The Box Office

[green_garnish]

There aren't 100- 125 people packed into the cinemas like there used to be, they're at 25% capacity and parties sit six seats apart and only every other row is used.
I don't see that turning into a super spreader event.

Your own comfort level may vary, and that's fine...but let's not pretend that the way theaters are now running is as unsafe as those Trump rallies.

Having watched a guy in a store frantically pull down his mask to sneeze, I don't think those measure would likely prevent a super spreader event.

[thwhtGuardian]

Having watched a guy in a store frantically pull down his mask to sneeze, I don't think those measure would likely prevent a super spreader event.

Did that store actually cause a super spreader event? Do you still shop there?

Like I said, everyone's comfort levels are going to vary and some places across the US are going to be safer than others so there's no one size fits all but the reactions I'm seeing here and elsewhere about how unsafe theaters are just seem crazy overblown and seem to suggest that nothing has changed about their business practices and they're operating just like they used to and that's just plain false.

[green_garnish]

Did that store actually cause a super spreader event? Do you still shop there?

Like I said, everyone's comfort levels are going to vary and some places across the US are going to be safer than others so there's no one size fits all but the reactions I'm seeing here and elsewhere about how unsafe theaters are just seem crazy overblown and seem to suggest that nothing has changed about their business practices and they're operating just like they used to and that's just plain false.

No it didn't cause a super spreader because there weren't that many people in the store, and the employees are conscientious about disinfecting the carts after every use.

There are no such protections in theaters and it's a confined space with people being more casual than normal about masks and gloves, for an extended period of time. People aren't generally the smartest creatures and tend to do things without thinking about it, like pulling down a mask to sneeze.

There's nothing overblown in that assessment. it's common sense. Stay away from enclosed spaces where you will be with a static group of people who are casual about face coverings for over two hours. If you do that, please don't ask to be first in line for a vaccine.

[thwhtGuardian]

No it didn't cause a super spreader because there weren't that many people in the store, and the employees are conscientious about disinfecting the carts after every use.

There are no such protections in theaters and it's a confined space with people being more casual than normal about masks and gloves, for an extended period of time. People aren't generally the smartest creatures and tend to do things without thinking about it, like pulling down a mask to sneeze.

There's nothing overblown in that assessment. it's common sense. Stay away from enclosed spaces where you will be with a static group of people who are casual about face coverings for over two hours. If you do that, please don't ask to be first in line for a vaccine.

There are lots of protections though, you sit no closer than six seats away from other people, every other row is completely empty, attendance is capped at 25% capacity and the seats are disinfected between each viewing. With those safe guards in place you have very slim chances of catching the virus, and although that might not personally make you comfortable enough to go(which is fine) it's not the petri dish you and others are making it out to be.

If you don't feel comfortable even with all those precautions, that's fine, just don't pretend that these are packed cinemas we're talking about and that they're objectively dangerous when that's an absolute falsehood. There's a difference about personally wanting to be safer than those guidelines and lying about the situation to fit your feelings.

[green_garnish]

There are lots of protections though, you sit no closer than six seats away from other people, every other row is completely empty, attendance is capped at 25% capacity and the seats are disinfected between each viewing. With those safe guards in place you have very slim chances of catching the virus, and although that might not personally make you comfortable enough to go(which is fine) it's not the petri dish you and others are making it out to be.

If you don't feel comfortable even with all those precautions, that's fine, just don't pretend that these are packed cinemas we're talking about and that they're objectively dangerous when that's an absolute falsehood. There's a difference about personally wanting to be safer than those guidelines and lying about the situation to fit your feelings.

All those safeguards do not begin to equal the effectiveness of consistent use of masks, which is not going to happen in a theater. Doesn't really matter if it's at 25% capacity. The threat spikes significantly.

[thwhtGuardian]

All those safeguards do not begin to equal the effectiveness of consistent use of masks, which is not going to happen in a theater. Doesn't really matter if it's at 25% capacity. The threat spikes significantly.

Masks are used and social distancing and cleaning are big helps. On top of that, theaters have been open here in Mass since the early fall and no super spreader events have occurred so far so reality says you're objectively wrong.

Again, you may not personally be comfortable enough to go, and that's fine as we all have different health situations that need to be weighed in our decisions, but the apocalyptic scenarios you and others are pretending that theaters are just aren't true and repeating yourself doesn't change that.

What's wrong with just saying that you don't personally feel comfortable? Isn't the truth easier than creating a strange fantasy/nightmare to justify your choice? Or perhaps you just weren't educated on the steps theaters were taking to be safe? It's fair to admit that you didn't know that and your opinion was based on faulty-information.

[green_garnish]

Masks are used and social distancing and cleaning are big helps. On top of that, theaters have been open here in Mass since the early fall and no super spreader events have occurred so far so reality says you're objectively wrong.

Again, you may not personally be comfortable enough to go, and that's fine as we all have different health situations that need to be weighed in our decisions, but the apocalyptic scenarios you and others are pretending that theaters are just aren't true and repeating yourself doesn't change that

Masks are absolutely not used consistently, and all the empirical data we've collected over the past year says that I am absolutely right. Your area being lucky is not evidence of objective incorrectness on my part.

Also, it's not a matter of what I personally am comfortable with. I absolutely have to go certain places. I can choose not to go to movies, but I cannot choose not to go anywhere. Super spreaders do not happen in a single place. They start in a single unsafe place. Theaters still qualify, and if they are used by anyone, they put me and you and everyone else in incredibly higher danger than if they were not attended.

[thwhtGuardian]

Masks are absolutely not used consistently, and all the empirical data we've collected over the past year says that I am absolutely right. Your area being lucky is not evidence of objective incorrectness on my part.

Also, it's not a matter of what I personally am comfortable with. I absolutely have to go certain places. I can choose not to go to movies, but I cannot choose not to go anywhere. Super spreaders do not happen in a single place. They start in a single unsafe place. Theaters still qualify, and if they are used by anyone, they put me and you and everyone else in incredibly higher danger than if they were not attended.

It's not about luck, it's about protective measures. If it was just luck there would have been an event by now, luck just can't last four months on top of that it's not just small numbers in my area either as theaters are open else where too and yet no reported super spreader events tracked to theaters. :

While superspreading events have often happened within venues like restaurants, ships, bars, choir rooms, and places of worship, none of the 1,500 collected cases included movie theaters, libraries, or theme parks.

You are wrong on this and to believe otherwise is just being pig headed. Like I said, why pick this as your hill to die on? Your point is easy to disprove, isn't it easier to just to admit personal preference or ignorance of the steps taken to make these places safer?

[green_garnish]

You are wrong on this and to believe otherwise is just being pig headed. Like I said, why pick this as your hill to die on? Your point is easy to disprove, isn't it easier to just to admit personal preference or ignorance of the steps taken to make these places safer?

My point is provably accurate and it is in fact others who are choosing this hill for me to die on. I quite reasonably object to their doing so.

[titanfan]

I think this is all getting a bit over dramatic, I mean do you really think you're going to be thinking, "Man, I wish I saw that film..." just as you head into what ever great beyond you ascribe to? But even that aside, going to the theater is really no more likely to kill you with the current measures being held than going to the supermarket or work and almost everyone is doing those things.

Given the # of people who have basically use their death wish to see a movie, I don't think I am!

But the reasons you declare--are also reasons to see it. Almost everyone I know is not living in a bubble so they are risking themselves at such point anyway. We all have different values of things that are important to us. How dare someone tell me that church is more important than latest movie for example--or the various other things that people have convinced themselves to reopen. We either have to lock down everything or it's not really going to work.

[thwhtGuardian]

My point is provably accurate and it is in fact others who are choosing this hill for me to die on. I quite reasonably object to their doing so.

It's not provably accurate at all, you posted an opinion piece that doesn't provide statistics to show that the safety precautions don't work and saying :

The absence of an association does not mean that there have not been any transmissions

is called hedging your bets.

You have to know the difference between an opinion and empirical data when making an argument.

For you personally an opinion piece may be enough to reinforce your feelings, you're free to base your own personal decisions based on what ever you choose and I'm not trying to change that, all I'm saying is that your personal feelings aren't based on facts and so throwing your opinion out there as if it was is disingenuous. If you weren't aware that the facts didn't align with your point of view, that's totally okay; no one's going to judge you for it as we all make mistakes and when your mistake comes from a good place like thinking about the health of others then that is even more understandable.

To continue sticking with as if it wasn't a personal decision and pretending that science agrees with your opinion in the face of reality though? That's just spreading misinformation and that's much less excusable.

[green_garnish]

It's not provably accurate at all, you posted an opinion piece that doesn't provide statistics to show that the safety precautions don't work and saying :

is called hedging your bets.

You have to know the difference between an opinion and empirical data when making an argument.

So, no that wasn't an opinion piece or an editorial. It was hard news. Please learn the difference.

Also, there is this little tidbit from the piece that may be more relevant than what you quoted:

For perspective, The Times asked experts to rate the safety of certain activities on a scale from 0 to 100, 0 being the least likely to result in COVID-19 infection and 100 being the most dangerous. Among the activities listed, they separately agreed indoor moviegoing was among the riskiest. Benjamin declined to provide ratings but put moviegoing in the range of going to an indoor restaurant.

Outdoor restaurant: 10
Grocery store: 15-20 (or 30-40 if people congregate)
Commercial airliner: 40-50
Outdoor event, not socially distanced, masks not enforced: 40-50
Indoor movie: 50-60 (up to 75 if people are laughing, shouting, singing along)
Indoor bar, masks and social distancing not enforced: 80

As of this writing, the CDC lists moviegoing among its higher risk activities.

For you personally an opinion piece may be enough to reinforce your feelings, you're free to base your own personal decisions based on what ever you choose and I'm not trying to change that, all I'm saying is that your personal feelings aren't based on facts and so throwing your opinion out there as if it was is disingenuous. If you weren't aware that the facts didn't align with your point of view, that's totally okay; no one's going to judge you for it as we all make mistakes and when your mistake comes from a good place like thinking about the health of others then that is even more understandable.

To continue sticking with as if it wasn't a personal decision and pretending that science agrees with your opinion in the face of reality though? That's just spreading misinformation and that's much less excusable.

I will thank you to be the one to stop sharing misinformation.

I'll add that only one of us has been saying things consistent with the CDC, and it ain't you https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...to-go-out.html

[thwhtGuardian]

So, no that wasn't an opinion piece or an editorial. It was hard news. Please learn the difference.

Also, there is this little tidbit from the piece that may be more relevant than what you quoted:





I will thank you to be the one to stop sharing misinformation.

I'll add that only one of us has been saying things consistent with the CDC, and it ain't you https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...to-go-out.html

What you posted wasn't hard news at all, it was clearly in "movies" section of the LA Times and written by someone who only covers entertainment news...so the opposite of hard news. It's clearly an opinion piece, and to say otherwise is to be unable to accurately rate ones sources which is a serious flaw when you're trying to hold an objective discussion.

As for the quote...it doesn't mean what you think because again you're not evaluating the source. It clearly states that the doctor not only didn't contribute to the ratings presented below his statement but it also states that he also declined to give a rating using the proposed scale so we can't quantify what he meant by cinema trips being about as dangerous as indoor dining. What are his opinions on indoor dining? It could be really dangerous in his view...or not especially high risk, we have no way to know so it's ultimately a useless claim.

And the rating themselves? Also useless in an objective discussion. Who was polled? What were their qualifications? What studies did they base their ratings on?How was the question posed?

The answer to all those questions?

We don't know.

If you don't know those things then you can't verify them...which means it's objectively a useless poll.

On the other hand, the link I provided earlier is from a serious academic journal using data compiled by the WHO and has links to all their sources and information about how the data was collected and by whom.

And again, much like your reading of your article, the CDC guidelines don't say what you want them to either. It does say this though:

CDC cannot provide the specific risk level for every activity in every community. That’s why it’s important for you to consider your own personal situation and the risk for you, your family, and your community before venturing out.

And no where does it say not to attend indoor activities, it just says to practice social distancing, limit the number of people you are with, wear your mask, wash your hands and think about ventilation...all things that cinemas are helping you to do.

For the final time, as the CDC even says, I'm not telling you how to live your life; ultimately you're the best judge of what activities are safest for YOU, but that's not the same as objectively saying that going to the movies is something that no one should be doing.

There's a difference between subjective and objective and being able to recognize the difference between the two is very important.

[green_garnish]

Here's the thing. If I decide not to engage in risky behavior. That helps me.

If I choose to misread and misinterpret everything I read on a subject and engage in risky behavior anyway, there is no way to evaluate the damage this will cause.

I beg you, please stop insisting on winning the argument and pay attention to the facts. You are disseminating horribly destructive information. Please, please stop.

[thwhtGuardian]

Here's the thing. If I decide not to engage in risky behavior. That helps me.

If I choose to misread and misinterpret everything I read on a subject and engage in risky behavior anyway, there is no way to evaluate the damage this will cause.

I beg you, please stop insisting on winning the argument and pay attention to the facts. You are disseminating horribly destructive information. Please, please stop.

The facts are there, you choose to ignore them. There's nothing more to say than that.