She Couldn’t Open for Outdoor Dining. The Film Crew Next Door Could

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/us/outdoor-dining-la-protest.html

by undefined1 • 6 years ago

76 96 6 years ago

insickness• 6 years ago

Video link of the woman showing the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvJFf2kon2c

kurthr• 6 years ago

Because, California has declared entertainment industry workers essential... so they operate with a special permit, and they do "get tested regularly", but frankly this is still a bit outrageous.

rvnx3• 6 years ago

This is where you can see the politics would be poor project managers. Filming TV shows is certainly not essential but just a nice to have. You can easily have a great life watching fictions that have been filmed a year ago.

almost_usual• 6 years ago

Government officials are being subjectively restrictive and hypocritical at times. Gavin Newsom, London Breed, San Licarrdo are violating their own guidance. Meanwhile people are unemployed and losing their businesses without getting any support. The stock market bailed out by the Fed reaches new highs.

Roboprog• 6 years ago

Meanwhile, Congress is working hard to ensure that we are all competitive.

https://zeenews.india.com/world/relief-for-indian-it-profess...

Into the arena for the glory of Rome, I guess. (“Competition”)

spaetzleesser• 6 years ago

The situation with these politicians you mentioned and others before is completely unacceptable in my view and should lead to resignations. The number one principle should be to lead by example. If leaders don't do this people will become cynical very quickly and society erodes. The same could be said for business executives receiving huge bonuses while running a company into the ground.

bsder• 6 years ago

It's useless to go shooting at the nearby targets because the target you need to shoot at isn't convenient.

1) California is the way it is because a whole shitload of people won't take even simple precautions. The Bay Area shows what California could be. If everybody took the precautions seriously, things would be opening instead of closing. In particular, the restaurants are suffering precisely because of the kind of people who want to go to restaurants but won't obey restrictions.

2) The governors cannot print money and are looking at a budget Armageddon coming up--no matter WHAT they do it's going to suck. The Federal government CAN print money--and is shoveling it at the rich.

Go harass the Senate Republicans. History suggests tar and feathers are effective.

pkaye• 6 years ago

The county health department noted in a statement that film crews are regularly tested for the virus and that, unlike at restaurants, people do not mingle for “extended periods of time without their face covering.” Audiences are not allowed at film sites under the county’s guidelines.

rvnx3• 6 years ago

There is a logic explained in the article. This is corporate restaurant (cafeteria) with employees routinely tested & little churn.

If office restaurants are opened that seems logical.

kelchm3• 6 years ago

It’s not a cafeteria — it’s literally a set of tents that were erected fifty feet from this restaurant owners own outdoor tent.

It’s not logical at all.

ruminasean3• 6 years ago

I work in TV, in an environment that's very strict. We're tested up to 4 times/week (I have friends who are tested daily), asked not to use mass transit, and many of us work so many hours that we have no time to do much socializing outside of the group of people working for the production who are all in the same boat. It's really the only place I go where I feel perfectly safe. Even when unmasked to eat, we don't sit together, we're always socially distant.

Contrast this with my friends outside the business...they're going out semi-regularly, have only been tested when they want to see their family or get out of quarantining for 2 weeks after travel, think nothing of eating in the outdoor huts that are slowly getting more and more enclosed as the NYC weather gets colder. I'm very sympathetic to this woman and all restaurant owners in general, but the situations are not the same.

neither_color2• 6 years ago

Restaurants were never a major source of transmission and your industry isnt really more essential. The only fact you stated is that you get tested more, which is a good argument, but I dont really buy your anecdote that you guys go out less than anyone else and this somehow justifies your privilege. This is a very sensitive topic because small businesses feed families and are being destroyed across the country so you'll have to do better than say "We're totally more well behaved than people who go to restaurants"

graeme6• 6 years ago

Restaurants are majorly associated with spread. They’re unmasked, indoor environments where people talk.

Here’s an interesting report where two people were infected with just five min of overlap by an unmasked person. Extremely detailed contact tracing by the south koreans.

TV, by contrast, gets other people to stay at home in front of the TV and not be bored. A super vital service right now!

https://zeynep.substack.com/p/small-data-big-implications

masklinn3• 6 years ago

Restaurants were never a major source of transmission

Restaurants were some of the earliest known sources of mass spreading locations.

tomc1985• 6 years ago

Then perhaps all the restauranteurs ought to get together and self-regulate. An industry practicing discipline is not "justifying" any privilege. In my city, many of the businesses forced to closed in the last week due to covid violations were restaurants

Figure it out and you too can enjoy that "privilege"

ruminasean3• 6 years ago

I never said TV was essential. Entertainment in NY and LA feeds families as well, however. My Broadway friends who are losing their homes and apartments with no hope of work until at least June (but most likely September at least) might want a word about feeding families.

bestnameever6• 6 years ago

The big difference between the two is that the film crew is likely tested each day before stepping on set and are also adhering to strict protocols. My best guess is that the seating is more separate.

I work in film and can confirm that the cast and crew test 3x per week to be able to work. Only 2 people per 6 foot table while eating. Tables are actually 6 feet apart. Covid positive numbers in the LA film industry are about 1 out of every 3500 test. Also since filmmaker have to test negative to work most filmmakers, in their personal lives, don’t socialize with the outside world hence the very low positivity rate. from /u/Alexis-in-Texas, https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusCA/comments/k71v7w/outdo...
My Roomate works on set for a network. He/everyone he works with are required to get rapid tested before they step on the set every single day. Anyone he comes in contact with on set has passed the same rapid test.

from /u/buffyscrims, https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/k6y5f5/bar_owne...

svrb• 6 years ago

In other words, the rules shouldn't apply to the elite because they're being safe unlike the dirty plebs?

masklinn3• 6 years ago

Have you just discovered that the one true religion of america is the sacrosanct dollar?

Movie productions are big money, they have the money to implement strict protocol and the money to acquire the relevant resources. Therefore they can do the thing which requires the strict protocol and relevant resources.

rvnx3• 6 years ago

Yes like in the UK where high-worth individuals are not subject to quarantine.

hue32• 6 years ago

Situation which will increase the disparity between the elite and the "dirty plebs". Since poor people have more risky jobs and lack the extra-care elites can afford, we will be the first ones to lose our jobs and go into debt in case we get sick. Unfortunately, inequality will only rise with COVID, especially in countries with poor social welfare models, like the U.S..

danhak• 6 years ago

Alright, but why is it OK that TV and Film productions are allowed to operate and consume massive testing and PPE resources while other non-essential activities are prohibited?

graeme6• 6 years ago

Edit: I mean indoors in their own home rather than socializing indoors elsewhere. I’m a big advocate of walks.

————————-

They produce shows that keep people inside?

The cost benefit is enormous. The same argument applies to things like vaccinations for sports. A fairly small number of people will keep millions of others indoors over the winter.

masklinn3• 6 years ago

Because the US has long ago decided that being a society wasn't something they were interested in, therefore the testing & PPE resources on the open market and handed out through the sole benevolence of the Invisible Hand of Having More Money than You, and TV and Film productions are able to acquire them, and operate.

"Other non-essential activities", not having the means to acquire these resources and implement these protocols, get to not operate.

eckmLJE• 6 years ago

I would think because the organizers of these typical activities lack the resources or customer compliance to pull off as strict a regime as described above.

bromonkey2• 6 years ago

Because they pay for the testing. A restaurant will not (it would serve no purpose to find out 1-3 days later that someone had covid.) Furthermore the people working on films are employees of a studio that are contractually required to uphold the measures they agree to or they can lose their jobs. A restaurant has no such agreement with their customers.

bestnameever6• 6 years ago

I think we would be in a different situation if we saw people consuming massive testing and ppe resources while operating other non-essential activities.

As far as I know, there is nothing preventing them from doing that beyond cost and time.

hodgesrm3• 6 years ago

Right, people put effort into figuring out how to keep film going.

What a lot of us are asking is why don't we do something analogous for small businesses? There does not seem to be political will to figure out how to get them through this as well. At the very least it shows a profound lack of imagination.

gamblor95613• 6 years ago

It costs a lot of money. The studios are willing to spend that money. Most small businesses aren't and probably couldn't afford to even if they did.

jbob2000• 6 years ago

The film industry has participants that are willingly abiding by strict safety protocols. You couldn’t get the shopping crowds that serve small businesses to do the same.

nostrademons• 6 years ago

Might be a market opportunity there for someone to familiarize themselves with all the latest best practices, pitch to the local health department "I'll be accountable for ensuring that restaurants follow all these best practices, will you let them open if they can produce a certificate showing current inspections from me?", then charge restaurants to produce such a certificate (and educate them on the best practices, and ensure that they follow them). Basically it's an outsourced compliance officer. Do the same job as the person on the movie set, follow the same regulations, and the business can open.

I think customers may be part of the problem, though. No business has an incentive to say "You're not following the COVID protocols, I'm going to have to ask you to leave", and businesses that have actually done that get all sorts of abuse from the general public. Movie sets have a lot more leverage over their employees: if they don't follow the rules, they lose their income.

tzs• 6 years ago

You could probably do something analogous for any business that satisfies these conditions:

1. The workers at the business only interact in person with other workers. Members of the general public are not present.

2. The business conducts frequent testing, which should include tests that give a rapid answer.

3. The workers agree to take steps outside of work to limit their risk, such as not going places where they can't maintain social distancing or where mask wearing is not near universal.

You could probably even open that up a little, relaxing #1 to:

1'. There are only a small number of members of the general public present throughout the day, only one or two at a time.

This relaxed rule would allow for things like dentists offices, barbers, salons, and similar as long as they kept the number of simultaneous customers down.

undefined1• 6 years ago

This is about outdoor dining and it's been almost a year now. Where's the science showing that outdoor dining is such a problem?

gamblor95613• 6 years ago

We'll find out Tuesday, when the LA County Health Dept is required to present any such scientific studies/evidence in court to defend the restriction on outdoor dining.

(While Newsom has issued a statewide order that would theoretically lockdown all of SoCal and moot the county order, he doesn't actually have the authority to enforce those restrictions; that is handled at the county or city level by local law enforcement, nearly all of which have said they will not...even in Sacramento. Notably, even in CA local law enforcement for the most part has refused to enforce the lockdowns imposed by their own local governments.)

bestnameever6• 6 years ago

This is really not just about outdoor dining. Here, they are comparing outdoor dining that is open against outdoor dining that is closed. We already know the circumstances of how they operate and the precautions they are taking are likely not equal.

est31• 6 years ago

Even if she could only open her restaurant for production companies whose employees are tested daily, it'd be a better situation. She probably can offer way better food than a trucked in catering can provide which is probably the alternative. The catering company probably suffers a lot as well from covid, so let both have their venues open, and make the people decide whose food they like best. As a benefit, the people would distribute between the two venues and would thus be further apart than if they used one venue.

This situation is incredibly unfair to her. She has to pay the rent but can't open. She has to pay no rent and gets customers.

gamblor95613• 6 years ago

She probably can offer way better food than a trucked in catering can provide which is probably the alternative.

This is in fact what a number of studios already do: they use local restaurants for catering or on-site meals. However, as a result of COVID procedures, in order for a local restaurant to be eligible for this, they would to adhere to the same restrictions as Hollywood crews do, meaning: daily/near-daily testing, quarantining outside of work, and importantly, no interaction with non-household members.

Hollywood has the guilds to help it enforce the covid procedures (and also pays very well). The same cannot be said of restaurants.

imgabe5• 6 years ago

This story is based on this video from Twitter:

https://twitter.com/SpencerKlavan/status/1335007535070253057

You can see the tables. They're about the same distance apart. There's also like 10x more of them for the film set than for the restaurant.

gamblor95613• 6 years ago

The risk profiles are completely different.

Every single person eating on the film set has been tested regularly and continuously and is not permitted on set if they have an ambiguous or positive result. In the event of a positive result, they're not even permitted on set for at least a week until after the last positive result, even when followup tests suggest that the positive result may have been false positive. When on set, all crew and cast must wear masks at all times except when filming, in which case cast but not crew may remove their masks for the duration of the take.

How often are the restaurant employees being tested? How often of the customers being tested? (For both questions, the answer is "not regularly, if at all".)

bestnameever6• 6 years ago

The tables may be the same distance apart but is the seating? In the video I can only see one chair per table. It is also possible they don't allow people to sit at adjacent tables. I'm not saying this is the case, I'm just pointing out that a picture may not tell the entire story.

moralsupply• 6 years ago

How come people in Sweden don't use masks, run their lives normally and their Covid statistics are better than the ones in the USA?

Turns out the Swedish declared they didn't know how to deal with Covid, and by not knowing they decided the best course of action was to do nothing as far as lockdowns and other authoritarian measures were concerned.

mikeyouse• 6 years ago

Turns out Sweden has completely abandoned their Laissez Faire attitude in the face of a >4x death rate and very little economic improvement compared to their neighboring countries. They’re instituting large gathering bans, closing schools, instituting curfews on bars and clubs, they’re just doing it months later than was reasonable.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/swedens-pandemic-experiment-end...

Or more directly, a chart that says more than most articles: https://si-wsj-net.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/si.wsj.net/public/...

Camas• 6 years ago

"Completely abandoned" here being used to mean still much more permissive than most western countries.

marcell• 6 years ago

Alternate perspective is that their excess mortality has been average since the middle of summer, and is not spiking as of right now. This site https://www.euromomo.eu/ lets you compare all this data by country.

hansvm• 6 years ago

Some stats are better and some aren't, but are you really saying that the reason some stats are better is _because_ they didn't do anything?

kelchm3• 6 years ago

They didn’t do “nothing”. They gave guidance based on the data that was available and allowed individuals to make their own decisions on what course of action was best for them.

A large subset of the population in the US is (rightly IMO) not okay with their state or local government dictating what businesses are forced to close or imposing restrictions that effectively put them out of business.

By approaching the situation in this way it’s only further politicized the issue. I worry what will happen when something worse than COVID-19 comes in the future.

asdfadsfgfdda• 6 years ago

The obesity rate could explain a lot, obesity is a major factor in covid risk. USA obesity rate is 40%, Sweden is 10%.

panzagl• 6 years ago

I can't read the article, but I listened to Adam Savage's podcast where he talked to one of the principles of BattleBots. He described the steps they had to go through to run/film during CoVid- it included dedicated compliances personnel, with continual enforcement and daily testing. So my guess is that the film company is facing a higher set of standards, and is allowed to operate because it does so.

TigeriusKirk4• 6 years ago

The problem with the "we're tested all the time" explanation is that we've been told for months now that you can still be contagious even if you test negative and are asymptomatic.

hammock2• 6 years ago

We have been told that, but the latest "science" says this is false. Study of 10 million patients published in Nature journal two weeks ago: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

(Worth noting I was trying to find this link with Google and had a hard time. I had to switch to a foreign search engine)

TigeriusKirk4• 6 years ago

From just a couple weeks ago -

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

"Although there is a lower risk of transmission from asymptomatic people, they might still present a significant public-health risk because they are more likely to be out in the community than isolated at home, says Andrew Azman"

detaro• 6 years ago

That depends on the test. It's specifically antibody tests that lag, PCR and antigen tests do indicate a lot earlier, and have a good chance of catching an infection early, because they directly detect presence of the virus. cf: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02661-2

mrfusion• 6 years ago

Honestly producing TV is the least essential thing I can think of.

bromonkey2• 6 years ago

I think the same can be said about dining out.

traceddd• 6 years ago

People in this thread seem to be justifying it since the film industry reportedly does more testing. I don’t know if I really believe it’s better (actors take flights and likely don’t wear masks for filming, lots of catered food, tests aren’t perfect by any means, etc.), let’s assume that it is.

The point still stands that it’s unfair. If the film industry is able to get a pass to operate by meeting some standard then that should be formalized and extended to these small businesses. Let them decide if it’s viable.

Back room deals and private special exceptions are no way to operate.

bestnameever6• 6 years ago

It is not fair and this is a reminder that life is not fair.

We can't forget that outdoor dining was just shutdown again and Hollywood has been taking these precautions for months now.

Telling restaurants they need to start testing every individual walking into their place of business really just does not seem feasible in immediate short-term given the current situation, unfortunately.

gnusty_gnurc• 6 years ago

I don’t care what anyone says, at the end of the day the pro-lockdown crowd nowadays is largely able to afford sealing up in their apartment and work from home while they dispatch some immigrant to deliver them food. It’s inhumane and sanctimonious.

These restrictions amount to a wealth transfer to the rich and unmitigated suffering to anyone struggling.

neonate• 6 years ago

https://archive.is/RAiPs

RickJWagner• 6 years ago

Outrageous. Another example of 'Shutdown for thee, but not for me'.

The list of politicians who have been caught vacationing, going to grooming appointments, etc. is appalling. (These are politicians who have made strong statements condemning everyone else to stay home.)

But the pols are small potatoes in comparison to the business edicts like this article is about. People's entire livelihoods are at stake.

She Couldn’t Open for Outdoor Dining. The Film Crew Next Door Could

Related Stories