Airport restos are still open
The Journal notices that, while all restaurant dining rooms must be closed in Covid red zones, somehow seven restaurants are operating normally at the airport, and even Quebec City’s airport has an open establishment. However, they explain it: airport facilities are not subject to Quebec’s rules. Story sort of fizzles out with yet another plea from a restaurateur to explain the scientific basis of closures to him again.
Ephraim 11:12 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
How about this. We allow restaurants to open, but you have to sign the register with your medicare number and for 21 days following and the restaurant is billed for the medical costs in those next 21 days. Still want to open the restaurant?
JoeNotCharles 11:34 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
It doesn’t say which restaurants these are, but most restaurants in airports are laid out more like food courts , with no enclosing walls, so much better air circulation. And if you’re in an airport, there’s nowhere else to eat. (Sure, you could get food “to go” and then go and eat it elsewhere in the airport, but there’s no functional difference – you’re still at a seat “inside” although in a cavernous room.)
From that standpoint, it might make sense to allow food courts to open too, with a large mandated space between tables. But airport restaurants are for a specific, captive audience, so it’s less likely that they’ll fill up and risk people crowding each other, and it’s much easier to police a handful of restaurants at the airport to be sure they’re under capacity than to police every food court.
So, yeah, this makes perfect sense to me.
Chris 11:52 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
Plus, it’s not like the the airports are as crowded as usual.
Kate 12:03 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
That’s the thing about the item. It starts with a headline and lede as if the Journal’s trying to create a little scandal, a little stir – and then it’s, oh yeah, they’re not actually breaking any rules…
Douglas 15:06 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
How about politicians take a pay cut too every time they force businesses to shut down and lose money.
You bet politicians will ever be so careless about killing people’s livelihoods off?
They are part of the privileged class that doesn’t care what happens when thousands of business go bankrupt.
Kate 15:21 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
Douglas, if by now you don’t understand the public health necessity to limit transmission of this virus, I can’t help you.
Hospitals are starting to cut surgeries again to get things lined up for a Covid rush. This is because we couldn’t shut down seriously enough.
Kevin 16:36 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
Douglas
If the choice is killing livelihoods or killing people, I know which I’d choose.
I also know that if people were actually staying home like they should, you’d have been able to get back to work months ago.
Ephraim 17:39 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
We need the government to CUT the number of people allowed in a store again. They are putting too many people in at the same time at the large surface stores. The small stores are doing better with keeping the numbers low. Maybe some of the grocery stores should push people back to ordering for pick up instead of shopping inside? Too many people are out shopping as an activity instead of just buying what they need and being done with it.
MarcG 17:48 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
I went to Jean Coutu for something necessary on a Saturday night when they’re quiet and passed by the dollar store on the way – people just hanging out, browsing the knick-knacks.
Chris 19:01 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
>If the choice is killing livelihoods or killing people, I know which I’d choose.
Of course, the difficulty is the difference between:
a) me loosing *my* livelihood vs *other* people dying
vs
b) others loosing *their* livelihood vs *me* dying
If you’re young and/or poor, you might care more about (a), but if you’re rich and/or old you might care more about (b).
MarcG 19:11 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
Isn’t the assumption that anyone is “losing their livelihood” wrong? It’s not like chefs are having their limbs chopped off – they’re going to be unemployed for a bit and then get back to business. You don’t have to be old or rich to realize that’s much less important than the permanent death and disablement of others, and a possibly crippled health care system leading to more of same.
Michael Black 19:25 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
They say that people with little money are more inclined to see serious effects from the Virus. Maybe existing conditions, maybe other factors.
It’s a delusion to dismiss the Virus as only an “old people” problem.
The wider the spread, the more likely it will hit people who will be affected badly. And the more people who get seriously ill, the heavier the burden. The news just said “routine” medical stuff is being cut back, to avoid hospital overload. That may cause worry, and complications or death.
It’s way more complicated than a simple dismissal.
I haven’t stayed home for my health for almost nine months, I’ve stayed in because I will be a burden. And in February it will be two years of not-normal.
Uatu 21:04 on 2020-12-07 Permalink
Today they called another code surge for the ER here at the Glen. A perfect time for Douglas to come on down to present his ideas to the staff …. /S
Chris 02:28 on 2020-12-08 Permalink
To be clear, my last comment was in generalities, not how I personally look at it.
>You don’t have to be old or rich to realize that’s much less important than the permanent death and disablement of others
Much less important to who? Humans are often self-centred. If X doesn’t affect me, I might not give a damn.
>It’s a delusion to dismiss the Virus as only an “old people” problem.
Didn’t say “only”. But as a matter of probabilities, it affects the old worse.
Ephraim 08:07 on 2020-12-08 Permalink
Douglas, your assumptions are entirely wrong… government makes money from taxes, taxes which are dependent on your business being open and healthy. They have every interest in your business being open. The same way that they have every interest in your success, be it in the stock market or just getting a better salary… the more you make, the more they can tax.
Shall we employ a little critical thought to this… what real benefit would government have in bankruptcy? The more bankruptcy, the less money going into the pot and the more people getting benefits that have to be paid out. And if being a politician is a career move, then these are all votes you lose.
Douglas 10:13 on 2020-12-08 Permalink
Kevin and Kate
You choose livelihoods over lives everytime you allow people to step in cars to go to work.
The amount of economic destruction done compared to number of lives saved has been a totally awful trade.
By the way. Rich people don’t suffer from this pandemic. Its all the blue collar workers that suffer and all we do for them is say “good luck” and throw some change at them.
Douglas 10:16 on 2020-12-08 Permalink
If government cared about not sending poor restaurant owners and workers into bankruptcy they would allow them to operate their restaurant tables again.
If politicians salaries were tied to % of industries they shutdown they souldn’t dare kill off the restaurants because they are scared of a few potential bad articles.
Kevin 12:24 on 2020-12-08 Permalink
Douglas,
Let me be totally clear: I sympathize with your plight, but these are extraordinary times. I know many doctors who have not had a single day off since March. The days they are supposed to be home they are getting calls about patients, about protocols, about how to deal with this effing disease.
I know one public health doctor who was getting phone calls in the middle of the night every single night from March until September.
So let’s put in it proportion. 333 people died on Quebec roads in 2019. Covid-19 has killed that many people in Quebec in the past 2 weeks.
The number of deaths would be far, far higher if we did nothing. And the spillover effects would be worse.
If, say, one of your restaurant co-workers needed stitches, they’d have no chance of getting that at an ER. There wouldn’t be any room for such a minor case.
As for your income, the CERB provided $500 a week. EI provides the same. No, that’s not the same as what they got before, but that’s not pocket change– and it’s not taxed. The maximum payout is $30,000 per year — which is the same as earning $54,000 before taxes.
Matthew H 14:49 on 2020-12-08 Permalink
Kevin, CERB is taxable as ordinary income. It’s not tax free!
Ephraim 15:13 on 2020-12-08 Permalink
Douglas: Critical thinking doesn’t mean that restaurant owners are more important than anyone else. the majority are more important than the minority. You do the best for the most amount of people that you can. And I’m saying this from the perspective of someone who’s business is ENTIRELY shut down and who can’t deliver meals to make money… I mean, shut…. I haven’t really made money since March. Because, let’s be realistic, who’s travelling and I’m in the tourism business. So, should we reopen that? NO.
Healthcare is NOT elastic, it’s finite. We can’t create much more… we can create a little more… a few rooms a few beds, call in doctors and nurses from retirement, get a few ventilators. But at some point it is totally finite. And when I say finite, that means that doctors have to make a choice on who’s life it is they save. It is a limited resource.
In restaurant dining contributes to healthcare costs abnormally in the current situation because the longer you sit inside with others, the higher the chances of leaving with COVID. So, who’s to absorb that liability? Is the restaurant owner willing to cover that cost? No.
Society is a greater good than restaurants, hotels, bars and cinemas. It’s not forever, it’s temporary. But government can’t recover easily from “Sorry your partner died, we just thought that someone else was more worthy of care”. Because it’s not a value we accept. We accept triage, when needed, up to the point of where people needlessly die. It’s the one taboo in our society… we try to limit deaths. And yes, government has an interest in your death too, because your entire RRSP (unless you have a spouse) has taxes due on the day you die. You no longer get to spread it out over the years from 65 and on. It all comes due, hitting much higher marginalized tax rates. And yet, government would rather you not pay it that way.
Ephraim 15:15 on 2020-12-08 Permalink
Both CERB and CRB are taxable. In the case of CERB, the government did not deduct any taxes, so it is all due on the 30th of April. In the case of CRB, they deducted $200 a month for taxes, but it’s provisional… like all tax deductions.
Chris 17:37 on 2020-12-08 Permalink
>the majority are more important than the minority
This should be true, but isn’t in so many other cases, climate change being a big example.
Ephraim 20:11 on 2020-12-08 Permalink
International Relations are chaotic, since no one is really in charge.
It’s one of the things about the conspiracy theorists who talk about the UN as an army or government… nope, it’s a building of chaos. No one has any control and nothing actually sticks
Kevin 00:13 on 2020-12-09 Permalink
Mathew H and Ephraim
Thank you for correcting me.