Government isn't "forced" to do anything. They can screw off.

I'd love to see some evidence that limiting hours is even helpful, because my common sense is that limiting hours will just force customers into a more limited time slot, rather than allowing them to spread out. If I normally go to the bar at 10 but it's closed, I'm just going to go at 7 instead.

All gaming staff is now laid off, benefits cancelled at the end of the month. There are 30 unionized employees working (most not full time) and some not by seniority because the position was specialized. With 600+ unionized employees.

I obviously have no idea what you are doing but I know that the vast majority of customers don’t go to the bar at 7PM instead.

Maybe it’s different for problem drinkers and dive bars but at more upscale places it’s pretty simple: people who came in at 7PM in the past still do that, people who came in at 11PM stay home instead. Nobody changes their way of life to spend $15 on a cocktail.

(Source: my business that was under a no-alcohol after 11PM mandate before the current shutdown and talking to other people in the space)

Fwiw. I tried to eat last night at a place (borgata) which usually wouldnt be full @8... and was completely booked at all 4 places on property. So perhaps some are and some arent adjusting their "imbibing"

I would have went later if possible but tried to squeeze the $18 cocktails in before 10pm :/

I don't go to bars frequently so maybe I just said something dumb. If they are forced to close during peak times and patrons don't adjust then I understand how they think it could be a good idea. However for me personally the only thing stopping me from doing what I want to is my own risk tolerance or no places being open. I'll just adjust to restricted business hours.

Because you have the flexibility to do that.

That’s not really an option for a lot of customers. If I look at groups of people who go to a bar at 10PM on a Wednesday night, I see people who want to get a couple drinks after having dinner at a restaurant; groups who want to drink before going to the club; people who work late.

The first group would have to meet at the restaurant at 6 to be able to get to the bar at 8. That doesn’t fit most people’s schedule. The second group is out because clubs are closed right now. The third group just can’t make it earlier.

I’m sure a lot of bar-restaurant concepts benefit from the changes because people decide to go there instead of a going to a regular restaurant first and a bar later. But places that don’t serve food suffer because most people want to eat dinner before hammering down a couple drinks.

Our room has stopped all food service.
As a consequence all alcohol sales are stopped. The servers who can now only offer coffee, tea, pop, and water are quitting faster than they can be replaced.

I mean that sucks, but I'm just curious what jobs they're quitting for? Nobody is hiring in the service industry. Surely some money is better than no money.

University of Florida finds 0.7% secondary attack rate (ZERO) Of pre-symptomatic and Aysmptomatic spread. Back to poker everybody!

https://alachuachronicle.com/univers...omatic-spread/

The article actually says there are few studies on pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic spread and the calculated rate is somewhere between zero and 4.9%. Much lower than 14.2%-22.1% for symptomatic cases, but still not necessarily zero.

Technically -3.5% to 4.9% but a negative transmission rate is nonsensical. This range is statistically the same as zero. The lack of studies is why there is a large spread

Sounds like the risk of COVID asymptomatic transmission is zero the same way that the preflop all in hand with the most equity always wins.

I put the number of people who start playing live poker because of that article between -3.5 and +4.9.

There were fewer Pre Symptomatic than Pre studies. 0.7% is enough to keep you worried? Not that he hasn't been wrong many times. But before everything turned political Fauci said months ago that never in the history of respitory virus has asymptomatic spread ofriver of infection. Science didn't change since then.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nTGX4crz2C0

.7% is not a reliable number, given the variance due to the lack of studies.

And what Fauci said was that asymptomatic spread has never been the driver of outbreaks, not that asymptomatic spread was not possible.

You are going a huge distance to go from 'Asymptomatic spread has not driven outbreaks, and inconclusive data has shown that asymptomatic spread can vary from 5% to -4%' to 'It is safe to sit in a room with a bunch of degens for 8 hours at a time'

On top of this, you are assuming that symptomatic players would always an reliably self exclude. I think that this is not a valid assumption

The point is, Aysmptomatic transmission is statistically possible but not likely. If you see someone displaying symptoms than just leave

I guess my point is 1) I actually don't know what a symptomatic person looks like. Do they change colors like a mood stone when they develope a 101 degree fever? Do you expect them to loudly announce'Wow, these sodas sure are weak, I can't taste a thing'? 2) You are putting a lot of stock in saying that sitting in an enclosed room with lots of other people is sagfe based on inconclusive analysis of studies that show that the attack rate could be as high as 5% or as low as zero.

Normally, I would be fine with people assuming that risk. But given the way that pandemics work, every person who decides that polaying poker is worth the risk becomes a vector that can infect other people. And then the pandemic just drags on.

Why hasn't anyone thought of this.

I'll give that a try, should be smooth sailing from here on out

A lot of casinos have integrated more air purifiers into their A/C. Smaller rooms probably have not. To each their own, but to live scared the way that most people were 9 months ago is just obsurd anymore especially given the fact how wildly innaccurate the PCR tests are (WHO finally admitted this and is telling countries to turn down cycle thresholds) not that they are a beacon of transparency but this was something that was known a long time ago...

Why are you so bothered by people not wanting to play live poker or ‘live scared”?

Good for you if live poker is that big thing in your life. Nobody stops you from playing if casinos in your area are open. People just have different priorities in life. Personally I couldn’t care less if I can play again in 6 weeks or 6 month. Even if it’s 6 years, that wouldn’t even come close to being in the top 10 of things I worry about.

Not bothered at all, just pointing out that things are getting better and more data/research is available that steers towards positivity rather than the opposite.

lololol.

What in my post makes you think this study has or makes me worried? Based on prior posts I recall you have expressed more concern in the past than I. I certainly believe in COVID and its risk. I take precautions but I have played live whenever I felt like it over that last few months.

How does everyone become a vector or transmission when sypnotamtc transmission is a bit less than 1/5 and Aysmptomatic is 1/20 (at worst).PCR tests used to give daily "case" numbers re almost all non infectious, picking up dead rna particles from people who could have been mildly infected weeks ago and are still shedding non infectious rna. PCR tests are highly inefficient for spread. The difference in amplification of molecules between 30 cycle threshold and 40+ (which is where most state labs are running their tests) is a difference of trillions. Inventor of PCR test who died last year said that they are not a diagnostic tool. Everyone since this crap started has never been given a cycle threshold setting to their "positive test" which renders it useless and what makes this whole thing a casedemic. Far different than saying ceetain groups of people are at higher risk.