News

Santa Clara County restaurants brace for outdoor dining ban

Eateries will have to return to takeout, delivery only as COVID-19 cases surge, hospital capacity shrinks

Diners eat lunch on California Avenue in Palo Alto in November. The street has been closed to traffic for months to allow restaurants to serve more customers outdoors. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

Bay Area officials' Friday announcement that they will expedite the state's new stay-at-home order means that Santa Clara County restaurants have just two days before outdoor dining will be shut down temporarily.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on Thursday that all sectors other than retail and essential operations would be closed in regions of the state where less than 15% of intensive care unit beds are available under a new regional stay-at-home order. But five Bay Area counties — Santa Clara, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa and Marin counties — and the city Berkeley decided to implement the new order in the coming days rather than wait until local hospitals are near crisis.

Santa Clara County restaurants will have to revert to takeout and delivery only as of this Sunday, Dec. 6, at 10 p.m., through at least Jan. 4.

"We understand that the closures under the state order will have a profound impact on our local businesses," Santa Clara County Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody said. "However, if we act quickly, we can both save lives and reduce the amount of time these restrictions have to stay in place, allowing businesses and activities to reopen sooner."

It's a blow — though not an altogether surprising one given mounting warnings about unprecedented levels of COVID-19 in the region — for restaurants that have been relying on outdoor dining to bring in revenue, particularly during the holidays when their dining rooms would usually be booked for parties and corporate events. Many invested in parklets and extensive outdoor dining set-ups, particularly in streets that have been closed to traffic like University Avenue in Palo Alto, Castro Street in Mountain View and Santa Cruz Avenue in Menlo Park.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

"Going back to takeout and delivery, it's going to be really hard. It's not a model we can survive on," said Anu Bhambri, who owns Rooh on University Avenue in downtown Palo Alto. "Without any stimulus package or any help from the government it's going to be very hard to survive."

Rooh's landlord paid to build the restaurant's parklet, Bhambri said, but she recently purchased additional heaters and new tents to prepare for the winter. She immediately thought of the implications for inventory at Rooh, where outdoor dining sales outpace takeout.

Patio heaters are just one of the additional costs Zareen Khan has incurred for outdoor dining at her eponymous restaurants in Palo Alto, Mountain View and Redwood City. Heaters that used to go for $150 are now as expensive as $400 and much harder to come by, she said.

She's frustrated by the new restrictions, which she said are penalizing small businesses that have already been barely treading water for eight months. She's reduced prices at Zareen's and feels like she's constantly advertising discounts to bring in more business. She told her employees on Friday that they will start taking turns taking time off to manage staffing levels with the loss of outdoor dining.

"I request the county be more creative in how to control COVID," Khan said. "Closing businesses is not a solution."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

During a press conference on Friday, Contra Costa Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano said "any kind of activity that involves taking off your mask to eat or drink — even though outdoors is safer, even outdoors poses a risk for COVID spread. With the high risk of transmission in our communities, outdoor dining is more risky than it was two months ago."

Lars Smith, co-owner of State of Mind Public House in Los Altos, felt a grim kind of resilience in the face of Friday's news. He feels better equipped to help his restaurant navigate another shutdown, having done it before. He knows now that he can keep on more staff than he did in March, when in a panic they laid off front-of-house staff and cut employees' hours — and then were overwhelmed by a spike in takeout business.

At La Bodeguita del Medio in Palo Alto, however, co-owner Michael Ekwall was facing the realization that without outdoor dining, he'll have to cut his staff of 18 employees to about six. He's also bracing for the stay-at-home order to last beyond early January.

"It's a challenge to have to indefinitely let most of our people go," he said. "I don't think realistically that we're going to bounce back and this is going to be over on Jan. 4. I wonder how many of my business comrades are going to make it through this period."

On Sunday, Palo Alto wine bar Vino Locale launched a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for employees whose hours will be cut or will potentially be laid off due to the shutdown.

Judy Kleinberg, CEO of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, predicted there will be a spike in unemployment applications in the wake of the new stay-at-home order.

"Because it's only takeout, all those waiters and bus boys and girls are going to be laid off," she said. "The economic downstream damage is not just to the restaurant. It's the workforce that really takes the brunt of this."

She's been advocating at the county level for relief for small businesses; the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors is set to discuss next week a proposed small business loan program as well as a cap on the delivery fees third party platforms can charge restaurants.

San Mateo County is not participating in the early order, but at least one restaurant -- Flea St. Cafe Menlo Park -- decided to shut down outdoor dining anyway and others started preparing to do so. Camper in Menlo Park posted on Instagram that it's "clearing house of some delectables," advertising deals on porterhouse and ribeye steaks and mussels.

Across the Peninsula, local restaurateurs' minds were quickly turning to ideas for boosting business, from social media posts advertising the final two days of outdoor dining this weekend to new takeout menus. Pavel Sirotin of Bevri in Palo Alto said he plans to revive a ghost kitchen concept he tested out a few months ago and is exploring other partnerships to stay afloat.

Several owners expressed a sadly common refrain in the industry: Without another federal support package, many independent restaurants will not make it through another shutdown.

"We're getting mostly restrictions and closures without any help to survive," Sirotin said.

Sirotin urged people to continue ordering takeout from locally owned restaurants, which he recently heard described as a "citizen's responsibility."

"It's really true. If we want to keep eating good and interesting food ... we need to get together and help independent restaurants," he said.

According to a National Restaurant Association survey conducted in November, 17% of restaurants — more than 110,000 establishments — have closed permanently or long-term. The vast majority of restaurants that have closed for good were "well-established businesses, and fixtures in their communities" that on average had been in business for 16 years, and 16% had been open for at least 30 years, the National Restaurant Association said.

Fifty-eight percent of chain and independent full-service restaurants expect continued furloughs and layoffs for at least the next three months, the survey found.

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Your support is vital to us continuing to bring you covid news. Become a member today.

Santa Clara County restaurants brace for outdoor dining ban

Eateries will have to return to takeout, delivery only as COVID-19 cases surge, hospital capacity shrinks

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Fri, Dec 4, 2020, 5:20 pm

Bay Area officials' Friday announcement that they will expedite the state's new stay-at-home order means that Santa Clara County restaurants have just two days before outdoor dining will be shut down temporarily.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on Thursday that all sectors other than retail and essential operations would be closed in regions of the state where less than 15% of intensive care unit beds are available under a new regional stay-at-home order. But five Bay Area counties — Santa Clara, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa and Marin counties — and the city Berkeley decided to implement the new order in the coming days rather than wait until local hospitals are near crisis.

Santa Clara County restaurants will have to revert to takeout and delivery only as of this Sunday, Dec. 6, at 10 p.m., through at least Jan. 4.

"We understand that the closures under the state order will have a profound impact on our local businesses," Santa Clara County Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody said. "However, if we act quickly, we can both save lives and reduce the amount of time these restrictions have to stay in place, allowing businesses and activities to reopen sooner."

It's a blow — though not an altogether surprising one given mounting warnings about unprecedented levels of COVID-19 in the region — for restaurants that have been relying on outdoor dining to bring in revenue, particularly during the holidays when their dining rooms would usually be booked for parties and corporate events. Many invested in parklets and extensive outdoor dining set-ups, particularly in streets that have been closed to traffic like University Avenue in Palo Alto, Castro Street in Mountain View and Santa Cruz Avenue in Menlo Park.

"Going back to takeout and delivery, it's going to be really hard. It's not a model we can survive on," said Anu Bhambri, who owns Rooh on University Avenue in downtown Palo Alto. "Without any stimulus package or any help from the government it's going to be very hard to survive."

Rooh's landlord paid to build the restaurant's parklet, Bhambri said, but she recently purchased additional heaters and new tents to prepare for the winter. She immediately thought of the implications for inventory at Rooh, where outdoor dining sales outpace takeout.

Patio heaters are just one of the additional costs Zareen Khan has incurred for outdoor dining at her eponymous restaurants in Palo Alto, Mountain View and Redwood City. Heaters that used to go for $150 are now as expensive as $400 and much harder to come by, she said.

She's frustrated by the new restrictions, which she said are penalizing small businesses that have already been barely treading water for eight months. She's reduced prices at Zareen's and feels like she's constantly advertising discounts to bring in more business. She told her employees on Friday that they will start taking turns taking time off to manage staffing levels with the loss of outdoor dining.

"I request the county be more creative in how to control COVID," Khan said. "Closing businesses is not a solution."

During a press conference on Friday, Contra Costa Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano said "any kind of activity that involves taking off your mask to eat or drink — even though outdoors is safer, even outdoors poses a risk for COVID spread. With the high risk of transmission in our communities, outdoor dining is more risky than it was two months ago."

Lars Smith, co-owner of State of Mind Public House in Los Altos, felt a grim kind of resilience in the face of Friday's news. He feels better equipped to help his restaurant navigate another shutdown, having done it before. He knows now that he can keep on more staff than he did in March, when in a panic they laid off front-of-house staff and cut employees' hours — and then were overwhelmed by a spike in takeout business.

At La Bodeguita del Medio in Palo Alto, however, co-owner Michael Ekwall was facing the realization that without outdoor dining, he'll have to cut his staff of 18 employees to about six. He's also bracing for the stay-at-home order to last beyond early January.

"It's a challenge to have to indefinitely let most of our people go," he said. "I don't think realistically that we're going to bounce back and this is going to be over on Jan. 4. I wonder how many of my business comrades are going to make it through this period."

On Sunday, Palo Alto wine bar Vino Locale launched a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for employees whose hours will be cut or will potentially be laid off due to the shutdown.

Judy Kleinberg, CEO of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, predicted there will be a spike in unemployment applications in the wake of the new stay-at-home order.

"Because it's only takeout, all those waiters and bus boys and girls are going to be laid off," she said. "The economic downstream damage is not just to the restaurant. It's the workforce that really takes the brunt of this."

She's been advocating at the county level for relief for small businesses; the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors is set to discuss next week a proposed small business loan program as well as a cap on the delivery fees third party platforms can charge restaurants.

San Mateo County is not participating in the early order, but at least one restaurant -- Flea St. Cafe Menlo Park -- decided to shut down outdoor dining anyway and others started preparing to do so. Camper in Menlo Park posted on Instagram that it's "clearing house of some delectables," advertising deals on porterhouse and ribeye steaks and mussels.

Across the Peninsula, local restaurateurs' minds were quickly turning to ideas for boosting business, from social media posts advertising the final two days of outdoor dining this weekend to new takeout menus. Pavel Sirotin of Bevri in Palo Alto said he plans to revive a ghost kitchen concept he tested out a few months ago and is exploring other partnerships to stay afloat.

Several owners expressed a sadly common refrain in the industry: Without another federal support package, many independent restaurants will not make it through another shutdown.

"We're getting mostly restrictions and closures without any help to survive," Sirotin said.

Sirotin urged people to continue ordering takeout from locally owned restaurants, which he recently heard described as a "citizen's responsibility."

"It's really true. If we want to keep eating good and interesting food ... we need to get together and help independent restaurants," he said.

According to a National Restaurant Association survey conducted in November, 17% of restaurants — more than 110,000 establishments — have closed permanently or long-term. The vast majority of restaurants that have closed for good were "well-established businesses, and fixtures in their communities" that on average had been in business for 16 years, and 16% had been open for at least 30 years, the National Restaurant Association said.

Fifty-eight percent of chain and independent full-service restaurants expect continued furloughs and layoffs for at least the next three months, the survey found.

Comments

Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 4, 2020 at 10:22 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 10:22 pm

Finally, someone with a medical background said what I was talking about months ago.

"During a press conference on Friday, Contra Costa Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano said "any kind of activity that involves taking off your mask to eat or drink — even though outdoors is safer, even outdoors poses a risk for COVID spread. With the high risk of transmission in our communities, outdoor dining is more risky than it was two months ago."

WHY DID WE HAVE TO LET IT GET MORE RISKY?

This was the slow boil of the frog.

And watch, I will have a dozen posters attack me for saying this.


Victor Bishop
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2020 at 7:04 am
Victor Bishop, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 7:04 am

Web Link

"Restaurants have been mandated by the state to impose certain regulations and hygiene measures. They follow the general principles of harm reduction that Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease expert at UCSF, goes by: masks, distancing, ventilation and hand hygiene.

“There is no evidence that I can find anywhere in the world that outdoor dining with those four procedures in play increases the risk of COVID-19,” she said."


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 5, 2020 at 8:58 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 8:58 am

In response to Victor Bishop you wrote:

Web Link

"Restaurants have been mandated by the state to impose certain regulations and hygiene measures. They follow the general principles of harm reduction that Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease expert at UCSF, goes by: masks, distancing, ventilation and hand hygiene.”

“There is no evidence that I can find anywhere in the world that outdoor dining with those four procedures in play increases the risk of COVID-19,” she said."”

Based on WHAT research, did she do any scientific experiments to prove this opinion? Again, this reminds me of NASA and Morton Thiokol when they said the needed proof of unsafe Solid Rocket Boosters to avoid launching the Space Shuttle Challenger. In the end the Challenger presidential commission stated that mentality was the final major fault that caused the Challenger Explosion. Their approach of “Risk Management” versus “Risk Avoidance” led to the Challenger Explosion.

For example the Hartford Healthcare website ranks the risk of 37 routine activities regarding Covid 19 and it is found here (Web Link It ranks the risk of eating at an outdoor restaurant as level 4 of 9. It also states that getting restaurant takeout is ranked 2 of 9, a clear indication that eating out doubles your chance of getting infected. And MANY research studies have proven this, AND YOU KNOW IT.

Your constant approach of “Risk Management” versus “Risk Avoidance” has no doubt proves that this ranking is correct. Ghandi simply has NO DATA to base here conclusions on. Here own words were:

“When the principles of harm reduction are followed, she said, “there is no data with these four procedures that (shows) outdoor dining has driven this increased risk and surge.”

She is just saying she wants the PROOF first? Tell this to anyone that has gotten sick, or died, or knows someone who has gotten sick or died since the pandemic. I think a person’s health or life is a HIGH price to pay, and there is NO acceptable levels of RISK where PREVENTION can be achieved.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 5, 2020 at 9:19 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 9:19 am

By the way here are the standards regarding eating at UCSF posted here (Web Link

"Updated Sept. 21, 2020

To ensure the health and safety of our community, UCSF requires everyone who eats or drinks onsite to adhere to the following safety guidelines and protocols in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Remember, eating or drinking when others are nearby puts you and those around you at increased risk for COVID-19 because you must remove your face covering to eat or drink. People often touch their faces with their hands when eating or drinking. In addition, meals are usually considered a time for conversation, which further increases risk, especially if you are talking to others during a meal at which you and those around you are not wearing your face coverings.

When convening in any shared space, including a break, conference, charting or team room:

WEAR A FACE COVERING AT ALL TIMES

WEAR EYE PROTECTION WHEN NOT PHYSICALLY DISTANCED AND WHEN OTHERS ARE UNMASKED

Wash your hands or use hand sanitizer before and after convening

Maintain physical distance of at least 6 feet

When eating or drinking in a shared space or outdoors, please make sure you:

Maintain physical distance of at least 6 feet

REPLACE YOUR MASK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER EATING OR DRINKING

WEAR EYE PROTECTION WHILE AROUND OTHERS WHO ARE UNMASKED WHILE THEY EAT OR DRINK
CLEAN SURFACES BEFORE AND AFTER EATING OR DRINKING

When feasible, eat meals outdoors instead of using cafeterias or dining rooms

USE INDIVIDUALLY PLATED OR BAGGED MEALS

DO NOT USE SHARED TABLES OR SELF-SERVICE BUFFETS

Make sure to wash your hands or use hand sanitizer immediately before and after eating”

At least it would appear that the general public is not following the procedures that are described. Was Ghandi ASSUMING that outdoor restaurants were following these guidelines? I would be able to easily prove they were not.


Victor Bishop
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2020 at 9:33 am
Victor Bishop, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 9:33 am

“ Based on WHAT research, did she do any scientific experiments to prove this opinion? ”

Based on what research did dr Faritano do to prove his opinion.
Plus if you call it an opinion, then you do not need to have any research.
But if you read the part that you recopied and repasted it says: “There is no evidence that I can find anywhere in the world that outdoor dining with those four procedures in play increases the risk of COVID-19,” she said."”
She looked for proof and did not find any.
But according to SG, Dr Faritano is correct because he agrees with SG, but Dr, Gandhi is wrong because she disagrees with our forum expert!!!!!!

Not sure what the whole thing with UCSF has to do with it, but according to what SG copied and pasted, indoor dining is allowed:
“When feasible, eat meals outdoors instead of using cafeterias or dining rooms”

Oh and stop trying to bully me, not going to,work


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 5, 2020 at 10:14 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 10:14 am

Victor,

I will just wait until the LA court case proceeds.

If LA Dept. of Health does provide the court the "Data-Driven" evidence to overcome the current temporary restraining order, that probably will be the final end of this discussion.

I just have a good feeling about this, given that just about every state and the CDC has determined it from the report published by Restaurant Business Online the story titled "NEW CDC REPORT CITES DINING OUT AS A SIGNIFICANT COVID RISK" (Web Link

It stated:

"Adults who contract COVID-19 are twice as likely as the general population to have eaten at a restaurant in the two weeks beforehand, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in a report on Friday.

Both INDOOR AND OUTDOOR DINING POSE A RISK OF INFECTION BECAUSE PATRONS CAN’T EAT OR DRINK WITH A MASK ON, THE CDC NOTED. It advised that alternative defenses against coronavirus be considered “to protect customers, employees, and communities.”

The CDC report looks at onsite restaurant dining of all sorts, with no differentiation between eating outside or being seated indoors. IT COMES AS RESTAURATEURS IN MANY AREAS ARE CLAMORING FOR RESTRICTIONS ON INDOOR TABLE SERVICE TO BE LIFTED. Restaurants in New York City and many areas of California have yet to be allowed to reopen even a portion of their dining rooms. Operators elsewhere are pushing to raise imposed capacity caps of 25% or 50%. Nationally, many establishments have been offering onsite service through patios, parking lot seating or other open-air accommodations.”

Also Good Morning America did a story found here (Web Link and it states:

“Would you dine out in an area with low rates of transmission?

For this scenario, five experts said yes and only two of the experts said no.

Dr. Natalie Dean, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, explained that there are still risks by being in close proximity with staff.

"You're still interacting with the waitress or waiter, and then you're also still nearby whoever you are dining with," she said.

Would you dine outside in an area that's a COVID-19 hot spot?

All seven experts said they would not.

Dr. Anne Rimoin, an epidemiology professor at UCLA, told ABC News that people in areas with higher rates of infection should proceed with caution in public settings, especially at restaurants.

"In a hot spot state, everybody needs to be doing what they can to reduce the spread of the virus," Dr. Rimoin said. "That means social distancing, masks, all of the things that are really hard to do when you're out, when you're eating out."

Does the UCSF claim that the CDC and those 7 Doctors are wrong?


Victor Bishop
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2020 at 10:33 am
Victor Bishop, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 10:33 am

SG- refers to a report that was not peer reviewed ( note that Sg always attacks research he does not agree with with the “peer reviewed” argument)
“ I just have a good feeling about this, given that just about every state and the CDC has determined it from the report published by Restaurant Business Online the story titled "NEW CDC REPORT CITES DINING OUT AS A SIGNIFICANT COVID RISK" (Web Link).”

This report and another were addressed in the article I posted, by Dr Gandhi
“ The data that does exist is minimal and hasn’t looked specifically at outdoor dining, Gandhi said, and the two most frequently cited studies have not been nuanced enough.

A recent control study by the CDC included dining as a risk activity, but didn’t distinguish between outdoor and indoor dining. In a Nature study, dining was included as a higher risk activity, but the paper did not model any of the mitigation procedures of ventilation, masking and more, she said.”


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 5, 2020 at 11:14 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 11:14 am

Victor,

When are you going to understand, we are now seeing as many people that died in the Pearl Harbor attack every day now, yesterday it was 2600 people.

It is now the leading cause of death in the U.S.

No matter how much you want to say things are ok, or that we aren't in the kind of danger that warrants all measures to be taken to prevent spreading COVID, it simply is not true.

When you see a fire, grab a hose.

But you have the gas tank and are pouring it on the fire, aren't you?




mikepat
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Dec 5, 2020 at 11:15 am
mikepat, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 11:15 am

I think the most important data is the present capacity of local ICU's. The situation continues to get worse. In the words of Winston Churchill (1940)"never in the history of human conflict has so much owed by so many to so few", except the "few" here are putting us all at risk rather than saving us.
But local government leaders don't seem to believe that the rules apply to them.
If you are still getting paid by working online you need to understand that the thousands that are unable to work are becoming more desperate Avery day.


Victor Bishop
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2020 at 11:39 am
Victor Bishop, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 11:39 am

SG- but you loved the fires in September , the smoke kept people indoors.
Not pouring gas, just wanting see evidence. You seem to like to bully people who disagree with you. I am pouring gas on a fire? How ridiculous and uncivil.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 5, 2020 at 5:11 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 5:11 pm

[Post removed due to violation of terms of use]


Victor Bishop
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2020 at 5:23 pm
Victor Bishop, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 5:23 pm

[Post removed due to violation of terms of use]


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 5, 2020 at 9:36 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 9:36 pm

Victor,

Per your own linked resource here is some VERY critical information (Web Link

[Portion removed due to copying at length from another website.]


Tal Shaya
Registered user
another community
on Dec 5, 2020 at 10:33 pm
Tal Shaya, another community
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 10:33 pm

That photo of lunchtime on California Street shows a bunch of people close together, not wearing masks. It is extremely risky. Do you believe in science? Science says that what we are doing now: hand washing, social distancing, and wearing masks, isn't sufficient to stop the spread. We should have taken more drastic action before now.

The restaurant owners are in no worse shape than anyone else. It's silly to think about subsidizing that kind of business because no one can eat out anyway. They can come back after the pandemic, or switch to a take out/delivery model. Restaurants are the #1 source of new infections.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 6, 2020 at 12:27 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 12:27 pm

Tal Shaya,

I know Victor will post something any minute now to say that there is no proof of restaurants being the #1 cause of COVID. But the fact that even the pictures showed ANY people not wearing a mask is important. The reality also is that COVID is the number one cause of Death now in the U.S.

The brutal reality is that COVID is now out of control and our medical resources are now in a critical shortage again.

And I am very surprised and grateful that you at least see the bigger picture. We have had disagreements in the past, but I also noticed you NEVER took it personal, nor attempted to make personal comments either.

WE all need to get our acts together. I hope we may have a vaccine soon, but it will take a long time to implement it.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 6, 2020 at 2:45 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 2:45 pm

WOW,

I was in Castro Street today, and it is flooded with people. I have no problem with it.

But more than 50% were NOT wearing masks. I understand they want to be able to go there because tonight at 10PM they will be closed to outdoor dining.

They are going to have to clear the street if they want pickup/take-out because there is nowhere for anyone to park there now. The street is cut off from car traffic. They are going to have to clear the street.

Even the restaurants Delivery/UBER/Door Dash vehicles can't get in.

And we really don't know when it will end either, do we?


Victor Bishop
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 7, 2020 at 5:25 pm
Victor Bishop, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 5:25 pm

The falsehood:

“Peter, in order for it to work the mRNA must produce an ANTIBODY not a protein on an immune cell membrane. But if the mRNA injection stops producing the ANTIBODYS within one day, that means you are only stuck with a limited supply that will destroy itself in short time. If proteins have a half life of 5 days and you manage to produce 1,000,000,000 antibodies in 140 days they will all be gone. Less than a half of a year.”


The truth:

Web Link
“ Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19.”

Beware of tarnished gold


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 7, 2020 at 5:38 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 5:38 pm

[Post removed due to violation of terms of use]


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:46 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:46 am

Victor Bishop,

It took less than 2 days for a significant adverse reaction that was not disclosed in the Pfizer research to appear in Britain. The story is by the Associated Press found here (Web Link It stated:

"LONDON (AP) — U.K. regulators said Wednesday that people who have a “significant history” of allergic reactions shouldn’t receive the new Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine while they investigate two adverse reactions that occurred on the first day of the country’s mass vaccination program.

Professor Stephen Powis, national medical director for the National Health Service in England, said health authorities were acting on a recommendation from the Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

“As is common with new vaccines the MHRA have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history of allergic reactions do not receive this vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday,” Powis said in a statement. “Both are recovering well.”

Why wasn't this identified prior to mass injections? Because they are RUSHING the process. In fact 50 million people have significant issues with allergies in the U.S. as seen here (Web Link Which is 15% of the country.

It looks like the "SAMPLES" of the Pfizer study didn't seem to have these people in it, right? They don't even know what causes this problem and what allergies

I hope the FDA takes this into account


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.