We recently had dinner with friends at a popular local restaurant; five of us from three households, at three separate and socially-distanced tables. We were the only ones there at opening time, but the restaurant filled to (socially-distanced) capacity while we were there. The patio was covered with a canopy; we all sat in a row along one edge/corner so had fresh air and comparative isolation, but it still felt too enclosed. And we had to raise our voices to talk over the distance our tables spanned, as well as to be heard over the other patrons.
The food and company were good, and the restaurant followed the rules, but it was still a rather uncomfortable experience and I wished afterward that he hadn’t done it (it will be more enjoyable in future memory, assuming nobody gets sick!).
We’ve decided to limit our outdoor dining (we live near Pasadena so will have options) to just the two of us, at restaurants with no canopies or side panels, and only if they have LOTS of space between tables and not many patrons. I guess it means eating a lot earlier than we’d like to, but it’s just not worth going out if we don’t feel comfortable.
This outdoor dining vs no outdoor dining debate really seems like a diversion from the real issues—aside from brief pay protection program, virtually no support from government level for the restaurant industry and its workers.
I don’t know what the right answer is, but more needs to be done for restaurants and small businesses that are bleeding to death while trying to do the right thing.
“The city has invested a lot of money and the restaurants have invested a lot of money in their heaters and their tents so we are trying very hard to work with them,” Derderian said.
But compliance has been mixed. Health inspectors conducted about 60 site visits Wednesday and Thursday, and the majority of restaurants — more than 40 — were violating the rules, she said.
Stop being cheap and pay them to close until the spreading gets under control. They’re just bullshitting around with this open, close, open, close and no financial support.
Like I said before, restaurant owners feel like they’ve followed the rules and thus it’s unfair to be shut down, but it’s their customers who have been flouting the rules by meeting up with people not in their households.
If restaurants checked IDs to make sure that they weren’t seating members of different households at the same table, it would be much less risky (so long as the outside dining is really outside and not in a tend or other enclosed space where virus particles can accumulate). Absent that, they’re tacitly encouraging irresponsible behavior.
This is good to see, but the case probably shouldn’t be resolved by weighing the costs and benefits of the ban. The stronger argument for the restaurants is probably that the local public health officials didn’t have the authority to impose a ban. Legislators make laws, and bureaucrats execute them. What laws were the public health officials executing here?
Um, no. Guess not…good thing I love to cook.