Table of contents:

Restaurants: closing them at 6pm will destroy a sector (to no avail)
Restaurants: closing them at 6pm will destroy a sector (to no avail)

Video: Restaurants: closing them at 6pm will destroy a sector (to no avail)

Video: Restaurants: closing them at 6pm will destroy a sector (to no avail)
Video: Two Hours of U.S True Crime! Well, I Never Compilation 2023, December
Anonim

The new DPCM has arrived, dropping an ax (or perhaps a scythe) on restaurants: all the activities in the sector, from ice cream to street food, from the starred to the pizzeria, from the trattoria to the cocktail bar to the pub, will inexorably have to lower the shutters before it gets dark. Close them at 18 however this time it risks destroying the gastronomic sector and, mockery as well as evil, without getting much.

In the meantime, the dismay spreads across gastronomic and social media of restaurateurs and customers, even, who despite being citizens called "to the small sacrifice of giving up dinner out", as our Premier would say, seem to recognize the illogicality of the Decree.

We at Dissapore can only follow suit, recognizing that (again) the whole gastronomic sector is undermined, which should be so dear to Italy, in a form of fury against restaurants, bars, pubs and related activities that cannot fail to appear. as an attempt to feed public opinion (increasingly tired, suspicious and savvy) a scapegoat on which the responsibility of the surge in infections can converge; when instead for a series of logical issues, to limit the spread of the virus, there would be more strategic nodal points on which to intervene and more appropriate ways to increase control over bars and restaurants of the imposition of an indiscriminate time barrier.

Here are the 7 reasons why we do not understand the logic of the new measures, which we explain hoping to represent many of the entrepreneurs, professionals involved in the world of catering and customers, our dear readers; hoping that the government will retrace its steps as soon as possible.

1. Some restaurants don't exist before 6pm

We would really like to be in the shoes of those who, at the Technical Scientific Committee, decided that the restaurants should close at 6 pm - the time when many are doing the cleaning before the evening service. “They will work with breakfasts and lunches” - they will have thought, without taking into account that some types of activities involved in what is to all intents and purposes a lockdown are not, by their nature, suitable for operating during the day: pub, cocktail bar, wine bars with kitchen and in general, establishments used for the administration of alcohol cannot operate in any way in the pre-established time slots, for obvious functional and cultural issues.

More than others, these categories of companies risk extinction immediate and total, together with the productive induced that supports them.

2. Lunch won't help

And again: who can afford to go out for lunch during the week? Even if you can, who really does it and how? Smart working killed lunch breaks, and even the few workers who insist on not eating at home don't have time to get to restaurants and have a full meal on their break from work. If one has that working during lunchtime, given the ordinary costs of running, of procurement, taxation and a competition that has suddenly become crowded and fierce - due to the compression of the hour window in which it is possible to exercise the activity - it will prove to be for many operators of the restaurant sector, if not for all, counterproductive and perhaps suicidal.

3. Restaurants have spent on adapting to the new (old) norms

The choice of the general closure of the restaurant comes close to a "phase two" during which those who have dealt with the emergency seriously have spent large sums, and given up a large part of the revenues, to adapt their business to the anti-Coronavirus regulations. Adjustments to ventilation systems, reduced tables, sanitization, purchase of PPE heavily impacted the budget for catering activities; for which in addition to the damage, a tragic mockery is now being prepared.

4. The "movida" are not restaurants

Too often we have seen, in the past months, articles on the worrying evolutions of the Coronavirus issue that hit the front page, mostly inappropriately, the word “movida” accompanied by photos of bars and pubs. Well, let's say it once and for all: the "nightlife" (which, by the way, is a horrible word) at risk is not that of those who go out for dinner or have a drink, seated and at a safe distance from other customers, but the chaotic one that it is unleashed side by side in the streets and squares - often, however, without the police, even if present, being able to intervene in a decisive manner. The generalist press has too often become the bearer of a general confusion that puts in the same cauldron those who work respecting the rules and safety of all and those who, for a few more euros or for pure and blind indifference, do not care.

More people on the premises (with the right measures) and more stringent checks means fewer people on the street, not to mention that it is obvious that systematically checking people seated in an orderly manner - this applies to clubs, but also, for example, to cinemas and theaters - is easier than intervening on a chaos of people pouring into the cities.

5. The previous rules would have sufficed

The rules of spacing, traceability and sanitation already imposed on restaurants, if correctly applied, have been suggested by the CTS; and should therefore be sufficient to ensure the safety of customers. If the goal of closing at 6pm is to lower the contagion index and the security measures do not allow the spread of the virus, rather than stopping an entire sector it would not be appropriate to encourage the work of those who have chosen to operate in respect of everyone's health, allowing virtuous businesses to continue to function? It would not be more fruitful, however, to concentrate forces on an increase in controls; and to sanction more harshly (for example with total and prolonged closures) who is caught violating the law?

6. How can restaurants be the Achilles' heel?

At the restaurant, one and a half meters from everyone, no, on the bus five centimeters from other ten people, yes. One thing, more than any other, defies logic and lays bare the compromise strategies implemented in drafting the DPCM: because restaurants and entertainment stop, and one does not put a heavy hand on what is for obvious reasons one of the most likely and critical places of contagion? In the public transport system, active 24 hours a day, the density of occupants far exceeds that allowed by the anti-Coronavirus safety regulations. Because it is not possible to intervene in this regard, to limit the risks of contagion, unloading the social restraint only on the shoulders of small and medium-sized entrepreneurs, and problems are not challenged on a structural level that rationally - infringing without anyone batting an eye to the most elementary rules distancing - are they a privileged source of contagion? Perhaps we can consider removing the speck from the eye: but first move this beam.

7. Grants are not enough

Conte has promised the restaurant "refreshment" and "compensation" - words that, already from the sound, are profoundly different from the "firepower" evoked in March. Given that it will not be possible, for bars and restaurants, to receive checks equal to the non-collection, we should all realize that the palliatives and support measures will not be adequate, this time, to limit the collapse: too many companies, already worn out by an impossible Spring, they will not be able to survive the Winter. And this, in an Italy founded on food, tourism and SMEs, we cannot afford it.

Recommended: