4 ms·
They aren’t restricting all outdoor activity. They are restricting one form of outdoor activity while allowing others. There is one group (restaurants) that is
by babesh 6y ago
They aren’t restricting all outdoor activity. They are restricting one form of outdoor activity while allowing others. There is one group (restaurants) that is inordinately harmed by this restriction.
For instance, I walked by the Presidio parade grounds in SF this past Sunday. Plenty of people were picnicking on the grass there. They were eating and drinking without masks while social distancing. It’s basically a restaurant level risk without the restaurant.
That activity is allowed but outdoor dining isn’t.
Another example. I went to downtown Burlingame the week before to get my phone fixed. There was a lot of outdoor dining but more interestingly there were many people walking or standing around with masks down while sipping drinks. Those sidewalks don’t permit 6 ft social distancing.
That is still not restricted but outdoor dining a few feet away would be.
These restrictions don’t make much sense. The problem is that the behavior that is causing most of the spread is something that they cannot effectively ban without massive policing.
- anigbrowl 6y agoI've been seeing people packed in quite densely in many outdoor dining setups; other than the fact that they're outside there seems no risk awareness at all. It's very unfair to restaurants that do make an effort to limit table sizes and space people out as much as possible.
- babesh 6y agoThe problem with this virus is that most people aren’t going to die from it. Therefore, from a self interest standpoint, those least vulnerable don’t feel that they should make a sacrifice for those more vulnerable. Similarly, the economic effects aren’t being felt evenly. I think more and more people have come to this realization. If you are poor and likely to get it, then why shouldn’t you give it to the rich? Likewise if you are rich, you aren’t feeling the economic effects and may be for lockdowns. If you are a teen why should you be inconvenienced by masks? I think we are seeing both play out.
- sampo 6y ago> those least vulnerable don’t feel that they should make a sacrifice for those more vulnerable. Young people will be hit the hardest, if there's an economic recession in the coming years. It will be especially hard for young people to find jobs.
- beaconstudios 6y agomost people don't project the consequences of their decisions out that far. "I want to spend time with friends" does not lead to "this may cause me difficulty in finding a job later on" because the causal relationship is systemic and related to the independent decisions of many actors, not their own singular decision. Or in other words, it's a tragedy of the commons.
- babesh 6y agoIt’s no different from people standing in the middle of the sidewalk or people who stand right behind you in line.
- duskwuff 6y agoMaybe it was earlier in the summer. But, as the weather has grown colder, many restaurants have gradually enclosed their "outdoor dining" areas to the point that they're practically indoors again.
- jacobolus 6y agoThe obvious difference is that nobody wears a mask while eating...
- anigbrowl 6y agoIt is different, because people standing in line on the sidewalk are generally maintaining an approximate 6 foot distance (unless they're from the same household). I'm talking about (some) restaurants arranging people with only 1-2 feet of separation between diners. Plus people standing in single file are going to circulate air differently to people sitting abreast of each other, as well as wearing rather than doffing masks. Also, sit down meals tend to last at least 20-30 minutes, and I have not spent that much time in line on the sidewalk for anything during COVID - perhaps once back in March when social distancing was first being figured out, but definitely not since.
- babesh 6y agoLines into Trader Joe’s are easily that long but that is why I just drive away if I see a line that long.
- ryandrake 6y agoYea, if anyone has actually seen these schemes restaurant owners have come up with, especially as the weather gets cold: It's a joke. Four clear vinyl walls and a ceiling. It is essentially indoor dining but in a parking lot. You're not fooling anyone. They're obviously designed to comply with the exact letter of the law, not its spirit or intention. When I look at them and the people in them sitting shoulder to shoulder, all I can think of is "super-spreader". I'm shocked that they were allowed to operate in this way. Also, the "but other businesses..." argument fails to recognize that dining is a special case activity: The nature of eating food requires you to be unmasked and using your mouth. It's not the same as shopping for clothes.
- babesh 6y agoThat is an argument for enforcing safe outdoor dining rather than banning it altogether. There is a distinction.
- jacobolus 6y ago> Presidio parade grounds in SF this past Sunday. Plenty of people were picnicking on the grass there. If they are from the same household and keeping their distance from people in other households this is entirely fine. It’s relatively low risk if outdoors, especially someplace relatively windy. If they are from different households and crowding together eating then they are technically violating SF’s local health orders. Enforcement is difficult of course. > Burlingame [...] many people walking or standing around with masks down while sipping drinks [...] That is still not restricted I would guess that these people are violating their local health orders (they certainly would be in SF), but again it’s a lot harder to enforce this one than shutting down restaurants.