Hey, there! Log in / Register
You can't socially distance if nobody's there
By adamg on Thu, 06/18/2020 - 3:50pm
Who says nobody read the Globe anymore? Our own John Keith took a snapshot of the Lawn on D late yesterday afternoon, the day after Globe writer Christopher Muther fretted that the new outdoor dining at the Lawn on D is basically a Covid-19 breeding ground.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
This is dumb
It's pretty clear that the virus is difficult to spread outdoors, and outdoors + mask wearing is pretty darned effective at not spreading it (see the recent protests and no spike in cases). I figured we'd get over this sort of nonsensical shaming that was commonplace in April, but evidently not.
Dumb
It is thoughtful of you to so accurately label your post. "Outdoors" describes circumstances as disparate as a lone adventurer atop Pike's Peak, who is probably not going to infect anyone with anything, to someone dancing in the crowd at Woodstock, sharing everything with everybody. The point of that article was that the scene at The Lawn on D was a lot more like the latter than the former.
See this is the problem
COVID transmission is nuanced and that makes it hard for everyone to understand it well. Outdoors the virus is very fragile, especially in the sun. People at the beach or spread apart on the Lawn on D are terrible spreaders. Even unmasked demonstrators, while riskier than masked ones, are generally not near the same people for long enough to be good outdoor spreaders. On the other hand, with zero political bias, people standing in the same location, indoors while being very vocal at the upcoming rally in Tulsa have a much higher potential to spread the virus.
The Lawn on D is not Woodstock (and I don't think the article suggested that it was.)
Also, if you read the article
Also, if you read the article it says people werent socially distancing (they were walking over to other tables and hangin out) and people were often not wearing masks even when not at their tables, as was the rule. The article stated the people who worked there didnt feel like they could push people to do so. Since Baker has said that there wont be inspections, and hes just relying on workers to tell the state their employers arent following the rules, many places I have visited are lax with covid sanitary rules.
People would be eating and
People would be eating and drinking, so they would not be wearing masks. Can't do both at the same time plus most of the photos taken of the outdoor patrons show they don't wear masks.
I never heard of this place
I never heard of this place. I had to look it up. Muther's article also says "the park, which was previously an adult playground filled with light-up swings and giant Jenga blocks, has been converted into a 700-seat, reservation-only restaurant.". "An adult playground". Gad! What goes on in that area?
People in their 20s with who
People in their 20s with who work downtown, make a lot more money than I did in my 20s, and live in South Boston filling their instagram feeds is what happens there.
It's a pretty well-known place
I'm surprised you have not heard of it. It's the side yard of the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. When the state decided not to expand the BCEC into this space a few years ago, the Convention Center Authority developed it into a park featuring live music and some installation art of a type that might have come from the Figment or Burning Man festivals.
Expansion
Side note on your comment: they weren't going to expand into this space, this is the side lawn between the building and D St. The expansion was going to lengthen the building, toward Cypher St.
If also shows on the map as...
"High-tech BDR/SDR bro-ville"
I don't recognize those company names
if that's what they are. Say more?
I've walked by three times
I've walked by three times this week and have yet to see a customer. The patio business in the Seaport is also light and it doesn't look like anyone is doing much business except maybe the Barking Crab, which in case you don't have a long memory isn't the most ideal place to risk one's good fettle.
I'm going to assume that there'll be people coming into town this weekend, looking for a table at Jimmy's Harborside and whatnot, but for the most part the locals aren't really game for it. A quick visual survey last Saturday yielded a very low count on face masks per capita, I'm afraid. Maybe the harbor wind prevents infections or something but I, for one, am not sitting out on a patio for a couple of hours with people who have no common sense, let a lone a sense of personal responsibility to those around them.
You're more likely to die of a dog bite
Good news for you!
During the week June 4-June 11, South Boston (02127; 02210) recorded just 4 positive cases. Marian Manor on Telegraph Hill has reported at least 3 during the same time period so, good news, no one's getting COVID in your neighborhood.
Only weird people respond to their own comments
Just wanted to add some information to the Smothers Muthers column.
Chris mentions that a paper was published recently in which the authors (virologists, epidemiologists, and the like) concluded that mask-wearing (outdoors, or indoors/outdoors, or undetermined) was responsible for cutting the number of potential infections in New York City by more than half (66,000 fewer infections as a result of mask-wearing, vs. the 55,000 infections that actually occurred).
It's a mind-boggling number and reading the study made me question everything I had come to believe (but what do I know, I'm not a doctor!). The authors claimed that masks were actually more-important thank social distancing or other mitigation efforts.
Imagine my surprise (and, let's admit it, to my relief) the study has been debunked by other scientists and "experts".
"While masks are almost certainly an effective public health measure for preventing and slowing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the claims presented in this study are dangerously misleading and lack any basis in evidence," they wrote in a letter to the PNAS editorial board, requesting retraction. "Unfortunately, since its publication on June 11th, this article has been distributed and shared widely in traditional and social media, where its claims are being interpreted as rigorous science."
So, if you read Mr Muthers' column and were wanting to learn more, here's where to find it:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/controversy-covid-19...
the obligatory Yogi Berra
"It's so crowded, nobody goes there anymore."