https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/san-francisco-shuts-down-all-indoor-dining-after-250-percent-increase-in-covid-19-cases/ar-BB1aSVGa

Indoor dining is just a bad idea period until vaccines are out.

I'm debating when I should go out to my place (Alameda Co.) and get that last haircut of 2020. I don't quite need one this week, but I don't want to wait too long and have it be shut down. From May-September, my 8 yr old daughter was using our clippers on me about once a month for $5. She liked it more than I did.

Big C said:

---

I'm debating when I should go out to my place (Alameda Co.) and get that last haircut of 2020. I don't quite need one this week, but I don't want to wait too long and have it be shut down. From May-September, my 8 yr old daughter was using our clippers on me about once a month for $5. She liked it more than I did.

---

Got mine on Friday.

Though IMO haircuts should be fine. As long as you and the barber both wear masks and it's just one customer at a time in the shop, the risk seems minimal to me.

Kaworu said:

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/san-francisco-shuts-down-all-indoor-dining-after-250-percent-increase-in-covid-19-cases/ar-BB1aSVGa

---

Why did they begin to allow it, anyway? Lots of people indoors without masks. What could go wrong?

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

I'm debating when I should go out to my place (Alameda Co.) and get that last haircut of 2020. I don't quite need one this week, but I don't want to wait too long and have it be shut down. From May-September, my 8 yr old daughter was using our clippers on me about once a month for $5. She liked it more than I did.

---

Got mine on Friday.

Though IMO haircuts should be fine. As long as you and the barber both wear masks and it's just one customer at a time in the shop, the risk seems minimal to me.

---

Tell that to the Health Departments, who shut down all the hair places until September. Even the Speaker of the House had to get her hair done under the cover of darkness. It's more than just my hair (less and less anyway): My brother-in-law cuts hair. He survived April-September, but might have to move if his place is closed down again.

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

I'm debating when I should go out to my place (Alameda Co.) and get that last haircut of 2020. I don't quite need one this week, but I don't want to wait too long and have it be shut down. From May-September, my 8 yr old daughter was using our clippers on me about once a month for $5. She liked it more than I did.

---

Got mine on Friday.

Though IMO haircuts should be fine. As long as you and the barber both wear masks and it's just one customer at a time in the shop, the risk seems minimal to me.

---

Tell that to the Health Departments, who shut down all the hair places until September. Even the Speaker of the House had to get her hair done under the cover of darkness. It's more than just my hair (less and less anyway): My brother-in-law cuts hair. He survived April-September, but might have to move if his place is closed down again.

---

Where would your brother-in-law move to?

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

I'm debating when I should go out to my place (Alameda Co.) and get that last haircut of 2020. I don't quite need one this week, but I don't want to wait too long and have it be shut down. From May-September, my 8 yr old daughter was using our clippers on me about once a month for $5. She liked it more than I did.

---

Got mine on Friday.

Though IMO haircuts should be fine. As long as you and the barber both wear masks and it's just one customer at a time in the shop, the risk seems minimal to me.

---

Tell that to the Health Departments, who shut down all the hair places until September. Even the Speaker of the House had to get her hair done under the cover of darkness. It's more than just my hair (less and less anyway): My brother-in-law cuts hair. He survived April-September, but might have to move if his place is closed down again.

---

IMO that was a mistake (in part because we weren't entirely sure how this thing spreads), but now the evidence is showing that hair salons are not major spreaders.

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

I'm debating when I should go out to my place (Alameda Co.) and get that last haircut of 2020. I don't quite need one this week, but I don't want to wait too long and have it be shut down. From May-September, my 8 yr old daughter was using our clippers on me about once a month for $5. She liked it more than I did.

---

Got mine on Friday.

Though IMO haircuts should be fine. As long as you and the barber both wear masks and it's just one customer at a time in the shop, the risk seems minimal to me.

---

Tell that to the Health Departments, who shut down all the hair places until September. Even the Speaker of the House had to get her hair done under the cover of darkness. It's more than just my hair (less and less anyway): My brother-in-law cuts hair. He survived April-September, but might have to move if his place is closed down again.

---

IMO that was a mistake (in part because we weren't entirely sure how this thing spreads), but now the evidence is showing that hair salons are not major spreaders.

---

Agree. We do have to understand that health departments are dealing with the information that is in front of them. There was good reason to be cautious regarding barbershops.

The Stanford study published yesterday is an interesting one, though I think it is confirming what we all figuring out. Basically, indoors bad. Crowded indoors really bad. Though, I have to say, this has been obvious for months.

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

35 Places You're Most Likely to Catch COVID | Eat This Not That


https://www.eatthis.com/covid-19-high-risk-places/

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

sycasey said:

---

Indoor dining is just a bad idea period until vaccines are out.

---

Tell Las Vegas that cause they don't give a bleep

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

---

Please show me the studies tying large COVID spreads to places like Target and Costco as they are currently tied to restaurants. Here's what I can find on that:

https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/health/2020/09/30/california-grocery-store-covid-19-outbreaks-what-you-should-know/5872280002/

COVID outbreaks in grocery stores are tied to EMPLOYEES who come into work and spread it to other employees. Customers are not in the store long enough to become infected. This is not the same as what happens in restaurants.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

---

You are wrong that stores are not controlling capacity. At least here in Southern California they still are. Also, the biggest difference between Target and a restaurant is that no one in a restaurant is wearing a mask.

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

---

You are wrong that stores are not controlling capacity. At least here in Southern California they still are. Also, the biggest difference between Target and a restaurant is that no one in a restaurant is wearing a mask.

---

LMK5 is never one to let facts get in the way of a disingenuous argument. He's not arguing that grocery stores should close but that we should let everyone do whatever they want whenever they want, like in the utopia of Arizona that he's oh so jealous of.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

---

You are wrong that stores are not controlling capacity. At least here in Southern California they still are. Also, the biggest difference between Target and a restaurant is that no one in a restaurant is wearing a mask.



LMK5 is never one to let facts get in the way of a disingenuous argument. He's not arguing that grocery stores should close but that we should let everyone do whatever they want whenever they want, like in the utopia of Arizona that he's oh so jealous of.

---

---

The LMK argument seems very all-or-nothing: either we open everything or nothing. That's not the right approach IMO: you need to determine where the relative risk is, to try to balance freedom and safety. That calculation might also change based on how bad the local community spread is. So saying that indoor dining is more risky than grocery shopping and therefore the latter can stay open is not hypocrisy, it's a rational choice based on the available evidence.

LMK5 said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

I'm debating when I should go out to my place (Alameda Co.) and get that last haircut of 2020. I don't quite need one this week, but I don't want to wait too long and have it be shut down. From May-September, my 8 yr old daughter was using our clippers on me about once a month for $5. She liked it more than I did.

---

Got mine on Friday.

Though IMO haircuts should be fine. As long as you and the barber both wear masks and it's just one customer at a time in the shop, the risk seems minimal to me.

---

Tell that to the Health Departments, who shut down all the hair places until September. Even the Speaker of the House had to get her hair done under the cover of darkness. It's more than just my hair (less and less anyway): My brother-in-law cuts hair. He survived April-September, but might have to move if his place is closed down again.

---

Where would your brother-in-law move to?

---

I dunno, some red state?


Okay, guys, I'm going to take my chances and wait another week or two. Hope you're right.

Downtown SF empty.

I was downtown yesterday for first time since Covid. Yes it was a holiday but it was shocking how empty it was. People said it's ALWAYS like that, everyone is working from home.

Security worker at 350 Sansome said 30-40 people enter daily. That's a large building.

I was shocked.
There's a huge economic infrastructure in everything about downtown that would seem like it's gonna collapse.

Thoughts?
Does it return after vaccine?
Will corporate America accept decentralized workforce after Covid?
Is the stock market totally decoupled? Will we see some massive rollover?
How long can we debt spend trillions to wallpaper the losses?

concordtom said:

---

Downtown SF empty.

I was downtown yesterday for first time since Covid. Yes it was a holiday but it was shocking how empty it was. People said it's ALWAYS like that, everyone is working from home.

Security worker at 350 Sansome said 30-40 people enter daily. That's a large building.

I was shocked.
There's a huge economic infrastructure in everything about downtown that would seem like it's gonna collapse.

Thoughts?
Does it return after vaccine?
Will corporate America accept decentralized workforce after Covid?
Is the stock market totally decoupled? Will we see some massive rollover?
How long can we debt spend trillions to wallpaper the losses?

---

Overall, people have short memories. I imagine once the pandemic disappears (not the same as the virus disappearing) then people will go back to some semblance of the life they had before, although never completely back to the way it was.

Lots of people like going into the office and I think that some employers will insist on it. Others will just allow employees to work remotely forever.

If I had to guess, I'd say about 30% of those jobs downtown are not coming back so there will definitely be some sort of related contractions in that economy.

dimitrig said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Downtown SF empty.

I was downtown yesterday for first time since Covid. Yes it was a holiday but it was shocking how empty it was. People said it's ALWAYS like that, everyone is working from home.

Security worker at 350 Sansome said 30-40 people enter daily. That's a large building.

I was shocked.
There's a huge economic infrastructure in everything about downtown that would seem like it's gonna collapse.

Thoughts?
Does it return after vaccine?
Will corporate America accept decentralized workforce after Covid?
Is the stock market totally decoupled? Will we see some massive rollover?
How long can we debt spend trillions to wallpaper the losses?

---

Overall, people have short memories. I imagine once the pandemic disappears (not the same as the virus disappearing) then people will go back to some semblance of the life they had before, although never completely back to the way it was.

Lots of people like going into the office and I think that some employers will insist on it. Others will just allow employees to work remotely forever.

If I had to guess, I'd say about 30% of those jobs downtown are not coming back so there will definitely be some sort of related contractions in that economy.

---

San Francisco is tech industry heavy. Tech industry employees love working from home. Tech Companies love not paying for rent and don't have an antiquated view of telework. SF is in for an adjustment period as companies will be reducing their physical footprints. That said this is a very desirable and resilient city. A vacuum will be created and it will be filled.

If there's one thing I've learned over my many decades, it's that people have short-term memories.

We'll get back to a semblance of normality after the virus wanes and the media moves on from daily Covid stories and reports on the next new thing.

OaktownBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Downtown SF empty.

I was downtown yesterday for first time since Covid. Yes it was a holiday but it was shocking how empty it was. People said it's ALWAYS like that, everyone is working from home.

Security worker at 350 Sansome said 30-40 people enter daily. That's a large building.

I was shocked.
There's a huge economic infrastructure in everything about downtown that would seem like it's gonna collapse.

Thoughts?
Does it return after vaccine?
Will corporate America accept decentralized workforce after Covid?
Is the stock market totally decoupled? Will we see some massive rollover?
How long can we debt spend trillions to wallpaper the losses?

---

Overall, people have short memories. I imagine once the pandemic disappears (not the same as the virus disappearing) then people will go back to some semblance of the life they had before, although never completely back to the way it was.

Lots of people like going into the office and I think that some employers will insist on it. Others will just allow employees to work remotely forever.

If I had to guess, I'd say about 30% of those jobs downtown are not coming back so there will definitely be some sort of related contractions in that economy.

---

San Francisco is tech industry heavy. Tech industry employees love working from home. Tech Companies love not paying for rent and don't have an antiquated view of telework. SF is in for an adjustment period as companies will be reducing their physical footprints. That said this is a very desirable and resilient city. A vacuum will be created and it will be filled.

---

Not every employee - tech or not - loves working from home. There are a good number of people who are finding it difficult because of kids, spouses, pets, noise, ergonomics, social isolation, and so on.

Some tech companies did not even permit it prior to the pandemic and some (like IBM) did permit it but later changed their policy to forbid it. Netflix CEO/founder Reed Hastings has been on the record stating that working from home is a "pure negative." I think he has a minority opinion but I wanted to give an example from a tech company.

In general, I think that more people will work from home more of the time but to think that entire organizations will work from home 100% of the time seems unlikely. I mean, some will, of course. I stand by my projection that post-COVID about 70% of the workforce will return to SF.

In our own organization we are seeing that experienced employees who already understand our corporate culture and who had already successfully formed networks/relationships are handling remote work pretty well, but it is much tougher to integrate new and inexperienced employees.

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

---

You are wrong that stores are not controlling capacity. At least here in Southern California they still are. Also, the biggest difference between Target and a restaurant is that no one in a restaurant is wearing a mask.



LMK5 is never one to let facts get in the way of a disingenuous argument. He's not arguing that grocery stores should close but that we should let everyone do whatever they want whenever they want, like in the utopia of Arizona that he's oh so jealous of.

---

---

The LMK argument seems very all-or-nothing: either we open everything or nothing. That's not the right approach IMO: you need to determine where the relative risk is, to try to balance freedom and safety. That calculation might also change based on how bad the local community spread is. So saying that indoor dining is more risky than grocery shopping and therefore the latter can stay open is not hypocrisy, it's a rational choice based on the available evidence.

---

I agree with you. That said, you have to admit that there's an element of cherry-picking winners and losers. Casinos are open in Vegas but not churches. There are no large outbreaks tied to Disney World or Universal in Florida which have been open since July, yet Disneyland is not allowed to open at all. So yes, we have to make decisions based on the present circumstances, but let's not pretend that there aren't other forces at play in the decision-making. It's not a pure science and data-driven endeavor.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

---

You are wrong that stores are not controlling capacity. At least here in Southern California they still are. Also, the biggest difference between Target and a restaurant is that no one in a restaurant is wearing a mask.



LMK5 is never one to let facts get in the way of a disingenuous argument. He's not arguing that grocery stores should close but that we should let everyone do whatever they want whenever they want, like in the utopia of Arizona that he's oh so jealous of.

---

---

The LMK argument seems very all-or-nothing: either we open everything or nothing. That's not the right approach IMO: you need to determine where the relative risk is, to try to balance freedom and safety. That calculation might also change based on how bad the local community spread is. So saying that indoor dining is more risky than grocery shopping and therefore the latter can stay open is not hypocrisy, it's a rational choice based on the available evidence.

---

I agree with you. That said, you have to admit that there's an element of cherry-picking winners and losers. Casinos are open in Vegas but not churches. There are no large outbreaks tied to Disney World or Universal in Florida which have been open since July, yet Disneyland is not allowed to open at all. So yes, we have to make decisions based on the present circumstances, but let's not pretend that there aren't other forces at play in the decision-making. It's not a pure science and data-driven endeavor.

---

I don't believe I ever tried to claim that all government decisions were purely data-driven. I think we should all strive to ensure that they are as data-driven as possible, but I would never expect politics to 100% leave the arena here. It's just the kind of society we have.

dimitrig said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Downtown SF empty.

I was downtown yesterday for first time since Covid. Yes it was a holiday but it was shocking how empty it was. People said it's ALWAYS like that, everyone is working from home.

Security worker at 350 Sansome said 30-40 people enter daily. That's a large building.

I was shocked.
There's a huge economic infrastructure in everything about downtown that would seem like it's gonna collapse.

Thoughts?
Does it return after vaccine?
Will corporate America accept decentralized workforce after Covid?
Is the stock market totally decoupled? Will we see some massive rollover?
How long can we debt spend trillions to wallpaper the losses?

---

Overall, people have short memories. I imagine once the pandemic disappears (not the same as the virus disappearing) then people will go back to some semblance of the life they had before, although never completely back to the way it was.

Lots of people like going into the office and I think that some employers will insist on it. Others will just allow employees to work remotely forever.

If I had to guess, I'd say about 30% of those jobs downtown are not coming back so there will definitely be some sort of related contractions in that economy.

---

San Francisco is tech industry heavy. Tech industry employees love working from home. Tech Companies love not paying for rent and don't have an antiquated view of telework. SF is in for an adjustment period as companies will be reducing their physical footprints. That said this is a very desirable and resilient city. A vacuum will be created and it will be filled.

---

Not every employee - tech or not - loves working from home. There are a good number of people who are finding it difficult because of kids, spouses, pets, noise, ergonomics, social isolation, and so on.

Some tech companies did not even permit it prior to the pandemic and some (like IBM) did permit it but later changed their policy to forbid it. Netflix CEO/founder Reed Hastings has been on the record stating that working from home is a "pure negative." I think he has a minority opinion but I wanted to give an example from a tech company.

In general, I think that more people will work from home more of the time but to think that entire organizations will work from home 100% of the time seems unlikely. I mean, some will, of course. I stand by my projection that post-COVID about 70% of the workforce will return to SF.

In our own organization we are seeing that experienced employees who already understand our corporate culture and who had already successfully formed networks/relationships are handling remote work pretty well, but it is much tougher to integrate new and inexperienced employees.

---

I never said every tech employee loves working from home. Tech companies and Tech employees have adopted that model more than most. They were already doing it in the Bay Area and Covid has accelerated that pace. Certainly not every job is conducive to remote work.

IBM is a really bad example. Yes, International Business Machines is a tech company and their R&D wing does great work, but as a company, they have the mindset, bureaucracy, processes, and red tape of a utility. They are a battleship. There is really very little about Netflix that is tech. Putting content on a server and streaming it is not the height of tech innovation. (which doesn't mean they aren't good at what they do)

There are lots of studies showing remote workers are in general more productive. Going full on remote work would be foolish but completely discounting it is moreso. American should be doing a lot more remote work than it does. There are a lot of jobs that are done a lot more cheaply and efficiently that way.

What I said was they will reduce their physical footprint. They still need some workers on site and you need a site for other things.

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

---

You are wrong that stores are not controlling capacity. At least here in Southern California they still are. Also, the biggest difference between Target and a restaurant is that no one in a restaurant is wearing a mask.



LMK5 is never one to let facts get in the way of a disingenuous argument. He's not arguing that grocery stores should close but that we should let everyone do whatever they want whenever they want, like in the utopia of Arizona that he's oh so jealous of.

---

---

The LMK argument seems very all-or-nothing: either we open everything or nothing. That's not the right approach IMO: you need to determine where the relative risk is, to try to balance freedom and safety. That calculation might also change based on how bad the local community spread is. So saying that indoor dining is more risky than grocery shopping and therefore the latter can stay open is not hypocrisy, it's a rational choice based on the available evidence.

---

Can someone explain how freedom and safety are being balanced in the case of Disneyland? From CEO Bob Chapek:
"We are extremely disappointed that the State of California continues to keep Disneyland closed despite our proven track record. Our health and safety protocols are all science-based and have the support of labor unions representing 99% of our hourly cast members," he said on the company's quarterly earnings call.

Chapek noted that the theme park giant has successfully re-opened parks in Orlando, Shanghai, Tokyo and Hong Kong, based on safety protocols, but blamed the local government for being out of touch.

"We believe state leadership should look objectively at what we've achieved successfully at our parks around the world, all based on science, as opposed to setting an arbitrary standard that is precluding our cast members from getting back to work while decimating small businesses in the local community" he lamented.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

---

You are wrong that stores are not controlling capacity. At least here in Southern California they still are. Also, the biggest difference between Target and a restaurant is that no one in a restaurant is wearing a mask.



LMK5 is never one to let facts get in the way of a disingenuous argument. He's not arguing that grocery stores should close but that we should let everyone do whatever they want whenever they want, like in the utopia of Arizona that he's oh so jealous of.

---

---

The LMK argument seems very all-or-nothing: either we open everything or nothing. That's not the right approach IMO: you need to determine where the relative risk is, to try to balance freedom and safety. That calculation might also change based on how bad the local community spread is. So saying that indoor dining is more risky than grocery shopping and therefore the latter can stay open is not hypocrisy, it's a rational choice based on the available evidence.

---

Can someone explain how freedom and safety are being balanced in the case of Disneyland? From CEO Bob Chapek:
"We are extremely disappointed that the State of California continues to keep Disneyland closed despite our proven track record. Our health and safety protocols are all science-based and have the support of labor unions representing 99% of our hourly cast members," he said on the company's quarterly earnings call.

Chapek noted that the theme park giant has successfully re-opened parks in Orlando, Shanghai, Tokyo and Hong Kong, based on safety protocols, but blamed the local government for being out of touch.

"We believe state leadership should look objectively at what we've achieved successfully at our parks around the world, all based on science, as opposed to setting an arbitrary standard that is precluding our cast members from getting back to work while decimating small businesses in the local community" he lamented.

---

Some local governments think that opening a large theme park is not safe. Some think it is. Different people have different ideas of where that balance is.

I haven't looked into it much, but if it's true that other theme park openings elsewhere have not resulted in COVID spikes then I would support reopening Disneyland.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

---

You are wrong that stores are not controlling capacity. At least here in Southern California they still are. Also, the biggest difference between Target and a restaurant is that no one in a restaurant is wearing a mask.



LMK5 is never one to let facts get in the way of a disingenuous argument. He's not arguing that grocery stores should close but that we should let everyone do whatever they want whenever they want, like in the utopia of Arizona that he's oh so jealous of.

---

---

The LMK argument seems very all-or-nothing: either we open everything or nothing. That's not the right approach IMO: you need to determine where the relative risk is, to try to balance freedom and safety. That calculation might also change based on how bad the local community spread is. So saying that indoor dining is more risky than grocery shopping and therefore the latter can stay open is not hypocrisy, it's a rational choice based on the available evidence.

---

Can someone explain how freedom and safety are being balanced in the case of Disneyland? From CEO Bob Chapek:
"We are extremely disappointed that the State of California continues to keep Disneyland closed despite our proven track record. Our health and safety protocols are all science-based and have the support of labor unions representing 99% of our hourly cast members," he said on the company's quarterly earnings call.

Chapek noted that the theme park giant has successfully re-opened parks in Orlando, Shanghai, Tokyo and Hong Kong, based on safety protocols, but blamed the local government for being out of touch.

"We believe state leadership should look objectively at what we've achieved successfully at our parks around the world, all based on science, as opposed to setting an arbitrary standard that is precluding our cast members from getting back to work while decimating small businesses in the local community" he lamented.

---

Some local governments think that opening a large theme park is not safe. Some think it is. Different people have different ideas of where that balance is.

I haven't looked into it much, but if it's true that other theme park openings elsewhere have not resulted in COVID spikes then I would support reopening Disneyland.

---

That's why when we hear Governor Brylcreem claim that's it's all about the science and data we chuckle. It's more arbitrary than we want to believe. There's no data supporting keeping Disneyland closed, and in fact there's a whole lot of data supporting an opening.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

---

You are wrong that stores are not controlling capacity. At least here in Southern California they still are. Also, the biggest difference between Target and a restaurant is that no one in a restaurant is wearing a mask.



LMK5 is never one to let facts get in the way of a disingenuous argument. He's not arguing that grocery stores should close but that we should let everyone do whatever they want whenever they want, like in the utopia of Arizona that he's oh so jealous of.

---

---

The LMK argument seems very all-or-nothing: either we open everything or nothing. That's not the right approach IMO: you need to determine where the relative risk is, to try to balance freedom and safety. That calculation might also change based on how bad the local community spread is. So saying that indoor dining is more risky than grocery shopping and therefore the latter can stay open is not hypocrisy, it's a rational choice based on the available evidence.

---

Can someone explain how freedom and safety are being balanced in the case of Disneyland? From CEO Bob Chapek:
"We are extremely disappointed that the State of California continues to keep Disneyland closed despite our proven track record. Our health and safety protocols are all science-based and have the support of labor unions representing 99% of our hourly cast members," he said on the company's quarterly earnings call.

Chapek noted that the theme park giant has successfully re-opened parks in Orlando, Shanghai, Tokyo and Hong Kong, based on safety protocols, but blamed the local government for being out of touch.

"We believe state leadership should look objectively at what we've achieved successfully at our parks around the world, all based on science, as opposed to setting an arbitrary standard that is precluding our cast members from getting back to work while decimating small businesses in the local community" he lamented.

---

Some local governments think that opening a large theme park is not safe. Some think it is. Different people have different ideas of where that balance is.

I haven't looked into it much, but if it's true that other theme park openings elsewhere have not resulted in COVID spikes then I would support reopening Disneyland.

---

That's why when we hear Governor Brylcreem claim that's it's all about the science and data we chuckle. It's more arbitrary than we want to believe. There's no data supporting keeping Disneyland closed, and in fact there's a whole lot of data supporting an opening.

---

Okay, but given that the state of California has adjusted policy over time in response to new data, I think it's possible to make the argument to Newsom and others to potentially adjust the policy. Just crowing about hypocrisy doesn't do it, make the argument.

CA has been more (small-c) conservative about reopening than other states, but it hasn't been impossible to get the government to move as new info emerges. Moving hair salons to the middle-risk tier and out of the high-risk tier they were originally in is a good example.

Anyway, here's a good article about Disneyland and why it's a bit tougher to reopen than Disney World (#1 reason: it's denser). Not that I'm necessarily against it, but it's not a 1-to-1 comparison.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2558487/why-disneyland-is-going-to-have-a-harder-time-reopening-than-walt-disney-world

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

---

You are wrong that stores are not controlling capacity. At least here in Southern California they still are. Also, the biggest difference between Target and a restaurant is that no one in a restaurant is wearing a mask.



LMK5 is never one to let facts get in the way of a disingenuous argument. He's not arguing that grocery stores should close but that we should let everyone do whatever they want whenever they want, like in the utopia of Arizona that he's oh so jealous of.

---

---

The LMK argument seems very all-or-nothing: either we open everything or nothing. That's not the right approach IMO: you need to determine where the relative risk is, to try to balance freedom and safety. That calculation might also change based on how bad the local community spread is. So saying that indoor dining is more risky than grocery shopping and therefore the latter can stay open is not hypocrisy, it's a rational choice based on the available evidence.

---

Can someone explain how freedom and safety are being balanced in the case of Disneyland? From CEO Bob Chapek:
"We are extremely disappointed that the State of California continues to keep Disneyland closed despite our proven track record. Our health and safety protocols are all science-based and have the support of labor unions representing 99% of our hourly cast members," he said on the company's quarterly earnings call.

Chapek noted that the theme park giant has successfully re-opened parks in Orlando, Shanghai, Tokyo and Hong Kong, based on safety protocols, but blamed the local government for being out of touch.

"We believe state leadership should look objectively at what we've achieved successfully at our parks around the world, all based on science, as opposed to setting an arbitrary standard that is precluding our cast members from getting back to work while decimating small businesses in the local community" he lamented.

---

Some local governments think that opening a large theme park is not safe. Some think it is. Different people have different ideas of where that balance is.

I haven't looked into it much, but if it's true that other theme park openings elsewhere have not resulted in COVID spikes then I would support reopening Disneyland.

---

That's why when we hear Governor Brylcreem claim that's it's all about the science and data we chuckle. It's more arbitrary than we want to believe. There's no data supporting keeping Disneyland closed, and in fact there's a whole lot of data supporting an opening.

---

Okay, but given that the state of California has adjusted policy over time in response to new data, I think it's possible to make the argument to Newsom and others to potentially adjust the policy. Just crowing about hypocrisy doesn't do it, make the argument.

CA has been more (small-c) conservative about reopening than other states, but it hasn't been impossible to get the government to move as new info emerges. Moving hair salons to the middle-risk tier and out of the high-risk tier they were originally in is a good example.

Anyway, here's a good article about Disneyland and why it's a bit tougher to reopen than Disney World (#1 reason: it's denser). Not that I'm necessarily against it, but it's not a 1-to-1 comparison.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2558487/why-disneyland-is-going-to-have-a-harder-time-reopening-than-walt-disney-world

---

Also: Florida < California.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

---

You are wrong that stores are not controlling capacity. At least here in Southern California they still are. Also, the biggest difference between Target and a restaurant is that no one in a restaurant is wearing a mask.



LMK5 is never one to let facts get in the way of a disingenuous argument. He's not arguing that grocery stores should close but that we should let everyone do whatever they want whenever they want, like in the utopia of Arizona that he's oh so jealous of.

---

---

The LMK argument seems very all-or-nothing: either we open everything or nothing. That's not the right approach IMO: you need to determine where the relative risk is, to try to balance freedom and safety. That calculation might also change based on how bad the local community spread is. So saying that indoor dining is more risky than grocery shopping and therefore the latter can stay open is not hypocrisy, it's a rational choice based on the available evidence.

---

Can someone explain how freedom and safety are being balanced in the case of Disneyland? From CEO Bob Chapek:
"We are extremely disappointed that the State of California continues to keep Disneyland closed despite our proven track record. Our health and safety protocols are all science-based and have the support of labor unions representing 99% of our hourly cast members," he said on the company's quarterly earnings call.

Chapek noted that the theme park giant has successfully re-opened parks in Orlando, Shanghai, Tokyo and Hong Kong, based on safety protocols, but blamed the local government for being out of touch.

"We believe state leadership should look objectively at what we've achieved successfully at our parks around the world, all based on science, as opposed to setting an arbitrary standard that is precluding our cast members from getting back to work while decimating small businesses in the local community" he lamented.

---

Some local governments think that opening a large theme park is not safe. Some think it is. Different people have different ideas of where that balance is.

I haven't looked into it much, but if it's true that other theme park openings elsewhere have not resulted in COVID spikes then I would support reopening Disneyland.

---

That's why when we hear Governor Brylcreem claim that's it's all about the science and data we chuckle. It's more arbitrary than we want to believe. There's no data supporting keeping Disneyland closed, and in fact there's a whole lot of data supporting an opening.

---

Okay, but given that the state of California has adjusted policy over time in response to new data, I think it's possible to make the argument to Newsom and others to potentially adjust the policy. Just crowing about hypocrisy doesn't do it, make the argument.

CA has been more (small-c) conservative about reopening than other states, but it hasn't been impossible to get the government to move as new info emerges. Moving hair salons to the middle-risk tier and out of the high-risk tier they were originally in is a good example.

Anyway, here's a good article about Disneyland and why it's a bit tougher to reopen than Disney World (#1 reason: it's denser). Not that I'm necessarily against it, but it's not a 1-to-1 comparison.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2558487/why-disneyland-is-going-to-have-a-harder-time-reopening-than-walt-disney-world

---

But that's just it. Disney has been making the case for months, backed up by data from multiple locations, that they can operate safely. They're not crowing about hypocrisy.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

They always stick it to the restaurants even though I haven't heard they are an area for spread. Hard to imagine at the same time they're OK with Target, Home Depot and Costco remaining open.

---

About restaurants: you heard wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-10/covid-superspreader-risk-is-linked-to-restaurants-gyms-hotels

People need to visit stores for essential items, and in general they aren't sitting around and talking for hours in them without masks on. You don't NEED to sit in a restaurant to eat food (takeout is fine). This isn't about sticking it to restaurants, it's about what behavior is more risky and what is more essential.

---

If there was dead seriousness about avoiding crowded spaces, there would be a mandate that Target, HD, and Costco can do business but it has to be online only, much like when restaurants have to be takeout only. Walk in to a Home Depot or Costco and tell me that it's a Covid-safe environment. They aren't even controlling capacity anymore.

---

You are wrong that stores are not controlling capacity. At least here in Southern California they still are. Also, the biggest difference between Target and a restaurant is that no one in a restaurant is wearing a mask.



LMK5 is never one to let facts get in the way of a disingenuous argument. He's not arguing that grocery stores should close but that we should let everyone do whatever they want whenever they want, like in the utopia of Arizona that he's oh so jealous of.

---

---

The LMK argument seems very all-or-nothing: either we open everything or nothing. That's not the right approach IMO: you need to determine where the relative risk is, to try to balance freedom and safety. That calculation might also change based on how bad the local community spread is. So saying that indoor dining is more risky than grocery shopping and therefore the latter can stay open is not hypocrisy, it's a rational choice based on the available evidence.

---

Can someone explain how freedom and safety are being balanced in the case of Disneyland? From CEO Bob Chapek:
"We are extremely disappointed that the State of California continues to keep Disneyland closed despite our proven track record. Our health and safety protocols are all science-based and have the support of labor unions representing 99% of our hourly cast members," he said on the company's quarterly earnings call.

Chapek noted that the theme park giant has successfully re-opened parks in Orlando, Shanghai, Tokyo and Hong Kong, based on safety protocols, but blamed the local government for being out of touch.

"We believe state leadership should look objectively at what we've achieved successfully at our parks around the world, all based on science, as opposed to setting an arbitrary standard that is precluding our cast members from getting back to work while decimating small businesses in the local community" he lamented.

---

Some local governments think that opening a large theme park is not safe. Some think it is. Different people have different ideas of where that balance is.

I haven't looked into it much, but if it's true that other theme park openings elsewhere have not resulted in COVID spikes then I would support reopening Disneyland.

---

That's why when we hear Governor Brylcreem claim that's it's all about the science and data we chuckle. It's more arbitrary than we want to believe. There's no data supporting keeping Disneyland closed, and in fact there's a whole lot of data supporting an opening.

---

Okay, but given that the state of California has adjusted policy over time in response to new data, I think it's possible to make the argument to Newsom and others to potentially adjust the policy. Just crowing about hypocrisy doesn't do it, make the argument.

CA has been more (small-c) conservative about reopening than other states, but it hasn't been impossible to get the government to move as new info emerges. Moving hair salons to the middle-risk tier and out of the high-risk tier they were originally in is a good example.

Anyway, here's a good article about Disneyland and why it's a bit tougher to reopen than Disney World (#1 reason: it's denser). Not that I'm necessarily against it, but it's not a 1-to-1 comparison.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2558487/why-disneyland-is-going-to-have-a-harder-time-reopening-than-walt-disney-world

---

But that's just it. Disney has been making the case for months, backed up by data from multiple locations, that they can operate safely. They're not crowing about hypocrisy.

---

I'm shocked that Disney wants to be allowed to open Disney parks.

sycasey said:

---

I'm shocked that Disney wants to be allowed to open Disney parks.

---

Why? They will make you sign a release at the gate, grab you by the ankle and then shake you upside down until every last nickel drops out of your pocket.

Matt Taibbi's quote about Golden Sach's altered for this discussion;

"Disney is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."