New York City Thread: Part III (Info in OP)

[East Coast Bias]

Lots of jobs will be lost and some places might not survive.

Inevitable unfortunately. Been happening all over Europe for weeks. Trying to get numbers down before Christmas and New Years.

would be nice to see a stimulus passed to get us to spring and vaccination. But that would be too easy. If we pray hard enough this will pass.

 

[True Blue]

Inevitable unfortunately. Been happening all over Europe for weeks. Trying to get numbers down before Christmas and New Years.

would be nice to see a stimulus passed to get us to spring and vaccination. But that would be too easy. If we pray hard enough this will pass.

But at 1.2 percent, it is not really happening in restaurants. Is it really necessary to completely kill off small businesses? Could be just me, but there have to be trade offs. And maybe places where the infections account for 1.2% should not be blindly shuttered? Also, if you look at Manhattan, the rate of infection is much smaller than anywhere else in the state. Why blindly shutter businesses? Maybe just me, but it makes no sense. Small businesses have bent over backwards over seemingly arbitrary rules, not really rooted in any type of science. The only way to be 100% safe is to just shut everything down and not allow people to leave their homes. Short of that, there should be trade offs.

 

[East Coast Bias]

But at 1.2 percent, it is not really happening in restaurants. Is it really necessary to completely kill off small businesses? Could be just me, but there have to be trade offs. And maybe places where the infections account for 1.2% should not be blindly shuttered? Also, if you look at Manhattan, the rate of infection is much smaller than anywhere else in the state. Why blindly shutter businesses? Maybe just me, but it makes no sense. Small businesses have bent over backwards over seemingly arbitrary rules, not really rooted in any type of science. The only way to be 100% safe is to just shut everything down and not allow people to leave their homes. Short of that, there should be trade offs.

those numbers aren't really meaningful. they're based on "reported activity" to contact tracers. It's much easier to trace the fact you and a family both have covid than it is to trace the fact another 5 people at the bar on last tuesday also have covid. Bars/Restaurants aren't taking customers info and logging it. Not in my experience. So the only reported numbers are probably employees. contact tracing is gone now anyway. It works in the environment like we had this summer. Test and trace. Now it's far beyond control

We know what we know. It's the same as what is known in Europe or Asia. Transmission happens in closed spaces, with poor ventilation, where people talk loudly, and in places people can't wear masks the whole time (which is impossible if you're drinking and eating). Restaurants and bars are some of the worst, if not the worst places for this. Others being religious gatherings which are now untouchable. You can't stop private gatherings. Compared to all over the world, Americans have never been "locked down." Despite the fact you have modern day Paul Reveres who can't go to Lowe's all over the place making headline news.


I dont really like this anymore than anyone else. But the time to change isn't when you're overwhelmed. The numbers are bad now. If you're hospitals are full - its too late. The lag is 3/4 weeks. Some of the states/cities in the US right now are insanely bad. Its sad to watch.

 

[True Blue]

those numbers aren't really meaningful. they're based on "reported activity" to contact tracers. It's much easier to trace the fact you and a family both have covid than it is to trace the fact another 5 people at the bar on last tuesday also have covid. Bars/Restaurants aren't taking customers info and logging it. Not in my experience. So the only reported numbers are probably employees. contact tracing is gone now anyway. It works in the environment like we had this summer. Test and trace. Now it's far beyond control

We know what we know. It's the same as what is known in Europe or Asia. Transmission happens in closed spaces, with poor ventilation, where people talk loudly, and in places people can't wear masks the whole time (which is impossible if you're drinking and eating). Restaurants and bars are some of the worst, if not the worst places for this. Others being religious gatherings which are now untouchable. You can't stop private gatherings. Compared to all over the world, Americans have never been "locked down." Despite the fact you have modern day Paul Reveres who can't go to Lowe's all over the place making headline news.


I dont really like this anymore than anyone else. But the time to change isn't when you're overwhelmed. The numbers are bad now. If you're hospitals are full - its too late. The lag is 3/4 weeks. Some of the states/cities in the US right now are insanely bad. Its sad to watch.

I am not disputing what is bad or not and what is going on both here and in the rest of the world. The local government spend a good amount of money on contact tracing. They gather the data. If you (not you specifically) are not going to put any faith in the data, then why bother spending money on obtaining it? Strictly speaking for NYC, it was never really reopened. The capacity for restaurants was 25% for indoor dining. I have eaten inside. At that capacity, you are spaced apart pretty well. There was never a feeling of someone being on top of me. The only people around me were those that I was dining with.

You have the data. The numbers tell you that at this reduced capacity, the spreading events are not really happening at restaurants. At least not in NYC. And as I said, specifically in Manhattan, the numbers are even less than that. So again, why go to a broad "shut down every restaurant" approach? That makes no sense. Why is Manhattan being punished for Buffalo? Livelihoods are being destroyed. Just my opinion, but there should be trade offs. Having politicians treat grown adults like children (get into your room and do not come out until I tell you) and decide that they know better than you on what is and what is not acceptable seems a bit silly to me.

Restaurants have shown that they can be operated safely. Maybe it is not necessary to kill off every small business and then demand that the federal government bail you out.

 

[East Coast Bias]

I am not disputing what is bad or not and what is going on both here and in the rest of the world. The local government spend a good amount of money on contact tracing. They gather the data. If you (not you specifically) are not going to put any faith in the data, then why bother spending money on obtaining it? Strictly speaking for NYC, it was never really reopened. The capacity for restaurants was 25% for indoor dining. I have eaten inside. At that capacity, you are spaced apart pretty well. There was never a feeling of someone being on top of me. The only people around me were those that I was dining with.

You have the data. The numbers tell you that at this reduced capacity, the spreading events are not really happening at restaurants. At least not in NYC. And as I said, specifically in Manhattan, the numbers are even less than that. So again, why go to a broad "shut down every restaurant" approach? That makes no sense. Why is Manhattan being punished for Buffalo? Livelihoods are being destroyed. Just my opinion, but there should be trade offs. Having politicians treat grown adults like children (get into your room and do not come out until I tell you) and decide that they know better than you on what is and what is not acceptable seems a bit silly to me.

Restaurants have shown that they can be operated safely. Maybe it is not necessary to kill off every small business and then demand that the federal government bail you out.

I dont know how else to say this other than you're just not going to be able to keep bars and restaurants open and push through this when community spread is where it is now. We've watched this around the country for 9 months. We've watched it around the world even. It's the same story in every single place. Every state was gonna be different! until they weren't. We know how it spreads and what activities are high risk. Drinking and dining is overwhelmingly high risk.

Your last sentence is really the tell though. There isn't a strategy or metric you'd accept. Any debate is really just performance art.

 

[GordonGecko]

Any debate is really just performance art.

That's an insane statement. The debate you won't even acknowledge at a minimum is the one of constitutional rights. People rightly argue that they have the right to judge for themselves the risk of their behavior and what constitutes danger. It is perfectly reasonable for a healthy young or middle aged person to calculate that eating at a restaurant not only is an acceptable probability of being infected, but that if they are infected COVID will have little to no effect on their health

You may or may not agree, but it's not your place to control other people's lives. Maybe that can fly elsewhere, but not in America

 

[True Blue]

I dont know how else to say this other than you're just not going to be able to keep bars and restaurants open and push through this when community spread is where it is now. We've watched this around the country for 9 months. We've watched it around the world even. It's the same story in every single place. Every state was gonna be different! until they weren't. We know how it spreads and what activities are high risk. Drinking and dining is overwhelmingly high risk.

Your last sentence is really the tell though. There isn't a strategy or metric you'd accept. Any debate is really just performance art.

I am not disputing whether or not restaurants are open or will be open. Clearly they are not. Nor have I ever denied that one state is different from any other. What I am disputing is the risk level of eating out at an indoor restaurant. The fact of the matter is that, again at least in NYC, the numbers dispute the axiom that it represents high risk. The actual numbers tell quite a different tale. That does not mean that you should run out to eat indoors if you do not feel safe. Nor should you be judged by it. That said, either you are going to rely on data to make decisions or you are not. Not sure how cherry picking which numbers to believe or not to believe makes for a strong case. I am not trying to be insulting but after hearing about the data and the science for 10 months and then turning around and start to make certain decisions when the data just does not support, makes for a convincing argument. At least not to me. Again, I am not urging anyone to do anything that they are not comfortable in doing. But at least be consistent. If the data does not support a draconian choice, then why make it? But I guess what else is to be expected from leaders who follow a "do as I say not as I do" creed.

As for the last sentence, not sure where the performance is. You single handedly demolished the economy and ended livelihoods. One can certainly make the argument that prior to having knowledge and data at your exposal, it was the one thing that the states could do. But now, there is data. But it seems to me that data is being relied upon when convenient. To continue to shutter everything and then demand to be bailed out without thinking of ay type of trade off, seems a bit short sighted. There is a reason as to why the unemployment rate in NYC is double that of the national one. Or virtually so.

 

[East Coast Bias]

That's an insane statement. The debate you won't even acknowledge at a minimum is the one of constitutional rights. People rightly argue that they have the right to judge for themselves the risk of their behavior and what constitutes danger. It is perfectly reasonable for a healthy young or middle aged person to calculate that eating at a restaurant not only is an acceptable probability of being infected, but that if they are infected COVID will have little to no effect on their health

You may or may not agree, but it's not your place to control other people's lives. Maybe that can fly elsewhere, but not in America

My comment about performance art is precisely what you're arguing. You don't want to deal with restrictions. Period. Any debate about metrics, or why can't restaurants stay open if Manhattan ins't as bad as Brooklyn is total bullsiht. If you think it's your constitutional right to do whatever you want, you're not disagreeing with policy specifics. You disagree with policy as a whole.

I dont really care about you nor do I wish to control your life. At all. I view this from a public health perspective. It's akin to a drunk. If you want to sit on your couch and drink yourself to death, go for it. But the minute you get in a car, you become a societal problem.

If you, a young healthy freedom loving person, could get Covid and not spread it, I would have different opinions. If you could be the guy on the couch, I wouldn't care. But every covid case, no matter how at risk for severe symptoms, becomes a drunk driver situation. You cannot limit spread to only young. Its literally impossible.

It's not realistic to tell old or at risk people to just stay home so the young and free can do what they please. it's incredibly naive and overly simplistic viewpoint. It completely ignores virology and how this disease spreads. People who govern, though I may not agree with each decision they make, do not have the luxury to think like this.

 

[GordonGecko]

My comment about performance art is precisely what you're arguing. You don't want to deal with restrictions. Period. Any debate about metrics, or why can't restaurants stay open if Manhattan ins't as bad as Brooklyn is total bullsiht. If you think it's your constitutional right to do whatever you want, you're not disagreeing with policy specifics. You disagree with policy as a whole.

I dont really care about you nor do I wish to control your life. At all. I view this from a public health perspective. It's akin to a drunk. If you want to sit on your couch and drink yourself to death, go for it. But the minute you get in a car, you become a societal problem.

If you, a young healthy freedom loving person, could get Covid and not spread it, I would have different opinions. If you could be the guy on the couch, I wouldn't care. But every covid case, no matter how at risk for severe symptoms, becomes a drunk driver situation. You cannot limit spread to only young. Its literally impossible.

It's not realistic to tell old or at risk people to just stay home so the young and free can do what they please. it's incredibly naive and overly simplistic viewpoint. It completely ignores virology and how this disease spreads. People who govern, though I may not agree with each decision they make, do not have the luxury to think like this.

Again, you're trying to control other people's lives. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Being in public is a right. I think there should be some restrictions, stores should require masks and density limits make sense. Beyond that, you're on your own and you have to allow people their agency to make their own decisions and assume the risks.

It's not performance art at all, the politicians making these decisions are off getting private haircuts and $400 meals in restaurants, and the people who are supporting these draconian lockdowns are absolutely advocating for shutting everything down and making government bail them out

How is that performance art - it's the absolute reality of things

 

[East Coast Bias]

Again, you're trying to control other people's lives. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Being in public is a right. I think there should be some restrictions, stores should require masks and density limits make sense. Beyond that, you're on your own and you have to allow people their agency to make their own decisions and assume the risks.

It's not performance art at all, the politicians making these decisions are off getting private haircuts and $400 meals in restaurants, and the people who are supporting these draconian lockdowns are absolutely advocating for shutting everything down and making government bail them out

How is that performance art - it's the absolute reality of things

Dining in a restaurant is not a constitutional right.

 

[GordonGecko]

Dining in a restaurant is not a constitutional right.

It absolutely is a right when the owner opens a place of business and a willing customer agrees to eat there, both fully having been made aware of the existence of a virus going around which kills 0.1% of people who have a known co-morbidity. You don't have the right to tell others where they can transact, even if that means they have an increased chance of death. It's not your place to control their lives, that's not the role of the government and ironically enough the role of the government is supposed to be to protect your rights.

I wouldn't eat in a restaurant, but that doesn't mean I should take away the rights of others to decide for themselves

 

[East Coast Bias]

It absolutely is a right when the owner opens a place of business and a willing customer agrees to eat there, both fully having been made aware of the existence of a virus going around which kills 0.1% of people who have a known co-morbidity. You don't have the right to tell others where they can transact, even if that means they have an increased chance of death. It's not your place

No its not. Restaurants and bars open under the guidelines of governing municipalities.

In the same way the police can close a bar that gets too crowded on Paddys day. Or when they close a bar during a blizzard citing a city/town state of emergency ordinance.

The recent SCOTUS ruling that even mentioned dining was in regard to the fact that they ruled that Cuomo could not restrict religious gatherings more than dining, which was used as an example. Meaning you can't have a zone where dining is 50% but places of worship could only max 25%.

One of them are mentioned in the constitution. And it ain't f***ing dining.

 

[GordonGecko]

No its not. Restaurants and bars open under the guidelines of governing municipalities.

In the same way the police can close a bar that gets too crowded on Paddys day. Or when they close a bar during a blizzard citing a city/town state of emergency ordinance.

The recent SCOTUS ruling that even mentioned dining was in regard to the fact that they ruled that Cuomo could not restrict religious gatherings more than dining, which was used as an example. Meaning you can't have a zone where dining is 50% but places of worship could only max 25%.

One of them are mentioned in the constitution. And it ain't f***ing dining.

You know very well the constitution doesn't mention dining because dining is a subset of broader rights and freedoms including prohibiting any laws impairing the obligation of contracts and citizens having the freedom to assemble.

In the historical scheme of things, COVID-19 is not a sufficiently dangerous plague that warrants the destruction of the economy which many rightly argue causes more damage in the long run. The chance of death is incredibly small if you don't have a co-morbidity, very much in the same category as a bad year of influenza.

I take real offense to people like you saying that any debate itself is performance art, it's a piggish attitude that marginalizes others and assumes you know what's best for everyone

 

[Crease]

So this is a fun topic for me. Stay-at-home orders and business restrictions implicate Constitutional rights, both for individuals and businesses. It is important to understand that Constitutional rights are not absolute. The Government can infringe on Constitutional rights if they comport with a balancing test. The test varies depending on the specific right at issue. Most of the rights impacted by COVID-19 restrictions have been subject to the rational basis test (which is the easiest test for the Government to satisfy). Under the rational basis test, the restriction is permissible if it is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" Government interest. Very easy to satisfy under the current circumstances. Courts have generally upheld COVID-19 restrictions as legal under the rational basis test. Courts have dinged the Government, however, where the restrictions caused disparate treatment (e.g. religious vs. non-religious gatherings, small vs. national businesses).

 

[True Blue]

So this is a fun topic for me. Stay-at-home orders and business restrictions implicate Constitutional rights, both for individuals and businesses. It is important to understand that Constitutional rights are not absolute. The Government can infringe on Constitutional rights if they comport with a balancing test. The test varies depending on the specific right at issue. Most of the rights impacted by COVID-19 restrictions have been subject to the rational basis test (which is the easiest test for the Government to satisfy). Under the rational basis test, the restriction is permissible it is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" Government interest. Courts have generally upheld stay-at-home and business restrictions as legal under the rational basis test.

That is actually very interesting and informative. Just goes to show you that you (in this case me) are never too old to learn something.

My viewpoint(s) on this are not based on what is and what is not constitutional. Funnily enough, they are based on what I believe to be rational thought and behavior patterns. Again, I stress it is only based on what I view to be rational. I would not demand for others to see things the same way. But rational conversation should spark rational debate, and who knows? Maybe people (regular little people and both state and federal government) can come to a rational decision which is somewhere in the middle. Human nature, and today's hyper partisan viewpoints, make that a long shot.

 

[East Coast Bias]

You know very well the constitution doesn't mention dining because dining is a subset of broader rights and freedoms including prohibiting any laws impairing the obligation of contracts and citizens having the freedom to assemble.

In the historical scheme of things, COVID-19 is not a sufficiently dangerous plague that warrants the destruction of the economy which many rightly argue causes more damage in the long run. The chance of death is incredibly small if you don't have a co-morbidity, very much in the same category as a bad year of influenza.

I take real offense to people like you saying that any debate itself is performance art, it's a piggish attitude that marginalizes others and assumes you know what's best for everyone

The balls of someone to spend a paragraph deciding this level of death isn't worth your energy preventing but to call other people piggish is really something.

I didn't say any debate itself is performance art. It wasn't even directed at you, and you clearly didn't understand it.

 

[GordonGecko]

The balls of someone to spend a paragraph deciding this level of death isn't worth your energy preventing but to call other people piggish is really something.

I didn't say any debate itself is performance art. It wasn't even directed at you, and you clearly didn't understand it.

Sure you did:
"Your last sentence is really the tell though. There isn't a strategy or metric you'd accept. Any debate is really just performance art."

The numbers are hard to pin down, but according to the CDC (COVID-19 Provisional Counts - Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics) 6% of deaths were due to COVID alone with no co-morbidity. With 300,000 deaths, that is 18,000 who died of SARS-CoV2 alone in 2020. 22,000 died of the flu last season, 61,000 2 seasons before that. Are we supposed to lockdown society every flu season now? What kind of logic is this? Spare me the righteous indignation of "this level of death" and consider instead the "level of misery" and damage the harsh lockdowns are causing especially to lower income workers who live paycheck to paycheck and can't just ride this out for a year like you or me

This isn't the bubonic plague, we're not seeing half the population die. We're seeing a fraction of a percentage, and we know who is more susceptible.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

It absolutely is a right when the owner opens a place of business and a willing customer agrees to eat there, both fully having been made aware of the existence of a virus going around which kills 0.1% of people who have a known co-morbidity. You don't have the right to tell others where they can transact, even if that means they have an increased chance of death. It's not your place to control their lives, that's not the role of the government and ironically enough the role of the government is supposed to be to protect your rights.

I wouldn't eat in a restaurant, but that doesn't mean I should take away the rights of others to decide for themselves

The role of government is not only to protect your freedom to do something, but also to protect society from dangerous actions of others.

Go build your libertarian "paradise" elsewhere.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Sure you did:
"Your last sentence is really the tell though. There isn't a strategy or metric you'd accept. Any debate is really just performance art."

The numbers are hard to pin down, but according to the CDC (COVID-19 Provisional Counts - Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics) 6% of deaths were due to COVID alone with no co-morbidity. With 300,000 deaths, that is 18,000 who died of SARS-CoV2 alone in 2020. 22,000 died of the flu last season, 61,000 2 seasons before that. Are we supposed to lockdown society every flu season now? What kind of logic is this? Spare me the righteous indignation of "this level of death" and consider instead the "level of misery" and damage the harsh lockdowns are causing especially to lower income workers who live paycheck to paycheck and can't just ride this out for a year like you or me

This isn't the bubonic plague, we're not seeing half the population die. We're seeing a fraction of a percentage, and we know who is more susceptible.

You just proved my point. Even though it wasn't directed at you, you've managed to exactly prove the point.

You were not remotely interested in any debate. Because the reality is you think this is bullshit. So really debating whether a restaurant should close if the positive rate is 4% or 5%, or if they should close by zip code, or any other policy tool is bullshit because you don't believe any of it.

you just don't want to deal with it. But you hide behind others policies as the REAL issue.

 

[Leonardo87]

I’m in Florida now and it’s like Covid doesn’t exist, kinda scary. I am all for things being open but some people need to take it more serious. I’m taking the precautions when I return back to NY, but NY has become worse than Florida and it’s crazy since there are no restrictions down here.

With that said, am totally against Cuomo shutting things down like this. There is no proof that the virus is even spreading mostly from indoor dining, think it was like 1%. Precautions are necessary but not shutdowns. NYC will take years to recover, sadly.

 

[GordonGecko]

You just proved my point. Even though it wasn't directed at you, you've managed to exactly prove the point.

You were not remotely interested in any debate. Because the reality is you think this is bullshit. So really debating whether a restaurant should close if the positive rate is 4% or 5%, or if they should close by zip code, or any other policy tool is bullshit because you don't believe any of it.

you just don't want to deal with it. But you hide behind others policies as the REAL issue.

I'm not hiding behind anything, I think I've been completely upfront and provided support for my arguments. People are free individuals and should be expected to make choices that are right for them. You don't seem to be at all rational about any of this, instead you're leaning on emotional arguments about "this level of death", accusing me of not being interested in debate when I've debated quite well and you have no retort, and now you're casting aspersions accusing me of "think[ing] this is bullshit" because you obviously know what I'm really thinking because you're so convinced you know better.

It's very straightforward, the level of health effects does not rise to the level of destroying the economy and people's livelyhoods. Common sense measures such as wearing masks, reducing density, and posting prominent notices about infection warnings are in order and beyond that every person has the right and freedom to make the choices necessary for them, including maintaining a business to earn a living. People have risked far more for far less

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Frankly I don’t see the problem with restricting indoor dining. If you want to support your local restaurant, order takeout from them directly and leave a bigger tip than you would normally

It’s not that hard lol

If you’re willing to travel to the restaurant to eat there, you should also be willing to travel to the restaurant to pick up the food and support them when there’s no indoor dining

 

[Leonardo87]

Frankly I don’t see the problem with restricting indoor dining. If you want to support your local restaurant, order takeout from them directly and leave a bigger tip than you would normally

It’s not that hard lol

If you’re willing to travel to the restaurant to eat there, you should also be willing to travel to the restaurant to pick up the food and support them when there’s no indoor dining

Sadly a lot of restaurants unless you are like Chinese or pizza cannot make up that revenue. You know how much in liquor sales alone a restaurant makes? I have a friend in the business and they are in serious trouble.

 

[Ruggs225]

I'm not hiding behind anything, I think I've been completely upfront and provided support for my arguments. People are free individuals and should be expected to make choices that are right for them. You don't seem to be at all rational about any of this, instead you're leaning on emotional arguments about "this level of death", accusing me of not being interested in debate when I've debated quite well and you have no retort, and now you're casting aspersions accusing me of "think[ing] this is bullshit" because you obviously know what I'm really thinking because you're so convinced you know better.

It's very straightforward, the level of health effects does not rise to the level of destroying the economy and people's livelyhoods. Common sense measures such as wearing masks, reducing density, and posting prominent notices about infection warnings are in order and beyond that every person has the right and freedom to make the choices necessary for them, including maintaining a business to earn a living. People have risked far more for far less

i wish i could give u 1,000 likes for your posts. And this is coming from someone who lost a close family member to covid.

underlying conditions of course

 

[LionsHeart]

I’m of two minds with this. I think shutting things down is the right thing to do. The next few months are going to be historically tragic (as if it wasn’t bad enough). However, if you’re going to ask businesses to shut down, you have to reimburse them for the losses, which is what should be happening via a Federal Stimulus plan. The lack of support for individuals and small businesses has been nothing sort of paltry, and it shows the priorities of our government.