7 ms·

Only down 50%? What kind of numbskulls are eating out at reservation restaurants during an uncontained pandemic?

conductr 7y ago
I ate out twice today. Maybe a numbskull but I honestly don’t care if I get this virus. I’m probably an idiot for that. But I don’t access my personal risk any more than the normal flu seasons. Edit to note; both restaurants were packed. I’m not alone in this mindset
- freepor 7y ago
  I guess I have to add sociopaths to my numbskulls who don’t care about spreading a deadly disease.
  - conductr 7y ago
    Maybe. I guess. I don’t think it’s incredibly controllable. It’s going to spread. We’ve never learned how to control the flu which is also deadly. I am limiting my social interaction with risk groups (working from home, cancelled trip to grandparents, etc). But I just don’t care if I get it by going in public. There are tons of people out in public in my city so an individual decision on my part isn’t going to change the macro.
    - jacobsenscott 7y ago
      It is clear you don't care, and nobody cares about you either. But it isn't just your grandparents. Many young people are caretakers for their parents/grandparents and can't just "cancel the trip". You risk spreading it to them that way.
      - conductr 7y ago
        So they should probably stay away from restaurants? All scenarios that support your line of thinking halt all human physical contact and presence in shared spaces. Does that sound feasible to you?
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
      Just wanted to say you're not a sociopath, these guys are being assholes and fear-mongering.
      - swyx 7y ago
        right. Sociopath is that guy who tested positive for covid-19 and still got on a JetBlue plane.
        graton 7y ago
        Actually that person had not yet tested positive when they got on the plane. They were awaiting the test result and found out when they landed that they had tested positive. https://abcnews.go.com/US/jetblue-plane-passenger-diagnosed-coronavirus-landing-florida/story?id=69553619 https://abcnews.go.com/US/jetblue-plane-passenger-diagnosed-...
        isoskeles 7y ago
        Of course, you have to wonder what this person was thinking given they got tested for a reason, yet decided to go to an airport.
    - yojo 7y ago
      It’s not just about you getting sick. By practicing social distancing you delay the spread of the virus. Even if the same number of people end up getting sick, distributing the sickness in time helps reduce the load on hospitals. If you instead change no behavior, it is likely that when you get COVID-19 you will transmit it to more individuals before you realize you’re sick and need to stay home. Depending on the rate of transmission, your individual actions can actually result in hundreds or thousands of people not getting sick (or getting sick later). Make your own decisions here, but don’t hide behind “it isn’t going to change things”
      - conductr 7y ago
        While good points, I don’t think my decision changes the macro outcome. Over half the local population feels the way I do (if dining out today via Open Table in my metro is an indicator). That’s significant and if my individual actions changed, all else constant, my quote you used holds and nothing changes in the macro. Your points would inform government to issue more strict bans/regs that can actually impact the macro situation. Of course, I would comply if instructed.
        petersellers 7y ago
        > I don’t think my decision changes the macro outcome. That's quite a selfish way of thinking about this. This is equivalent to an argument I've heard about global warming which is "if China/India aren't going to curtail their C02 emissions, why should the US?" If everyone thought like you did, we'd all get infected.
        luckylion 7y ago
        China, India and the US aren't individuals, but countries. Isn't the global warming personal equivalent "if the wealthy all keep taking lavish intercontinental vacations every other month, why do I need to switch from my car to the bus to get to work, even if it takes twice the time"? I find that a good question, and the usual answer "they're doing that to promote awareness" doesn't satisfy me, really.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - dang 7y ago
    Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Maybe you don't owe them better, but you owe the community better if you're commenting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ajross 7y ago
  FWIW: I'm not super anti-restaurant personally. I think a certain amount of social contact needs to be allowed (because it's inevitable) unless the numbers are clearly showing a huge risk (and they aren't yet -- cases are growing fast but outside of Milan not at a level where you're likely to see a sick person on a regular basis). That said: your analysis is wrong. You can be contagious without showing symptoms, so the risk your assessing is NOT your "personal risk". You're increasing the risk to others too simply by being around them.
  - conductr 7y ago
    I know that. But guess what, that other person is out in public too. If their risk tolerance is such that they absolutely do not want to get sick & risk taking it home to their elderly parent, well that’s fine but, they need to self quarantine. My point is I have a higher risk tolerance level in terms of contracting the virus from a non-symptomatic stranger in public because 1) i don’t mind being sick enough to limit my activities 2) I can control my exposure to high risk people except in public spaces (again, if you’re high risk, why are you in public - that’s on you). What you all are implying is that anything less than complete mandatory quarantine is the correct course of action. I just don’t agree with this doomsday situation given what I know about this virus at this point. Even 2 degrees of separation from confirmed cases isn’t being taken this seriously by the CDC/medical community. And you’re essentially telling me I’m an idiot and negligent/malicious person for going out in public with no other reason to believe it’s unsafe. I just happen to believe nobody is negligent in these situations and the responsibility lies with those at risk to reduce their risk profile.
    - Vinnl 7y ago
      If many low-risk persons like you still spread it widely enough, enough of them will still be hospitalised at the same time to overload the medical system, thereby putting others at risk. Consider this: you're some random person going against the advice of experts. If you're right, great, you've been able to eat out. If you're wrong, you've contributed to significant suffering of other people. Is that something you want to risk based on your self-confidence? Is that something you would appreciate others risking to you based on their self-confidence?
isoskeles 7y ago
Personally, I think the real numbskulls are the people who came into this unprepared and went off to line up by the dozens at grocery stores so they could hoard toilet paper.
4weekoldroses 7y ago
Lots of them. I'm a manager at a popular niche restaurant chain. Our cancellations yesterday were up 200%, but the empty spots were filled almost immediately. One of our employees has quit already (as of now, we don't offer any time off/paid leave). I've had a conversation with my bosses that I'll probably be gone in the next two weeks.

I ate out twice today. Maybe a numbskull but I honestly don’t care if I get this virus. I’m probably an idiot for that. But I don’t access my personal risk any more than the normal flu seasons. Edit to note; both restaurants were packed. I’m not alone in this mindset

freepor 7y ago
I guess I have to add sociopaths to my numbskulls who don’t care about spreading a deadly disease.
- conductr 7y ago
  Maybe. I guess. I don’t think it’s incredibly controllable. It’s going to spread. We’ve never learned how to control the flu which is also deadly. I am limiting my social interaction with risk groups (working from home, cancelled trip to grandparents, etc). But I just don’t care if I get it by going in public. There are tons of people out in public in my city so an individual decision on my part isn’t going to change the macro.
  - jacobsenscott 7y ago
    It is clear you don't care, and nobody cares about you either. But it isn't just your grandparents. Many young people are caretakers for their parents/grandparents and can't just "cancel the trip". You risk spreading it to them that way.
    - conductr 7y ago
      So they should probably stay away from restaurants? All scenarios that support your line of thinking halt all human physical contact and presence in shared spaces. Does that sound feasible to you?
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    Just wanted to say you're not a sociopath, these guys are being assholes and fear-mongering.
    - swyx 7y ago
      right. Sociopath is that guy who tested positive for covid-19 and still got on a JetBlue plane.
      - graton 7y ago
        Actually that person had not yet tested positive when they got on the plane. They were awaiting the test result and found out when they landed that they had tested positive. https://abcnews.go.com/US/jetblue-plane-passenger-diagnosed-coronavirus-landing-florida/story?id=69553619 https://abcnews.go.com/US/jetblue-plane-passenger-diagnosed-...
        isoskeles 7y ago
        Of course, you have to wonder what this person was thinking given they got tested for a reason, yet decided to go to an airport.
  - yojo 7y ago
    It’s not just about you getting sick. By practicing social distancing you delay the spread of the virus. Even if the same number of people end up getting sick, distributing the sickness in time helps reduce the load on hospitals. If you instead change no behavior, it is likely that when you get COVID-19 you will transmit it to more individuals before you realize you’re sick and need to stay home. Depending on the rate of transmission, your individual actions can actually result in hundreds or thousands of people not getting sick (or getting sick later). Make your own decisions here, but don’t hide behind “it isn’t going to change things”
    - conductr 7y ago
      While good points, I don’t think my decision changes the macro outcome. Over half the local population feels the way I do (if dining out today via Open Table in my metro is an indicator). That’s significant and if my individual actions changed, all else constant, my quote you used holds and nothing changes in the macro. Your points would inform government to issue more strict bans/regs that can actually impact the macro situation. Of course, I would comply if instructed.
      - petersellers 7y ago
        > I don’t think my decision changes the macro outcome. That's quite a selfish way of thinking about this. This is equivalent to an argument I've heard about global warming which is "if China/India aren't going to curtail their C02 emissions, why should the US?" If everyone thought like you did, we'd all get infected.
        luckylion 7y ago
        China, India and the US aren't individuals, but countries. Isn't the global warming personal equivalent "if the wealthy all keep taking lavish intercontinental vacations every other month, why do I need to switch from my car to the bus to get to work, even if it takes twice the time"? I find that a good question, and the usual answer "they're doing that to promote awareness" doesn't satisfy me, really.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- dang 7y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Maybe you don't owe them better, but you owe the community better if you're commenting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ajross 7y ago
FWIW: I'm not super anti-restaurant personally. I think a certain amount of social contact needs to be allowed (because it's inevitable) unless the numbers are clearly showing a huge risk (and they aren't yet -- cases are growing fast but outside of Milan not at a level where you're likely to see a sick person on a regular basis). That said: your analysis is wrong. You can be contagious without showing symptoms, so the risk your assessing is NOT your "personal risk". You're increasing the risk to others too simply by being around them.
- conductr 7y ago
  I know that. But guess what, that other person is out in public too. If their risk tolerance is such that they absolutely do not want to get sick & risk taking it home to their elderly parent, well that’s fine but, they need to self quarantine. My point is I have a higher risk tolerance level in terms of contracting the virus from a non-symptomatic stranger in public because 1) i don’t mind being sick enough to limit my activities 2) I can control my exposure to high risk people except in public spaces (again, if you’re high risk, why are you in public - that’s on you). What you all are implying is that anything less than complete mandatory quarantine is the correct course of action. I just don’t agree with this doomsday situation given what I know about this virus at this point. Even 2 degrees of separation from confirmed cases isn’t being taken this seriously by the CDC/medical community. And you’re essentially telling me I’m an idiot and negligent/malicious person for going out in public with no other reason to believe it’s unsafe. I just happen to believe nobody is negligent in these situations and the responsibility lies with those at risk to reduce their risk profile.
  - Vinnl 7y ago
    If many low-risk persons like you still spread it widely enough, enough of them will still be hospitalised at the same time to overload the medical system, thereby putting others at risk. Consider this: you're some random person going against the advice of experts. If you're right, great, you've been able to eat out. If you're wrong, you've contributed to significant suffering of other people. Is that something you want to risk based on your self-confidence? Is that something you would appreciate others risking to you based on their self-confidence?

isoskeles 7y ago

Personally, I think the real numbskulls are the people who came into this unprepared and went off to line up by the dozens at grocery stores so they could hoard toilet paper.

4weekoldroses 7y ago

Lots of them. I'm a manager at a popular niche restaurant chain. Our cancellations yesterday were up 200%, but the empty spots were filled almost immediately. One of our employees has quit already (as of now, we don't offer any time off/paid leave). I've had a conversation with my bosses that I'll probably be gone in the next two weeks.