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

91–100 of 148 posts

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

#91

Post by threatofrain »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #68

The state of the US economy, and society, is so incredibly frightening to me because we seem to no longer have a collective, shared experience and goals. On one hand, people like me in the tech industry are doing fine, or better than fine. My job is secure and my skills are in high demand. On the other hand, I have friends who are highly skilled artists (musicians and dancers) who are going through the worst depressi…

> The state of the US economy, and society, is so incredibly frightening to me because we seem to no longer have a collective, shared experience and goals.

When has this ever been true?

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

#92

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

sk5t wrote: post #53
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.

I strongly disagree on the premise that the food itself is not what drives people to go out to eat. It's the experience, the setting, the service, ordering a drink, getting out of the house, and the welcome distraction that drive people to restaurants.

Restaurants that make their money from people looking for a fine-dining experience are a minority of NYC restaurants, especially in Manhattan. Most eateries are serving workers.

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

#93

Post by seibelj »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #68

The state of the US economy, and society, is so incredibly frightening to me because we seem to no longer have a collective, shared experience and goals. On one hand, people like me in the tech industry are doing fine, or better than fine. My job is secure and my skills are in high demand. On the other hand, I have friends who are highly skilled artists (musicians and dancers) who are going through the worst depressi…

And yet when I suggest that we re-open spaces for the young and healthy, and let the old and infirm decide to quarantine for themselves, I'm called inhumane and callous. The elite of this country have decided this is the sacrifice we will make - sorry for your friends, hopefully they get jobs in a warehouse or manage to get on the government dole.

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

#94

Post by ardit33 »

unreal37 wrote: post #84
ardit33 wrote: post #63

I have to have a counterpoint: One of my favorite coffee places in Manhattan closed this summer. I was bummed. Their lease was up for renewal, and it didn't make sense for the owner to renew it as all of the office worker traffic was gone. Two months later, there is a new coffee place at that spot. The guys (different owners) just got a great deal on the lease for the first two years, and they will just need to make…

Why didn't the landlord offer this "2 years no rent" deal to the existing "favorite coffee places"? I'm not sure replacing established successful businesses with new ones is a fair trade...

I have no clue why not, but a similiar thing has happened in the rental market. Lots of landlords keeping the rates of apt. the same, and forcing people to move out.

Then, they find out they can't rent at those prices, they still are hesitant to drop prices and just offer 3-4 months of 'free rent' instead.

Many, eventually do capitulate, but this seems to take months or even more (for some, their building contracts have to reset, as there are REITs involved, etc).

It is some kind of human psychology at play. This is similar on how so many tech companies refuse to give meaningful raises, and have employees leave. the replacement is always more costly.

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

#95

Post by vmception »

jhatemyjob wrote: post #80
vmception wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the United States 50k people die from the flu per year. 400k people die from cigarettes per year. 70k die from diabetes per year. 40k die from car crashes per year (2M injuries) right, so we shouldn't add to that and paralyze hospitals to not be able to deal with those 2 million injuries. again, almost every country in the world understood this logic and did a similar or holistic solution. not doing it would not…

Think about it, instead of shutting down the world economy and ruining hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of people's lives, they could have put stronger regulations on cigarettes/nicotine (or make it outright illegal) And you don't have to repeat yourself

what's the point of you writing hyperbole? all you give me is something to make a rebuttal about why banning cigarettes wouldn't have prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths instead when you already know that and are just trying to make a point about substituting lives somewhere else, which also doesn't make sense.

your position - that position - is unworkable.

the same leader helping politicize this non-political issue that has nearly complete consensus worldwide are the same people that tried to quarantine the entire tri-state area before backing off of it. the lack of consistent leadership (being generous there) left all-powerful federal agencies fending for themselves for PPE at the expense of everyone else.

instead of shutting down the economy.... yeah I wish there were other solutions. your supposition is tied to a "not as bad as the flu" "okay maybe just as bad as the flu" "okay barely worse than the flu - so far" goalpost that is required to keep moving and is completely irreconcilable to support the disappointment at shutting down the economy. But now all you have is hyperbole about banning cigarettes for literary effect ONLY, thats all you have.

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

#96

Post by tehjoker »

nradov wrote: post #52
tehjoker wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Virus eradication is flatly impossible. That will never happen in our lifetimes, even with an effective vaccine. The best evidence we have indicates that recovered patients will retain a high level of immunity for at least several years. https://www.jimmunol.org/content/early/2020/09/03/jimmunol.2...

Thanks for the link. I wasn't able to download the full article though (couldn't access sci hub either). :-/ The abstract of the article says they are merely making (informed) speculation though.

At the beginning of the pandemic, I thought it would be similar to a more deadly flu or something with long-lived immunity for a given strain once you got it. At this point, I am assuming less and less. We found it wasn't even a lung disease, but a disease of the angiotensin system. We assumed ventilators would help, but often they just mushed damaged lung tissue. There's been tons of snake-oil cures floating around too. People are starting to show evidence of long term damage. Let's measure things before we make irreversible decisions.

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

#97

Post by ardit33 »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #88
ardit33 wrote: post #63

I have to have a counterpoint: One of my favorite coffee places in Manhattan closed this summer. I was bummed. Their lease was up for renewal, and it didn't make sense for the owner to renew it as all of the office worker traffic was gone. Two months later, there is a new coffee place at that spot. The guys (different owners) just got a great deal on the lease for the first two years, and they will just need to make…

It is generally bad for societal trust when those who have invested in the system are suddenly uprooted and have their investments destroyed. It is more likely that the next potential cafe owners are thinking, “Why risk opening a cafe if it might be irrationally shut down?”

you were not in NYC in march, were you? Lots of people just refused to go to work, or do outside things when the death toll started climbing in Italy, to the point it was all over the news.

Everyone knew it was a matter of time when it would hit NYC, and when it did, we were blind as there was no testing available to people unless you ended up in the ICU.

My soccer team just forfeited their mach, as team members did not feel safe to play while the virus was spreading. This was way before the lockdown in early march,

I stoped going to the gym too. People just didn't feel safe, and even if things were open, people would just not go out.

Almost, all places were at about 30% capacity. In the long run, they'd still have failed. People just wont/don't like to go out or travel.

You can still go in places like Albania, or Turkey, or Greece, who managed the virus/had low levels of it, yet their tourism is not doing well at all as many folks don't like risking it.

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

#98

Post by jhatemyjob »

vmception wrote: post #95
jhatemyjob wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about it, instead of shutting down the world economy and ruining hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of people's lives, they could have put stronger regulations on cigarettes/nicotine (or make it outright illegal) And you don't have to repeat yourself

what's the point of you writing hyperbole? all you give me is something to make a rebuttal about why banning cigarettes wouldn't have prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths instead when you already know that and are just trying to make a point about substituting lives somewhere else, which also doesn't make sense. your position - that position - is unworkable. the same leader helping politicize this non-political…

I believe you are conflating me with another user. I never said any of those things, all I said is 10x flu isn't that bad.

Name calling isn't gonna win you any friends and I'll leave it at that. Have a good night

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

#99

Post by ceilingcorner »

ardit33 wrote: post #97
ceilingcorner wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is generally bad for societal trust when those who have invested in the system are suddenly uprooted and have their investments destroyed. It is more likely that the next potential cafe owners are thinking, “Why risk opening a cafe if it might be irrationally shut down?”

you were not in NYC in march, were you? Lots of people just refused to go to work, or do outside things when the death toll started climbing in Italy, to the point it was all over the news. Everyone knew it was a matter of time when it would hit NYC, and when it did, we were blind as there was no testing available to people unless you ended up in the ICU. My soccer team just forfeited their mach, as team members did…

That was six months ago. As far as I’m concerned, the leadership in NYC has been completely ineffective and incompetent. The rest of the world is basically moving past the virus, while New York is considering even more restrictions.

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

#100

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

tehjoker wrote: post #76
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, give me another strategy in the case that re-circulation is possible. We can wait for a vaccine, which sometimes (highly variable!) is better than getting the bug itself, but that's all I can think of.

I'm not sure what you mean. There's no perfect strategy, only tradeoffs - how much are we willing to spend and how much are we willing to sacrifice for what degree of suppression? The ideal scenario is for Covid-19 to end up something like tuberculosis or HIV, a serious public health issue but not one that the average person necessarily needs to think about day to day.

If someone tells you that they have a plan to stop the coronavirus from being a public health issue at all, they're misinformed or untruthful.

Post reply on HN