8 ms·

I'm having a very difficult time imagining how a drive-in theater could regularly result in transmission of the virus. It's not inconceivable, but the goal of p

I'm having a very difficult time imagining how a drive-in theater could regularly result in transmission of the virus. It's not inconceivable, but the goal of physical distancing is not to prevent every conceivable situation that could result in transmission, but the activities that would normally be responsible for the vast majority of transmission. I suppose having the cars a little farther apart might be prudent.

jrochkind1 7y ago
At the one by me, people get out of their cars a lot. To go to the concession stand, bathroom, etc. To talk to their friends. Kids running around. Closing the concession stand (which has indoor lines) would be the first obvious move, but the one by me makes a significant portion of it's profits from the concession stand, would probably have to raise prices non-trivially. I agree about "Activities that would normally be responsible for transmission" -- and I think that is mostly _being near other people_. We need to be ruthlessly minimizing that. Depending on the drive-in, it may be not be doing so as much as you would imagine, is all. Anyhow whether the health departments are right or wrong to not letting be open, I think the "surge in drive-in attendance nationally" may not actually be a thing.
- lallysingh 7y ago
  Have people text their orders to the stand, and have one person in a mask and gloves to deliver.
  - trynewideas 7y ago
    Or just charge cover/raise tix/charge a "corking fee" and allow people to bring their own
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  Without getting into specifics, after-hours clubs that don't serve alcohol usually account for that with higher admission prices.
  - wbl 7y ago
    Or are members only like some in Chicago. But we definitely do not need to get into specifics.
    - imagine99 7y ago
      Can I ask what kind of members-only clubs you're referring to that don't serve alcohol? That sounds curious. I do belong to a club or three here in the UK (internationally reciprocal, too) and while they can be rather selective and some do charge a pretty penny, they most certainly do have bars or a wine cellar with a respectable selection of beverages... Is there a meaning of "club" of which I'm not aware? Sorry if I'm being daft, it's been a long day.
      - tomalpha 7y ago
        https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-laws-and-regulations/adult-entertainment-law-zoning-and-other-regulations.html https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-laws-and-regulati... > Topless clubs in Las Vegas may serve alcohol, for example, but fully nude clubs may not. My (genuinely...) limited understanding is that this is not limited to Las Vegas, and also that private members-only clubs can circumvent this.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Aren't drive-in theaters generally cheaper than real theaters, though? Isn't that part of the point of them, that they're spartan and cost-effective to operate and thus are a most cost-effective option? I don't know how much money people would be willing to pay to go to one.
    - samatman 7y ago
      "more than they would be willing to pay if normal movie theaters were open" seems like the safe bet.
    - def8cefe 7y ago
      Drive-ins have no less overhead. They require much more expensive D-Cinema projectors (for higher lumen output), more real estate, radio transmission equipment and all the same expenses as conventional theatres except potentially less manhours required to clean the 'auditoriums.' They are likely cheaper in your experience because drive-ins are almost exclusively independent and in rural areas.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  The only way I'd see this working is if you aren't allowed to exit your car at all. Being a guy, I guess I could piss into a bottle ... I dunno, this whole thing just doesn't sound that appealing. I'd rather just watch a movie for much cheaper from my couch. It'd be one thing if there were some new huge blockbuster movie I wanted to see that could only be seen in theaters, but that's flat-out not happening anymore. All the big releases are either pushed back indefinitely or happening on streaming services too.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  Pairing a drive-in with a drive-thru concessions seems like an obvious solution.
gambiting 7y ago
Well, I do agree with the argument that some countries make for banning everything but essential travel - driving around is not risk-free, because unless you have an electric car you will have to fill it up eventually, so there's one transmission vector at a petrol station, plus some people will have an accident, which takes away valuable resources to deal with those accidents. With that logic in mind, having drive-in theatres is not a good idea, even if the theatre itself is not a tranmission vector.
- standardUser 7y ago
  Right, if the goal is to prevent all transmission then we would need a much stricter set of protocols. But that is not and has never been the goal. Preventing the vast majority of transmissions is the goal, and we are achieving that with our current, imperfect implementation of physical distancing. Several European countries are on the verge of easing restrictions and opening various shops and schools. They know full well that this will lead to an increased transmission rate. But as long as that rate is not too high, their healthcare systems will be able to handle the number of cases.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  I would look at it this way - I've read several times that COVID is ten times as lethal as the flu; therefore it seems reasonable to me to take precautions that prevent 90% of cases and not worry about the remaining 10%.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    another way to look at it that COVID has a R0 variously reported between 2 and 5. Taking the upper bound, if everyone reduced their pre-pandemic contact by 80% the virus will go into exponential decline.
hombre_fatal 7y ago
It reminds me of that video of cops arresting a jogger in Spain where the person recording the video and the Reddit comments all gleefully celebrate such justice. As if trail joggers are a hotbed of infection. https://en.as.com/en/2020/03/21/videos/1584804866_376286.html https://en.as.com/en/2020/03/21/videos/1584804866_376286.htm... The video kinda disgusted me, like zero tolerance laws that exist so nobody has to actually use their discretion about what's reasonable vs unreasonable. It also creates this creepy culture of sit-at-your-window-and-tattle that just can't be worth it.
- monsieurbanana 7y ago
  Are we watching the same video? I have zero sympathy for the jogger. The police isn't doing anything wrong, she's clearly resisting so they have no choice but to use strength to put her in the car. I don't see any mistreatment from the police. And where's the supposed "abuse" from the onlookers? All I saw was the person filming telling her to shut up and stop resisting the police. All very reasonable things to say, regardless of whether the law is wrong or not. Speaking about the law, "zero tolerance laws" have a very negative meaning because of the stupid laws they have in the USA. If there's a moment where you should apply a zero tolerance law, it's when there's a freaking pandemic and people disobey the rules. One jogger isn't bad, how about 10 or 100?
  - standardUser 7y ago
    The policy of not allowing outdoor exercise is to blame. The risk of transmission from running is minuscule if people keep proper physical distance. Doesn't matter if it's 10 or 100 or 1,000 people jogging. All that matters is if effective precautions are being taken to prevent transmission of the virus. Instead of harassing people who are keeping proper physical distance, police should focus on activities that are actually likely to lead to transmission of the virus. People running in a group? Make them stop. People running with ample distance between themselves and others? Wave and say hi.
    - DennisP 7y ago
dpcan 7y ago
Bathrooms / Porta-potties. Litter. And self-control. Kids especially - they'll car hop.
the_arun 7y ago
It is not about whether it spreads virus, but drive-in theaters are there for satisfying social appetite. You go there with your family & friends - enjoy a movie outdoor. Otherwise, what is the benefit of that over watching a movie at home on a 60 or 70 inch screen?
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  Some people don't have 50-or-60-or-70-inch TV's, and even if they do, they might not match the experience of watching a movie on a ginormous screen (at a fairly high quality, too- I can see the pixels on my 45" 1080p panel I got secondhand from 15-20' away) and the sound systems at theaters are waay better than a soundbar and the surround sound at theaters local to me is orders of magnitude better than what I can put together right now as well.
  - fjeifisjf 7y ago
    A drive in theater is not like that. It’s outdoors, bad visual and bad audio quality, that’s only done for the fun of going out.
amiga_500 7y ago
I wonder. If I'm sat in my car with the air conditioning on, the car parked in front of me also has their air conditioning on. If I have my air intake set to external...
- fjeifisjf 7y ago
  It’s not going to blow droplets into your face.
- jfim 7y ago
  The air intake has a filter, otherwise as soon as one would drive on a dusty road the cabin would fill up with dust.
dehrmann 7y ago
> the goal of physical distancing is not to prevent every conceivable situation that could result in transmission, but the activities that would normally be responsible for the vast majority of transmission You'd never know this from some of the enforcement, behavior, and policies we're seeing. Working from home, ~closing non-essential businesses, and social distancing appear to be incredibly effective. The rest is people desperately trying to control a situation they can't.

jrochkind1 7y ago

At the one by me, people get out of their cars a lot. To go to the concession stand, bathroom, etc. To talk to their friends. Kids running around. Closing the concession stand (which has indoor lines) would be the first obvious move, but the one by me makes a significant portion of it's profits from the concession stand, would probably have to raise prices non-trivially. I agree about "Activities that would normally be responsible for transmission" -- and I think that is mostly _being near other people_. We need to be ruthlessly minimizing that. Depending on the drive-in, it may be not be doing so as much as you would imagine, is all. Anyhow whether the health departments are right or wrong to not letting be open, I think the "surge in drive-in attendance nationally" may not actually be a thing.

lallysingh 7y ago
Have people text their orders to the stand, and have one person in a mask and gloves to deliver.
- trynewideas 7y ago
  Or just charge cover/raise tix/charge a "corking fee" and allow people to bring their own
Scoundreller 7y ago
Without getting into specifics, after-hours clubs that don't serve alcohol usually account for that with higher admission prices.
- wbl 7y ago
  Or are members only like some in Chicago. But we definitely do not need to get into specifics.
  - imagine99 7y ago
    Can I ask what kind of members-only clubs you're referring to that don't serve alcohol? That sounds curious. I do belong to a club or three here in the UK (internationally reciprocal, too) and while they can be rather selective and some do charge a pretty penny, they most certainly do have bars or a wine cellar with a respectable selection of beverages... Is there a meaning of "club" of which I'm not aware? Sorry if I'm being daft, it's been a long day.
    - tomalpha 7y ago
      https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-laws-and-regulations/adult-entertainment-law-zoning-and-other-regulations.html https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-laws-and-regulati... > Topless clubs in Las Vegas may serve alcohol, for example, but fully nude clubs may not. My (genuinely...) limited understanding is that this is not limited to Las Vegas, and also that private members-only clubs can circumvent this.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Aren't drive-in theaters generally cheaper than real theaters, though? Isn't that part of the point of them, that they're spartan and cost-effective to operate and thus are a most cost-effective option? I don't know how much money people would be willing to pay to go to one.
  - samatman 7y ago
    "more than they would be willing to pay if normal movie theaters were open" seems like the safe bet.
  - def8cefe 7y ago
    Drive-ins have no less overhead. They require much more expensive D-Cinema projectors (for higher lumen output), more real estate, radio transmission equipment and all the same expenses as conventional theatres except potentially less manhours required to clean the 'auditoriums.' They are likely cheaper in your experience because drive-ins are almost exclusively independent and in rural areas.
CydeWeys 7y ago
The only way I'd see this working is if you aren't allowed to exit your car at all. Being a guy, I guess I could piss into a bottle ... I dunno, this whole thing just doesn't sound that appealing. I'd rather just watch a movie for much cheaper from my couch. It'd be one thing if there were some new huge blockbuster movie I wanted to see that could only be seen in theaters, but that's flat-out not happening anymore. All the big releases are either pushed back indefinitely or happening on streaming services too.
im3w1l 7y ago
Pairing a drive-in with a drive-thru concessions seems like an obvious solution.

gambiting 7y ago

Well, I do agree with the argument that some countries make for banning everything but essential travel - driving around is not risk-free, because unless you have an electric car you will have to fill it up eventually, so there's one transmission vector at a petrol station, plus some people will have an accident, which takes away valuable resources to deal with those accidents. With that logic in mind, having drive-in theatres is not a good idea, even if the theatre itself is not a tranmission vector.

standardUser 7y ago
Right, if the goal is to prevent all transmission then we would need a much stricter set of protocols. But that is not and has never been the goal. Preventing the vast majority of transmissions is the goal, and we are achieving that with our current, imperfect implementation of physical distancing. Several European countries are on the verge of easing restrictions and opening various shops and schools. They know full well that this will lead to an increased transmission rate. But as long as that rate is not too high, their healthcare systems will be able to handle the number of cases.
perl4ever 7y ago
I would look at it this way - I've read several times that COVID is ten times as lethal as the flu; therefore it seems reasonable to me to take precautions that prevent 90% of cases and not worry about the remaining 10%.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  another way to look at it that COVID has a R0 variously reported between 2 and 5. Taking the upper bound, if everyone reduced their pre-pandemic contact by 80% the virus will go into exponential decline.

hombre_fatal 7y ago

It reminds me of that video of cops arresting a jogger in Spain where the person recording the video and the Reddit comments all gleefully celebrate such justice. As if trail joggers are a hotbed of infection. https://en.as.com/en/2020/03/21/videos/1584804866_376286.html https://en.as.com/en/2020/03/21/videos/1584804866_376286.htm... The video kinda disgusted me, like zero tolerance laws that exist so nobody has to actually use their discretion about what's reasonable vs unreasonable. It also creates this creepy culture of sit-at-your-window-and-tattle that just can't be worth it.

monsieurbanana 7y ago
Are we watching the same video? I have zero sympathy for the jogger. The police isn't doing anything wrong, she's clearly resisting so they have no choice but to use strength to put her in the car. I don't see any mistreatment from the police. And where's the supposed "abuse" from the onlookers? All I saw was the person filming telling her to shut up and stop resisting the police. All very reasonable things to say, regardless of whether the law is wrong or not. Speaking about the law, "zero tolerance laws" have a very negative meaning because of the stupid laws they have in the USA. If there's a moment where you should apply a zero tolerance law, it's when there's a freaking pandemic and people disobey the rules. One jogger isn't bad, how about 10 or 100?
- standardUser 7y ago
  The policy of not allowing outdoor exercise is to blame. The risk of transmission from running is minuscule if people keep proper physical distance. Doesn't matter if it's 10 or 100 or 1,000 people jogging. All that matters is if effective precautions are being taken to prevent transmission of the virus. Instead of harassing people who are keeping proper physical distance, police should focus on activities that are actually likely to lead to transmission of the virus. People running in a group? Make them stop. People running with ample distance between themselves and others? Wave and say hi.
  - DennisP 7y ago

dpcan 7y ago

Bathrooms / Porta-potties. Litter. And self-control. Kids especially - they'll car hop.

the_arun 7y ago

It is not about whether it spreads virus, but drive-in theaters are there for satisfying social appetite. You go there with your family & friends - enjoy a movie outdoor. Otherwise, what is the benefit of that over watching a movie at home on a 60 or 70 inch screen?

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
Some people don't have 50-or-60-or-70-inch TV's, and even if they do, they might not match the experience of watching a movie on a ginormous screen (at a fairly high quality, too- I can see the pixels on my 45" 1080p panel I got secondhand from 15-20' away) and the sound systems at theaters are waay better than a soundbar and the surround sound at theaters local to me is orders of magnitude better than what I can put together right now as well.
- fjeifisjf 7y ago
  A drive in theater is not like that. It’s outdoors, bad visual and bad audio quality, that’s only done for the fun of going out.

amiga_500 7y ago

I wonder. If I'm sat in my car with the air conditioning on, the car parked in front of me also has their air conditioning on. If I have my air intake set to external...

fjeifisjf 7y ago
It’s not going to blow droplets into your face.
jfim 7y ago
The air intake has a filter, otherwise as soon as one would drive on a dusty road the cabin would fill up with dust.

dehrmann 7y ago

> the goal of physical distancing is not to prevent every conceivable situation that could result in transmission, but the activities that would normally be responsible for the vast majority of transmission You'd never know this from some of the enforcement, behavior, and policies we're seeing. Working from home, ~closing non-essential businesses, and social distancing appear to be incredibly effective. The rest is people desperately trying to control a situation they can't.