Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
Posted in:
* Joliet Herald-News…
Eleven chambers sent a letter Aug. 27 to Gov, JB Pritzker after he announced new restrictions on restaurants and bars in District 7, the COVID-19 tracking zone that includes Will and Kankakee counties, seeking the reasons for focusing on those businesses.
The governor’s office sent a response over the weekend, said Michael Paone, vice president for government affairs with the Joliet Region Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
“They do allude to the fact that the decision was based on scientists’ opinion that bars and restaurants are places where more risky behavior can occur, such as loud talking, not wearing masks and drinking alcohol,” Paone said.
He said the chambers are still looking for research to be cited that would back up the opinion.
* Kankakee Daily Journal…
“We trusted the government, but we are being used as pawns. I want to know what is the science behind this?” [said Christina Kollintzas-Pavlis, of Plainfield]
* Mr. Paone and Ms. Kollintzas-Pavlis should check out the CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report…
Findings from a case-control investigation of symptomatic outpatients from 11 U.S. health care facilities found that close contact with persons with known COVID-19 or going to locations that offer on-site eating and drinking options were associated with COVID-19 positivity.
Adults with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results were approximately twice as likely to have reported dining at a restaurant than were those with negative SARS-CoV-2 test results.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 4:21 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I ate in a restaurant indoors one time since COVID and will not do so again. It’s just not that important. I order out and do drive-thru and curbside pickup all the time.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 4:35 pm
“…still looking for research…”, “what is the science…” . Jeez - the simplest search will reveal that.
Comment by Siualum Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 4:45 pm
Dear Joliet Region Chamber of Commerce–
Google is your friend if you use it right.
Comment by Nearly Normal Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 4:46 pm
Dining in a Restaurant Covid checklist.
Being Indoors - check
Around groups of strangers - check
People not wearing face coverings - check
All of these are known risk factors. Being in a restaurant combines them all in one place. So what other information do these people need?
Comment by Steve Polite Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 4:56 pm
= I want to know what is the science behind this?=
Knowing the science and accepting the science are two different things. I have no doubt that after she “knows” the science she’ll quickly pivot to not believing it. I also highly doubt that there’s a trust in government. These are folks that simply don’t like being told what to do be it from the government or scientists. And if a restaurant doesn’t trust scientists or the government, it makes me wonder about the level of trust they ascribe to food safety rules.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 4:58 pm
Could just be that people that dined out were more likely to be out more in general too. If I am in my twenties or thirties, I am more willing to weigh my risks of going out with other people my age. But if I am in my 70s or 80s, it makes a whole lot more sense not to be out. Doesn’t mean every business should be put on hold or reduced to half their revenues. We all take risks, we all need to assess them whether driving, flying, sky diving, playing football, firefighting, drinking, walking at night alone, etc.
Comment by Shemp Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 4:58 pm
=We all take risks, we all need to assess them whether driving, flying, sky diving, playing football, firefighting, drinking, walking at night alone, etc.=
But none of the decisions a person makes around these risks put my health at risk.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 5:02 pm
===but we are being used as pawns===
She’s right, but for the wrong reasons.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 5:26 pm
==Could just be that people that dined out were more likely to be out more in general too.==
Correct…thereby making dining in a restaurant a risky thing to do. You’re more likely to come into close contact with those other risk-takers.
Comment by Don't Bloc Me In Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 6:30 pm
The CDC probably filed this under “No [expletive], Sherlock.”
Comment by Candy Dogood Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 6:35 pm
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htm?s_cid=mm6936a5_w
the questionnaire did not distinguish between indoor and outdoor seating. Infected people ware about 3x more likely to have visited compared to uninfected.
It seems likely that indoor dining is more significant than ourdoor dining, its a shme it was not covered.
I wonder if certifying the HVAC systems of restaurants is a way to open indoor dining if the HVAC system is sufficiently good? Might alleviate some pain, and really help prepare the industry for the long haul.
Comment by don Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 6:42 pm
===Mr. Paone and Ms. Kollintzas-Pavlis should check out the CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report…===
You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the New West. You know…morons.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 7:22 pm
More questions needed to be asked, indoors/ outdoors. Social distancing and occupancy %ages. Masks, no masks. Length of stay. Big group, small group. Social butterfly or just within your own group. I’ve eaten out. But not at bars, not at crowded places. Not in big groups. Close family or friends only.
Comment by thoughts matter Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 7:29 pm
“We trusted the government…” Which one, the one headed by the guy who knew how dangerous Covid was but didn’t want to panic people. The same guy talking about caravans and the suburbs and anything else to panic people so they’ll vote for him. That government and all its traitorous enablers?
Comment by West Side the Best Side Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 8:01 pm
I’m surprised the study did not differentiate between indoor and outdoor dining. There is a significant difference between the two.
Comment by Glengarry Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 8:23 pm
The actual data in that report shows 28% of the control sample (covid negative) and 41% of the sick had gone to restaurants. Not great for the Chambers, but nowhere near “twice as likely.” Bar data is similar.
Comment by Ryan Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 9:12 pm
Hoping that the continued studies on Far-UVC lights will show them to be safe to use and might be the answer for inside dining. With the combination of these and UVC lights in ventilation systems and with air handlers that bring in fresh air we can hopefully make more indoor places much safer to be in. Not looking to going to any inside drinking or eating facilities in the foreseeable future.
Comment by Arock Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 9:53 pm
I agree with the Governor’s position, but the CDC report is more proof of correlation than of causation. It can guide the research, but it won’t satisfy the folks demanding proof.
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Sep 10, 20 @ 10:37 pm
However, correlation is not synonymous with causation.
-Every Data Scientist ever.
Comment by Miso Friday, Sep 11, 20 @ 5:41 am
==Hoping that the continued studies on Far-UVC lights will show them to be safe to use and might be the answer for inside dining. With the combination of these and UVC lights in ventilation systems and with air handlers that bring in fresh air we can hopefully make more indoor places much safer to be in.==
And hopefully the Far-UVC lights and better ventilation systems and air handlers can also make it into State buildings too. Preferably before restaurants and other indoor places.
Comment by Chatham Resident Friday, Sep 11, 20 @ 8:31 am
During a pandemic, you don’t have to prove your study to a 95% probability in order to use the findings. Observations are still science.
Comment by Simple Simon Friday, Sep 11, 20 @ 8:42 am
===the CDC report is more proof of correlation than of causation===
===However, correlation is not synonymous with causation. -Every Data Scientist ever.===
While a good rule of thumb when working with a new data set, this is not a new correlation with no other research available. Causation can be indicated by bringing in the results of prior research (including other correlative studies). The results of this data collection and analysis align with the results of other research. The authors (and CDC and other health professionals) are not relying solely on this one data set to develop policy.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Sep 11, 20 @ 8:50 am
There has been ample published research showing COVID is transmitted indoors among people not wearing masks through the air, even when people are six feet apart.
We also have seen infection rates drop in state after state after restautnt and bar service was curtailed and rise again when it was opened up.
Plenty of smoking guns.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Sep 11, 20 @ 2:53 pm