Several states, including Maryland and West Virginia have modified pandemic rules stating to the effect that restaurants may now operate at 100% capacity, but must still maintain social distancing. My question: How in the hell is that even possible? Restaurants were not built for social distancing, the buildings did not grow (and even if they did, that would simply increase capacity), so therefore it seems as if these rules are self-contradictory. Am I missing something?
Likewise with 75% capacity. I understand 50% capacity; everyone can spread out. But once you get to 51%, it seems like all bets are off because at least part of the customers are not properly socially distanced from one another.
My guess is that it’s to accommodate outliers. Sure, most restaurants at 100% capacity are not going to allow for social distancing - but I’ve seen mostly take-out restaurants with very little seating capacity that have say , two tables for two far enough apart for social distancing but not really far enough to squeeze another table in. Limit them to 50%, and they can only use one table. At 100% with social distancing, they can use both.
I’ve seen a few places that have back rooms normally reserved for private parties, I guess they can repurpose that. But I think it really comes down to saying that they opened up 100% without actually doing it.
From a practical standpoint, ventilation is actually more crucial than distancing. A restaurant that had air intakes above each table or pair of tables would be able to more safely accommodate patrons than one with poor circulation between widely separated tables. I have yet to see any guidance specifically indicate this or allow for such provisions but that should be ensconced in future building codes.
I would interpret it as “you can get as full as you want as long as you maintain social distancing.” In other words, you can go up to 100% capacity, if you are able to without violating social distancing rules.
I also note that social distancing doesn’t necessarily mean the 6 feet thing. It can also mean physical barriers. (Granted, I don’t know if the states in question defined it that way.)
I would also assume that most states include masking as part of their social distancing requirements, so anyone not eating would have wear a mask.
Larger restaurants may have more leeway with regard to additional seating, or placing barriers. Maybe also very small takeout places as mentioned above. Small restaurants, such as where I work, have already figured out how to seat as many people as possible while respecting the 6’ guideline. I can only speak for my own place but the social distancing rules are what prevent additional seating.
I agree UV: total bullshit. I take that as the government’s way of saying “Okay, we’re open, but let’s pretend to be responsible, and don’t blame us if there’s another surge.”
The 6’ foot guideline is not the correct one - not for this virus. When a restaurant gets full and people start shouting to hear each other, they spread respiratory droplets - those little buggers travel a lot farther than six feet. More like 20 feet. Anyone in the restaurant for longer than 15 minutes who hasn’t already built up some sort of immunity is going to come down with COVID. Guaranteed.
I am saying that for my particular restaurant, and many others, 50% does not matter vs, 75%, or 100%. If it is required that tables are 6 feet apart, then that has been done already, and they dont have any more space.
That makes mathematical sense, but it would seem pretty silly for a state to have restricted dining to 50% capacity so as to only allow a mom and pop takeout joint to expand from one table to two.
It is no doubt overkill. However, it is impossible to know who will be coming in and going out, and it is appropriate to err on the side of caution. Restaurants that I am aware of take strict sanitary measures. 20 feet of seperation is not necessary, I have no idea where Asahi came up with that number. I would have seen massive outbreaks personally if that were true
And more in relation to the OP, there are provisions to allow barriers between tables. A larger restaurant may be able to put some sort of temporary wall in place to avoid the 6 ft rule. Smaller places may not have room for this
That was the first example I could think of- I’m sure there are others. My point was that not every “restaurant” is a crowded place with tables right on top of each other and there are some places that can accommodate social distancing while at 100% capacity.
Incorrect. There is an amazing amount of individual variation between people. I absolutely would not want to be present in such a situation, but saying that I’m “guaranteed” to get sick is an exaggeration.
Researchers tracked down 78 people who had shared a bus or train with one of eight known infected people and sat within three rows of that person for more than six hours. Health workers visited these contacts at their homes to conduct follow-up screenings and determined that nearly 80% of them had contracted the coronavirus.
The current study conducts contact tracing analyses and supports the claim that viral super-carriers spread infection at a higher rate. The data revealed that around 80-90% of infections are spread by 10-20% of infected individuals.
I’ve been to restaurants that are able to comply. Tables set up outside with personal propane heaters, creative use of existing space, reservations required, etc.
I take back “guaranteed” - I was being hyperbolic. But it’s a pretty substantial risk to be in a crowded, unmasked environment such as a restaurant, and the ones with the most risk are the employees. The odds that one or a handful of people in that restaurant have COVID and are capable of spreading it are likely pretty good considering the disease incidence.
That being said, I suppose it does matter where the restaurant is located. If it’s in a city with a very low incidence and the diners are almost entirely local, that might be different from, say, an Outback Steakhouse or Chili’s located next to a cluster of hotels near an interstate exit, which regularly receives customers from all over the country.
I think the restaurants that are the safest are those that can seat people outside and that can open doors and windows so that the indoor seating is adequately ventilated. The right kind of airflow can make a big difference when it comes to indoor seating and dining. One of the studies of a restaurant in Wuhan determined that airflow in a poorly ventilated dining space likely carried disease particles 15-20 feet, leading to infections of diners who were seated nowhere near the family that likely transmitted the virus.