If restaurants open in May (for dine-in), are you going/taking your family?

[tower912]

Every man dies.
Not every man truly lives.

A coward dies a thousand deaths
A brave man but once.

[Jockey]

You're just rooting for full on economic collapse at this point aren't you?

So you really think people want to lose their savings/retirement or lose their jobs? Maybe lose their houses, as well?

How about, instead, that people prefer not to die? Or have their parents or grandparents die?

If we had universal quick testing, we could start opening up immediately and people could have confidence in their safety. Instead we have a buffoon who can't be bothered by details like testing.

I can't even imagine the stress you face as a small business principal. That's why it is so important for people like you to go after our leaders and hold them accountable rather than getting mad at those who just want to be safe.

[rocky_warrior]

Whoa.  I didn't expect the political posturing.  It's a simple question, and people will have their own answers based on what they believe is "safe" for them.  *perhaps* we shouldn't advise others - though nobody is forcing you to listen to that advice either.

Anyhow - looks like about 50% yes/no at this point.  Which might be about expected.  I actually expected a few more votes on the cautious side - but that's why I asked - I was curious.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Whoa.  I didn't expect the political posturing.  It's a simple question, and people will have their own answers based on what they believe is "safe" for them.  *perhaps* we shouldn't advise others - though nobody is forcing you to listen to that advice either.

You're new round these parts, ain't ya?

[forgetful]

The FDA and others say there's zero evidence the virus can be transmitted through food.
It's a personal choice, and if you feel safer not ordering takeout, there's nothing wrong with that. But if there's data suggesting that this virus can be transmitted by eating food please provide it. Otherwise, this is baseless fear mongering.

While COVID-19 is new to us, coronaviruses are not, and with all the studies done on these viruses, there has never been any information to implicate food-borne transmission," says Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of medicine in the department of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn.

The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is primarily spread via droplets expelled through coughing or sneezing, says William Schaffner. If you're standing too close (within about 6 feet) to an infected person when the person coughs or sneezes, or even possibly when the person speaks or exhales, viral droplets could make their way to your nasal passages and mucous membranes. Or if you touch a surface with droplets on it and then touch your eyes, nose or mouth, that could also lead to infection.

All this means that transmission via food is incredibly unlikely, say both professors Schaffner — unless you actually inhaled your food. "Even in the so unlikely scenario of virus through a sneeze or cough coming into contact with, say, a salad, that would enter the body through the throat," William Schaffner says.

William Schaffner explains that the virus is primarily risky to us when it attaches to surfaces in our respiratory tract, not when we accidentally eat it. "The virus seems to be latching onto cells in the upper reaches of the nose, a place food doesn't enter," he explains. "Virus that found its way into your gastrointestinal tract would be killed by the acid in your stomach." 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/08/822903487/how-safe-is-it-to-eat-take-out

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41575-020-0295-7

The fecal-oral route (or ingestion of virus) is one of the mechanisms known to cause the virus.

[JWags85]

So you really think people want to lose their savings/retirement or lose their jobs? Maybe lose their houses, as well?

How about, instead, that people prefer not to die? Or have their parents or grandparents die?

If we had universal quick testing, we could start opening up immediately and people could have confidence in their safety. Instead we have a buffoon who can't be bothered by details like testing.

I can't even imagine the stress you face as a small business principal. That's why it is so important for people like you to go after our leaders and hold them accountable rather than getting mad at those who just want to be safe.

I changed my wording to "encouraging" cause rooting was a wrongly intended word choice.  And without getting political, I absolutely do believe there are plenty of people, politicians or otherwise, who would sacrifice anything and everything business wise if it means 1 less life is lost.  Look at the reaction to the stimulus, instead of it being a tourniquet to prevent businesses or people from bleeding out, many look at it like "problem solved, now we just sit until this is 'over'".  The government may help me not have to lay off my staff this spring, but it certainly wont help or keep my business alive the longer this goes.

I respect people with an abundance of caution and the way they go about their personal lives.  But the take every precaution and risk nothing till absolutely certain route will bankrupt a lot of people, simple as that.

I wont address the rest cause Im trying to avoid the political pissing contest this place has become.  I have talked at length about embracing testing and "middle" strategies.  I just see the profound effect the "worst case scenario" mentality has on people's outlook, including my employees and extended family and friends.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Also if you lysol all your food it's completely safe. and still tastes better than Arbys.

Enjoy your 24 hour ban!

[Jay Bee]

I've been using Foodsby a lot. Several restaurants appear in the app each day, and you can order in the morning for the same day... they drop food off in the lobby and you get notified. Had some good Mexican today, albeit a little cold

Free unlimited delivery for a month, $8.99 after... or you can pay $1.99 for each deliver. NO TIPS!!!

[Pakuni]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41575-020-0295-7

The fecal-oral route (or ingestion of virus) is one of the mechanisms known to cause the virus.

That's not quite what this study says.
But if you're terribly concerned about fecal matter in your food, you probably should never ever eat out, pandemic or no pandemic. There are worse diseases than COVID-19 you can get from that.

[The Sultan]

That's not quite what this study says.
But if you're terribly concerned about fecal matter in your food, you probably should never ever eat out, pandemic or no pandemic. There are worse diseases than COVID-19 you can get from that.

I'm looking forward to going back to the days when the fecal matter in my take out food isn't infected with coronavirus!!!

[pbiflyer]

I'm looking forward to going back to the days when the fecal matter in my take out food isn't infected with coronavirus!!!

Thanks for the laugh. I needed that today.

[4everwarriors]

Eye eat lotsa fecal matta every dey, aina?

[🏀]

Eye eat lotsa fecal matta every dey, aina?

Your grin gives it away.

[Galway Eagle]

I'm looking forward to going back to the days when the fecal matter in my take out food isn't infected with coronavirus!!!

Thank you for this post. I tip my hat to you.

[forgetful]

That's not quite what this study says.
But if you're terribly concerned about fecal matter in your food, you probably should never ever eat out, pandemic or no pandemic. There are worse diseases than COVID-19 you can get from that.

I don't think you understand what the article says. An oral route is indeed a mechanism of infection. This is well known. The fecal aspect, is that the virus is also expelled in fecal matter.

Here is my question for you. If you cannot get infected from oral intake from contaminated surfaces (e.g. food), then why are we telling people to avoid touching their mouth if they have touched a surface?

Why is the CDC telling people to disinfect groceries, so that you don't accidentally touch your mouth, or other orifices, after touching those surfaces.

Does food magically nullify the virus, but your hands don't? That if someone coughs on a salad, and you put it in your mouth...safe, but if some coughs in a room, and you touch a surface with your hand and then touch your mouth...not safe? That would be illogical.

It is because oral exposure to virus is one of the routes of infection. That includes the oral intake of food contaminated with droplets.

The situation is this. The main route is inhalation of droplets/aerosols. Oral exposure, is another known route of infection. It has a lower rate of transfer than inhalation.

What is guiding language (at the FDA/CDC) is two fold. 1) Cutting off rapid growth of infections (social distancing). 2) Balancing hysteria and economic principles.

The latter is why they are saying that restaurant food is safe. If you tell people takeout is a risk, they don't eat takeout, and when this has calmed down, they continue to never eat takeout. That causes massive market changes that cannot be undone (e.g. hysteria and economic damage). The fact is, it is a risk, albeit a lower risk, provided everyone else is social distancing.

The corollary to this is that we are not trying to stop infection right now, rather limit it. Since it is a lower incidence of infection, letting people eat takeout maintains slow spread and build up of herd immunity. There is also some tangential evidence that an oral route of infection may lead to a more mild case, but we don't know that yet officially.

For me. I can eat healthier at home. I can eat cheaper at home. I'd rather not get infected if possible. So avoiding all reasonable routes of infection makes sense.

Regarding businesses, there are several business that I used to frequent. I know those owners, and told them to feel free to continue to charge me for what I normally would purchase if it they need it. 1 or 2 have taken me up on that option.

[Lennys Tap]

I changed my wording to "encouraging" cause rooting was a wrongly intended word choice.  And without getting political, I absolutely do believe there are plenty of people, politicians or otherwise, who would sacrifice anything and everything business wise if it means 1 less life is lost.  Look at the reaction to the stimulus, instead of it being a tourniquet to prevent businesses or people from bleeding out, many look at it like "problem solved, now we just sit until this is 'over'".  The government may help me not have to lay off my staff this spring, but it certainly wont help or keep my business alive the longer this goes.

I respect people with an abundance of caution and the way they go about their personal lives.  But the take every precaution and risk nothing till absolutely certain route will bankrupt a lot of people, simple as that.

I wont address the rest cause Im trying to avoid the political pissing contest this place has become.  I have talked at length about embracing testing and "middle" strategies.  I just see the profound effect the "worst case scenario" mentality has on people's outlook, including my employees and extended family and friends.

Agree 100% Wags. We know who is most at risk. If you yourself or someone who lives with you falls into that category by all means self quarantine until you're comfortable. A month, 6 months or longer. And let's make sure those people are taken care of - but while we're doing what we can to speed up the process to make everyone safe, why not have those not at risk help save the economy?

And if my solution is too simplistic, I trust the medical people and the economists to come up with a plan that isn't.

[GooooMarquette]

Agree 100% Wags. We know who is most at risk. If you yourself or someone who lives with you falls into that category by all means self quarantine until you're comfortable. A month, 6 months or longer. And let's make sure those people are taken care of - but while we're doing what we can to speed up the process to make everyone safe, why not have those not at risk help save the economy?

And if my solution is too simplistic, I trust the medical people and the economists to come up with a plan that isn't.

I see two issues with this proposal.

First, the number of at risk people is pretty significant. I don't know the numbers, but if you take out all the smokers, obese people, diabetics, hypertensives and immunocompromised people, the workplace might still be pretty lonely. 

Second, the lower risk workers would still come home at night...and in many cases they would be coming home to a place with one of the aforementioned high-risk people. And voilá - you again have high-risk people getting infected.

I'm sure things will reopen before too long, and then we'll see. But if we reopen too soon and don't have comprehensive testing and contact tracing, I fear we may be having this same debate in July....

[Pakuni]

I don't think you understand what the article says. An oral route is indeed a mechanism of infection. This is well known. The fecal aspect, is that the virus is also expelled in fecal matter.

Here is my question for you. If you cannot get infected from oral intake from contaminated surfaces (e.g. food), then why are we telling people to avoid touching their mouth if they have touched a surface?

Why is the CDC telling people to disinfect groceries, so that you don't accidentally touch your mouth, or other orifices, after touching those surfaces.

Does food magically nullify the virus, but your hands don't? That if someone coughs on a salad, and you put it in your mouth...safe, but if some coughs in a room, and you touch a surface with your hand and then touch your mouth...not safe? That would be illogical.

It is because oral exposure to virus is one of the routes of infection. That includes the oral intake of food contaminated with droplets.

The situation is this. The main route is inhalation of droplets/aerosols. Oral exposure, is another known route of infection. It has a lower rate of transfer than inhalation.

What is guiding language (at the FDA/CDC) is two fold. 1) Cutting off rapid growth of infections (social distancing). 2) Balancing hysteria and economic principles.

The latter is why they are saying that restaurant food is safe. If you tell people takeout is a risk, they don't eat takeout, and when this has calmed down, they continue to never eat takeout. That causes massive market changes that cannot be undone (e.g. hysteria and economic damage). The fact is, it is a risk, albeit a lower risk, provided everyone else is social distancing.

The corollary to this is that we are not trying to stop infection right now, rather limit it. Since it is a lower incidence of infection, letting people eat takeout maintains slow spread and build up of herd immunity. There is also some tangential evidence that an oral route of infection may lead to a more mild case, but we don't know that yet officially.

For me. I can eat healthier at home. I can eat cheaper at home. I'd rather not get infected if possible. So avoiding all reasonable routes of infection makes sense.

Regarding businesses, there are several business that I used to frequent. I know those owners, and told them to feel free to continue to charge me for what I normally would purchase if it they need it. 1 or 2 have taken me up on that option.

"Currently there is no evidence to support transmission of COVID-19 associated with food. "
- CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/newsletter/food-safety-and-Coronavirus.html

"There has been no confirmed fecal-oral transmission of COVID-19 to date."
- CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/water.html


As I said, you do you. If you believe eating takeout exposes you unnecessarily, then don't eat takeout.
But your claim that eating food exposes a person to the virus goes against all the scientific evidence to date. You say you believe in data. The data says your fears are unfounded.

The reason you're told to wash your hands and not touch your face (face ... not just mouth as you say) is that the virus  spreads through inhalation, which can be done through the mouth or nose. Not because it's swallowed.

[Hards Alumni]

I see two issues with this proposal.

First, the number of at risk people is pretty significant. I don't know the numbers, but if you take out all the smokers, obese people, diabetics, hypertensives and immunocompromised people, the workplace might still be pretty lonely. 

Second, the lower risk workers would still come home at night...and in many cases they would be coming home to a place with one of the aforementioned high-risk people. And voilá - you again have high-risk people getting infected.

I'm sure things will reopen before too long, and then we'll see. But if we reopen too soon and don't have comprehensive testing and contact tracing, I fear we may be having this same debate in July....

100% agree.

[The Sultan]

I see two issues with this proposal.

First, the number of at risk people is pretty significant. I don't know the numbers, but if you take out all the smokers, obese people, diabetics, hypertensives and immunocompromised people, the workplace might still be pretty lonely. 

Second, the lower risk workers would still come home at night...and in many cases they would be coming home to a place with one of the aforementioned high-risk people. And voilá - you again have high-risk people getting infected.

I'm sure things will reopen before too long, and then we'll see. But if we reopen too soon and don't have comprehensive testing and contact tracing, I fear we may be having this same debate in July....

The fact is we are going to "open back up" prior to having comprehensive testing and contact tracing.  And we may need to go right back into quarantine a couple of months later.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

The fact is we are going to "open back up" prior to having comprehensive testing and contact tracing.  And we may need to go right back into quarantine a couple of months later.

I think it's going to be a bunch of local experiments.  Where I live we will likely be on the slow end due to being a hot spot. 

[Hards Alumni]

The fact is we are going to "open back up" prior to having comprehensive testing and contact tracing.  And we may need to go right back into quarantine a couple of months later.

Exactly.  It'd be like fighting a wildfire for a month, and then when we get 90% containment saying, "eff it, good enough".

[forgetful]

"Currently there is no evidence to support transmission of COVID-19 associated with food. "
- CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/newsletter/food-safety-and-Coronavirus.html

"There has been no confirmed fecal-oral transmission of COVID-19 to date."
- CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/water.html


As I said, you do you. If you believe eating takeout exposes you unnecessarily, then don't eat takeout.
But your claim that eating food exposes a person to the virus goes against all the scientific evidence to date. You say you believe in data. The data says your fears are unfounded.

You are flat out wrong that this goes against all scientific evidence to date. I provided a peer reviewed article from one of the premier journals in the world that says so. And I never said I feared getting the disease that way, I said the risk outweighs any benefit to me.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(20)30048-0/fulltext

Here is another one from a premier medical journal stating the same, and indicating that for MERS enteric infections precede lung infections (e.g. oral route). The same was observed in some instances of SARS, and in some Chinese reported COVID cases.

All this data falsifies the statement that COVID cannot spread through an oral route. Nothing is confirmed in science. Science proceeds through the generation and testing of hypotheses/statements through falsification and collection of disconfirming results. The known data falsifies the CDC stance the way you read it (they qualify it with "confirmed" which is important political/marketing language; see below).

Regarding CDC statements:

The CDC also says animals cannot get sick.

"At this time there is no evidence that companion animals, including pets, can become sick with or spread COVID-19."

We know that is factually incorrect and that cats in particular are susceptible.

We also have long known that it was factually incorrect that masks do not help mitigate spread of the disease. Yet the CDC said otherwise.

The CDC and FDA have dual roles in providing medical information, and political/social messaging.

The statements you see are nuanced, to avoid mass hysteria. If people fear about the food and water supply, there is mass hysteria. Since the rate of transmission is low under normal circumstances by that route they use nuanced language like "confirmed," to avoid hysteria, without putting vulnerable populations at risk.

The word confirmed is used, because it is true. It is also true, that we have never tried to confirm it, or disprove it, because we all know that it is one of the routes of infection. It is a lower-risk route, but one of the routes of entry for the virus.

[forgetful]

And I want to make clear. I never said others shouldn't be able to get takeout.

I think people are adults and can take what risk they like, provided they are properly informed. I'm not going to lie, or use nuanced language to avoid hysteria. I'll say it like it is, low risk, and let grown adults decide for themselves.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

The fact is we are going to "open back up" prior to having comprehensive testing and contact tracing.  And we may need to go right back into quarantine a couple of months later.