I noticed that as well. When a lot of stores went to reduced hours, it seemed odd to me. It’s going to take all their customers and give them less time to shop. If a big box store is going to have 2500 customers today, wouldn’t you rather have them spread out over 12 hours instead of 8? One person I mentioned that to suggested it’s the lack of employees driving that change, but I’m not buying it. I think that they think (and maybe they’re right, I don’t have access to their numbers) that shorter hours will mean less customers. That the person that would normally shop at 7pm will just skip it instead of getting there at 4pm. Doesn’t make sense to me.
But, also, a lot of the changes that happened in the first few weeks, a lot of us (my store included) felt like they weren’t actually going to do anything, but it made us look like we were doing something.
A store may have shortened it’s hours and put up signs that said the new shorter hours are “to protect our valued customers”, but in reality, it was just to generate some goodwill with the community.
I can assure you, when we all put up plexiglass 7 months ago, we didn’t think it would actually do anything, but it looked good and made people feel better.
Granted, looking back, the plexiglass probably does make for one of the better safety measures, but I’m not sure shorter hours do.
Exactly. To me shorter hours and cutoff times are more of a sign that says “we are doing something” than something that actually is proven to help.
Ok, I see a store doing it but why the government mandate on curfews and shorter hours? Is it just the governments way of saying “look at us, we are doing something”?
This question has been asked several times in multiple threads, and I have yet to see a good rational for these policies. It is disturbing that there doesn’t even seem to be a justification to disagree with.
Independent of those measures specifically? Yes.
Once again, I will point out that NYC got it’s cases from Italy, not China.
I will once again ask why you are hung up on what happened in February, and ignoring what is going on NOW? Especially in a thread about what is going on NOW. You know, “…(re: reopening of bars, etc… now)”.
I will also ask why you are so worried about the economic impacts to the country now, but you have no care for the economic impacts to the Asian-American communities back in February, a time you seem overly fond of.
And no, I am not comparing “a handful of hysterics” to thousands of covid deaths. I fully agree the U.S. was slow to act on the information there was an epidemic in China. The issue is not a comparison of the two situations. What happened in January and February happened then. Maybe it should have been handled differently. That is irrelevant to what is going on RIGHT NOW!
The virus came to the East Coast from Europe, not China directly.
From https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/23/trump-versus-pelosi-what-happened-chinatown/
Many of the California cases sprang from cruise ship passengers, not ethnic Chinese traveling from China.
As I understand it, the rationale for curfews was that with venues closed down, there was no place for people to be going. Curfews are intended to help limit congregations of people. It also helps with enforcement, as it makes groups of people being about easier to identify, since there is a curfew.
As for adding cut off times to bars and restaurants, those venues tend to get crowds of drunk people disregarding the social distancing guidelines and turning outdoor seating/lines into street parties, etc. It is rational to look at the trend of this happening frequently after 10 pm and saying, “Let’s shut things down before this typically happens.”
Which specific measures? The ones limiting capacity at restaurants, where people can’t wear masks because they are eating? The ones keeping bars shut down, where people congregate to socialize and dance and party, without masks because they are drinking? The ones preventing high school sports, where groups of students do hard exercise and thus heavy breathing in close proximity to each other, and create crowds of spectators in close proximity to each other, many yelling and cheering?
Store closing times don’t make sense but bar and restaurant closing times do make sense. With aerosols floating around and accumulating, length of exposure counts. Aerosols aren’t as much of an issue in larger stores, with high ceilings, good ventilation, and everyone wearing masks. Bars and restaurants are smaller and people stay in them longer. Aerosols accumulate and people can inhale them even if they’re not near an infected person. A shorter exposure means a smaller dose. Also, people start getting rowdy in bars later in the evening. More likely to be singing and falling all over each other.
IMO that’s the real reason that early closing makes good sense for bars.
The folks who’re closing down the bar are not the careful ones. If we can drive the hard partiers to stay home, everybody else is incrementally safer.
The arguments for shorter evening hours for restaurants are similar but weaker. And those for generic retail are pretty weak.
Honestly, moving people out of establishments of all sorts would also be a good idea, though harder to enforce. You don’t need people sitting at a bar for 3 hours. You don’t really need a whole family going to Home Depot and spending 3 hours, either.
It always seems to go the same way. Scientists. health experts, etc. say:
“If we do this, then THIS will happen.”
We do that, then THAT happens.
The deniers say: “Oh, THAT would have happened anyway.”
Yes, those.
Outside of New York City, can you point to any place in the US where they have said ‘if we do this, then we’ll, for all intents and purposes, eliminate the spread of the virus’ and then we did that, and then that happened?
One argument would be that after a certain hour, the “restaurants” are mostly bars, anyway. We don’t have very many legal bars here: they are all restaurants on paper.
So you don’t think limiting those behaviors would help the infection rates? So what do you think are factors driving the increases, and what can be done about it?
And more importantly, why do infectious disease experts disagree with you?
No, because outside of New York City, no place has actually followed the guidelines from the task force. It’s all been “We don’t need to close down,” and “We gotta open up the economy,” and “Old people can fend for themselves.”
And there have been very strong correlations between places that have done some of those things and a dramatic decrease in infection rates. We don’t have to drive it to extinction–just keep it beat back until the vaccines are widely available.
First of all, I haven’t seen any place in the US saying ‘if we do this, we’ll eliminate the virus’; only ‘if we do this, we can slow it way down.’
Second of all, in most places in the US, we haven’t ‘done that’. We haven’t in most places come anywhere near ‘doing that’. And the places that have come somewhere near have people coming into them from the places that haven’t.
And unfortunately, the state legislature relaxed the rules on what constitutes a restaurant, so there have been a whole bunch of reclassifications in recent months, giving us more ‘restaurants’ than we used to have.
The health experts said: If we hold a massive bike rally in South Dakota where most mitigation efforts are ignored, then it will cause a massive surge of cases in that region. They held a rally and a massive surge happened and is still happening.
Deniers respond: It would have happened anyway.
As I said before, San Francisco had a Chinese New Years Parade, has plenty of Chinese visitors, and yet has had 155 total Covid deaths since the beginning of the pandemic as of Sunday.
We shut down early, New York delayed. And it is well known that the major influx of cases in New York was from Europe, not China.
And I note yet again that you refuse to talk about the situation today, when the issue is better understood, in favor of worrying about 9 months ago.
Ranked among the states, San Francisco would be 5th best with 177 deaths per million. Only Hawaii, Alaska, Maine, and Vermont have lower per capita total deaths.
We had one or two of them say, literally, exactly that in another thread.
I’m sure many of you remember this argument from the other thread: