OldSchoolSnapper

If the municipality thing happened I'd probably be on a flight to Texas to catch a game to be honest.

The stigma with getting sick while traveling will hurt it much more than the reality. There will be a lot of retirees with the means to do it that just won't. At least for a while. Not to say that some of them shouldn't be cautious. But I know several families who've said they won't go anywhere for at least a year. There are healthy people in their 30s-40s.

Travel will be fine eventually, but it'll lag with high unemployment. It has a lot working against it. Is their income ok? Do people feel safe to travel? Even if they do what's open when they get to their spot? I was ready to get on a flight next week, but it was cancelled due to too many other cancellations, I got re-routed, was no longer nonstop, and just said forget it, I'll drive. I mentioned this in the MLB thread, but the whole industry is watching Orlando. Disney/US is going to be a huge barometer for the travel industry if it goes off well. It's big for sports too. There is also a backlog of 1.6 million passports right now. I know because my kids are two of them. I doubt we'll be in trouble as we're not flying until March, but that is a huge backlog.

When you literally never spend $40 feeding 4 at Culver's, don't have cable, drive two 10-15 year old cars, it's not much different than how a lot of people live. Just allocation of resources on things you really enjoy. The chef's menu with wine pairing at Sanford is $350. It's also in top 3 dining experiences I've ever had. It requires a level of skill that takes decades of training to blend flavors that way. Some people just like nice guns or better cars. Probably more like every other month though on that level of place.

Man, I truly hope I'm wrong, but this thing feels like it's going to be really stupid. The crowd is such a huge, intimate part of the NBA playoffs. I just can't imagine this feeling like it's anything other than a weird neighborhood dunk contest. Maybe the production value will blow us away.

I'm talking about people that go on vacation to visit an area and experience the culture. Real tourism, not business travel. I truly pity anyone that visits NYC or SF to spend 4 days eating inside a hotel room. If I suggested to my wife, while in Savannah or Brooklyn, that we are going to eat dinner in the hotel room she would just flat refuse and leave without me. I'm not saying that people don't eat in hotels. I'm saying that the clientele that view dining as an experience are not going to abandon that for takeout. That's never going to disappear, it's ingrained in a lot of folks as a huge part of just being human. It's a lot of people. We have a huge country and there are probably as many people who wouldn't be caught dead eating fast food as there are people who live on it 3-4 days a week. I mean, there are people whose primary reason for travel, is food. There's plenty of space for premium takeout and table service to exist just as it has. I'm just not buying COVID19 will get any significant portion of people who love dining to do it any less once that blows over. Not sure if you're suggesting that though.

That's part of what I'm saying though. The places most affected by the closures are the non-chain higher quality restaurants that sell experience. There is no experience at Qdoba, or Tbell. I also won't eat either, and there are a lot of people like me. We dine out probably once a month and it's usually a $2-300 tab at a place like DanDan, Belfre, Cheel, etc. Even if I want a burrito, I just walk to the Mexican-owned spot a few blocks away, pay a bit more and chat with the owner. Takeout will never replace those places. The food is not meant to be served or eaten that way. People like that make up a much bigger portion of restaurant clientele than I think you're considering. Especially the ones most shaken by this, that usually have a specialty and sell an experience. I can promise you that the clientele at those restaurants don't like takeout for much besides Chinese and pizza. There isn't quite the same kind of divide when it comes to rideshare/taxi. You could say that a fine restaurant is like a limousine service, but there are a lot more people who only eat at "nicer" joints than there are riding around in limos. An environment where there is only takeout would be awful, the majority of customers don't like it and fine dining is not designed for it. I'd say this is more like saying TV would kill radio. Something a lot of people predicted and never came close to happening. You are definitely right though that Covid is hastening the inevitable. I'm totally convinced there are plenty of places using it as an excuse to do something they don't have to do, but have wanted to do for quite some time.

I think that's a leap. There are plenty of people who prefer dining in for a bunch of reasons, including me. People may be fine with takeout for Qdoba. They are a lot less fine with Belfre, Sanford, etc. 2/3 of customers still prefer dining in. It's also totally dismissive of tourist dining. Nobody wants to have Door Dashed meals to a Holiday Inn. Eating good food in large groups with nice ambiance is something humans have done for thousands of years. It's not going anywhere. Taxis are not an adjacent industry; there is no service difference between a Taxi and an Uber, in fact you could argue the Uber is better for less money. There is a huge difference between a burrito sitting in a guy's car for 30 minutes and sitting down for a 5-star meal that someone else cleans up.

Problem is most of that labor force is subsidized by tipping in the US. A bunch of them make $2-3 an hour so without the table service there's not much cost savings by not having them around. Really, the "support local with takeout" was a cute thing when this was hopefully going to last a month, but it's unfortunately like putting chewed gum on a leaky roof. It's just not going to keep anybody afloat that wasn't already designed mainly for takeout. The web is full of hundreds if not thousands of owners saying this. On your other point though, yes, it's compounded by loss of both local and non-local tourism. They'd have a huge problem right now with or without government rules.

Pretty much all of the non-essential businesses in Chicago. Restaurants got the go-ahead for limited outdoor seating today but... I got takeout at a Thai place on Monday and Chipotle on Tuesday. Both were jam packed. Some of my favorite upscale restaurants are booked days in advance for to-go orders. Virtually every small business has transitioned to online sales. Obviously servers and bartenders are hurting bad and not every business can transition to online. But it's not really about the regulations at this point. Nobody wants to go to a sit-down restaurant. Nobody wants to get on an airplane. Nobody wants to go sit in an office. And since we've gotten used to the new normal we may as well keep doing it until there is a vaccine. I do think mistakes were made--the farmers market near me should have never shut down when grocery stores were allowed to stay open. But they corrected themselves in mid-May and that is back to normal now. Takeout is not a replacement for restaurants that do sit-down service. It cuts off beverages, where the vast majority of their margins are, and particularly repeat beverages, like the table of 6 that sits down and has 2-3 glasses of wine. That's a huge lifeline for restaurants. The margins on people that order a burger and water are terrible, like, $1 sometimes. It's far beyond servers and bartenders.

Dailymail isn't something I would use in an academic debate but they are basically TMZ. Sensationalized news but very, very rarely incorrect. They'll happily post rumors but once they run with something they often get it right and often get it first ($$$).

The fireworks are definitely more about money than crowds. And not just governments. The reality is that many fireworks displays are sponsored by businesses. Businesses that were not ready to fork out 10 or 20k for explosions which require purchase and planning in April.

Nothing in these situations should be taken at face value. Everything aired in public is just a game.

98% of our culture is this. Social media made it worse. Social norms and most people's non-confrontational tendency used to force people to actually talk. They might not change their mind but they would be respectful. None of that happens via text.

Got Tball rules. No snacks (more than ok with this) no high fives, no sportsmanship lineup, only 3 in dugout, 6 feet at all times, etc etc. Bleachers removed. It's completely unenforceable. At least you have T-ball - ours was cancelled. I'm actually trying to pull together an informal Tball/baseball skills practice that will happen nights we were supposed to have games if parents still want their kids to play. We are going to see a whole bunch of rules for youth activities/school/etc that get hastily thrown together to make parents feel comfortable moreso than doing anything that actually is enforceable and beneficial from a public health standpoint. I guess at least if there's not bleachers the coaches won't be able to hear parents yelling at them as clearly since they'll be parked on the street in their cars trying to scream through a face covering because Timmy got too close to Jimmy or there were 5 kids in an open air "dugout" for 10 seconds. That's a benefit. I have some serious anxiety about this league. There's no way I can prevent a bunch of 5/6 year olds from touching. I am hoping that those who stuck with it are more of them "let them play" crowd, but I am not looking forward to getting yelled at because I "let" two kids hug.

We don't handle risk and danger at all like we used to. We are peppered with doom 24/7 and it has had a major affect on the psyche of people. That is why I believe there is a real possibility that many things never look the same after this.

I don't really get that either but maybe it's just assuring that after two weeks the same groups of people have only seen each other. It also could just be minimizing time zone headaches with days off and such, given that they won't have much time.

Got Tball rules. No snacks (more than ok with this) no high fives, no sportsmanship lineup, only 3 in dugout, 6 feet at all times, etc etc. Bleachers removed. It's completely unenforceable.

We're arguing two different things. If everyone sits at home and the entire population remains inside then obviously the virus has nowhere to go. But that's not quite the same as saying the lockdown measures worked, because 1) 100% compliance isn't possible. 2) The degree to which people complied is all but impossible to quantify. 3) It's even harder to quantify the economic cost. 4) A bunch of places used various levels of them with very similar results. My main objection is that this isn't about death rate. Of course it is, c'mon. That was the whole deal. We got that way wrong. It started become obvious that we were. So that should have been the time to reevaluate, not double down. As a society we argue all the time about things that have much more concrete data than this, which has been very much touch and go the entire time. So to say the lockdown measures made this better and it's not debatable? I just can't get on that train. One of the arguments posed early on was that it wouldn't actually SAVE lives (which someone can correct me but I believe that's born out), but it would delay death enough to give hospitals a breather. Once we miscalculated the death rate, it started to look like we really overshot on safety and the hospitals wouldn't have been that taxed on a national level in the first place. Again though, I'm ok with that. It's forgiveable to get it wrong as you're basically guessing. But at some point it's time reevaluate. Not change the goal from flatten the curve to vaccine.

It completely is. Saying this and running away doesn't make it a fact, no matter how many people like to argue this way these days.

Think you should go backwards in this thread a bit. I was very wrong. Just not the way you think. I was all for every lockdown. I was scared. You can go to the first few pages to see that. In the face of reality I changed my thoughts. OK. So 100K people have died and that's changed your mind to think it's not a big deal. Okey dokey, if you say so. Death rate flirting with 1/8 of the projections, most likely even less than that, and fatalities almost entirely tied to very old people or very sick people, combined with basically no evidence that children transmit, and numerous parts of the world taking far less restrictive measures, led me to believe that, yes, we probably overshot on all the safety measures, healthy people should have had far less restrictions, school should have and reopened, and we probably did a lot of unnecessary harm to the health of our state and nation, financially and psychologically. Now, that was fine, because we didn't know. I can give a complete pass on that. For a month. Not into May.

Once again...I haven't held this position "all along." Let's recap: You called out hypocrisy and accuse people of digging in their heels. You make a highly debatable claim that the lockdowns made a significant difference. Something many scientists are actively arguing over. You then say that you can't have a conversation with people who argue that point. You then claim that a poster judged people for wearing a mask - a straw man - a claim nobody made. You left out the significant detail that they specified wearing a mask on a bike ride/jog down a country road. Sorry, that was a strawman. You countered an argument nobody made.

Think you should go backwards in this thread a bit. I was very wrong. Just not the way you think. I was all for every lockdown. I was scared. You can go to the first few pages to see that. In the face of reality I changed my thoughts. And yeah, sorry, this was about "death rate." The 4% figure is what scared everybody, and made us have to flatten the curve. We did that and the mission changed.

Ok, first off, I wasn't isolating that to this topic. I'm saying in general, in public, the sentiment that's now finally fading, is that anyone questioning this was a loon, a fan of he will not be named, etc. TRUST SCIENCE, FLATTEN THE CURVE. I thought my post spelled that out rather clearly literally using the phrase 'in public' and mentioning social media. That has only recently started to turn. In fact, BF.net is the only place I visit where the dissenting conversation was even allowed to take place. You can't do it anywhere but small pockets on Reddit, Facebook and Twitter are no-gos unless you want to be screamed at, and I live in rural WI, so no, I'm not "turned off" to the rural parts of the state. In my community, it was not taken as seriously, however as soon as you engage any kind of mass media, the world was ending for about 6 weeks. And actually, the premise of what you're saying here is built on a straw man. The poster said they would chuckle at a person in a mask riding a bike down a country road. They did not say it "bothered" them, which is what the replying poster said. Nor did they judge them. They said they'd chuckle. For wearing a mask on a bike ride or jog, not for wearing a mask, which is what you indicated above. You're mish-mashing a bunch of significant distinguishing details there. Last, reconciling "nobody's saying that" with this viewtopic.php?p=1300619#p1300619 is quite hypocritical. The debate over the shutdown stopping spread, and the degree to which it did, is a completely valid one. The data hasn't proven anything in regards to the shutdown's effectiveness. There are a bunch of places that did little to nothing and didn't experience anything differently. ------ Thanks for proving my point quite well. Sorry, I consider laughing at someone (implying them to be stupid) to be judging them. ______ Chuckling at someone doing a silly thing implies they're stupid? You're on a straw man roll! That really is quite a reach. People do all kind of things when they're scared, that doesn't make all of them, or any of them, stupid. Let's stick to things I actually say and not your wide interpretations. I'm also confused as to how I "proved your point." You're here saying that "nobody is saying that," yet a week ago, you said that you "can't converse with these people," and just "shake your head and walk away." Please do explain that point proving thing though. It really doesn't sense to me.

Curious if you actually clicked through the links to look at the data? The trend lines show an uptick in the positive test rate per capita, not just an increase in the number of cases. I did, but remember that in the beginning of this they were turning away people from testing who were not gravely ill. They've changed the pool of who they're testing a bunch of times. The only thing we can say with certainty right now is that the death rate was horribly inaccurate. We went from 4%, to people here saying they didn't see it dropping below 1%, to .2% being a distinct possibility.