Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York City thinks up to half of restaurants will close permanently [pdf]

osc.state.ny.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 148 posts

Re: New York City thinks up to half of restaurants will close permanently [pdf]

#41

Post by nradov »

gamegod wrote: post #28
MatthiasP wrote: post #22

This is especially infuriating if you compare the numbers from Covid with a bad flu season in NY. Twice as bad as the flu is certainly cause to take special preventive measures but not reason enough to ruin your local economy.

You seem to be mixing up cause and effect. The reason COVID hasn't been so bad is because of all the special preventative measures. It's super contagious, still sends 10% of people to hospital, and is killing 1-2% of people. Sitting in the presence of strangers for hours in an enclosed space is a great way to transmit COVID, and this is why indoor dining must be closed.

False. The infection fatality rate is under 1%. Please stop spreading alarmist misinformation.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...

Re: New York City thinks up to half of restaurants will close permanently [pdf]

#42

Post by geofft »

goodlifeodyssey wrote: post #27
untog wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? I ask this as a New York resident: how many restaurants is one life worth? I was here back at the peak of the COVID outbreak when there were refrigerated trucks being loaded with bodies because the morgues had run out of space. It deeply, deeply sucks that a lot of restaurants are going to close. I hope that in time others will reopen in their place... it’s an underreported fact that a lot of restaurants clo…

I'm also a New York resident, and my wife is a nurse practitioner who worked during COVID. "how many restaurants is one life worth?" It would take quite a few restaurants. However, you are ignoring the fact that letting all of the restaurants close will also kill people. I don't know how large this effect is, but we also don't know how many people will get COVID due to restaurants being open. It's complicated. As a s…

(Also a New York resident, hi neighbors!) Yes, the problem we're facing is that the virus is going to be terrible for humanity and for the economy. There's no way around that. There are no good answers. No matter what we do, many people will die and many more will lose their livelihoods and their lives' work.

The question before us is to find the least bad answer - how do we save as many lives and livelihoods as possible? Of course every possible answer (including "do nothing and attempt to disclaim moral responsibility," which several governments seem to prefer) has a terrible cost. Some of those options are relatively less terrible.

(Personally, I think the city should lock down aggressively and also aggressively provide monetary relief to people negatively impacted, through taking on debt if needed, and figure it out later. If we don't survive this, the city loses its tax base anyway.)

Re: New York City thinks up to half of restaurants will close permanently [pdf]

#43

Post by vmception »

jhatemyjob wrote: post #32
Scipio_Afri wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least 10x as bad as the flu based on lethality or IFR. Far more contagious and it’s also most contagious when you have no symptoms. Flu season overwhelms hospitals sometimes by itself. Your numbers don’t add up.

10x still isn't that bad

> 10x still isn't that bad

10x means hospitals are paralyzed completely, how is that a rebuttal

and at best case it means there are two bad flu seasons happening simultaneously which reaches the same result

every country on the planet took similar approaches, even individual municipalities in Sweden, how is your warped version of reality for the United States possible and supportable?

Re: New York City thinks up to half of restaurants will close permanently [pdf]

#44

Post by jhatemyjob »

paxys wrote: post #24
slimed wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a subtle (perhaps unintentional) sleight of hand here. 60% of all new restaurants close on the first year. That is very different than half of *all restaurants, even those that have been open for decades, closing in a single year.

Sure, but the same distinction is missing from the city's report. Which half of the city's restaurants are going to close permanently because of covid? Likely those that were on the edge of failure rather than well-established ones.

So McDonalds, Taco Bell, Dunkin Donuts, Joe's Pizza, and 711 get to stay open yay

Re: New York City thinks up to half of restaurants will close permanently [pdf]

#46

Post by Par_Avion »

dannyw wrote: post #34
gamegod wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be mixing up cause and effect. The reason COVID hasn't been so bad is because of all the special preventative measures. It's super contagious, still sends 10% of people to hospital, and is killing 1-2% of people. Sitting in the presence of strangers for hours in an enclosed space is a great way to transmit COVID, and this is why indoor dining must be closed.

Sydney resident here, been eating out, indoors, since May. Our suppression strategy has been working; we don't adopt a "close at all costs" strategy.

For the uninformed, would you mind explaining your suppression strategy? Anything beyond the "shutdown early/shutdown hard" combined with universal testing and contact tracing?

Re: New York City thinks up to half of restaurants will close permanently [pdf]

#47

Post by PopeDotNinja »

vincentmarle wrote: post #10

The long term trend of restaurants being closed in favor of ghost kitchens has just been accelerated due to COVID. It's just not sustainable to keep paying for brick and mortar when everything's moving online and to on-demand delivery. Retail is next.

The quality of delivered food is usually pretty underwhelming for me.

Re: New York City thinks up to half of restaurants will close permanently [pdf]

#48

Post by nradov »

Scipio_Afri wrote: post #9
hiimtroymclure wrote: post #6

At what point will people realize that the lockdown causes more harm than the virus?

No one should realize that because lockdowns are to contain and minimize impacts of the virus and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests no matter what the economy gets impacted, this is the way to reduce harm to economic activity the best. Without restricting high spread activities the economy suffers even more as everyone gets sick and hospitals get overwhelmed. What you’re saying is just like saying evacuation order…

What evidence is that? Some other countries have not forced restaurants to close and yet have low current death rates.

Re: New York City thinks up to half of restaurants will close permanently [pdf]

#49

Post by jMyles »

gamegod wrote: post #28
MatthiasP wrote: post #22

This is especially infuriating if you compare the numbers from Covid with a bad flu season in NY. Twice as bad as the flu is certainly cause to take special preventive measures but not reason enough to ruin your local economy.

You seem to be mixing up cause and effect. The reason COVID hasn't been so bad is because of all the special preventative measures. It's super contagious, still sends 10% of people to hospital, and is killing 1-2% of people. Sitting in the presence of strangers for hours in an enclosed space is a great way to transmit COVID, and this is why indoor dining must be closed.

> The reason COVID hasn't been so bad is because of all the special preventative measures.

If that's the case, then why is Sweden's population-level mortality (578 per million) lower than the USA (642 per mission) or Spain (nearly 700), or several other lockdown states? Sweden didn't close restaurants or schools for a day.

Sweden's rate is also flat, while the USA and Spain are still increasing.

> sends 10% of people to hospital, and is killing 1-2% of people.

Can you provide a source for these strange figures? The last several dozen papers on serological prevalance have found the IFR to be nearly an order of magnitude lower than you're saying it is.

Re: New York City thinks up to half of restaurants will close permanently [pdf]

#50

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

tehjoker wrote: post #25
dilap wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are locking down far in excess of simply not overwhelming our hospitals.

We may have to aim for virus extinction. Simply flattening the curve means we are aiming for herd immunity, but there are worrying signs that immunity may only last a few months, making it possible to recirculate. The science isn't settled, but I think until we know more we should be more conservative. https://bgr.com/2020/08/11/coronavirus-immunity-common-cold-...

No expert I'm familiar with believes that it's possible to drive the virus extinct, at least not without decades of work.
Post reply on HN