Agree we need to reopen without vulnerable/elderly at first?

[gwraigty]

NY Times article said that people over 65 account for 20% of consumer spending. If businesses reopen and don't make it safe for us geezers then this is going to be a big reduction of income to these businesses. When things in my area reopen I am going to give my business to stores, etc that take the safety of us geezers into account.

Well, right now those closed businesses have lost 100% of their income, so I'd expect that they'll be happy to be allowed to open up and get an opportunity to get some of the other 80% of consumer spending.

 

[PatrickA5]

NY Times article said that people over 65 account for 20% of consumer spending. If businesses reopen and don't make it safe for us geezers then this is going to be a big reduction of income to these businesses. When things in my area reopen I am going to give my business to stores, etc that take the safety of us geezers into account.

+1

I would think it would be fairly easy for stores like WalMart, Walgreens, Home Depot, etc to have several Senior hours scattered throughout the week. They would need to require masks of everybody and have some social distancing requirements. Then they would have to actually enforce the requirements. I'm going to try and limit my appearances to places that actually require their employees to wear masks. So far, very few around here.

I'm not holding my breath. Last time I was at Walmart during the "Vulnerable" hour, Billie Bob was standing about 2 feet behind me in line. Without a mask. Probably 35 years old.

 

[harllee]

Well, right now those closed businesses have lost 100% of their income, so I'd expect that they'll be happy to be allowed to open up and get an opportunity to get some of the other 80% of consumer spending.

But if those businesses do it right--give some options for the over age 65 to feel safe like curbside pick up, private dining rooms, etc they might get back to 100%.
Most restaurants and other retail operate on a thin profit margin and they need the over 65 business. Like I said I will send my business to the stores that make me feel safe. A smart business owner will take that into account.

 

[fh2000]

+1

I would think it would be fairly easy for stores like WalMart, Walgreens, Home Depot, etc to have several Senior hours scattered throughout the week. They would need to require masks of everybody and have some social distancing requirements. Then they would have to actually enforce the requirements. I'm going to try and limit my appearances to places that actually require their employees to wear masks. So far, very few around here.

I'm not holding my breath. Last time I was at Walmart during the "Vulnerable" hour, Billie Bob was standing about 2 feet behind me in line. Without a mask. Probably 35 years old.

If I am going to a store in the future, I plan to bring a 3 feet long old umbrella (so not to be accused of stealing). Stretching out from my arm, it makes a 6 feet long ruler.

 

[harllee]

I agree. The older people will just have to fend for themselves and hope they avoid the people that don't care (or think it's all a hoax).

Or the older people like me will send their business to those businesses that take the time and care to make them feel safe. I have many choices where to spend my money and I am going to spend it in places that take my safety and well being into account.

 

[gwraigty]

But if those businesses do it right--give some options for the over age 65 to feel safe like curbside pick up, private dining rooms, etc they might get back to 100%.
Most restaurants and other retail operate on a thin profit margin and they need the over 65 business. Like I said I will send my business to the stores that make me feel safe. A smart business owner will take that into account.

I think it's going to be an evolving process as businesses learn what's working and what isn't working. Customer feedback will be an important part of that. Some essential businesses in my area have offered curbside pickup already. What do you envision as a private dining room?

 

[MuirWannabe]

Crowded places that don't enforce distancing, forget it. If a store doesn't provide curbside pickup, I won't be shopping there.

Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded. Yogi Berra

 

[davebarnes]

I watched this explanation from a couple of Dr's in California and it has made me look at things differently...
Bottomline, is they conclude the time is right for targeted reopening with testing based on the data they have analyzed.

This is nonsense masquerading as science.
But, don't accept my opinion.
Read what an expert has to say.

"Statistician Carl took these doctors on. Sadly, they are talking pure junk."

Note: Carl T. Bergstrom is a professor of biology at the University of Wisconsin.

Twitter Feed Response by Carl T. Bergstrom

Unfortunately the misleading claims of those two doctors in Bakersfield keep making the rounds, so I want to very briefly address the problem with what they are saying. I won't get into their possible motives, past political activity, etc.
What they did was simple: they looked at the fraction of patients who tested positive for #COVID19 at the clinics they own. They found 340 out of 5213 tests were positive, about 6.6%. Then they assume the same fraction of the whole population are infected.
From there, they scale up to the state level and claim 12% incidence statewide. The news story says it is using the same calculation, but it can't be—how did they get from 6.6% to 12%? Perhaps they estimating infected *ever* versus infected *currently*. It's not clear.
Using that 12% infected figure, and a known 1400 deaths in California, they assume 1400 out of 4.7 million have died. That gives them an infection fatality rate of 0.03%. That is, they think that if 10,000 are infected, 3 will die on average.
The problem with this approach is that during a pandemic, the people who come into an urgent care clinic are not a random sample of the population. A large fraction of them are coming in precisely because they suspect that they have the disease. This generates sampling bias.
Estimating that fraction infected from patients at an urgent care facility is a bit like estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court. It's not a random sample, and it gives a highly biased estimate.
Moreover the estimate does not pass even a basic plausibility check. In New York City, 12,067 people are known to have died from the virus, out of a population of 8.4 million. This is a rate of 0.14% of all people. Not just infected people. All people.
That gives us a lower bound on the death rate in New York. Not an estimate, a lower bound. The death rate for infected people is obviously higher than 0.14%, because not everyone in New York has been infected.
And yet that 0.14% lower bound is nearly *five times as high* as the 0.03% that the Bakerfield duo are claiming. They've used absurd methodology to arrive at an implausible number. If the pandemic were not so severely politicized, this would be a non-issue from the start."

 

[harllee]

I think it's going to be an evolving process as businesses learn what's working and what isn't working. Customer feedback will be an important part of that. Some essential businesses in my area have offered curbside pickup already. What do you envision as a private dining room?

A restaurant I use to go to has a couple of private rooms you can reserve for parties, etc. Maybe those could be set aside exclusively for the use of the over 65 or the immune compromised. Businesses are going to have to be creative.

 

[aiken]

Or the older people like me will send their business to those businesses that take the time and care to make them feel safe. I have many choices where to spend my money and I am going to spend it in places that take my safety and well being into account.

Why couldn't restaurants have "senior hours only" time segments....or maybe that's what early bird specials are for!

 

[Music Lover]

They've used absurd methodology to arrive at an implausible number. If the pandemic were not so severely politicized, this would be a non-issue from the start."

This issue has been politicized from the start on both sides of the issue, and misinformation has come from both sides as well. These doctors have received more flack in a week than the WHO who have been spectacularly wrong several times. In fact anyone daring to question something the WHO said on YouTube will be deleted.

 

[GravitySucks]

Why couldn't restaurants have "senior hours only" time segments....or maybe that's what early bird specials are for!

It's 4 O'Clock. I'm starving, let's get supper.

 

[gauss]

A restaurant I use to go to has a couple of private rooms you can reserve for parties, etc. Maybe those could be set aside exclusively for the use of the over 65 or the immune compromised. Businesses are going to have to be creative.

Why couldn't restaurants have "senior hours only" time segments....or maybe that's what early bird specials are for!

I have a question about suggestions like these.

Do they imply that contact with the more vulnerable, less healthy, parts of the population is somehow safer than contact with the overall (presumably healthier, less vulnerable) population?

I suspect that there may be an assumption about the social behavior of the vulnerable sector is different than the population as a whole.

If not where does this additional safety come from?

 

[MichaelB]

In fact anyone daring to question something the WHO said on YouTube will be deleted.

This is not correct. The BBC reported an interview with Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube https://www.early-retirement.org/fo...oint-of-covid-testing-103539.html#post2420323

YouTube has banned any coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts World Health Organization (WHO) advice.
The Google-owned service says it will remove anything it deems "medically unsubstantiated".

Chief executive Susan Wojcicki said the media giant wanted to stamp out "misinformation on the platform".

There is no censoring of disagreement with WHO. There is censoring of unsubstantiated medical advice that directly contradicts WHO medical recommendations.

 

[PatrickA5]

I have a question about suggestions like these.

Do they imply that contact with the more vulnerable, less healthy, parts of the population is somehow safer than contact with the overall (presumably healthier, less vulnerable) population?

I suspect that there may be an assumption about the social behavior of the vulnerable sector is different than the population as a whole.

If not where does this additional safety come from?

That's a good question. Just because you're old and/or vulnerable doesn't mean you're less likely to get someone else sick if you haven't been taking precautions.

My thought was maybe there is a certain time that seniors could shop where certain safety measures were strictly enforced. I wouldn't mind going to my local grocery store if it wasn't crowded and everybody was forced to wear masks and I didn't have to worry about people that don't care being anywhere near me. Like Harlee, I will seek these places out and try to avoid others.

 

[gwraigty]

A restaurant I use to go to has a couple of private rooms you can reserve for parties, etc. Maybe those could be set aside exclusively for the use of the over 65 or the immune compromised. Businesses are going to have to be creative.

Do you think that would be sufficient? Please keep in mind that you don't know if the other customers in the room are practicing social distancing in other aspects of their lives. I know that you've been fairly well locked down through most of this. Others in the vulnerable population have still been shopping (and working) regularly in stores, socializing with others not in their households, etc. I see it when I grocery shop and on the couple of occasions I've walked the neighborhood.

 

[Midpack]

I have a question about suggestions like these.

Do they imply that contact with the more vulnerable, less healthy, parts of the population is somehow safer than contact with the overall (presumably healthier, less vulnerable) population?

I suspect that there may be an assumption about the social behavior of the vulnerable sector is different than the population as a whole.

If not where does this additional safety come from?

That's a good question. Just because you're old and/or vulnerable doesn't mean you're less likely to get someone else sick if you haven't been taking precautions.

My thought was maybe there is a certain time that seniors could shop where certain safety measures were strictly enforced. I wouldn't mind going to my local grocery store if it wasn't crowded and everybody was forced to wear masks and I didn't have to worry about people that don't care being anywhere near me. Like Harlee, I will seek these places out and try to avoid others.

That is a good point. And that's why the more vulnerable have to just stay away from all others. "Senior hours" won't be markedly safer, maybe a little if there are stricter cleanliness and distancing somehow enforced.

I know I am seeing more and more masks and voluntary distancing, but there's still a significant minority that doesn't seem to give a sh--. Some even seem to making a point of flaunting their disregard for precautions, but there's always a small group that 'knows better' than anyone else...

Though the practical solution is to keep the vulnerable away and let the other 90% go back to work etc. - no politician would dare draw a hard line. I suspect all the guidelines we see will pointedly warn the vulnerable of the higher risks they'll face and encourage them to SIP as much as possible, and let them choose for themselves. If a large percentage of the vulnerable decide to ignore the higher risk, we'll have a second wave, could be even worse than the one we’re in. That will overwhelm health care resources (maybe only in some regions) and lead to re enacting lockdowns. Only when therapies improve, strategic testing/tracing improves and/or an effective vaccine comes along will we be able to 'get everyone back in the pool.'

And some businesses that rely on the elderly may have to reinvent themselves even more dramatically than those who cater to all ages.

 

[Ian S]

So this has been going on for about 6 weeks and you would rather die? Aren't you a little dramatic? My 88 year old mother who lived through the great depression, WWII and the polio pandemic says this is nothing compared to the times. What you need to do is find a way to help others and not dwell on yourself so much.

+1 After surviving the Great Depression, my mother worked for the British government in London during WWII. 1941-42 were terrible times for the Brits: the first half of 1941, they were fighting the Nazis alone, their cities were being bombed and their merchant ships were being sunk by submarines. Even after the US entered the war, things still looked bleak as the Japanese raced through southeast Asia and the Germans, in control western Europe, were on the verge of defeating Russia. Conditions in the Allied countries were far worse than not being able to get your hair done or party at a crowded bar or traipse around the globe sightseeing!

 

[harllee]

What I want to see in restaurants is strictly enforced safety, limited number of diners so I don't have to sit near anyone (maybe only 25% capacity), strict cleaning, staff wearing masks, cleaned menus or disposable menus. So maybe it will have to be an early time with only 25% capacity for seniors or maybe I can have a private room. Actually curbside take out is working pretty good for me--I am supporting local businesses who seem to be taking safety seriously. Last night we did a curb side pick up of whole lobsters from the local seafood restaurant. They have curb pick up down to a science and seem to be doing a very good business.

 

[MuirWannabe]

+1 After surviving the Great Depression, my mother worked for the British government in London during WWII. 1941-42 were terrible times for the Brits: the first half of 1941, they were fighting the Nazis alone, their cities were being bombed and their merchant ships were being sunk by submarines. Even after the US entered the war, things still looked bleak as the Japanese raced through southeast Asia and the Germans, in control western Europe, were on the verge of defeating Russia. Conditions in the Allied countries were far worse than not being able to get your hair done or party at a crowded bar or traipse around the globe sightseeing!

Luxury

 

[ivinsfan]

Well, right now those closed businesses have lost 100% of their income, so I'd expect that they'll be happy to be allowed to open up and get an opportunity to get some of the other 80% of consumer spending.

Maybe but maybe not, if losing 20% of their business means they make no profit. In this case they'd be working for nothing or even going deeper in the red..that won't work.

 

[audreyh1]

I’m not motivated to go out. I guess I must be a senior as I just turned 60? Maybe 65 is the lower limit?

I’m just not motivated to use services other than on online ordering and minimal grocery store visits and utilities, streaming.

I wear a mask in public, so I can’t imagine dining inside a restaurant.

Employees at Walmart were wearing masks which I was glad to see, and a lady outside tracking numbers entering and leaving. They had set up the one way labeling for aisles although many were oblivious. More than half the shoppers were wearing masks.

 

[ivinsfan]

What I want to see in restaurants is strictly enforced safety, limited number of diners so I don't have to sit near anyone (maybe only 25% capacity), strict cleaning, staff wearing masks, cleaned menus or disposable menus. So maybe it will have to be an early time with only 25% capacity for seniors or maybe I can have a private room. Actually curbside take out is working pretty good for me--I am supporting local businesses who seem to be taking safety seriously. Last night we did a curb side pick up of whole lobsters from the local seafood restaurant. They have curb pick up down to a science and seem to be doing a very good business.

Would you pay triple the price for your dinner, I don't think there is a restaurant in existence that can make money on 25% of it's capacity.

 

[Rustic23]

I would feel more comfortable surrounded by 70 somethings than 20 somethings. I feel more seniors would SD than teenagers. Many restaurants in our area ren specials on Tuesday or Wednesday nights. These appear to be less popular with everyone. So making one of those nights a senior night might just bring in untapped business. Heck for us, Wednesday is just as good as Friday.

 

[audreyh1]

I have a question about suggestions like these.

Do they imply that contact with the more vulnerable, less healthy, parts of the population is somehow safer than contact with the overall (presumably healthier, less vulnerable) population?

I suspect that there may be an assumption about the social behavior of the vulnerable sector is different than the population as a whole.

If not where does this additional safety come from?

No, it’s not additionally safe for seniors to crowd together. I’ve avoided senior hours because I don’t want to be standing in line or at a busy store.

Now if as a group seniors are wearing masks way more than the general population, that would create higher general safety. But I don’t see that happening inside a restaurant.