OpenTable Restaurant Performance Data
docs.google.com
docs.google.com
Over 400 closed in SF last year[1] due to the high cost of doing business there - some that had been operating for over 20 years. And that was with normal demand! Imagine now that their traffic has dropped 51%?
https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/411-restaurant-closures-...
I hate to sound like Trump and make this about the economy, but if this keeps up, we're all in serious trouble - we need to spend.
With all of the 'social isolation' talk, there needs to be a push to 'stay calm carry on' i.e. focus on the 'carry on' parts - we need to do our jobs, we need to finish our work, we need to keep buying stuff (obviously thoughtfully), and we should also be trying to find ways to enjoy ourselves or we're going to go crazy.
I'm really worried about my two locally-owned cafes, I'm literally stepping out now to get 'take out coffee' as I would normally 'sit-in' so as to cause the least disruption to their business. Same with everything else frankly.
1/2 of my 'What I am going to do?' Coronavirus thoughts have revolved around how I can 'keep spending at my regular places' because if we don't do that, it's going to go down like dominos. I know most people probably don't think in those terms, but the moment you become responsible for a P&L, one's worldview shifts!
It's possible that negative economic downturn could inadvertently cause more bad life outcomes than the pandemic itself.
The economy is the circulatory system of our collective wealth (and therefore health), we need to chin up and keep at it.
> For year-on-year comparisons by day, we compare to the same day of week from the same week in the previous year. For example, we'd compare Tuesday of week 11 in 2020 to Tuesday of week 11 in 2019.
Interesting that most have a double dip, with a big drop on 3/2 and then again on 3/9 which is ongoing
[1]: https://sfgov.org/olse/paid-sick-leave-ordinance-pslo [2]: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/LaborStandards/...
IANA economist, but it feels like I'm still relatively net-zero with my spending. My family didn't go out to eat, we spent less on gas, but we spent more on groceries at our local grocery store, and there's a little more in our bank account.
People in the hospitality/tourism industry are certainly going through a lot of pain. If people didn't spend money in those sectors, where did it go?
It's like a ghost town out there.
The couple of restaurateurs I've talked to don't know how they're going to keep the doors open much longer.
[1]: https://www.tomdouglas.com/
[2]: https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/seattle-chef-to...
I don't think many of us will be in lock down mode continuously until fall 2020 -- we don't have the will for that.
Source: haven't interacted in-person with another human in the last ~30 hours precisely because staying home is the right thing to do for our fellow humans at this time. Leading by example is one of the most powerful ways to lead.
A population's safety is worth more than a couple small businesses going into mothball mode. If you want to support said small business your task is clear: ensure 110% you and your family does not get infected. Risking infection just to "save" a business is an oxymoron. These businesses are at risk because of the infections, their pain will continue until the entire population treats the virus seriously and contains it.
If you want to help restaurants: stay home.
One could make an argument that is more socially responsible to go to a small restaurant than to a crowded store.
Multiple people have to visit a restaurant once for each 1 meal.
So on the whole it would seem to scale much better if 1 person per household visits the store once per week, and the store should also not be super "crowded" if everyone is doing the same.
If we are talking about the scenario with the minimal possible risk a restaurant could still beat the shop. You are going to drive through or pick up a pizza that you order online, so you spend a few minutes per meal with a limited number of people, say, for 21 meals, you have contacted 50 people. No need to touch trolleys, bags, boxes of pasta that people sneezed on. At home you reheat the pizza in the oven to kill the viruses.
> The Institute of Transportation Engineers estimates that one Walmart super center receives 10,000 car visits per day
Edit to note; both restaurants were packed. I’m not alone in this mindset
That said: your analysis is wrong. You can be contagious without showing symptoms, so the risk your assessing is NOT your "personal risk". You're increasing the risk to others too simply by being around them.
What you all are implying is that anything less than complete mandatory quarantine is the correct course of action. I just don’t agree with this doomsday situation given what I know about this virus at this point. Even 2 degrees of separation from confirmed cases isn’t being taken this seriously by the CDC/medical community. And you’re essentially telling me I’m an idiot and negligent/malicious person for going out in public with no other reason to believe it’s unsafe. I just happen to believe nobody is negligent in these situations and the responsibility lies with those at risk to reduce their risk profile.
Consider this: you're some random person going against the advice of experts. If you're right, great, you've been able to eat out. If you're wrong, you've contributed to significant suffering of other people. Is that something you want to risk based on your self-confidence? Is that something you would appreciate others risking to you based on their self-confidence?
No. I'm saying you shouldn't be morally rationalizing it as you accepting a "personal" risk. Any contact is a risk to everyone, and you need to accept that.
NOR can you rationalize the chance of infecting others at the restaurant as "their personal risk", for exactly the same reason! Any transmission is a transmission, and it can lead to others. We're trying to keep the number of transmissions low so it doesn't grow out of control.
Now, again: unless you're in a major hot spot a single restaurant visit is (probably) a tolerable risk. But it is not and cannot be understood as a "personal" decision. It's still an increase in pandemic risk and needs to be understood that way.
It’s not mutual exclusive. I do get your point. But if restaurants are open and government allows them to remain open then this is a personal risk assessment as to how much public and other people handling your food you are willing to accept. That’s what I mean.
One of our employees has quit already (as of now, we don't offer any time off/paid leave). I've had a conversation with my bosses that I'll probably be gone in the next two weeks.
I don’t think it’s racism, but I definitely believe the claim is real