The "Dine-Out" Dilemma
By: Lauren Webber
Photo taken prior to dine-in closures of employee regularly sanitizing the tables.
Photo by: Meghan Katzman
As the year comes to an end, the concerns regarding COVID-19 are only increasing. Despite the virus's proven existence, the extent of its danger has been subjective among various groups and individuals. As the social distancing orders demanded many businesses to shut their doors, some permanently, many restaurants have remained open despite their fluctuating consumption capacity. Southern California has been flooded with regulations that vary among the counties, but dine-in has been denied rather consistently. The economy has continued to move forward alongside these regulations, forcing many restaurants to creatively incorporate all consumption avenues possible. Even though take-out orders had consequently increased while San Bernardino had barred any restaurant dining, there was not enough compensation to keep these businesses comfortably afloat. Heavily trafficked and infected counties have faced the most fluctuation in dining regulations, especially areas such as Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside counties. The crashing waves of regulations have been drowning both small and large establishments. The more recent allowance of outdoor dining has positively increased sales, but has also raised many conflicting concerns regarding both safety and regulatory hypocrisy.
Restaurants that have expanded their dining by establishing outdoor patios and sections for "dine-out" have surely increased sales in various aspects. The owner of My N.Y. Pizza in Fontana, Calif. indicated that the lack of dine-in completely stifled alcohol sales, for example, as the pizzeria is heavily reliant on that avenue of income. Allowing dine-out options has enabled alcohol sales, and many other restaurants should be witnessing similar increased sales in areas that were once paused with take-out only regulations. However, questions regarding the safety and validity of dine-out seating may still outweigh the financial stimulus.
Firstly, those that dine-out are required to wear masks when leaving the table in any capacity but are not required to wear them while seated. The transmission of COVID-19 would be increased as bare mouths can now spread the virus much more rapidly on the furniture and tableware. Though some restaurants have opted to using disposable silverware and employees are required to properly sanitize the tables and area post-use, the employees and other customers are still increasingly more exposed.
This brings into discussion the encouragement of take-out despite dine-out options and the health and vulnerability of essential food service employees. It also raises the idea that diseases and germs have always been spread while dining anywhere pre-mask era. These branches of concern are necessary, but one may find hints of double-standards looking deeper into the dine-out fabrication.
Though dining regulations are set in-place to help prevent the spread of COVID-19, there have not been many regulations on what dine-out can resemble. Outdoor dining is, in many respects, the same as indoor dining with the addition of open air. The cooler autumn weather has also inspired restaurants to wall and tent outdoor seating, undermining the entire concept of dine-out. Outdoor seating has begun to mirror indoor dining with the exception of flimsy walls and asphalt flooring.
These California regulations, encouraged (and admittedly broken) by Governor Gavin Newsom and implemented accordingly by county, are in theory supposed to help slow the spread of the virus while helping businesses remain open. Though it may have helped boost sales, many continue to find the pandemic financially devastating. Restaurants allowing outdoor seating are wrestling with the paradox of "dine-out" as it has helped boost income while increasing the vulnerability of virus transmission. The pandemic has flooded restaurants with unprecedented stipulations and forced consumption creativity; it is important to consider the similarities of current outdoor seating with indoor dining and question the validity of the regulations in place or at least their implementation.