[HN Gopher] Social distancing is bringing drive-in theaters back...
___________________________________________________________________
Social distancing is bringing drive-in theaters back to life
Author : lukestateson
Score : 234 points
Date : 2020-04-12 11:23 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.atlasobscura.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.atlasobscura.com)
| Zenst wrote:
| That's brilliant and certainly perfect for today's climate of
| health concerns. Makes you wonder how much of past practices in
| society we shall reinvent. Certainly know a few people who
| learned to make their own bread and others growing some of their
| own food, not enough to live on but enough to augment their
| needs.
| saalweachter wrote:
| There's a half dozen drive-ins or so around the Hudson Valley.
|
| They're great if you have small children and want to leave the
| house to see a movie -- your kids can bounce around the back seat
| without bothering anyone else.
| hkchad wrote:
| They closed ours down here in MO just as we were about to go this
| weekend, oh well.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| The drive-in theater near by me has not been allowed to be open.
| I don't think that is necessarily wrong, it's still too many
| people in one place.
|
| There was an article two weeks ago that mentioned more drive-in's
| that would like to be open but were not being allowed to be than
| ones that were open. And that was a couple weeks ago.
|
| I do think that after we have a handle on the pandemic (including
| observabiltiy from wide-scale quick-turn-around testing, although
| part of me thinks our country may be incapable of ever having
| that, which would be problematic, but anyway)-- anyway, when the
| curve has peaked, and we have observability we don't have now,
| which are the preconditions for gradually re-opening things -- at
| that point I do think it would make sense for drive-in's to be
| among the first things re-opened, they are _relatively_ low-risk
| when it comes to gatherings of that size.
|
| But for now, when the interviewer asks "Do you think this surge
| in attendance at drive-ins around the country..." -- I don't
| think the article actually has any evidence to support there IS a
| "surge in drive-ins around the country", they are just assuming
| it because they like the story? That's not good journalism. I
| think most drive-ins remain closed by public health order,
| possibly appropriately. I think the several stories about "the
| surge in attendance" are just based on the journalist's
| imagination extrapolating from one drive-in they found that is
| open, and are irresponsible.
| droithomme wrote:
| > I don't think the article actually has any evidence to
| support there IS a "surge in drive-ins around the country".
|
| Well there probably is. But drive-ins at this point are
| incredibly rare. When I was a kid, many decades ago, it was
| already past the golden age of the drive-in and the few
| remaining holdouts were in the process of folding.
|
| Some tenacious holdouts made it. A few closed theatres
| reopened.
|
| https://www.driveinmovie.com/united-states
|
| > Currently, there are about 325 Drive-in Movie Theaters still
| operating in the United States. There are many more that are
| permanently closed but still remain standing and could
| potentially be re-opened at some point in the future. In fact,
| there have been several drive-in theaters that have been re-
| opened the past couple of years after sitting dark for 20 and
| even 30 years.
|
| So 325 maybe wasn't even the nadir as many have reopened and I
| doubt as many have been built anew. It's not a _lot_ of
| theatres on the national scale.
| alkonaut wrote:
| > it's still too many people in one place.
|
| As long as no one leaves their car, I can't see how it's any
| worse than being in traffic. Shouldn't matter if there are 10
| or 100 cars. Can't have bathrooms of course, or the "cars only"
| thing breaks down. Bring your own bottle.
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| I think the risk of bathroom transmission would actually be
| less than you think, mostly because there's already a lot of
| design and practices built around the fact they are
| unsanitary to begin with.
| watwut wrote:
| The thing is, bottle requirement would make it basically guys
| only.
|
| It would also be unworkable for dates.
| [deleted]
| userbinator wrote:
| For the females, a bucket or bag works.
| watwut wrote:
| No it does not. Definitely not in the car.
|
| Tripple not in a car with other people looking at yoi
| when you had a choice to simply not go.
| standardUser wrote:
| I'm having a very difficult time imagining how a drive-in
| theater could regularly result in transmission of the virus.
| It's not inconceivable, but the goal of physical distancing is
| not to prevent every conceivable situation that could result in
| transmission, but the activities that would normally be
| responsible for the vast majority of transmission.
|
| I suppose having the cars a little farther apart might be
| prudent.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| At the one by me, people get out of their cars a lot. To go
| to the concession stand, bathroom, etc. To talk to their
| friends. Kids running around.
|
| Closing the concession stand (which has indoor lines) would
| be the first obvious move, but the one by me makes a
| significant portion of it's profits from the concession
| stand, would probably have to raise prices non-trivially.
|
| I agree about "Activities that would normally be responsible
| for transmission" -- and I think that is mostly _being near
| other people_. We need to be ruthlessly minimizing that.
| Depending on the drive-in, it may be not be doing so as much
| as you would imagine, is all.
|
| Anyhow whether the health departments are right or wrong to
| not letting be open, I think the "surge in drive-in
| attendance nationally" may not actually be a thing.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| The only way I'd see this working is if you aren't allowed
| to exit your car at all. Being a guy, I guess I could piss
| into a bottle ...
|
| I dunno, this whole thing just doesn't sound that
| appealing. I'd rather just watch a movie for much cheaper
| from my couch. It'd be one thing if there were some new
| huge blockbuster movie I wanted to see that could only be
| seen in theaters, but that's flat-out not happening
| anymore. All the big releases are either pushed back
| indefinitely or happening on streaming services too.
| lallysingh wrote:
| Have people text their orders to the stand, and have one
| person in a mask and gloves to deliver.
| trynewideas wrote:
| Or just charge cover/raise tix/charge a "corking fee" and
| allow people to bring their own
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Without getting into specifics, after-hours clubs that
| don't serve alcohol usually account for that with higher
| admission prices.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Aren't drive-in theaters generally cheaper than real
| theaters, though? Isn't that part of the point of them,
| that they're spartan and cost-effective to operate and
| thus are a most cost-effective option?
|
| I don't know how much money people would be willing to
| pay to go to one.
| samatman wrote:
| "more than they would be willing to pay if normal movie
| theaters were open" seems like the safe bet.
| def8cefe wrote:
| Drive-ins have no less overhead. They require much more
| expensive D-Cinema projectors (for higher lumen output),
| more real estate, radio transmission equipment and all
| the same expenses as conventional theatres except
| potentially less manhours required to clean the
| 'auditoriums.' They are likely cheaper in your experience
| because drive-ins are almost exclusively independent and
| in rural areas.
| wbl wrote:
| Or are members only like some in Chicago. But we
| definitely do not need to get into specifics.
| imagine99 wrote:
| Can I ask what kind of members-only clubs you're
| referring to that don't serve alcohol? That sounds
| curious. I do belong to a club or three here in the UK
| (internationally reciprocal, too) and while they can be
| rather selective and some do charge a pretty penny, they
| most certainly do have bars or a wine cellar with a
| respectable selection of beverages... Is there a meaning
| of "club" of which I'm not aware? Sorry if I'm being
| daft, it's been a long day.
| tomalpha wrote:
| https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-laws-and-
| regulati...
|
| > Topless clubs in Las Vegas may serve alcohol, for
| example, but fully nude clubs may not.
|
| My (genuinely...) limited understanding is that this is
| not limited to Las Vegas, and also that private members-
| only clubs can circumvent this.
| gambiting wrote:
| Well, I do agree with the argument that some countries make
| for banning everything but essential travel - driving around
| is not risk-free, because unless you have an electric car you
| will have to fill it up eventually, so there's one
| transmission vector at a petrol station, plus some people
| will have an accident, which takes away valuable resources to
| deal with those accidents. With that logic in mind, having
| drive-in theatres is not a good idea, even if the theatre
| itself is not a tranmission vector.
| standardUser wrote:
| Right, if the goal is to prevent _all_ transmission then we
| would need a much stricter set of protocols. But that is
| not and has never been the goal. Preventing the vast
| majority of transmissions is the goal, and we are achieving
| that with our current, imperfect implementation of physical
| distancing.
|
| Several European countries are on the verge of easing
| restrictions and opening various shops and schools. They
| know full well that this will lead to an increased
| transmission rate. But as long as that rate is not too
| high, their healthcare systems will be able to handle the
| number of cases.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| It reminds me of that video of cops arresting a jogger in
| Spain where the person recording the video and the Reddit
| comments all gleefully celebrate such justice.
|
| As if trail joggers are a hotbed of infection.
|
| https://en.as.com/en/2020/03/21/videos/1584804866_376286.htm.
| ..
|
| The video kinda disgusted me, like zero tolerance laws that
| exist so nobody has to actually use their discretion about
| what's reasonable vs unreasonable.
|
| It also creates this creepy culture of sit-at-your-window-
| and-tattle that just can't be worth it.
| [deleted]
| yardie wrote:
| Here is a video of a bus rider being dragged off a
| Philadelphia bus.
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emmanuelfelton/philade
| l...
|
| Realize that no one is wearing a mask; not the driver, the
| rider, nor the 10 cops who dragged him out. And they could
| have done like Detroit and just hand out masks to riders.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Losers and bootlickers no longer have that "fear of
| missing out" because everybody is at home. They are right
| in their element.
|
| I want Trump to end this bullshit and let things go back
| to normal already. This can't go on.
| bless_covid wrote:
| Completely agree with my bro. We should be looking at
| Covid as a blessing, literally millions of old / infirm
| and economically useless people are going to be wiped
| away. These people are parasites, draining our society of
| resources that can and should be deployed elsewhere.
|
| Deep down, a lot of you know this is true.
| DennisP wrote:
| I'm not sure how I'm supposed to realize that when all
| the cops are clearly wearing masks.
| fjeifisjf wrote:
| I'm glad the police are protecting essential workers,
| after a bus driver was killed, quite possibly by a
| passenger.
|
| https://www.fox29.com/news/detroit-bus-driver-dies-of-
| covid-...
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| What's a hotbed of infection is the cops who interact with
| dozens of people a day to enforce distancing... seriously,
| it's super dangerous and they should not be doing it.
| Regardless of the morality or 'fairness' of it, it is just
| counter-productive, it is a vector for transmission, it
| will not work.
|
| It is terrifying to me that many of us dont' seem to be
| able to distinguish between what people 'deserve' or what
| works; they'd rather increase disease risk if it means
| seeing the right people punished for it.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| I don't know about you but if there were hundreds or more
| of people congregating I sure as hell want the cops to
| show up.
| dehrmann wrote:
| I don't remember much Spanish from high school, but I
| remember enough to know how fucked that situation is.
| monsieurbanana wrote:
| Are we watching the same video? I have zero sympathy for
| the jogger. The police isn't doing anything wrong, she's
| clearly resisting so they have no choice but to use
| strength to put her in the car. I don't see any
| mistreatment from the police.
|
| And where's the supposed "abuse" from the onlookers? All I
| saw was the person filming telling her to shut up and stop
| resisting the police. All very reasonable things to say,
| regardless of whether the law is wrong or not.
|
| Speaking about the law, "zero tolerance laws" have a very
| negative meaning because of the stupid laws they have in
| the USA. If there's a moment where you should apply a zero
| tolerance law, it's when there's a freaking pandemic and
| people disobey the rules.
|
| One jogger isn't bad, how about 10 or 100?
| sergiotapia wrote:
| PROTECT YOURSELF - why do you want the government to
| force people into this madness.
| nradov wrote:
| The point is that the rule against jogging is stupid and
| counterproductive. Improving cardiovascular health has a
| protective effect against infections in general.
| asveikau wrote:
| I heard them call her _gilipollas_ , _idiota_ , _payasa_
| in response to her calling for help. [Feel free to Google
| those terms if anyone reading doesn 't speak Spanish.]
| This is unnecessarily mean-spirited and doesn't fit this
| "we're all in this together" spirit I am so glad to see
| in other places.
|
| The video clip doesn't show what happened before but I am
| sure a hefty fine would have done the trick.
| standardUser wrote:
| The policy of not allowing outdoor exercise is to blame.
| The risk of transmission from running is minuscule if
| people keep proper physical distance. Doesn't matter if
| it's 10 or 100 or 1,000 people jogging. All that matters
| is if effective precautions are being taken to prevent
| transmission of the virus.
|
| Instead of harassing people who are keeping proper
| physical distance, police should focus on activities that
| are actually likely to lead to transmission of the virus.
| People running in a group? Make them stop. People running
| with ample distance between themselves and others? Wave
| and say hi.
| DennisP wrote:
| Proper physical distance is quite far for joggers:
| https://www.fox13news.com/news/simulation-research-shows-
| cov...
| standardUser wrote:
| The traditional WHO recommendation for avoiding droplet
| transmission is 3.5 feet (1 meter). In Australia, it's
| currently 5ft (1.5 meters). In many places, 6ft or 6.5ft
| (2 meters). The rate of transmission already drops
| dramatically if you maintain just a 1 meter distance from
| infected individuals. Two meters is even better, but we
| have always known that droplet transmission can go far
| beyond even 2 meters. One source I read claimed it's
| possible up to 20 meters.
|
| But the difference between "possible" and "likely" is
| key. If we try to avoid every activity where there is a
| remote possibility of transmission, we will all have to
| sit in isolated cages. But avoiding "likely" transmission
| is easy. Keep a good distance, wash your hands, etc. It
| does not sound like this simulation has proven (or even
| suggested) that transmission at 65 feet is likely while
| running, only that it is possible.
| [deleted]
| CydeWeys wrote:
| The point is that the droplets persist in the air for a
| little bit, and the faster you're moving, the greater the
| likelihood that you're moving through a space that still
| has suspended droplets in the air. It's like how the
| faster you drive, the longer your stopping distance. Your
| safety distance increases the faster you're moving. Six
| feet is for when you (and everyone else) are stationary.
| DennisP wrote:
| On top of that, a moving source causes a slipstream that
| makes the droplets spread further.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Yup, and when running you're breathing deeper and more
| forcefully, so you're expelling more viral particles
| farther.
|
| Plus, I'm not seeing as many runners wearing masks (no
| doubt because of the high oxygen requirements of the
| running itself), so that too has an effect.
| [deleted]
| unethical_ban wrote:
| 100 joggers far apart from each other, on miles and miles
| of trails, and perhaps with scarves or handkerchiefs,
| isn't bad.
| amxla wrote:
| "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice,
| the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
| leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
| they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for
| lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It
| works the same way in any country." [Goring]
| watwut wrote:
| The complete stay at home order in both Italy and Spain
| came when the situation went out of hand. Especially in
| Italy, milder restrictions were not respected. It would be
| great if people complied with milder use-the-discretion
| restrictions, wore masks, did not went skiing everyone
| together and what not. And where people complied, the more
| strict measures don't seem to be necessary so far.
|
| The problem with the discretion is that it works as long as
| it is not abused.
| pedrosorio wrote:
| That just goes to show how little it takes to slide into a
| dictatorship.
|
| On the other hand, anyone who paid attention to the
| Catalunya situation in recent years or the high level of
| acceptance of Franco [1] wouldn't be too surprised at these
| reactions.
|
| [1]
| https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2006/jul/18/post181
| amiga_500 wrote:
| I wonder. If I'm sat in my car with the air conditioning on,
| the car parked in front of me also has their air conditioning
| on. If I have my air intake set to external...
| fjeifisjf wrote:
| It's not going to blow droplets into your face.
| the_arun wrote:
| It is not about whether it spreads virus, but drive-in
| theaters are there for satisfying social appetite. You go
| there with your family & friends - enjoy a movie outdoor.
| Otherwise, what is the benefit of that over watching a movie
| at home on a 60 or 70 inch screen?
| HeWhoLurksLate wrote:
| Some people don't have 50-or-60-or-70-inch TV's, and even
| if they do, they might not match the experience of watching
| a movie on a ginormous screen (at a fairly high quality,
| too- I can _see_ the pixels on my 45 " 1080p panel I got
| secondhand from 15-20' away) and the sound systems at
| theaters are waay better than a soundbar and the surround
| sound at theaters local to me is orders of magnitude better
| than what I can put together right now as well.
| fjeifisjf wrote:
| A drive in theater is not like that. It's outdoors, bad
| visual and bad audio quality, that's only done for the
| fun of going out.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > the goal of physical distancing is not to prevent every
| conceivable situation that could result in transmission, but
| the activities that would normally be responsible for the
| vast majority of transmission
|
| You'd never know this from some of the enforcement, behavior,
| and policies we're seeing.
|
| Working from home, ~closing non-essential businesses, and
| social distancing appear to be incredibly effective. The rest
| is people desperately trying to control a situation they
| can't.
| dpcan wrote:
| Bathrooms / Porta-potties.
|
| Litter.
|
| And self-control. Kids especially - they'll car hop.
| skrebbel wrote:
| I'm from a country that doesn't live in cars, can someone explain
| the drive-in to me? Does everybody have a cabriolet, or how do
| you see the screen at all? Is it visible through the windshield?
| How about the audio?
| cnasc wrote:
| You see it through the windshield, there is typically a short
| range radio transmitter that sends the audio so you can hear it
| over your car speakers.
|
| Source: had a college job that involved inflatable movie
| screens and occasional drive-in style experiences
| save_ferris wrote:
| There's typically a large outdoor projection screen a few
| stories tall, and each car usually gets a set of speakers that
| rests on their front side windows. Although these days I bet
| more are moving to Bluetooth or something like that.
| hedora wrote:
| The audio moved to low power FM radio decades ago.
| catalogia wrote:
| > _Is it visible through the windshield?_
|
| Yes, or you can bring lawn chairs and sit outside next to your
| car instead. Or if you have a pickup truck, you can park the
| truck backwards and lounge in the truck bed.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| One thing folks haven't mentioned is that there is a slight
| incline at the parking spot to help see the screen.
| toast0 wrote:
| To add on, the parking lot is intentionally made to have rows
| of (small) hills, so each car will be pointed up towards the
| screen. Taller vehicles are restricted to the back row,
| trucks will usually back in and people sit in the bed to
| watch. Vans (and any remaining station wagons) will also
| often back in and sit in the back with the hatch open.
| [deleted]
| BurningFrog wrote:
| > _Is it visible through the windshield?_
|
| Do you not have transparent windshields in your country?
| hedora wrote:
| Sure, the engine has one for the conductor, but most cars
| don't.
| beervirus wrote:
| Automobile, not train.
| bluGill wrote:
| I'm sure your country has at least a few personal cars.
| There are a a few islands that don't, but otherwise you
| have seen cars.
| xwdv wrote:
| It won't last. At the heart of great cinema is great audio, and
| you won't find that in a vehicle.
| boardwaalk wrote:
| I think people are less discerning than you think, and even
| non-premium car audio systems less bad than what most people
| watch content on regularly (laptop and tablet speakers, etc).
|
| I see people do it and I don't understand how they can stand
| tinny sound that's nails on a chalkboard to me, but hey...
| xwdv wrote:
| If a person is willing to watch a movie on a laptop with
| tinny speakers I don't see why they'd bother going to a drive
| in.
|
| Is the whole point of theatres not to see a movie in a big
| screen with great sound? If it wasn't for that I'd just stay
| home and watch a movie on my OLED TV screen and surround
| sound system. I would never watch a movie on a phone or
| laptop.
| Swizec wrote:
| My laptop has better sound than my high school era 5.1
| system had. It's uncanny how good those tiny little
| speakers have gotten.
|
| Mostly I watch on a laptop because it's convenient. And the
| lack of a TV in the house discourages passively plomping my
| ass down and flicking through shit when I really should be
| doing anything else.
| ehnto wrote:
| Honestly doubt that watching the movie is the pure and core
| reason people go to the cinema. I only go to get out of the
| house and share the experience with friends. I am usually
| annoyed at how loud the cinemas are, if it was about
| fidelity I would stay at home.
| boomlinde wrote:
| I don't think I'm alone in going to the cinema mostly for a
| shared experience with friends. For any other reason I
| prefer to watch at home, mostly on my laptop, albeit with a
| pair of decent headphones.
| grosswait wrote:
| Meh. For the last 10 years maybe two movies a year get me
| to a theater, otherwise, television, laptop or phone for
| me. The only movie in my life where the theater factors
| into my subjective memory of a movie was The Dark Knight.
| I'll never forget how immersive the open scene was on a
| giant IMAX screen.
|
| My memories of sounds in movies on the other hand are only
| of the bad, like some of the ridiculous sound effects in
| Transformers with overly accentuated bass
| Cerium wrote:
| A drive in movie is a great social experience unlike going
| to a normal theater. You can prepare a full fancy dinner to
| eat while watching. Then since you are using your car audio
| you get to set the volume. And if you want to discuss
| something you won't be interrupting anyone else. So, while
| it may not be an experience that idolizes technical
| achievements I find the drive in a fulfilling experience
| that offers an alternative to the conventional movie
| theater.
| wl wrote:
| The audio in most movie theaters is so loud, I have to bring
| ear plugs. A knob on my dash that can turn it down is a
| superior experience.
| milquetoastaf wrote:
| Wait until you hear about these new fangled "silent films"
| maxsilver wrote:
| > At the heart of great cinema is great audio,
|
| We had cinema for decades, before any audio had even been
| introduced to films. And for the first decade or two, audio on
| films sounded atrocious -- roughly like an AM-radio track.
|
| Somehow, I think "great cinema" will survive a few years of a
| few drive-in theaters offering stereo-FM-radio audio quality.
| jussij wrote:
| Some of the things that would always annoy me with cinemas
| would be people coming in late, leaving early, sitting near a
| group that is constantly talking, phones going off or people
| constantly checking their phones which shine bright in a
| darkened room.
|
| At least these kinds of problems don't exist at the drive in.
| jcims wrote:
| Unfortunately 'great audio' has been replaced with those stupid
| butt beaters in the seats and some weird W shaped EQ cranked so
| high it starts clipping any time something moderately loud
| happens.
|
| They could just suction cup a little bluetooth job to your
| window and you'd be in complete control of the audio
| experience.
| vidanay wrote:
| Perhaps movies could be made with real dialog and stories and
| not just loud explosions and sound effects that necessitate
| "great audio" (a highly subjective definition to be sure.)
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Strange that you think great audio is something only action
| films need. As soon as 5.1 mixing and encoding tools became
| cheap and widely available, even independent filmmakers
| writing "real dialog and stories" rushed to adopt them. And
| film schools emphasize how careful audio editing (and
| appropriate playback equipment) can bring a rich new
| dimension to one's filmmaking, and some of the textbook
| examples that are used are 1960s auteur cinema like Ingmar
| Bergman's _Persona_.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I happen to agree about the movie quality, but that seems to
| be pretty subjective too since my wife thinks otherwise. I
| never really understood the fixation on sound either, but
| each to their own. I can tell you what I want from a movie
| night: long island to numb me to all this low quality
| entertainment and comfortable seats. Drive-in won't work for
| my use case, but I doubt I am a target audience.
| [deleted]
| bsanr2 wrote:
| I don't think that's true. The audio experience in many movie
| theaters is markedly terrible, due to the lack of proper volume
| calibration these days. And for many people, their car's audio
| system is the best that they own. I suppose the bottleneck
| would be delivery, but there are high-end, low-latency
| networked audio solutions out there, so streaming to a decent
| quality should be possible.
| deeblering4 wrote:
| Fwiw most drive-ins broadcast movie audio over FM radio.
| Audiophiles could bring a good tuner and nice headphones, or a
| high end portable speaker and get good sound in the car or
| outdoors.
| otfc wrote:
| Open the Fucking Country!
|
| Social Distancing is commie bullshit!
|
| Open the Fucking Country!
| 3stripe wrote:
| Why risk your life and the lives of others to go watch a movie?
| Not essential and therefore very questionable.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Good bot.
| detaro wrote:
| With a blanket rule like that you shouldn't do anything ever.
| What risk do you think isn't addressed properly here?
| 3stripe wrote:
| Hmmm let's see -- restrooms, people sitting outside (like the
| kids in the photo) or passing close to each other, even cars
| parked closer than 2m together with the window open. I'm sure
| there are more. (Edit: I'm not saying that any of these are
| highly likely, but I do think it's impossible to rule them
| out).
| standardUser wrote:
| I think it's important to remember that the goal is not to
| reduce the transmission rate to zero. The goal is to make sure
| people don't die unnecessarily due to overwhelmed healthcare
| systems. So far, it seems the physically distancing efforts in
| many states and countries have been sufficient to bring the
| transmission rate down to manageable levels, even though these
| efforts are imperfect and come with many loopholes.
|
| Denmark, Austria and Czechia are all about to end their
| lockdowns and start reopening parts of their economies. They
| may be good test cases for how loose restrictions can get
| without having the transmission rate rise too high. But make no
| mistake, more people will get the virus and more people will
| die, which is currently the only way forward we have.
| deeblering4 wrote:
| I love the drive in, but in a time of pandemic I don't understand
| how the common resources like restrooms and food could be
| considered safe. It seems like a place at high risk for
| transmission between the hundreds of patrons that use them each
| night.
| droithomme wrote:
| We need to socially normalize peeing into a cup. My dad
| certainly made it the only option when we did cross country
| drives. No way were we stopping at the rest stop, that would
| ruin our record transit time. He wasn't the only dad, these
| stories are common.
|
| "Pee in a cup, it won't mess your lungs up."
| catalogia wrote:
| In my town all "non-essential businesses" are closed, yet I'm
| still able to go to 7-11 to buy hotdogs off their roller
| machine. (And you can bet I do!) I don't see why hotdogs from a
| drive-in movie theater concession stand would be any worse.
| dpcan wrote:
| They aren't. And your 7-11 should probably stop doing this
| too. I think we are taking a pretty big risk as it is eating
| food prepared by potentially sick people even when it's
| takeout or drive-through. I'll do a take-and-bake pizza only
| because I'll get the temp up to about 200 before I eat the
| thing - hopefully deactivating the virus in the process.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > I think we are taking a pretty big risk
|
| While it doesn't call out recently prepared food, the CDC
| disagrees:
|
| > Coronaviruses are generally thought to be spread from
| person-to-person through respiratory droplets. Currently
| there is no evidence to support transmission of COVID-19
| associated with food. Before preparing or eating food, it
| is important to always wash your hands with soap and water
| for 20 seconds for general food safety.
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/newsletter/food-safety-and-
| Co...
| droithomme wrote:
| The CDC, FDA and WHO have been pursuing a non-science
| based approach from the beginning apparently designed to
| spread the virus.
|
| I just made you a nice green salad. Before I hand it to
| you I sneezed.
|
| Do you eat it? If you say no, then like me, you realize
| the CDC are massive disreputable liars. If you say yes
| you eat it, you are foolish.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > ...designed to spread the virus
|
| That's a strong claim that's going to need a strong
| source.
|
| > Do you eat it...
|
| Just because something's gross doesn't mean it will make
| you sick.
|
| According to a virologist Forbes found,
|
| > ...risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 through eating any
| food is extremely low. Food is not inhaled into the
| respiratory tract and any virus present will likely be
| inactivated in the stomach
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2020/03/25/i
| s-e...
| CydeWeys wrote:
| There's decent evidence that it can be passed through
| excretion, too. Active viral loads have been found in
| restrooms far in excess of what could be explained
| otherwise. The theory is that there's live viral
| particles in feces, and they get aersolized with the
| force of flushing. This is also consistent with the
| finding that diarrhea is a common symptom of coronavirus
| (I had it) -- there seems to be some kind of GI tract
| involvement that you don't see with e.g. the flu.
| catalogia wrote:
| Fortune favors the bold.
| HeWhoLurksLate wrote:
| As do highly transmissable respiratory diseases.
| Animats wrote:
| "Life favors the prepared" - Edna Mode
| catalogia wrote:
| A life spent cowering is hardly a life worth living, do
| you want to live forever?
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Concessions closed. Single movies (on the short side) only. Go
| to bathroom at home.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| A lot of people (me included) won't make it through a round-
| trip drive plus an entire movie. The bathrooms are non-
| negotiable.
|
| Also, cinemas make almost all of their profit from
| concessions, so if you remove those they're going to have to
| charge more for the tickets themselves to make up for it.
| Will people be willing to spend this much?
| droithomme wrote:
| > The bathrooms are non-negotiable.
|
| Do you pee at the grocery store these days too? You
| couldn't pay me anything to use a public restroom anywhere
| in the US until we have a cure for this virus. I go to the
| bathroom before I make a store run. And I make store runs
| very infrequently, they are very concise runs, I avoid
| everyone, and I go only during extreme off hours, and I
| wear an N95 face mask that I heat sterilize afterwards. I
| also extensively sterilize everything I buy, which takes
| nearly a whole day to do properly. Things I can't directly
| sanitize go into a queue in the garage and are not used for
| 20 days.
|
| Going into any public bathroom is an unnecessary risk.
| These drive in theatre bathrooms should be closed and
| locked, as should public restrooms in parks. Laws against
| urinating in public such as in the bushes at a public park
| should be suspended. Peeing into a cup in one's car should
| be promoted as a safer alternative to finding a public
| bathroom. These are all temporary measures but are
| necessary. Public bathrooms being non-negotiable? Then stay
| home.
| watwut wrote:
| Grocery store trip is shorter even as we limited it to
| once a week, have a lot more to buy and more to wait.
|
| Also, we grocery store cause we have no choice. Not be a
| use we would be seeking comfort and pleasure as in
| cinema.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| I actually did pee at the grocery store a few days ago,
| but I've already had COVID-19. I probably wouldn't risk
| it if I weren't already immune, so point taken about
| avoiding them and making sure to go at home first, etc.
|
| I agree that public bathrooms are a risk. When I said
| "the bathrooms are non-negotiable", what I meant is "I'm
| not going if there's not a bathroom", and if there's no
| bathroom because it's not safe, then a lot of people
| aren't going.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I read some articles about drive-in theaters last month
| during social distancing, and they closed the concessions
| and encouraged people to bring snacks from home. They
| compensated by increasing the price a bit. Still plenty of
| takers.
| LanceH wrote:
| >A lot of people (me included) won't make it through a
| round-trip drive plus an entire movie. The bathrooms are
| non-negotiable.
|
| Well, if you can't nobody should be allowed to.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Nice strawman you've got there. At no point was I saying
| anything should be banned.
| LanceH wrote:
| "The bathrooms are non-negotiable."
|
| That certainly implies bathrooms or nothing.
| em-bee wrote:
| when entertainment options are limited, people are likely
| willing to pay more. concessions can be sold drive through
| style without personal interaction. only restrooms are
| really a problem
| pc86 wrote:
| Then don't go. This is trying to give some people some
| sense of normalcy. If it doesn't work for you, that's fine,
| don't partake. But that doesn't mean it's a bad idea
| because a small minority of people can't hold their bladder
| for 2 hours.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| It's a lot more than a "small minority" of people that
| wouldn't want no access to a bathroom for 3 hours (we
| need to include the drive time, remember).
|
| But yes, you could do it safely if you required people to
| stay in their cars the entire time and provided no
| services, not even bathrooms. I honestly don't see this
| being that attractive a proposition to most people
| though. And I've never been to a drive-in theater in my
| life, so I don't know about restoring normalcy. Restoring
| normalcy would be going to a regular theater. A drive-in
| theater would be a novelty that I'm only experiencing
| because of the pandemic.
| watwut wrote:
| It is significantly easier to feel normalcy watching
| movie at home where I have done it many times. Rather
| then in drive through cinema you was never in before, sit
| in car and where you can't go to restroom.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Concession income isn't an issue when the option is not
| open and make no money/lose money or open and make a little
| money. Not to mention the smaller ones could qualify for
| the SBA PPP.
| dpcan wrote:
| Ohhhhh to be able to make it through a movie without having
| to go to the bathroom. And then to sit in line in a car to
| get in and out of a drive-in.
|
| I don't think it's even legal in most communities in the U.S.
| to not have facilities where people gather. We take hygiene
| pretty seriously in this regard.
| blondin wrote:
| was going to suggest how great it would be for cinema systems
| to connect to your smart car! for what? i don't know... talk
| to someone, stream audio to your car, trivia about the movie,
| games for kids, etc...
|
| and then i saw the no public restrooms. naw... some of us
| won't make it.
| catalogia wrote:
| > _stream audio to your car_
|
| Usually they use low-power FM radio stations for this.
| starpilot wrote:
| Use pee bottle if you're male.
| dpcan wrote:
| The first person to desperately need to defecate is going to
| pretty much ruin the drive-in movie experience for everyone.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Maybe that would not be a bad thing?
| userbinator wrote:
| Fortunately, humans need to defecate far less often than
| they urinate.
| GordonS wrote:
| Similar solutions are available for females too, such as the
| shewee: https://www.shewee.com
| servercobra wrote:
| You could close concessions or make it delivery. You text your
| order or something, maybe even put a little table outside each
| slot or put the food on the hood for contactless delivery. For
| restrooms, they could replace the normal interior ones with
| porta-potties. You could at least tape out the social
| distancing line and have a few more porta-potties than you'd
| normally have. All this would mean higher prices though.
| no_comments5788 wrote:
| You don't understand. That's the issue, not that all the
| bathrooms are most assuredly where all the people get sick. If
| bathrooms we're unable to be cleaned and virus transmission was
| an unacceptable risk THAT WOULD ALWAYS BE. Just because one
| more virus is being transmitted, in addition to the multitude
| of viruses active AT ALL TIMES, doesn't mean public restrooms
| are unusable. I swear to God you people have ZERO concept of
| the physical world.
| calaniz wrote:
| It's sort of an odd turn about. My grandfather owned and operated
| several drive in theaters in Texas. The businesses were handed
| down to him by his mother, who ran the theaters herself with her
| husband. Technology like home tv and the vcr changed peoples
| theater habits. They socially distanced at home and we saw a near
| extinction of the drive in theater. It's sort of ironic that now
| were moving in the opposite direction. So much time with Netflix
| and various streaming services that we're seeking out the safety
| of a drive in theater today.
|
| What a resurgence. We closed our last theater in the 2000's but
| I've got fond memories of working the box office with my
| grandfather weekend evenings.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| Once a summer or so, my family goes to the Kenda Drive In in
| Marshall, Arkansas.
|
| People usually play frisbee and socialize while we wait for
| darkness to arrive. Food and snacks are delicious and moderately
| priced. The ticket to get in is something like $20 a carload.
|
| I don't know how the owners make money. I figure it must be some
| kind of community service project, promoting a wholesome
| community. It is awesome.
| js2 wrote:
| Here's one in NC which id currently closed per the NC stay-at-
| home order.
|
| http://www.raleighroaddrivein.com/
|
| It was briefly donating its location for Sunday prayers:
|
| https://www.newsobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article2416043...
| abetusk wrote:
| My friends have been doing a guerrilla drive-in by all driving up
| to the back of a closed down business off of the highway,
| projecting a movie onto the (white-painted) brick wall and using
| an FM transmitter for the audio.
|
| The projector plugs into an inverter and projects through the
| windshield. We're still trying to figure out how to all talk to
| each other during the movie. So far, cell phones with earbuds and
| microphones seems to work alright but anything on speaker phone
| gets feedback.
|
| The projector is something like 65W and is powered from the car
| on idle. It'd be nicer to run it off of batteries but that can
| get a bit expensive.
| auston wrote:
| You could use something like presence.so for a private group
| voice chat.
| abetusk wrote:
| The issue more is about feedback and getting a proper system
| in place that we can all (multiple people in one car) chat
| with everyone else in other cars while the movie plays over
| the transmitter. The simple solution of calling into a group
| hangout and setting speakerphone is that we quickly get
| feedback from the audio of the move from the other cars.
| baron816 wrote:
| I went to a drive in theater a few months ago with some friends.
| It was a pretty terrible experience. We tried sitting outside
| since it was be better than sitting in the cramped back seat of a
| sedan. That made it impossible to hear most of the movie since
| other cars would turn on their engines, or a low flying airplane
| would pass overhead, or a train would go by. Other problems:
| light pollution from cars driving by with their headlights on
| would fade the screen, other screens playing different movies was
| very distracting, and going to the bathroom would take 15-20
| minutes since it was so far away.
|
| A car seat is never going to be more comfortable than a movie
| theater recliner, or your own couch. And listening to a film over
| the radio isn't going to produce as good a sound as your home
| theater system.
| catalogia wrote:
| It sounds like you were simply looking for a different sort of
| product. The point of a drive-in theater is not to produce a
| high-fidelity experience. You may as well go skiing and
| complain about the cold.
| caseysoftware wrote:
| I'd love to go to a drive in. It'd be a blast and good way to get
| out.
|
| But when local/state governments can shut you down as "non-
| essential" even if you're following all the guidelines, no
| business can come back to life. They're just on a "stay of
| execution" until someone changes their mind the other way.
| mseidl wrote:
| I am really hoping for new releases to to be streamed digitally
| now. I'd pay for it.
| buckminster wrote:
| How much do you want it?
|
| https://www.redcarpethomecinema.com/
| Reedx wrote:
| From their FAQ: _" Movies will be variably priced with the
| most current films in the low thousands - no movie will be
| priced below $500. This will permit two viewings within a 36
| hour period."_
|
| I was thinking $20, heh.
| ghaff wrote:
| I mean, I know there are people for whom $500 is loose
| change in the seat cushions. But are there seriously enough
| of them who absolutely _must_ see a new release right now
| (and who don 't know someone who can knock loose a screener
| for them) to support this as a business?
| throwaway3neu94 wrote:
| On their website, there is a "Fact Sheet" PDF with a
| 1-page business description linked at the bottom. It
| says:
|
| "Target consumer: wealthy individuals with home media
| rooms"
|
| Duh.
|
| It also says the two founders were CEO of ticketmaster,
| and home distribution president at Warner Bros. I suppose
| these two would know how to price this, and who to talk
| to for licensing.
| mseidl wrote:
| Yeah I just saw that. WTF.
| ZekeSulastin wrote:
| Amazon just started a program that's a bit more reasonable than
| the other one linked called Prime Video Cinema:
| https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Video/b?ie=UTF8&node=285877801...
| hkmurakami wrote:
| Apparently we have one drive-in theater in San Jose and one in
| Concord in the bay. I totally would have expected them to be
| extinct by now.
|
| Appatently the SJ theater is hosting an Easter service today
| https://www.mercurynews.com/san-jose-church-hosting-easter-s...
| yardie wrote:
| This could only happen in places out in the sticks, such as
| Ocala. Where I'm from, another south florida suburb, the drive
| ins were paved over and made into shopping malls decades ago. Our
| son has only seen them in a period movie/show, such as Stranger
| Things, so sometimes I would describe them in a bit of detail.
|
| No one is going to these things for nostalgia. They are going to
| because they are bored at home, under quarantine, and looking for
| something to do. If the governor didn't excempt drive-ins no one
| would even bother.
| take_a_breath wrote:
| I think it could happen in cities. We have huge, empty parking
| lots outside of sports stadiums that aren't being used right
| now.
| rubidium wrote:
| Light pollution would be annoying though
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Depends on the city. Wouldn't work for me or almost anyone I
| know because almost none of us own cars. Because of social
| distancing this is only workable if most people own cars. And
| you wouldn't be able to easily hang out with your friends
| anyway; you'd only be in the same car as whoever you already
| live with, at which point just watching from the couch, with
| the comforts of your own bathroom and refrigerator, sounds
| more appealing.
|
| There's also contagion potential with the shared bathrooms
| and concessions at an outdoor theater type setup.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| > _Because of social distancing this is only workable if
| most people own cars_
|
| "Most people" don't need to go. You only need enough people
| to fill up the place.
|
| If 1% of people in a big city starts going to drive in
| theaters, that would support several venues.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| We'll see. I'm curious to see if any of these open up
| here in NYC. I'm guessing it's just not worth trying to
| do, though; the uncertainty is so high, and the payoff
| window is likely quite narrow.
|
| The economy is pretty messed up right now though, and
| it's not a great time for new risky business ventures.
| And while you may be able to maintain social distancing
| while the venue is actually operating, how about while
| putting it together?
| yardie wrote:
| I've seen stadium parking lots used for state fairs, concert
| festivals, and even racing events.
| Spivak wrote:
| I mean I live in a pretty big city and we still have a few
| drive-ins. They're cheap, dingy, basically just a snack stand,
| some projectors, and some gravel. But the experience is super
| fun and cute and intimate and social. Loading your friends up
| in the back of a van and being able to just hang out and chat
| while some movies play is so nice. It's tailgating for non-
| sports people.
|
| I don't think they'll ever need to blow-up since the operating
| costs are basically nothing. They can afford to be a little out
| of the way since you're driving there anyway and they'll just
| grab the cheapest plot they can find.
|
| The middle ground seems to the be the outdoor movie circuit
| which is essentially picnicking to a movie. Cleaner, more
| expensive, marketing to young professionals. There's lots of
| food trucks and local vendors.
|
| But dammit it's just not the same as building a blanket fort in
| your car, smoking weed, eating Milk Duds, and making out with
| your boyfriend while watching a B horror flick on a Friday
| night.
| mark-r wrote:
| Any place that has an expanding population has had land prices
| rise to where a drive-in theater isn't practical anymore. The
| one I went to as a teen was turned into a Medtronic campus. I
| haven't seen a drive-in theater in ages.
| sircastor wrote:
| I was just suggesting this idea to my wife the other day. She
| counter argued (and I think she's right) that this is still a
| risky proposition. If everyone arrives, stays in their car
| watching the movie and then leaves, great. But people see someone
| they know, or they want to let their kids out to run around, and
| those kids see other kids. And add others have mentioned:
| restrooms.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| Camera + fines for people getting out.
|
| The bigger problem for me will be that half of the car owners
| will keep their engines running so they can have AC and the
| idea of sitting for two hours breathing exhaust fumes..
| cglace wrote:
| Aren't you just describing driving? What is the difference
| between thousands of cars crammed together on an interstate
| vs some cars watching a movie in a field?
| saagarjha wrote:
| When you're driving, you dump the fumes behind you and move
| away.
| servercobra wrote:
| And drive right into the fumes of all the cars in front
| of you.
| sv9 wrote:
| Presumably the cars crammed together in a field is supposed
| to be fun, whereas an interstate is supposed to be soul-
| crushing.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| The ones on a field will be emitting less pollutants whilst
| there will be way less on the motorway per m2.
|
| It's a bigger problem where I live in Europe because of the
| number of diesels. Petrol cars aren't that bad especially
| when only idling for the airco. Diesels are disgusting
| idling.
| userbinator wrote:
| Propane and natural gas cars are common in some places.
| As evidenced by forklifts, the exhaust is clean enough
| for them to be used in large, somewhat-well-ventilated
| spaces indoor like warehouses.
| cglace wrote:
| How do you figure there would be less pollutants on the
| highway?
|
| Where I live the density of cars on the highway is much
| greater than the density of the cars in the field.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| I drive outside of rush hour so there aren't a lot of
| cars on the road. So as I originally said, for me it
| would be a problem.
|
| For other people (like yourself) it isn't a problem.
|
| I'll stay watching movies at home.
| droithomme wrote:
| > Petrol cars aren't that bad especially when only idling
| for the airco. Diesels are disgusting idling.
|
| Petrol cars do not do complete combustion and emit carbon
| monoxide which is toxic. Diesels don't. Modern diesels,
| running on mandated low sulfur fuel, can have lower
| levels of troublesome emissions than petrol cars. Trucks
| are a different matter though as they generally are not
| subject to the same emission standards at present.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| I drive what, at the time, was being sold as the cleanest
| diesel engine ever. A super efficient VW which could do
| 33km for 1 liter of fuel.
|
| All lies it turns out.
|
| You can smell it easily whilst idling on a warm day with
| low wind.. and it smells really bad.
| samatman wrote:
| _While diesel fuel combustion engines produce lower
| levels of carbon monoxide than gasoline engines, these
| emissions can still generate lethal amounts of carbon
| monoxide given a sufficient amount of time in an enclosed
| space. Carbon monoxide makes up anywhere from 2% to 12%
| of diesel exhaust gases._
|
| https://www.dieselinjurylaw.com/carbon-monoxide-poisoning
| asdff wrote:
| Context is everything. Thousands of cars crammed together
| in either case, but one case with with the goal of
| transporting masses of people vs. burning gasoline to power
| a 3000lb generator and air condition your personal park
| bench while you move nowhere.
| catalogia wrote:
| I don't know why everybody is talking about air
| conditioning; I've never used air conditioning at an
| outdoor movie theater. Maybe if you live in Southern
| Florida running the AC would make sense, but right now at
| this time of year most of the country is firmly in "bring
| a sweater" territory.
|
| Keep in mind that outdoor theaters don't work during the
| day, only after dark, when everything cools down...
| pc86 wrote:
| You're right, context _is_ everything, and in this
| context a huge number of people who drive to work every
| day aren 't driving now. So if fifty cars sit in a
| parking lot for an hour, and half of them are running,
| it's an extraordinarily small addition to the huge loss
| in overall emissions.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Except air flow from moving cars allows fresh air intake
| to have a better chance of actually getting fresh air
| than if your car is stationary directly behind the
| exhaust of another car
| vinniejames wrote:
| Cars have air filters
| Spare_account wrote:
| The filter removes particles from the air. Not exhaust
| gases.
| HeWhoLurksLate wrote:
| Hence catalytic converters, maybe?
| [deleted]
| radicalbyte wrote:
| Exposure if higher in the car:
|
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746925/Why-
| suffer-...
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| I remember peeing in a soda cup at the drive-in as a kid. Good
| times.
| LMYahooTFY wrote:
| I suppose this is a practical counter argument if you're both
| trying to make a risk assessment, but you could go keep the
| family in the car.
| wenc wrote:
| Restrooms can be sealed and placards posted. It does assume a
| certain bladder capacity though.
|
| Not sure how to deal with kids though. Video conference call in
| the car?
|
| My friends gave walkie talkies to their kids' friends and they
| have a lot of fun just talking over that. The range of walkie
| talkies can be surprisingly large.
| jedberg wrote:
| I guarantee that if you lock the bathrooms you'll have people
| pissing on the door.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| And just wandering off to the side of the lot and pissing
| there ...
|
| You keep a bunch of people in an outdoor space for hours
| and don't allow restrooms, and inevitably you're gonna have
| outdoor urination going on.
| agumonkey wrote:
| These sort of leisure would be the perfect opportunity to give
| some air to people and have some activity too. Employ people to
| check few people per car and same family and you're good to go.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-04-12 23:00 UTC)