COVID-19 aftermath: What things will change forever?

[tmwiese55]

Not sure if mentioned yet, don't recall seeing it. But something girls have been telling me that will be big time reduced is nail, hair, eyebrows, etc appointment type stuff. This is making them realize how much money has been wasted on this and that it's not really needed. Sure, for people with a lot of money they'll do it and everyone still will sometimes or special occasions. But say you make a normal 50-60k, you probably don't need to be spending 1-200 a month on this stuff.

[Machu Peach]

Not sure if mentioned yet, don't recall seeing it. But something girls have been telling me that will be big time reduced is nail, hair, eyebrows, etc appointment type stuff. This is making them realize how much money has been wasted on this and that it's not really needed. Sure, for people with a lot of money they'll do it and everyone still will sometimes or special occasions. But say you make a normal 50-60k, you probably don't need to be spending 1-200 a month on this stuff.

 

My female friends have the exact opposite response.

[tmwiese55]

Not sure if mentioned yet, don't recall seeing it. But something girls have been telling me that will be big time reduced is nail, hair, eyebrows, etc appointment type stuff. This is making them realize how much money has been wasted on this and that it's not really needed. Sure, for people with a lot of money they'll do it and everyone still will sometimes or special occasions. But say you make a normal 50-60k, you probably don't need to be spending 1-200 a month on this stuff.

 

My female friends have the exact opposite response.

 

Fair enough. Of course everyone comes from a different view. Any chance they're generally well off financially as opposed to say avg salary nurse/teacher types? I think I would also clarify mine a bit to maybe take out hair, might have overstated there. I think they mean the more niche things like nails, eyelashes, eyebrows, etc.

[owbc]

It's also totally dismissive of tourist dining. Nobody wants to have Door Dashed meals to a Holiday Inn.

 

It is extremely popular to get delivery to hotels. Very, very popular. Think about where most hotels are located--not downtown but the ones along highways and strip malls. People who are trying to feed their kids and get them to bed without dragging everyone into the car to drive to a restaurant.

 

When my partner business traveled she used to do it all the time. Long 10+ hour workday, back to the hotel room, the last thing she wanted to do was go back out to get dinner.

 

That's part of what I'm saying though. The places most affected by the closures are the non-chain higher quality restaurants that sell experience. There is no experience at Qdoba, or Tbell. I also won't eat either, and there are a lot of people like me. We dine out probably once a month and it's usually a $2-300 tab at a place like DanDan, Belfre, Cheel, etc. Even if I want a burrito, I just walk to the Mexican-owned spot a few blocks away, pay a bit more and chat with the owner.

 

Takeout will never replace those places. The food is not meant to be served or eaten that way. People like that make up a much bigger portion of restaurant clientele than I think you're considering. Especially the ones most shaken by this, that usually have a specialty and sell an experience.

 

I can promise you that the clientele at those restaurants don't like takeout for much besides Chinese and pizza.

 

There isn't quite the same kind of divide when it comes to rideshare/taxi. You could say that a fine restaurant is like a limousine service, but there are a lot more people who only eat at "nicer" joints than there are riding around in limos. An environment where there is only takeout would be awful, the majority of customers don't like it and fine dining is not designed for it.

 

I'd say this is more like saying TV would kill radio. Something a lot of people predicted and never came close to happening. 

 

You are definitely right though that Covid is hastening the inevitable. I'm totally convinced there are plenty of places using it as an excuse to do something they don't have to do, but have wanted to do for quite some time.

 

I'm on your side, my partner and I love the sit-down dining experience and are not afraid of a couple hundred dollar tab for a good night. But one of the first things we did during COVID was to order some takeout dinners from our favorite nice restaurants. And it turned out to be a really good experience. We ordered a new outdoor dining table and have a pretty good setup now for a fancy-ish meal at home and we have gotten pretty good at making our own cocktails.

 

I can think of many nights in the 'old times' where we got home late from work and needed to eat fast. Usually that meant a call for cheap, unhealthy delivery. But now that nice restaurants are providing a premium takeout experience we are big converts.

[owbc]

Also, don't forget that Uber started as a premium "black car" service before it spread to the masses. Not that much different than the premium takeout experience that I have now experienced and don't want to give up.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'm talking about people that go on vacation to visit an area and experience the culture. Real tourism, not business travel. I truly pity anyone that visits NYC or SF to spend 4 days eating inside a hotel room. If I suggested to my wife, while in Savannah or Brooklyn, that we are going to eat dinner in the hotel room she would just flat refuse and leave without me.

 

I'm not saying that people don't eat in hotels. I'm saying that the clientele that view dining as an experience are not going to abandon that for takeout. That's never going to disappear, it's ingrained in a lot of folks as a huge part of just being human. It's a lot of people. We have a huge country and there are probably as many people who wouldn't be caught dead eating fast food as there are people who live on it 3-4 days a week. I mean, there are people whose primary reason for travel, is food.

 

There's plenty of space for premium takeout and table service to exist just as it has.

 

I'm just not buying COVID19 will get any significant portion of people who love dining to do it any less once that blows over. Not sure if you're suggesting that though.

[Machu Peach]

Not sure if mentioned yet, don't recall seeing it. But something girls have been telling me that will be big time reduced is nail, hair, eyebrows, etc appointment type stuff. This is making them realize how much money has been wasted on this and that it's not really needed. Sure, for people with a lot of money they'll do it and everyone still will sometimes or special occasions. But say you make a normal 50-60k, you probably don't need to be spending 1-200 a month on this stuff.

 

My female friends have the exact opposite response.

 

Fair enough. Of course everyone comes from a different view. Any chance they're generally well off financially as opposed to say avg salary nurse/teacher types? I think I would also clarify mine a bit to maybe take out hair, might have overstated there. I think they mean the more niche things like nails, eyelashes, eyebrows, etc.

 

Some are and some aren't better off than nurses/teachers. I suspect the major differences are age (your use of 'girls' while my friends fall into the 'women' category) and race. Hair, in particular, is a big big deal for them. One friend is giving us a a daily countdown in a group chat until her first hair appointment because she thinks she looks like a skunk with a grey strip down the middle of her head. The pictures are pretty funny.

[FVBrewerFan]

I could see outdoor seating at restaurants becoming a bigger long-term trend in WI. A lot of restaurants have started using outdoor seating, or expanded it. Maybe as people try that a few times they'll discover it's enjoyable, and it will stick long term? We'll always dine al fresco if it's nice enough outside, and notice often times most people prefer to be indoors. This may change that?

[TURBO]

200-300 $ once a month for a meal at a restaurant?

 

I can find so many more things I'd rather drop that cash on than one meal and drinks. I guess I'm just not fancy. lol

[OldSchoolSnapper]

When you literally never spend $40 feeding 4 at Culver's, don't have cable, drive two 10-15 year old cars, it's not much different than how a lot of people live. Just allocation of resources on things you really enjoy.

 

The chef's menu with wine pairing at Sanford is $350. It's also in top 3 dining experiences I've ever had. It requires a level of skill that takes decades of training to blend flavors that way. Some people just like nice guns or better cars.

 

Probably more like every other month though on that level of place.

[tmwiese55]

My female friends have the exact opposite response.

 

Fair enough. Of course everyone comes from a different view. Any chance they're generally well off financially as opposed to say avg salary nurse/teacher types? I think I would also clarify mine a bit to maybe take out hair, might have overstated there. I think they mean the more niche things like nails, eyelashes, eyebrows, etc.

 

Some are and some aren't better off than nurses/teachers. I suspect the major differences are age (your use of 'girls' while my friends fall into the 'women' category) and race. Hair, in particular, is a big big deal for them. One friend is giving us a a daily countdown in a group chat until her first hair appointment because she thinks she looks like a skunk with a grey strip down the middle of her head. The pictures are pretty funny.

-----

 

 

Yea the ballpark age slice I'm referencing is upper 20s to mid 30s. So old enough to be full adults with their own jobs, money, bills, etc. The vibe I've gotten is essentially, I'm in debt for this and that, credit card, need a new car. The couple hundred a month spent on this can be used better elsewhere. I can't believe how much some of this stuff costs too, the societal standards that have led women to have to do all this is way out of whack. But like I said, I probably shouldn't have included hair. And we'll see what happens months down the line when this is behind us, it's easy for them to say now but I'd guess many get back to the same routine.

[tmwiese55]

Mentioned a bit above by someone. I'm most worried about overall tourism and travel. That's essentially my favorite thing to do ad probably take 10ish trips a year, and now we don't know how much or when it'll kinda be normal to do again. Granted, it hasn't been bad to save all the money I'd have spent on the 4 trips I've had cancelled since this started but I'd rather be having fun.

 

Also, restaurants and shared kitchens specifically designed only for delivery has been a growing trend in cities for a few years now. This has to have ramped them up big time. I want to say one was on Shark Tank this year and didn't get a deal, probably missed an opportunity there. I know that wasn't specifically what you're talking about in regards to fine dining, just adding to the convo though. I agree with snapper on that, to each their own on how they want to spend money. You might think I'm crazy for spending on 100$ meals a lot, I might say someone else is for spending $400 on a handbag, $200 on shoes, buying a 60K car when the 25K one will do the same thing, thousands on daycare a month, dogs/cats expenses, etc.

[FVBrewerFan]

Mentioned a bit above by someone. I'm most worried about overall tourism and travel. That's essentially my favorite thing to do ad probably take 10ish trips a year, and now we don't know how much or when it'll kinda be normal to do again. Granted, it hasn't been bad to save all the money I'd have spent on the 4 trips I've had cancelled since this started but I'd rather be having fun.

 

I think travel will come back. Airlines, hotels, etc. will offer incredible deals if they need to get people back. We just took a vacation a couple weeks ago. Roundtrip airfare for $147. It will take a little more time for most people, but I fully expect tourism to come back.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Travel will be fine eventually, but it'll lag with high unemployment. It has a lot working against it. Is their income ok? Do people feel safe to travel? Even if they do what's open when they get to their spot?

 

I was ready to get on a flight next week, but it was cancelled due to too many other cancellations, I got re-routed, was no longer nonstop, and just said forget it, I'll drive.

 

I mentioned this in the MLB thread, but the whole industry is watching Orlando. Disney/US is going to be a huge barometer for the travel industry if it goes off well. It's big for sports too.

 

There is also a backlog of 1.6 million passports right now. I know because my kids are two of them. I doubt we'll be in trouble as we're not flying until March, but that is a huge backlog.

[tmwiese55]

Agree that with time it'll come back. I probably could've phrased better to emphasize most worried about when/how long. Just sucks to miss out on a year or two, or however long it takes.

[owbc]

Travel is going to be really slow to come back. On one hand everyone I know is practically begging to travel at the first possible opportunity. But the thought of getting on an airplane with that recycled air is enough to quash any excitement I have about traveling.

 

There are two big conferences in my field in December and January that draw 20,000+ attendees. While both are supposedly 'on' right now, all indications are that they will be virtual. These conferences are already well-known for causing everyone who attends to get sick because they happen in the middle of winter. I wouldn't be surprised if they 1) are moved to the summer; 2) never return to their previous in-person attendance levels.

[LouisEly]

my partner and I love the sit-down dining experience and are not afraid of a couple hundred dollar tab for a good night.

What did you two do before you were partners? Ever ask your partner out to dinner when you first started dating? I'll bet it wasn't for takeout at your place.

 

I can tell you this - nobody is going over to anybody's house for dinner on the first couple of dates (unless you have known each other for a while through some other venue). And if you have roommates, you aren't bringing a date over for dinner.

[LouisEly]

Travel is going to be really slow to come back. On one hand everyone I know is practically begging to travel at the first possible opportunity. But the thought of getting on an airplane with that recycled air is enough to quash any excitement I have about traveling.

All airplanes have air filters, just like the furnace filter than I have in my home, that remove viruses from the air. Yes, the air is technically recycled, but it goes through the filters that take the viruses out of the air and the air coming out of the individual seat vents is filtered.

 

Along those lines, I was shocked when I went to Lowe's back in April to find that they had plenty of the higher-end furnace filters that filter out viruses. Maybe not many people know that the higher end furnace filters can do that.

[owbc]

my partner and I love the sit-down dining experience and are not afraid of a couple hundred dollar tab for a good night.

What did you two do before you were partners? Ever ask your partner out to dinner when you first started dating? I'll bet it wasn't for takeout at your place.

 

I can tell you this - nobody is going over to anybody's house for dinner on the first couple of dates (unless you have known each other for a while through some other venue). And if you have roommates, you aren't bringing a date over for dinner.

 

This isn't about whether sit-in dining is going away or not. It's about what % of it will return. I'm arguing less than 100%.

 

As for air travel, everybody knows the correlation between traveling and getting sick afterwards. If it isn't the recycled air it's the close quarters, mixing of people at airports, etc. etc. All easy to mitigate when travel is 50% of normal, but when they start selling the middle seats again?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The stigma with getting sick while traveling will hurt it much more than the reality.

 

There will be a lot of retirees with the means to do it that just won't. At least for a while. Not to say that some of them shouldn't be cautious. But I know several families who've said they won't go anywhere for at least a year. There are healthy people in their 30s-40s.

[LouisEly]

I'm not sure what point I wanted to make but I felt like I had to write something. Two weeks ago I wasn't positive I'd make it to see baseball played again. Now, well I'm still not sure I'll ever see baseball played against but not for reasons involving me not being here. Tuning out Social Media helped a great deal. And I was barely on it anyway. Never read the comments.

I wanted to make sure people didn't gloss over your comments. I commend you on being brave enough to admit your struggles publicly. I've had plenty of my own battles with mental health, as my life the last 10 years has been hell.

 

One thing that has been a big component of my mental health has been outdoor exercise, and learning to enjoy it year-round. (Yes, even during the winter.) It's a great way to disconnect. Usually it's going for a run, but sometimes a walk, put some music I enjoy in my ear (I recommend bone-induction headphones, so your ears are free to listen to your surroundings), and just disconnect.

 

I don't know how in-shape you are, maybe it's starting with walking, but now is a great time to find some outdoor trails near you, maybe a big park, and get out of the house and disconnect. Getting out of the house is half the battle - much easier to disconnect when you're in different surroundings. And listen to music - not podcasts, not talk radio, not books - music that you enjoy, as music helps you disconnect too because you don't have to pay attention to it. Observe nature (I saw a black squirrel yesterday morning - it's a genetic mutation, only about 1 in 10,000 squirrels are black), and appreciate its beauty.

 

It takes 21 days to form a habit. Try getting out of the house for a walk or run, even if just for 15 minutes, every day for the next 21 days. Build that habit, see if you enjoy it, and stay positive.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

No, the problem has always been the infection rate and exponential growth due to asymptomatic spread and no vaccine. It seems you got caught up in the wrong stuff back then, just as you are now.

 

Just re-reading some stuff I missed, but you cannot say this and accuse others of digging in their heels. This was always about the death rate. The whole tagline was that it was a more deadly, more contagious flu. The WHO initially claimed a 4% mortality rate. It was going to kill 2.5-3mm Americans. You can't look at the country now, at 100k (it will be more than that but not 3 million) and act like that wasn't a gross miscalculation and extremely significant.

 

If this was about being getting sick and surviving 99.8% of the time, not nearly as many things close and the fear is 1/50 what it was. If you can't concede this really glaring error and the effect that it had, there is no space to say others are being stubborn.

[PeaveyFury]

I think the data reporting on the death rate/contraction rate will be a continuously-evolving number. The new data is largely based on the rough, initial antibody testing, which many are reporting kick off an alarmingly large false-positive rate. If that is accurate, it's artificially pushing down the death rate.

 

https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/experts-urge-caution-in-interpreting-covid-19-antibody-tests/

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests.html

[tmwiese55]

No, the problem has always been the infection rate and exponential growth due to asymptomatic spread and no vaccine. It seems you got caught up in the wrong stuff back then, just as you are now.

 

Just re-reading some stuff I missed, but you cannot say this and accuse others of digging in their heels. This was always about the death rate. The whole tagline was that it was a more deadly, more contagious flu. The WHO initially claimed a 4% mortality rate. It was going to kill 2.5-3mm Americans. You can't look at the country now, at 100k (it will be more than that but not 3 million) and act like that wasn't a gross miscalculation and extremely significant.

 

If this was about being getting sick and surviving 99.8% of the time, not nearly as many things close and the fear is 1/50 what it was. If you can't concede this really glaring error and the effect that it had, there is no space to say others are being stubborn.

 

You have a fair take, it's not crazy as deathrate was a thing emphasized due to how it was early on. But again if you dig below, everyone was saying the whole time that the % would be way less than what it was then. Plus, the whole point was hey we don't know, as of now it looks worse, it could be worse, so we should be cautious and figure it out. Literally 0 science/data people ever claimed to know what the deathrate would be back in say March/April. This is not some "gotcha" they were wrong about. All the while yes they were saying as of now the deathreate looks worse, but it's so early we don't know what it'll end up. They said this all clearly at the time yet you're acting like they defrauded everyone. And still, as of now it still does look worse.

 

However, the whole time the number 1 issues was the infection rate due to asymptomatic spread combined with no vaccine and no testing could lead to a big problem and numbers. And it has. Essentially, even if the deathrate like .5%, due to these issues if you let millions and millions be infected the total death number will be really bad. But now these folks have an agenda to undermine so they're jamming it in your head. The folks that you're listening to who claim to be so right were the ones at the time saying this is all bs, there is no cases here. They're now saying "there was so many cases it means the rate is low, so your'e still wrong". Somehow, they're still convinced they're right and will never admit otherwise.

 

And it basic faulty logic to say 'they said X amount, but it only ended up Y amount so they were wrong.' Yea, because we did what we did. If you looked at how those projections are done, they were all "written as if we do nothing" type things. Have to read beyond headlines. This would be the equivalent logic of if I said if you keep smoking you're very likely or greatly increases your chances to get cancer from it. you quit smoking, then say "you're an idiot, see I didn't get cancer". That's how easily every talking point these people are cramming down people's throats are picked apart.

 

I do not wish to argue and have to point it out on anything else. I'll never convince you. you have to get there on your own with an open mind. Please stop buying into them taking things out of context and spinning it to try and convince you it's all made up and the science people are idiots. All this stuff was said at the time and they never claimed they'd get everything 100% correct or that they knew everything about a brand new virus, so latching onto a thing here or there that ends up off does not mean they're wrong about everything. I know it's easy to go down this path with the current state of things and if you look into the psychology of conspiracy theory type stuff I get how it happens. But you're seriously being led astray here by people who've been on the wrong side from the beginning and are dug into it.

[tmwiese55]

I think the data reporting on the death rate/contraction rate will be a continuously-evolving number. The new data is largely based on the rough, initial antibody testing, which many are reporting kick off an alarmingly large false-positive rate. If that is accurate, it's artificially pushing down the death rate.

 

https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/experts-urge-caution-in-interpreting-covid-19-antibody-tests/

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests.html

 

And then remember the data a page or two back on the excess deaths vs a normal year. I don't recall if that was US specific mentioned in this thread. But I've also seen this data in other countries and it seems clearly a lot of have been missed. For example, I want to say a city like Jakarta (don't hold me to it and this was 4ish weeks ago so numbers/memory could be off) had only reported like 300 deaths but had thousands more deaths than a normal year. Essentially you're seeing similar gaps in data all over the world. However, of course there is simply no way anyone will ever know.