One of my favorite coffee places in Manhattan closed this summer. I was bummed. Their lease was up for renewal, and it didn't make sense for the owner to renew it as all of the office worker traffic was gone.
Two months later, there is a new coffee place at that spot. The guys (different owners) just got a great deal on the lease for the first two years, and they will just need to make employee expenses. One of the baristas, was actually the same barista from the previous coffee place.
so, many places will close, and new restaurants will eventually open, hopefully with better/cheaper leases, which in Manhattan is a major expense, and kinda crazy compared to other cities.
I think a lot of the businesses that depended on office workers are going to close. While the ones that are in more residential areas, with available outdoor seating, will fare a bit better.
I'm not sure replacing established successful businesses with new ones is a fair trade...
Then, they find out they can't rent at those prices, they still are hesitant to drop prices and just offer 3-4 months of 'free rent' instead.
Many, eventually do capitulate, but this seems to take months or even more (for some, their building contracts have to reset, as there are REITs involved, etc).
It is some kind of human psychology at play. This is similar on how so many tech companies refuse to give meaningful raises, and have employees leave. the replacement is always more costly.
This one is easy to explain. Commercial real estate (which includes apartment buildings with 5+ units) is valued strictly by the amount of income it can produce, i.e. what the monthly rents are. If you drop the rent from X to 0.67X, you've basically cut your property value by 1/3. If you give a rebate of 4 months free rent, the effect on the property value is basically 0.
Kill both Prop 13 (entirely, not just sections of it) and rent control and you might see some normalcy return to the California property and rental market.
Essentially we have insane inflation but it's been carefully architected to only really affect real estate.
The fact that half the restaurants are closing doesn't mean there isn't demand for those restaurants and employees after the pandemic.
its a TRAP, He most likely signed usual 10 year $20-40K/m for a 2000ft hole in the wall with foot traffic NY lease. Super enticing amount of free months is there to lure you in. The trap is he probably personally guaranteed (house mortgage?) the lease, not the restaurant business running the place.
Everyone knew it was a matter of time when it would hit NYC, and when it did, we were blind as there was no testing available to people unless you ended up in the ICU.
My soccer team just forfeited their mach, as team members did not feel safe to play while the virus was spreading. This was way before the lockdown in early march,
I stoped going to the gym too. People just didn't feel safe, and even if things were open, people would just not go out.
Almost, all places were at about 30% capacity. In the long run, they'd still have failed. People just wont/don't like to go out or travel.
You can still go in places like Albania, or Turkey, or Greece, who managed the virus/had low levels of it, yet their tourism is not doing well at all as many folks don't like risking it.
Please don't break the site guidelines like this. We need the oldest users of HN to represent the spirit of the site, not toxify it.
This sort of comment doesn’t belong here.
The point is that Europe has mostly been normal for months now. NYC hasn’t.
"The restaurant industry continues to be among the most impacted with an increasing number of closures – totalling 32,109 closures as of August 31, with 19,590 of these business closures indicated to be permanent (61%)."
Every resident in or around New York heard ambulances 24/7. Everyone knew someone that got very sick (not that anyone could even prove that they had it since testing was extremely scarce). The virus was still very new and there were legitimate reasons to suspect the death rate was much higher than it thankfully ended being. I even remember hearing rumors from friends, family, and coworkers that the feds were going to enforce a "wuhan-style" quarantine in NYC. In terms of general fright, it reminded me a lot of 9/11.
It would've been political malfeasance for the mayor/governor to do nothing in these circumstances. In terms of infections, the city recovered relatively quickly and most of the lockdown was lifted by Summer (indoor dining obviously being one of the holdouts here that hurt restaurants a lot)
I think the worst "medium-term" effects are the loss of tourists and office workers. There's very few legal restrictions on offices reopening at this point, but very few have actually come back. The triple of lockdowns, vanishing tourists, and vanishing office workers is just too much for small businesses.
I think this is key. For people trying to blame the governor of New York, just look across the political spectrum to Texas. I am not a fan of Greg Abbott in any sense, but I will give credit where credit is due, and I think his Covid policies have been very reasonable and based in science and data. And even with those looser restrictions, restaurants in major Texas cities have still been hit incredibly hard. Downtown Austin is still pretty ghost-town like, and all the businesses that cater to those downtown office workers and tourists have been devastated despite there being relatively few official restrictions left on offices.
Trump has the right idea, that people need to be made less afraid of the virus. But his execution is backwards, people aren't idiots.
The priority should have been relaxing laws to allow existing businesses to do delivery. Allowing stores to sell goods outdoors in the parking lot. Getting a couple good masks to every citizen, even though it meant reusing them. Actually useful things, instead of telling everyone not to worry about it.
Also NYC hit a hospitalization rate of 1 in 700 at the peak. Legitimate forecasts had hospitalization rates potentially blowing out available capacity. The worst State hospitalization rate now is 1 in 4600, 6x better.
On the other hand, consider the threshold for “just a bad flu” to be twice the per capita death rate from the 17-18 flu season (CDC upper estimate of 1 in 5000, so 1 in 2500). Then half of the US states are still in the “just a bad flu” or better six months on. And even that skewing to the old. Nine states haven’t reached the 1 in 5000 level of the 17-18 flu after 6 months. So, for a lot of the US, their experience was, and continues to be, different than the East Coast and certain key cities like Detroit and St Louis. My numbers say 30% of the US population is in this category.
That's the per capita death rate for New York state.
The proportion of people who died in NYC with a positive COVID test or with cause of death listed as COVID is more like 1 in 255.
On one hand, people like me in the tech industry are doing fine, or better than fine. My job is secure and my skills are in high demand. On the other hand, I have friends who are highly skilled artists (musicians and dancers) who are going through the worst depression in a lifetime. Many trained intensively since early childhood, managed to succeed in a career where very few make it, but now are considering leaving that career, because they need to eat. It's beyond heartbreaking, and because of our general isolation right now I don't see us doing much (us as both a society and through government) to support these people right now. Yes, things will eventually improve, but in the meantime we are going to lose a generation of talent.
When has this ever been true?
That said, my (relatively young) friends are classically trained musicians and ballet dancers. They are still screwed if their audience, which skews older, can't attend. This dynamic exists in lots of places, e.g. keeping kids home from school is extremely detrimental to their development, but what do you do for elderly teachers and professors?
I don't see why we need to destroy everyone's lives for a minority of high risk people. Let everyone make their own decisions rather than use the iron fist of government to decide for us.
While we're at it, let's do the same with drunk driving. After all, most intoxicated drivers don't actually get into accidents and many drive large safe cars that protect them well. Why shouldn't they get to decide their own risk preference for themselves? /s
There were a thousand possible ways to navigate this crisis well - Germany's wage-subsidizing Kurzarbeit system has frequently been cited. But all of them require some measure of political will and imagination, and that seems utterly lacking in America. I can't think of a single city or state which has even really tried to do more than the bare minimum.
It's a good time as any to remember this website where each pixel represents $1000 so you can get a good grip about how money is being hoarded by the ultra-rich: https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
that mean it has nothing to do with a lock-down at this point - even if everything were to open up you have to convince people to go and get infected at the restaurants.
If even half of the customers take the virus situation serious then they will stay away - and guess what half the restaurants will close.
What you’re saying is just like saying evacuation orders for a hurricane cause businesses to lose customers before and after the hurricane so never evacuate.
From the get-go, there were articles pointing out the numerical reality that it would take 10 years to reach herd immunity with a curve flattened to match ICU capacity. Those calculations were slightly too pessimistic due to a myopic focus on ventilators, and the therapeutics have evolved since then.
So we were flattening the curve to delay a mass spread until a vaccine? Doesn't add up. Masks are as effective as the candidate vaccines will be at 100% use. Not everyone will get vaccinated. Maybe we delay until masks+vaccine push R0<1. Also doesn't add up. The new infection numbers are steady NOW, R0 has averaged around unity for months.
Look, it's hard to summarize a strategy when there is no strategy. There's just been reaction.
The data is not on your side: statistically lockdowns have little effect on reducing covid deaths (https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/social-distancing-more-imp...). If there was a significant risk that it would "overwhelm areas very quickly" without lockdowns, we'd have seen this in places like Sweden, South Dakota and Japan which didn't have lockdowns, but we didn't.
If we want to say the lockdowns have been worse, let's start by answering:
1. What is the value of a human life, in dollars?
2. What is the cost of a preventable long-term injury? (In terms of diminished inherent value of life, diminished economic impact, whatever.)
3. What is the cost of a life spent without indoor restaurants for months to years?
Take 1 and 2, and weigh them against 3 + the economic losses due to lockdown.
The median life-span of an American is 78. The median age of death from Covid is 82. The more rational statistic is life-years lost than # of deaths. If a toddler dies, they have lost 70+ years of life. If an 80 year old dies, they might have lost just a couple years of life. Economic hardships for young adults will reduce their lifespans by several years, not counting drug and alcohol addiction, suicide, etc.
If I could trade a few of my years at 80+ to ensure a better quality of life for my child I would take that in a second. Practically every parent would.
The right path forward is to take appropriate precautions to protect the vulnerable while everyone else goes back to work. We may still have a lot to learn, but we know so much more about this disease than we did when we took "14 days to slow the spread." It's time to open up.
I'm glad you're willing to nobly sacrifice your life, but what if we could save those 10,000 kids per month without opening back up? What if we could save more lives by keeping essential services operational and non-essential businesses closed with targeted government interventions to keep people fed and housed? Would you be willing to do that?
If someone tells you that they have a plan to stop the coronavirus from being a public health issue at all, they're misinformed or untruthful.
The best evidence we have indicates that recovered patients will retain a high level of immunity for at least several years.
At the beginning of the pandemic, I thought it would be similar to a more deadly flu or something with long-lived immunity for a given strain once you got it. At this point, I am assuming less and less. We found it wasn't even a lung disease, but a disease of the angiotensin system. We assumed ventilators would help, but often they just mushed damaged lung tissue. There's been tons of snake-oil cures floating around too. People are starting to show evidence of long term damage. Let's measure things before we make irreversible decisions.
The fact that we've spent the past six months like this makes it too hard for many to accept that it might not have been the right choice.
The best thing for the economy would be a trusted vaccine and/or case counts going down.
Disagree. I think the best thing would be better therapeutics. If you get rid of the death sentence (or make it extremely unlikely) that will be enough for people to resume almost all activities.
I ask this as a New York resident: how many restaurants is one life worth? I was here back at the peak of the COVID outbreak when there were refrigerated trucks being loaded with bodies because the morgues had run out of space. It deeply, deeply sucks that a lot of restaurants are going to close. I hope that in time others will reopen in their place... it’s an underreported fact that a lot of restaurants close every year, I’ve had it happen to many favorites. New ones come.
To me personally, that loss is a price I’m willing to pay to stop the exponential increase of a pandemic. Maybe you’re right, though. Time will tell. Maybe the economic devastation will ruin NYC for years. Or maybe we’ll get the “v shaped recovery” we’ve been promised. Either way it’s too early to tell.
"how many restaurants is one life worth?"
It would take quite a few restaurants. However, you are ignoring the fact that letting all of the restaurants close will also kill people. I don't know how large this effect is, but we also don't know how many people will get COVID due to restaurants being open. It's complicated.
As a society we are okay with people driving cars, yet we know automobile accidents kill people.
I would ask you: How many car trips are worth one life?
The question before us is to find the least bad answer - how do we save as many lives and livelihoods as possible? Of course every possible answer (including "do nothing and attempt to disclaim moral responsibility," which several governments seem to prefer) has a terrible cost. Some of those options are relatively less terrible.
(Personally, I think the city should lock down aggressively and also aggressively provide monetary relief to people negatively impacted, through taking on debt if needed, and figure it out later. If we don't survive this, the city loses its tax base anyway.)
How does this square up with the fact that places without any lockdowns, like Sweden and South Dakota, still have fewer deaths per capita than places like New York, Peru, Belgium and Spain?
A recent study found no correlation between lockdowns and reduced fatality; social distancing is the thing that has an effect: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/social-distancing-more-imp....
“We found that an early implementation of social distancing is the most significant factor, with a very high correlation to the mortality rate,” said the researchers. “Countries that responded quickly with social distancing measures – not necessarily with a tight lockdown – ultimately emerged from the first outbreak with better results. In contrast, no correlation was found between mortality data and the severity and/or length of the lockdown. Even in Sweden, a country that never imposed a lockdown, we can see that the early decrease in mobility, starting in March, was manifested in the mortality rate. Our study is based purely on observations and does not relate to the premises of any existing epidemiological model. We show that the spread of the pandemic can be prevented by quickly implementing basic measures of social distancing – without a rigorous lockdown.”
Borders (local+international) were closed before there was a major influx of infected persons.
We've had hotel quarantine for ~all entries into the state.
The level of infections has been low enough that contact tracing was never overwhelmed.
The level of testing has generally been very high where outbreaks occurred.
The level of compliance with stay at home/limit travel has generally been pretty good.
And a a major factor is that we've been very lucky.
Still, there's been a lot of businesses severely impacted. Those that were already on the edge and either unable or unwilling to adapt, or were not able to make their new processes profitable have gone under.
Also, lets not forget that Victoria (Melbourne) had a broadly similar situation. They were unlucky in that their hotel quarantine process was poorly managed and there wasn't a strict adherance to quarantine protocols. This was a major trigger for their massive spike.
Anyone thinking this couldn't happen here in NSW (Sydney) is fooling themselves.
Not to mention the fact that Sweden specifically used this strategy in order to avoid government control over people, which as we have already seen, other countries are not doing. See: Australia. “Good policy” expands beyond a single metric.
If that's the case, then why is Sweden's population-level mortality (578 per million) lower than the USA (642 per mission) or Spain (nearly 700), or several other lockdown states? Sweden didn't close restaurants or schools for a day.
Sweden's rate is also flat, while the USA and Spain are still increasing.
> sends 10% of people to hospital, and is killing 1-2% of people.
Can you provide a source for these strange figures? The last several dozen papers on serological prevalance have found the IFR to be nearly an order of magnitude lower than you're saying it is.
right, so we shouldn't add to that and paralyze hospitals to not be able to deal with those 2 million injuries.
again, almost every country in the world understood this logic and did a similar or holistic solution. not doing it would not be a holistic solution for the United States
And you don't have to repeat yourself
Name calling isn't gonna win you any friends and I'll leave it at that. Have a good night
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt actually and it was the accurate word for it
Also half of your comments got censored for some reason
60% of all new restaurants close on the first year. That is very different than half of *all restaurants, even those that have been open for decades, closing in a single year.
I think the more important distinction is that this is 60% of ALL restaurants, not 60% of the 10% of new restaurants (or 6% of restaurants).
(I made up the 10%, but I'm sure it is small.)