QR codes for restaurant menus: threat or menace?

[TheAmmoniacal]

I also don't have a data plan on my phone, because I don't want yet another $20/month subscription to care about for something I might want to use every few months. I have a prepaid SIM that I top up with about $15 once a year, that's how much I use my phone (for phone stuff).

 

[G7PSK]

I have a payg data sim in my phone but the last thing I want to be doing in a restraunt is playing with my phone and qr codes if they cannot have a printed menue I am out of there and will be going elsewhere. I turn my phone off in such places so as not get disturbed or disturb others.

[TimFox]

I agree.  The only time I have been presented with the QR code as mandatory (instead of voluntary), I was prepared to leave if the waiter couldn't find me a printed menu.  This was out of town, when I was traveling often for family reasons, and the restaurant had adopted this new policy during roughly 10 days since my previous visit there.
Someone pointed out that menus are an unlikely source of contagion:  I think this is true.  At the beginning of the plague, when little was known about it, it was thought that it was transmitted like other known diseases and there was an emphasis on surfaces.  Later, after actual research, the airborne droplet route became the preferred theory.  (Theory is not guesswork.)

[Zero999]

I agree.  The only time I have been presented with the QR code as mandatory (instead of voluntary), I was prepared to leave if the waiter couldn't find me a printed menu.  This was out of town, when I was traveling often for family reasons, and the restaurant had adopted this new policy during roughly 10 days since my previous visit there.
Someone pointed out that menus are an unlikely source of contagion:  I think this is true.  At the beginning of the plague, when little was known about it, it was thought that it was transmitted like other known diseases and there was an emphasis on surfaces.  Later, after actual research, the airborne droplet route became the preferred theory.  (Theory is not guesswork.)

I volunteer at Riding for the Disabled and there's still a lot of emphasis on cleaning things. It's funny how some people haven't moved with the science.

I remember when it first started, lots of people wore gloves in the supermarket, which I always thought was silly. Masks were also not recommended, for some reason. Then the government made a U-turn mandating masks, which some people disagreed with, but plenty of people still wear masks, even though they're no longer legally required.

[TimFox]

Early on, there was emphasis on how long the virus could stay viable on different surfaces, and there are other pathogens where surface transmission is important, so cleanliness in a medical or food facility is still important.
With more research, emphasis changed to ventilation and masking to reduce airborne transmission by droplets and aerosols.
Before the plague, I often attended a Shakesperean theater in Chicago with a thrust stage and strong stage lighting.  When an actor delivered a strong speech (with those powerful Shakesperean insults), the saliva droplets flying meters away from his mouth were clearly visible in the lights.  The theaters in Chicago intend to open sort-of normally again around October--I hope that the current surge of cases amongst the unvaccinated can be arrested.

[SiliconWizard]

I agree.  The only time I have been presented with the QR code as mandatory (instead of voluntary), I was prepared to leave if the waiter couldn't find me a printed menu.  This was out of town, when I was traveling often for family reasons, and the restaurant had adopted this new policy during roughly 10 days since my previous visit there.
Someone pointed out that menus are an unlikely source of contagion:  I think this is true.  At the beginning of the plague, when little was known about it, it was thought that it was transmitted like other known diseases and there was an emphasis on surfaces.  Later, after actual research, the airborne droplet route became the preferred theory.  (Theory is not guesswork.)

I volunteer at Riding for the Disabled and there's still a lot of emphasis on cleaning things. It's funny how some people haven't moved with the science.

I remember when it first started, lots of people wore gloves in the supermarket, which I always thought was silly. Masks were also not recommended, for some reason. Then the government made a U-turn mandating masks, which some people disagreed with, but plenty of people still wear masks, even though they're no longer legally required.

That's pretty much the same all around the world, at least in the western world.
All this coming from the WHO, governments and "specialists" constantly giving changing and contradictory directives, many of which not being based on real science.

[TimFox]

Note that "real science" often changes its mind based on additional evidence, while ideology remains fixed on its axioms.

[Zero999]

Early on, there was emphasis on how long the virus could stay viable on different surfaces, and there are other pathogens where surface transmission is important, so cleanliness in a medical or food facility is still important.
With more research, emphasis changed to ventilation and masking to reduce airborne transmission by droplets and aerosols.
Before the plague, I often attended a Shakesperean theater in Chicago with a thrust stage and strong stage lighting.  When an actor delivered a strong speech (with those powerful Shakesperean insults), the saliva droplets flying meters away from his mouth were clearly visible in the lights.  The theaters in Chicago intend to open sort-of normally again around October--I hope that the current surge of cases amongst the unvaccinated can be arrested.

I never really understood the rational for the emphasis on cleaning surfaces. Right from the beginning, it was evident it's a respiratory virus, like influenza, the common cold and the original SARS, which all spread through the air, rather than smallpox and polio, which transmit via surfaces. I can see why masks were controversial, because the virus is so small, but to me it makes sense to wear one, as the droplets the virus is attached to are relatively large. I think the authorities were worried about people buying up all the masks, leaving none for clinicians, hence why they advised against them

One important thing people need to do, if they wear a mask, make sure it's clean, otherwise it does increase the risk of other respiratory infections. Not enough emphasis has been placed on the need to regularly change the mask for a clean one. It's extremely important.

Unfortunately cases will quite likely increase in October, unless more people are vaccinated and even then, it will probably still happen, but it will be milder, in those who have had the jab.

[TimFox]

The authorities' original reason to recommend against masking was due to a serious shortage of "PPE", and the unmet need for medical workers:  there are numerous horror stories of unprotected medical workers early in the plague.
Clean masks are essential, as you say:  I have heard other horror stories of fungal infections in lungs due to unclean masks.  The difference between microscopic viruses and more macroscopic droplets was not appreciated by the public early in the plague.
Looking at the local statistics (State of Illinois), we reached a local minimum with a test-positive rate of only 0.6% in mid-June, about a week after a "re-opening" of the State and increased indoor activity after a substantial increase in immunization as the vaccine supply became available to larger groups.  Since then, it has increased monotonically:  today's (seven-day average) is just over 4%, the level last seen in April on its way down from a local peak of 4.5% shortly after Easter.  In most jurisdictions in the US, a huge fraction (roughly 95%) of Covid hospitalizations is of un-vaccinated patients.  This did not have to be this bad, but politics was entangled with the response to masks and vaccines.
Recent news indicates a shift in political attitudes in favor of vaccination, but it's not clear how far down into the population this attitude has gone.  One satirical suggestion is that the current administration should ban vaccination, and then the politically-inclined would demand it.

[Ranayna]

So however this thread has so quickly gone CoVID, i will try to steer it back on topic

I am sure, online only menu cards would have appeared sooner or later anyway:

You dont have to print menus, only small cards, therefore it's cheaper
You can change availability on the fly.
You can change prices on the fly.
You can even change prices depending on the user's device.
You can gather a lot of information about the user, especially if the user has to use an app

But call me old fashioned: A restaurant without the ability to order offline would be one i would not visit.

[TimFox]

I agree.  I don't mind when modern high-tech trendy solutions are added that are convenient for many people who wish to use them.
However, when spending my own money I prefer straightforward solutions that do not depend on my purchasing or carrying expensive equipment with me.
The reason I posted the original article is that I think most people don't realize the possibilities of what seems like a simple document access through a smart phone.

[Zero999]

A lot of the advantages of not having paper menus can be accomplished, without phones and the Internet. The menu can be displayed on screens around the restaurant, as has been the case in fast food places for a long time. Heck, I even remember pubs often used to write the menu on a blackboard and still often do that for one day specials, which aren't on the printed menus.

[SiliconWizard]

But call me old fashioned: A restaurant without the ability to order offline would be one i would not visit.

Well, one of the points of going to a restaurant is human interaction. It's not just about the food. Otherwise you just order the same food and eat at home or anywhere you like.
So it's not just about being old fashioned: it's about changing restaurants into automated canteens. Whether you find this progress or not is up to you.

[TimFox]

An important point about the modern QR-code apps is that they are used to place the order and pay the bill, not just to read the menu.  (Disintermediation?)
Old-fashioned posted menus are great, so long as they are readable, especially for places that have daily specials or changing menus.  Well-designed screens are a suitable modern equivalent to slates.
When I was a lad, New York City had the Horn and Hardart "Automats" for cafeteria-style fast-food dining, where the plated items were behind small glass doors activated (vertically) by dropping coins into the slot (back when coins could still buy food in the US).  Behind the doors were the cooks who prepared the food and loaded the little chambers.  One comedian referred to a deceased friend, who didn't realize you were supposed to remove the food before eating, and suffered a broken neck when the door fell down.   The fictional composer PDQ Bach wrote a concerto for horn and hardart.  But I digress...

[tszaboo]

You can even change prices depending on the user's device.
You can gather a lot of information about the user, especially if the user has to use an app

Oh, I like that. So they could increase the price based on the purchase power of the user.
Kinda like, when you asked for a menu in a foreign language, the prices printed on it are inflated. Or the exchange rate is 10% worse. And now we can all do that digitally. You can outsource all these chores to a firm, specializing in exploiting people for their money, using big data and borderline illegal practices.

[SiliconWizard]

You can even change prices depending on the user's device.
You can gather a lot of information about the user, especially if the user has to use an app

Oh, I like that. So they could increase the price based on the purchase power of the user.

They could. Of course, said app could also keep notifying you with offers and menus you'd be supposed to enjoy based on their algorithms.
Restaurants could also get a commission for giving access to their customers' data.

Over time, the system could also send your "eating profile" to your health insurance company. Just in case. Possibilities are endless.

[tszaboo]

You can even change prices depending on the user's device.
You can gather a lot of information about the user, especially if the user has to use an app

Oh, I like that. So they could increase the price based on the purchase power of the user.

They could. Of course, said app could also keep notifying you with offers and menus you'd be supposed to enjoy based on their algorithms.
Restaurants could also get a commission for giving access to their customers' data.

Over time, the system could also send your "eating profile" to your health insurance company. Just in case. Possibilities are endless.

Or even better, start publicly shame you because you don't eat vegan. I mean how dare you.

Imagine what you can do with someone's bar tab. "Johnny, 11 beers and Vodka every Friday? Johnny you have a problem, and we cannot take you as a liability. We have to let you go."