no one asked independent theatres, movie theatres, no one asked bands if they wanna stop touring, no one asked conventions, festivals. If we can't agree that something 90% of people do deserves to be protected in some way, what hope is there for other things.

I'm not taking sides here, but for discussion purposes:  the restaurant industry in the U.S. is about a $1 TRILLION industry, and employs about 10% of our work force. When you factor in support industries (distribution, etc.) it's about 20% of our work force.  Over 95% of those are small and/or family owned businesses with less than 50 employees.   (Cites: https://www.forbes.com/sites/elvaramirez/2020/03/19/the-restaurant-industry-needs-a-coronavirus-bailout-will-they-get-it/?sh=75752ae76801 and https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/03/20/cincinnati-restaurants-ask-feds-for-coronavirus.html, though they might be behind a paywall).   

Having said that, it seems like restaurants, bars and gyms are a key component in the transmission of the virus. (Cite: https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/operations/new-cdc-report-cites-dining-out-significant-covid-risk and https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/11/10/coronavirus-restaurants-gyms-hotels-risk/)

SOMETHING has to be done. Whether it's paying them or being more creative - I personally wouldn't pay restaurants to close down, but I WOULD subsidize take out and delivery to allow them to do what they do without having people IN the facility - it's not something we can ignore and hope takes care of itself (and I'm not suggesting that's what anyone is saying).

[MoraWintersoul]

it's not something we can ignore and hope takes care of itself (and I'm not suggesting that's what anyone is saying).

Yeah, that's definitely not what the Walrus is saying. The way I understand it, he's saying, allow the restaurants to do whatever they can to keep the money coming in. I'm just saying, why do they have to be alone in that? Why is the only way to keep the business open to have us in there, sitting inside (a tent?), ordering a meal and eating it? For something we all appreciate, something we all wanna keep open?

I was cranky earlier in the thread about how I didn't wanna do anything and how nothing that's actually open is worth the risk of getting out of the house for me. But that doesn't mean "oh well, what I like is closed, restaurants can die as far as I'm concerned if they don't get the magic stimulus which I dreamed up for them, since I don't actually care". I really do care.

[cramx3]

I agree that the impact on the economy and national debt if we were to shut down everything is not insignificant, but shouldn't human lives be more important than that? I know it's an incredibly complicated issue, but something doesn't sit right with me that one of the prices we put on human lives now is that which we are unwilling to pay to allow restaurants to temporarily close down without them going out of business.

It seems we've drawn that line at ICU capacity.  I get the feeling, when ICUs are full or overwhelmed, that is when the government will step in and shut things down and hopefully provide some relief to those who need it.  I agree, it's a complicated issue and I don't have the answers of how and when we should shut things down to save human lives over the economy.

[Stadler]

I was cranky earlier in the thread about how I didn't wanna do anything and how nothing that's actually open is worth the risk of getting out of the house for me. But that doesn't mean "oh well, what I like is closed, restaurants can die as far as I'm concerned if they don't get the magic stimulus which I dreamed up for them, since I don't actually care". I really do care.

FWIW, I never thought otherwise.

[The Walrus]

it's not something we can ignore and hope takes care of itself (and I'm not suggesting that's what anyone is saying).

Yeah, that's definitely not what the Walrus is saying. The way I understand it, he's saying, allow the restaurants to do whatever they can to keep the money coming in. I'm just saying, why do they have to be alone in that? Why is the only way to keep the business open to have us in there, sitting inside (a tent?), ordering a meal and eating it? For something we all appreciate, something we all wanna keep open?

I was cranky earlier in the thread about how I didn't wanna do anything and how nothing that's actually open is worth the risk of getting out of the house for me. But that doesn't mean "oh well, what I like is closed, restaurants can die as far as I'm concerned if they don't get the magic stimulus which I dreamed up for them, since I don't actually care". I really do care.

Precisely. And if I came off as snippy in my post towards you, Mora, I apologize, that certainly wasn't the tone I was going for. I'm just very concerned what this winter is going to do to the economy, the restaurant industry, how much faster infection is going to spread. I do think they have to do whatever they can to stay open but I don't think shutting everything down and just printing a metric fuckton of money is the solution - just my opinion, in my own words

I just don't think there's a good solution one way or another, honestly, at this point. Whatever the solution is, someone or some people are going to be negatively impacted. I do not envy health and government officials who have to make the decisions on how to handle this because they will be vilified no matter what they do.

[The Walrus]

I agree that the impact on the economy and national debt if we were to shut down everything is not insignificant, but shouldn't human lives be more important than that? I know it's an incredibly complicated issue, but something doesn't sit right with me that one of the prices we put on human lives now is that which we are unwilling to pay to allow restaurants to temporarily close down without them going out of business.

But I guess that's part of American culture; we like to put the onus on the individual to save money, keep their business afloat, and stay alive rather than the government, even during a global pandemic. I would like to think that protecting its citizens from an event like this as best as it can is one of the purposes of government in the first place.

Human lives should be more important than that. But, and here's where I will argue for anyone who chooses to go out and patronize these restaurants, why can't people be allowed to decide what is in their best interest? You staying home doesn't actually make you any better than someone who wants to go out and get a meal, it really doesn't, because plenty still go out and eat and don't get infected. My point about not paying every restaurant to stay closed is not because I value restaurants over human lives, but because economically speaking the premise fundamentally requires an absolutely staggering amount of money from a government that is already up to its ears in debt and shows no signs of slowing down.

[jingle.boy]

How does anybody expect restaurants to survive the winter if they can't do this? You're going to see the entire industry collapse by December if they can't do something to bring in business.

They should be closed for business, and (this is the key part) paid to remain closed. This way they get to shop for tents and heat lamps and cleaning supplies and pay for three mask changes per day per employee and deal with increased stress, and on top of it all, have people on TV saying "going to restaurants isn't safe, you really should avoid going there". And if at the end of it all they have to close, they will just be another business that didn't survive the difficult times.

This is a lovely idea to just toss out there for conversation, but do you have any idea how much money you are asking for right there? To pay restaurants, their employees, their taxes, their overhead, to stay closed indefinitely? You're literally talking about floating an entire industry with magic money in a country that's deeper in debt than it has ever been before. Where do you expect all this money to come from, and do you not think there will be any economic repercussions in the future from doing something like that? And then saying, "they'll just be another business that didn't survive" because you expect everybody to hide in a bunker - how callous is that? Restaurants already, pre-covid, operate on INCREDIBLY thin margins, walking the razor's edge. This is nuts to me.

It wouldn't be the first time the gov't bailed out an industry.  Let me count the ways ... Finance, Auto (10 years ago); Farming (routinely).  Many others.  I don't agree with Milena's idea, but SOMETHING has to be done to balance transmission reduction and economic livelihood

I agree that the impact on the economy and national debt if we were to shut down everything is not insignificant, but shouldn't human lives be more important than that? I know it's an incredibly complicated issue, but something doesn't sit right with me that one of the prices we put on human lives now is that which we are unwilling to pay to allow restaurants to temporarily close down without them going out of business.

It seems we've drawn that line at ICU capacity.  I get the feeling, when ICUs are full or overwhelmed, that is when the government will step in and shut things down and hopefully provide some relief to those who need it.  I agree, it's a complicated issue and I don't have the answers of how and when we should shut things down to save human lives over the economy.

And sadly, waiting to *react* means you're already 2-4 weeks too late.  Did we not learn that back in March/April?

le sigh

[The Walrus]

How does anybody expect restaurants to survive the winter if they can't do this? You're going to see the entire industry collapse by December if they can't do something to bring in business.

They should be closed for business, and (this is the key part) paid to remain closed. This way they get to shop for tents and heat lamps and cleaning supplies and pay for three mask changes per day per employee and deal with increased stress, and on top of it all, have people on TV saying "going to restaurants isn't safe, you really should avoid going there". And if at the end of it all they have to close, they will just be another business that didn't survive the difficult times.

This is a lovely idea to just toss out there for conversation, but do you have any idea how much money you are asking for right there? To pay restaurants, their employees, their taxes, their overhead, to stay closed indefinitely? You're literally talking about floating an entire industry with magic money in a country that's deeper in debt than it has ever been before. Where do you expect all this money to come from, and do you not think there will be any economic repercussions in the future from doing something like that? And then saying, "they'll just be another business that didn't survive" because you expect everybody to hide in a bunker - how callous is that? Restaurants already, pre-covid, operate on INCREDIBLY thin margins, walking the razor's edge. This is nuts to me.

It wouldn't be the first time the gov't bailed out an industry.  Let me count the ways ... Finance, Auto (10 years ago); Farming (routinely).  Many others.  I don't agree with Milena's idea, but SOMETHING has to be done to balance transmission reduction and economic livelihood

SOMETHING, but I just don't agree that shutting down an entire industry is the way to do it. It asks way too much money from the government, and it also opens the floodgates to shutting down any number of other industries, and that cost is going to snowball out of control very fast. Just because the government has done it in the past does not mean it should be the go-to solution, especially now when the restaurant industry is not the only industry being severely negatively impacted. ESPECIALLY when said industry was already a risky business to jump into before the pandemic. Just my two cents. And let's not get started on the farming...

My very brief thoughts are that the pandemic (and I've believed this for most of the year) has made a stronger argument for universal basic income, which I think is a more sound long term solution, but not without its own problems.

[Implode]

My point about not paying every restaurant to stay closed is not because I value restaurants over human lives, but because economically speaking the premise fundamentally requires an absolutely staggering amount of money from a government that is already up to its ears in debt and shows no signs of slowing down.

I'll address this first. I didn't intend to imply that you personally have made that value judgement. Yes, we are up to our ears in debt, and as others have said better than I did in the past few posts, it's not as simple as paying restaurants to be closed for economic reasons. I guess my main point is similar to what Staddler said in that something has to be done. I feel like we're smarter than this: where we're doing nothing.

But, and here's where I will argue for anyone who chooses to go out and patronize these restaurants, why can't people be allowed to decide what is in their best interest? You staying home doesn't actually make you any better than someone who wants to go out and get a meal, it really doesn't, because plenty still go out and eat and don't get infected.

In this scenario, we can't just allow people to make the choice for themselves any more than we can't allow people to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or allow people to make the choice for an opt-in fire department service. The act of going out to eat doesn't just affect that person. If that person is infected, they can easily spread it. That alone should make it obvious enough that we can't just allow people to choose to go to restaurants. But less direct than that, the fact that people want to continue to go out gives more incentive for restaurants to stay open. Many employees would rather not be there, but are forced to keep up with the little business they have. Cultural because people see other people going out, many others will think it's okay, and then over time we'll arrive where we are now: where daily cases are constantly hitting new highs, but no one seems to care at all. People just want to stick their head in the sand and pretend everything is okay and nothing bad will happen to them.

Plenty of people go out and don't get infected, yes. But plenty of people do. And those people will go out and infect others. Hell, in Florida I personally know people that know they are currently infected with covid-19 and still fight to be able to go out to eat. People absolutely cannot be trusted to act responsibly. It's sad, but it's true. Clearly we can't trust the American population any more than we can trust a class of 1st graders.

[The Walrus]

Plenty of people also smoke and get cancer, some don't. Plenty of people go out in winter and get the flu, some don't. Human nature is not to be bunkered up for 10 months. I feel like we have to factor this in. We can't all throw our hands up in the air and act like humanity is this callous, hopeless species because a virus is doing its thing and we're falling victim to it. We fucked up handling it early on and there's no putting the toothpaste back in the bottle. The juice is loose, if you will. You have to let people go on living their lives and hopefully the vaccines will be here sooner rather than later. That's the only hope at this point of getting past this. Believe me, I would like nothing more than for everybody to just sit inside for 6 weeks and let it all go away. But that is so unrealistic it's laughable. Remember I'm not arguing for gatherings of people, just people sitting in a tent to get a meal.

[ErHaO]

I mean, the hospitality branche is, what, a couple % of the total GDP in most western countries? I agree it is not feasible to just pay every restaurant the amount they usually make. But there is a lot of middle ground to cover between fully open and no stimulus and completely closed and payment in full. And yes, I know other branches are also need, so it isn't simple. But I feel with a good balance in finance you can probably save a lot of the healthy joints that have/had reserves.

[ErHaO]

Plenty of people also smoke and get cancer, some don't. Plenty of people go out in winter and get the flu, some don't. Human nature is not to be bunkered up for 10 months. I feel like we have to factor this in. We can't all throw our hands up in the air and act like humanity is this worthless, hopeless species because a virus is doing its thing. We fucked up handling it early on and there's no putting the toothpaste back in the bottle. The juice is loose, if you will. You have to let people go on living their lives and hopefully the vaccines will be here sooner rather than later. That's the only hope at this point of getting past this.

Hospitals have the resources to treat the steady influx of cancer patients.

For corona, they do not. While tragic, the current deathrate isn't it's major problem. If hospitals reach a point where there is no place anymore, a large amount of would-be hospitalization cases will potentially have a deadly outcome. Because, well, they cannot get treatment. And given the amount of hospitalizations vs deaths, that number has the chance to far exceed current death numbers. It unfortunately still remains a fact that whole of a lot of people require weeks or even well over a month of hospitalization. Those people are there because they need it. And on top of covid cases, also other medical issues can have a deadly outcome, where under normal circumstances the patient would recover under good care.

I don't know how the US government communicates with it's people, but our government has been very clear that that is the scenario they want to prevent at high cost.

[The Walrus]

Plenty of people also smoke and get cancer, some don't. Plenty of people go out in winter and get the flu, some don't. Human nature is not to be bunkered up for 10 months. I feel like we have to factor this in. We can't all throw our hands up in the air and act like humanity is this worthless, hopeless species because a virus is doing its thing. We fucked up handling it early on and there's no putting the toothpaste back in the bottle. The juice is loose, if you will. You have to let people go on living their lives and hopefully the vaccines will be here sooner rather than later. That's the only hope at this point of getting past this.

Hospitals have the resources to treat the steady influx of cancer patients.

For corona, they do not. While tragic, the current deathrate isn't it's major problem. If hospitals reach a point where there is no place anymore, a large amount of would-be hospitalization cases will potentially have a deadly outcome. Because, well, they cannot get treatment. And given the amount of hospitalizations vs deaths, that number has the chance to far exceed current death numbers. It unfortunately still remains a fact that whole of a lot of people require weeks or even well over a month of hospitalization. Those people are there because they need it. And on top of covid cases, also other medical issues can have a deadly outcome, where under normal circumstances the patient would recover under good care.

I don't know how the US government communicates with it's people, but our government has been very clear that that is the scenario they want to prevent at high cost.

And I know and agree with all of that. I was saying all of this back in April.

[Grappler]

Plenty of people also smoke and get cancer, some don't. Plenty of people go out in winter and get the flu, some don't. Human nature is not to be bunkered up for 10 months. I feel like we have to factor this in. We can't all throw our hands up in the air and act like humanity is this callous, hopeless species because a virus is doing its thing and we're falling victim to it. We fucked up handling it early on and there's no putting the toothpaste back in the bottle. The juice is loose, if you will. You have to let people go on living their lives and hopefully the vaccines will be here sooner rather than later. That's the only hope at this point of getting past this. Believe me, I would like nothing more than for everybody to just sit inside for 6 weeks and let it all go away. But that is so unrealistic it's laughable. Remember I'm not arguing for gatherings of people, just people sitting in a tent to get a meal.

I feel like it's a societal problem, not an industry's problem.

When case counts were lower, we were going to a restaurant now and then, usually at off-times, so that it wasn't too crowded.  But the fact that so many people HAVE to have a restaurant experience instead of eating at home (or at least getting takeout) boggles my mind a bit.  You can still support a restaurant by ordering something from them, without having to spend 60 minutes within the vicinity of other people. 

How would our society have lasted during WII - those people truly sacrificed through food and gas rationing and going without certain things because the factories switched to making war products.  But now, people are throwing fits over a luxury, like being able to go out to eat.  Get your takeout and stay at home, so that when my father in law has another heart attack or if his crohn's starts making him bleed liters of blood out of his rectum, there's room in the hospital for him.  That's what people are forgetting.  Just because we flattened the curve once, doesn't mean that we don't have to do it again.

[The Walrus]

Plenty of people also smoke and get cancer, some don't. Plenty of people go out in winter and get the flu, some don't. Human nature is not to be bunkered up for 10 months. I feel like we have to factor this in. We can't all throw our hands up in the air and act like humanity is this callous, hopeless species because a virus is doing its thing and we're falling victim to it. We fucked up handling it early on and there's no putting the toothpaste back in the bottle. The juice is loose, if you will. You have to let people go on living their lives and hopefully the vaccines will be here sooner rather than later. That's the only hope at this point of getting past this. Believe me, I would like nothing more than for everybody to just sit inside for 6 weeks and let it all go away. But that is so unrealistic it's laughable. Remember I'm not arguing for gatherings of people, just people sitting in a tent to get a meal.

I feel like it's a societal problem, not an industry's problem.

When case counts were lower, we were going to a restaurant now and then, usually at off-times, so that it wasn't too crowded.  But the fact that so many people HAVE to have a restaurant experience instead of eating at home (or at least getting takeout) boggles my mind a bit.  You can still support a restaurant by ordering something from them, without having to spend 60 minutes within the vicinity of other people. 

How would our society have lasted during WII - those people truly sacrificed through food and gas rationing and going without certain things because the factories switched to making war products.  But now, people are throwing fits over a luxury, like being able to go out to eat.  Get your takeout and stay at home, so that when my father in law has another heart attack or if his crohn's starts making him bleed liters of blood out of his rectum, there's room in the hospital for him.  That's what people are forgetting.  Just because we flattened the curve once, doesn't mean that we don't have to do it again.

So (and I'm not being combative, I'm just typing stream of consciousness here) going to the grocery store where literally everybody has to go, is touching everything, is acceptable and we don't shame anybody for spending time in there, but being spread out outdoors trying to patronize a restaurant is bad? This is arbitrary judgment. This is what I don't get. Why not keep everybody at home and make the grocery stores deliver, then? If we are positing that restaurants should do that in order to avoid shutting down and dying, why not apply that to the grocery stores, where nobody's complaining about people going in and out all day long? I personally wouldn't call going out and getting a meal a 'luxury' per se, but I'm not trying to dine at a fine establishment, just the mom and pop store downtown.

[cramx3]

I think it comes down to the term "essential" and restaurants are not considered that.

[Grappler]

Plenty of people also smoke and get cancer, some don't. Plenty of people go out in winter and get the flu, some don't. Human nature is not to be bunkered up for 10 months. I feel like we have to factor this in. We can't all throw our hands up in the air and act like humanity is this callous, hopeless species because a virus is doing its thing and we're falling victim to it. We fucked up handling it early on and there's no putting the toothpaste back in the bottle. The juice is loose, if you will. You have to let people go on living their lives and hopefully the vaccines will be here sooner rather than later. That's the only hope at this point of getting past this. Believe me, I would like nothing more than for everybody to just sit inside for 6 weeks and let it all go away. But that is so unrealistic it's laughable. Remember I'm not arguing for gatherings of people, just people sitting in a tent to get a meal.

I feel like it's a societal problem, not an industry's problem.

When case counts were lower, we were going to a restaurant now and then, usually at off-times, so that it wasn't too crowded.  But the fact that so many people HAVE to have a restaurant experience instead of eating at home (or at least getting takeout) boggles my mind a bit.  You can still support a restaurant by ordering something from them, without having to spend 60 minutes within the vicinity of other people. 

How would our society have lasted during WII - those people truly sacrificed through food and gas rationing and going without certain things because the factories switched to making war products.  But now, people are throwing fits over a luxury, like being able to go out to eat.  Get your takeout and stay at home, so that when my father in law has another heart attack or if his crohn's starts making him bleed liters of blood out of his rectum, there's room in the hospital for him.  That's what people are forgetting.  Just because we flattened the curve once, doesn't mean that we don't have to do it again.

So (and I'm not being combative, I'm just typing stream of consciousness here) going to the grocery store where literally everybody has to go, is touching everything, is acceptable and we don't shame anybody for spending time in there, but being spread out outdoors trying to patronize a restaurant is bad? This is arbitrary judgment. This is what I don't get. Why not keep everybody at home and make the grocery stores deliver, then? If we are positing that restaurants should do that in order to avoid shutting down and dying, why not apply that to the grocery stores, where nobody's complaining about people going in and out all day long?

To me, this virus is about one thing - proximity to people for a prolonged period of time.  You may go to the grocery store and Person A in the cereal aisle has COVID.  You pass by him, while wearing a mask, grab a box, and walk on.  You're not around him, unmasked, for 60 minutes straight.  There is little risk of virus transmission if you remain distant, wear a mask and don't spend time around a person.

At a restaurant, you're sitting around other people, with your masks off, throughout a meal.  Mouths are opening and closing, people are talking, with droplets spreading.  In the last few months, I've had waiters approach our table and suggest that we could take our masks off if we preferred, while speaking to them.  Tables may not be 6 feet apart, you pass by tables while walking, encounter people in the restroom. 

It's the same when I take a train and commute to work - I'm in an enclosed train car, surrounded by other people.  The trains require masks and urge social distancing by not letting people sit in seats close together (luckily the ridership is down so that this works) but it's unnerving to see people with masks lowered beneath their nose, or completely off, while sitting 6 feet away, or a little less, even while I wear a mask.  I've actually gotten up and switched train cars to get away from maskless people.

I don't know how i feel about restaurant shutdowns - at times, I'm comfortable going to one.  Right now, there's no chance in hell I'd do indoor dining.  Too many new cases in my local area.  People need to learn to be flexible and give up, or reduce certain things, like going out to eat, so that we can all try to remain healthy. 

[The Walrus]

While I do, very much, agree with almost all of that post, it ignores that people hack up a lung in the grocery store all the time, and stop to talk to other people, and are still breathing and touching everything. How many of those people you think wash their hands even during the pandemic? You might not catch anything from Douchebag A in the milk aisle, but what's to say you won't catch it from walking past Douchebags B-Z in the other 12 aisles? Proximity and amount of time absolutely matters, your chances are going to be lower, but you just never know. I would feel better sitting at an outdoor dining area spread out from people than I do currently going down the aisles squeezing past someone or their family, no lie.

I think everybody's doing their best to convince themselves of what is best, for them and at large - and I'm no exception. I'll also say I have literally not gone out to eat once all year, although I might on Sunday.

[lonestar]

Even with tents, most restaurants, and I'd say 90% of independent ones are fucked. The average restaurant needs to sell out at least 60% of their weekly seating capacity just to cover overhead without the extraneous expenses. I'd suggest everyone in the country, especially those in the suburbs to the city, get comfortable with the fact that about 75% of the places you love won't survive. Restaurants are hard to keep afloat in the best of times, running a profit margin at best 10%. Without govt assistance and a whole new way of operating my industry is garnered for a total reset.

[lordxizor]

Even with tents, most restaurants, and I'd say 90% of independent ones are fucked. The average restaurant needs to sell out at least 60% of their weekly seating capacity just to cover overhead without the extraneous expenses. I'd suggest everyone in the country, especially those in the suburbs to the city, get comfortable with the fact that about 75% of the places you love won't survive. Restaurants are hard to keep afloat in the best of times, running a profit margin at best 10%. Without govt assistance and a whole new way of operating my industry is garnered for a total reset.

Frankly I'm shocked more restaurants haven't closed already. I'd guess most are just limping along trying not to fall too far behind and hope the weather the storm. I doubt too many are actually profiting right now.

[Stadler]

Even with tents, most restaurants, and I'd say 90% of independent ones are fucked. The average restaurant needs to sell out at least 60% of their weekly seating capacity just to cover overhead without the extraneous expenses. I'd suggest everyone in the country, especially those in the suburbs to the city, get comfortable with the fact that about 75% of the places you love won't survive. Restaurants are hard to keep afloat in the best of times, running a profit margin at best 10%. Without govt assistance and a whole new way of operating my industry is garnered for a total reset.

Robert Irvine is going to be one busy mofo.

[lonestar]

Even with tents, most restaurants, and I'd say 90% of independent ones are fucked. The average restaurant needs to sell out at least 60% of their weekly seating capacity just to cover overhead without the extraneous expenses. I'd suggest everyone in the country, especially those in the suburbs to the city, get comfortable with the fact that about 75% of the places you love won't survive. Restaurants are hard to keep afloat in the best of times, running a profit margin at best 10%. Without govt assistance and a whole new way of operating my industry is garnered for a total reset.

Robert Irvine is going to be one busy mofo.

I'm actually very curious as to what will vill the void left. I give it a year and a half before the industry has the client base to support it, will a lot of the small timers try another go, or will there be a whole new structure in its place. I had a chat on FB going about tip culture, and how this would be a prime time to step away from it once and for all.

[MoraWintersoul]

it's not something we can ignore and hope takes care of itself (and I'm not suggesting that's what anyone is saying).

Yeah, that's definitely not what the Walrus is saying. The way I understand it, he's saying, allow the restaurants to do whatever they can to keep the money coming in. I'm just saying, why do they have to be alone in that? Why is the only way to keep the business open to have us in there, sitting inside (a tent?), ordering a meal and eating it? For something we all appreciate, something we all wanna keep open?

I was cranky earlier in the thread about how I didn't wanna do anything and how nothing that's actually open is worth the risk of getting out of the house for me. But that doesn't mean "oh well, what I like is closed, restaurants can die as far as I'm concerned if they don't get the magic stimulus which I dreamed up for them, since I don't actually care". I really do care.

Precisely. And if I came off as snippy in my post towards you, Mora, I apologize, that certainly wasn't the tone I was going for. I'm just very concerned what this winter is going to do to the economy, the restaurant industry, how much faster infection is going to spread. I do think they have to do whatever they can to stay open but I don't think shutting everything down and just printing a metric fuckton of money is the solution - just my opinion, in my own words

I just don't think there's a good solution one way or another, honestly, at this point. Whatever the solution is, someone or some people are going to be negatively impacted. I do not envy health and government officials who have to make the decisions on how to handle this because they will be vilified no matter what they do.

You didn't come off snippy and it's perfectly fine. In fact, with what we're talking about, it's not a surprise we're not all snippy as fuck.

I'm just sad because we're using 1918 measures to fight a pandemic in a 2020 world. The one thing we have to preserve is work, because if you don't work, you starve, because no one will just give you money. Everything else is a "wow, can't believe you care about that". 9 months in and with at least 6 to go until outside weather, we should talk about preserving the non-essentials as well. After all, in-person non-essential work is also someone's lifelong job. That's where we agree. But if we don't start talking about it now and making noise, no one is going to do anything. They'll just leave the non-essentials limping until it's too late.

I'm also sad because this is the last place where I'm having any kind of quality discussions about this. We all agree that human lives are valuable, social time is valuable, the economy is valuable, we should wear masks but also work for a world where we can safely take them off, governments should look at the numbers and have some sort of restrictive measures to make sure no one is congregating in numbers that are too large, but there is such a thing as too restrictive. We just disagree enough to have some quality discussions on the best course of action. The rest of my world is currently discussing if the masks are psyop, if the numbers are artificially enhanced so the govts can do... idk, something, if "the world should have even stopped because of this virus", etc. It's depressing.

I love you guys though. I'm glad this thread exists.

[cramx3]

I'm also sad because this is the last place where I'm having any kind of quality discussions about this.

Yea, this is kind of sad that it's true.  My friends are all sharing screenshots of a facebook post and argument between a girl we grew up with and her father