6 ms·

The big difference between the two is that the film crew is likely tested each day before stepping on set and are also adhering to strict protocols. My best gu

The big difference between the two is that the film crew is likely tested each day before stepping on set and are also adhering to strict protocols. My best guess is that the seating is more separate. > I work in film and can confirm that the cast and crew test 3x per week to be able to work. Only 2 people per 6 foot table while eating. Tables are actually 6 feet apart. Covid positive numbers in the LA film industry are about 1 out of every 3500 test. Also since filmmaker have to test negative to work most filmmakers, in their personal lives, don’t socialize with the outside world hence the very low positivity rate. from /u/Alexis-in-Texas, https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusCA/comments/k71v7w/outdoor_dining_is_closed_for_everyone_except/gepnicv?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusCA/comments/k71v7w/outdo... > My Roomate works on set for a network. He/everyone he works with are required to get rapid tested before they step on the set every single day. Anyone he comes in contact with on set has passed the same rapid test. from /u/buffyscrims, https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/k6y5f5/bar_owner_in_los_angeles_ca_is_livid_to_see_that/genp97b?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/k6y5f5/bar_owne...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
svrb 6y ago
In other words, the rules shouldn't apply to the elite because they're being safe unlike the dirty plebs?
- masklinn 6y ago
  Have you just discovered that the one true religion of america is the sacrosanct dollar? Movie productions are big money, they have the money to implement strict protocol and the money to acquire the relevant resources. Therefore they can do the thing which requires the strict protocol and relevant resources.
- rvnx 6y ago
  Yes like in the UK where high-worth individuals are not subject to quarantine.
- hue3 6y ago
  Situation which will increase the disparity between the elite and the "dirty plebs". Since poor people have more risky jobs and lack the extra-care elites can afford, we will be the first ones to lose our jobs and go into debt in case we get sick. Unfortunately, inequality will only rise with COVID, especially in countries with poor social welfare models, like the U.S..
danhak 6y ago
Alright, but why is it OK that TV and Film productions are allowed to operate and consume massive testing and PPE resources while other non-essential activities are prohibited?
- graeme 6y ago
  Edit: I mean indoors in their own home rather than socializing indoors elsewhere. I’m a big advocate of walks. ————————- They produce shows that keep people inside? The cost benefit is enormous. The same argument applies to things like vaccinations for sports. A fairly small number of people will keep millions of others indoors over the winter.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    The virus dies almost immediately in sunlight. There's also a strong inverse correlation between Vitamin D levels and the severity of the illness. Keeping people indoors, breathing recirculated air with no sun all winter is practically the opposite of what we should be doing.
    - emiliobumachar 6y ago
      Everyone gotta sleep, they get exposed to whoever they're sleeping with. If everyone stays home, not just indoors, their extra exposure is very small.
    - graeme 6y ago
      You can’t get vitamin D from the sun in much of north america right now. And people generally don’t socialize outside of their household when watching TV. Sunlight is great! But socializing indoors is what spreads the virus. America is not reknowned for being a land where everyone was outdoors in the sunshine in normal times: vitamin D deficiency was already rampant. And going for a walk is not exclusionary to TV. In places where it is present you can get enough vitamin D with 30-60 min sun exposure.
      - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hodgesrm 6y ago
Right, people put effort into figuring out how to keep film going. What a lot of us are asking is why don't we do something analogous for small businesses? There does not seem to be political will to figure out how to get them through this as well. At the very least it shows a profound lack of imagination.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  It costs a lot of money. The studios are willing to spend that money. Most small businesses aren't and probably couldn't afford to even if they did.
  - hodgesrm 6y ago
    Let's stipulate that studios have money and are willing to spend it. That just raises the question why the state of California--or more generally we the citizens--are not compensating businesses that end up taking one for the team. Studios lose 0.5% off the bottom line but other businesses lose 100% or shut down fully.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      There simply isn't any way to do what you suggest. Hollywood can do it because they exert a level of control over all participants in their business activities that no other businesses can outside of the military, and this minimizes the potential covid risks and makes the financial costs of dealing with covid feasible. To achieve the same level of risk for restaurants or other businesses would cost billions, and that's assuming that the customers would go along with the safety procedures required, but half of this country won't even wear a $1 mask when they go into a store because they think that covid is a conspiracy and they'll be damned if they agree to a minor personal inconvenience.
      - hodgesrm 6y ago
        That does not answer the question why other businesses don't receive compensation for their sacrifice. This is grossly unfair and will have long-term consequences for the economy as well as the welfare of individual citizens. That's leaving aside the question of what the actual health risks are from the businesses California is forcing to shut down. Newsom has been very evasive on that topic.
undefined1 6y ago
This is about outdoor dining and it's been almost a year now. Where's the science showing that outdoor dining is such a problem?
- echelon 6y ago
  We don't have it yet. What we do have is 3,000 dead Americans a day. That's easy to measure. We know how the virus spreads, so it makes sense to try and prevent it as best as we can with the information we have available.
  - just-juan-post 6y ago
    We also need mandatory condoms because we know AIDS is a killer. We also need to ban all alcohol because we knows how it kills people both directly and indirectly. We know how guns kill, we need to ban them all. We know how knives kill we need to restrict their ownership. Trying to have a disucssion with folks like you is pointless because rather than striving for balance you only take into consideration one half. You are, as much as you may not enjoy it, just like an anti-abortionist or a religious person. No matter what point is brought up the responese is always the same: Babies are dying. It's happening because God willed it to. People are dying and we cannot let another one die. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko
- gamblor956 6y ago
  We'll find out Tuesday, when the LA County Health Dept is required to present any such scientific studies/evidence in court to defend the restriction on outdoor dining. (While Newsom has issued a statewide order that would theoretically lockdown all of SoCal and moot the county order, he doesn't actually have the authority to enforce those restrictions; that is handled at the county or city level by local law enforcement, nearly all of which have said they will not...even in Sacramento. Notably, even in CA local law enforcement for the most part has refused to enforce the lockdowns imposed by their own local governments.)
- bestnameever 6y ago
  This is really not just about outdoor dining. Here, they are comparing outdoor dining that is open against outdoor dining that is closed. We already know the circumstances of how they operate and the precautions they are taking are likely not equal.
est31 6y ago
Even if she could only open her restaurant for production companies whose employees are tested daily, it'd be a better situation. She probably can offer way better food than a trucked in catering can provide which is probably the alternative. The catering company probably suffers a lot as well from covid, so let both have their venues open, and make the people decide whose food they like best. As a benefit, the people would distribute between the two venues and would thus be further apart than if they used one venue. This situation is incredibly unfair to her. She has to pay the rent but can't open. She has to pay no rent and gets customers.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  She probably can offer way better food than a trucked in catering can provide which is probably the alternative. This is in fact what a number of studios already do: they use local restaurants for catering or on-site meals. However, as a result of COVID procedures, in order for a local restaurant to be eligible for this, they would to adhere to the same restrictions as Hollywood crews do, meaning: daily/near-daily testing, quarantining outside of work, and importantly, no interaction with non-household members. Hollywood has the guilds to help it enforce the covid procedures (and also pays very well). The same cannot be said of restaurants.
imgabe 6y ago
This story is based on this video from Twitter: https://twitter.com/SpencerKlavan/status/1335007535070253057 https://twitter.com/SpencerKlavan/status/1335007535070253057 You can see the tables. They're about the same distance apart. There's also like 10x more of them for the film set than for the restaurant.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  The risk profiles are completely different. Every single person eating on the film set has been tested regularly and continuously and is not permitted on set if they have an ambiguous or positive result. In the event of a positive result, they're not even permitted on set for at least a week until after the last positive result, even when followup tests suggest that the positive result may have been false positive. When on set, all crew and cast must wear masks at all times except when filming, in which case cast but not crew may remove their masks for the duration of the take. How often are the restaurant employees being tested? How often of the customers being tested? (For both questions, the answer is "not regularly, if at all".)
  - imgabe 6y ago
    Testing is great, but that's not a measure of risk. For every 100 people who eat at a restaurant, how many get the virus? For every 100 people working on a film set how many get the virus? These are the numbers we should look at to compare one vs. the other.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      For the first one, it depends on the local population and the type of restaurant. There is documented evidence that dining in bars in the South have resulted in hundreds of cases of COVID transmission, while at the same time there are few documented cases of COVID transmission related to outdoor dining in CA over the summer. For the second one: 0. There have been 0 known instances of cast or crew getting COVID while on set, because upon reporting a single instance of a positive result, they require the cast/crew member to quarantine. In some cases, they have even shut down production for the quarantine period to prevent spread, see, e.g., The Batman.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

svrb 6y ago

In other words, the rules shouldn't apply to the elite because they're being safe unlike the dirty plebs?

masklinn 6y ago
Have you just discovered that the one true religion of america is the sacrosanct dollar? Movie productions are big money, they have the money to implement strict protocol and the money to acquire the relevant resources. Therefore they can do the thing which requires the strict protocol and relevant resources.
rvnx 6y ago
Yes like in the UK where high-worth individuals are not subject to quarantine.
hue3 6y ago
Situation which will increase the disparity between the elite and the "dirty plebs". Since poor people have more risky jobs and lack the extra-care elites can afford, we will be the first ones to lose our jobs and go into debt in case we get sick. Unfortunately, inequality will only rise with COVID, especially in countries with poor social welfare models, like the U.S..

danhak 6y ago

Alright, but why is it OK that TV and Film productions are allowed to operate and consume massive testing and PPE resources while other non-essential activities are prohibited?

graeme 6y ago
Edit: I mean indoors in their own home rather than socializing indoors elsewhere. I’m a big advocate of walks. ————————- They produce shows that keep people inside? The cost benefit is enormous. The same argument applies to things like vaccinations for sports. A fairly small number of people will keep millions of others indoors over the winter.
- imgabe 6y ago
  The virus dies almost immediately in sunlight. There's also a strong inverse correlation between Vitamin D levels and the severity of the illness. Keeping people indoors, breathing recirculated air with no sun all winter is practically the opposite of what we should be doing.
  - emiliobumachar 6y ago
    Everyone gotta sleep, they get exposed to whoever they're sleeping with. If everyone stays home, not just indoors, their extra exposure is very small.
  - graeme 6y ago
    You can’t get vitamin D from the sun in much of north america right now. And people generally don’t socialize outside of their household when watching TV. Sunlight is great! But socializing indoors is what spreads the virus. America is not reknowned for being a land where everyone was outdoors in the sunshine in normal times: vitamin D deficiency was already rampant. And going for a walk is not exclusionary to TV. In places where it is present you can get enough vitamin D with 30-60 min sun exposure.
    - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hodgesrm 6y ago

Right, people put effort into figuring out how to keep film going. What a lot of us are asking is why don't we do something analogous for small businesses? There does not seem to be political will to figure out how to get them through this as well. At the very least it shows a profound lack of imagination.

gamblor956 6y ago
It costs a lot of money. The studios are willing to spend that money. Most small businesses aren't and probably couldn't afford to even if they did.
- hodgesrm 6y ago
  Let's stipulate that studios have money and are willing to spend it. That just raises the question why the state of California--or more generally we the citizens--are not compensating businesses that end up taking one for the team. Studios lose 0.5% off the bottom line but other businesses lose 100% or shut down fully.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    There simply isn't any way to do what you suggest. Hollywood can do it because they exert a level of control over all participants in their business activities that no other businesses can outside of the military, and this minimizes the potential covid risks and makes the financial costs of dealing with covid feasible. To achieve the same level of risk for restaurants or other businesses would cost billions, and that's assuming that the customers would go along with the safety procedures required, but half of this country won't even wear a $1 mask when they go into a store because they think that covid is a conspiracy and they'll be damned if they agree to a minor personal inconvenience.
    - hodgesrm 6y ago
      That does not answer the question why other businesses don't receive compensation for their sacrifice. This is grossly unfair and will have long-term consequences for the economy as well as the welfare of individual citizens. That's leaving aside the question of what the actual health risks are from the businesses California is forcing to shut down. Newsom has been very evasive on that topic.

undefined1 6y ago

This is about outdoor dining and it's been almost a year now. Where's the science showing that outdoor dining is such a problem?

echelon 6y ago
We don't have it yet. What we do have is 3,000 dead Americans a day. That's easy to measure. We know how the virus spreads, so it makes sense to try and prevent it as best as we can with the information we have available.
- just-juan-post 6y ago
  We also need mandatory condoms because we know AIDS is a killer. We also need to ban all alcohol because we knows how it kills people both directly and indirectly. We know how guns kill, we need to ban them all. We know how knives kill we need to restrict their ownership. Trying to have a disucssion with folks like you is pointless because rather than striving for balance you only take into consideration one half. You are, as much as you may not enjoy it, just like an anti-abortionist or a religious person. No matter what point is brought up the responese is always the same: Babies are dying. It's happening because God willed it to. People are dying and we cannot let another one die. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko
gamblor956 6y ago
We'll find out Tuesday, when the LA County Health Dept is required to present any such scientific studies/evidence in court to defend the restriction on outdoor dining. (While Newsom has issued a statewide order that would theoretically lockdown all of SoCal and moot the county order, he doesn't actually have the authority to enforce those restrictions; that is handled at the county or city level by local law enforcement, nearly all of which have said they will not...even in Sacramento. Notably, even in CA local law enforcement for the most part has refused to enforce the lockdowns imposed by their own local governments.)
bestnameever 6y ago
This is really not just about outdoor dining. Here, they are comparing outdoor dining that is open against outdoor dining that is closed. We already know the circumstances of how they operate and the precautions they are taking are likely not equal.

est31 6y ago

Even if she could only open her restaurant for production companies whose employees are tested daily, it'd be a better situation. She probably can offer way better food than a trucked in catering can provide which is probably the alternative. The catering company probably suffers a lot as well from covid, so let both have their venues open, and make the people decide whose food they like best. As a benefit, the people would distribute between the two venues and would thus be further apart than if they used one venue. This situation is incredibly unfair to her. She has to pay the rent but can't open. She has to pay no rent and gets customers.

gamblor956 6y ago
She probably can offer way better food than a trucked in catering can provide which is probably the alternative. This is in fact what a number of studios already do: they use local restaurants for catering or on-site meals. However, as a result of COVID procedures, in order for a local restaurant to be eligible for this, they would to adhere to the same restrictions as Hollywood crews do, meaning: daily/near-daily testing, quarantining outside of work, and importantly, no interaction with non-household members. Hollywood has the guilds to help it enforce the covid procedures (and also pays very well). The same cannot be said of restaurants.

imgabe 6y ago

This story is based on this video from Twitter: https://twitter.com/SpencerKlavan/status/1335007535070253057 https://twitter.com/SpencerKlavan/status/1335007535070253057 You can see the tables. They're about the same distance apart. There's also like 10x more of them for the film set than for the restaurant.

gamblor956 6y ago
The risk profiles are completely different. Every single person eating on the film set has been tested regularly and continuously and is not permitted on set if they have an ambiguous or positive result. In the event of a positive result, they're not even permitted on set for at least a week until after the last positive result, even when followup tests suggest that the positive result may have been false positive. When on set, all crew and cast must wear masks at all times except when filming, in which case cast but not crew may remove their masks for the duration of the take. How often are the restaurant employees being tested? How often of the customers being tested? (For both questions, the answer is "not regularly, if at all".)
- imgabe 6y ago
  Testing is great, but that's not a measure of risk. For every 100 people who eat at a restaurant, how many get the virus? For every 100 people working on a film set how many get the virus? These are the numbers we should look at to compare one vs. the other.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    For the first one, it depends on the local population and the type of restaurant. There is documented evidence that dining in bars in the South have resulted in hundreds of cases of COVID transmission, while at the same time there are few documented cases of COVID transmission related to outdoor dining in CA over the summer. For the second one: 0. There have been 0 known instances of cast or crew getting COVID while on set, because upon reporting a single instance of a positive result, they require the cast/crew member to quarantine. In some cases, they have even shut down production for the quarantine period to prevent spread, see, e.g., The Batman.