I don’t see anyone wishing terminal doom on any organizations.

As an industry we should want to operate safely for employees and visitors. Back when H1N1 was going around I was a ticket agent / conductor and there were county laws / guidelines issues about having hand sanitizer available - we installed them on each coach, had them on the platform and at the gift shops and by the ticket sales windows.

I have never heard a quantification of “safely” as produced by various restrictions. Generally, the safety measures are said to increase safety; but by how much? None of the precautions are claimed to be infallible. So, what is the definition of “operating safely”? In that context, safely would mean totally safe.

I must conclude that no matter how much protection you use, being inside of any space that contains Covid is less safe than being in a space that contains none.

Recently I have heard a CDC public service announcement that, in part, says this:

“Watch your distance from people you don’t know. And it’s risky to be indoors with them too; no matter how far you are.”

That must mean that is it risky to be around people you don’t know when outdoors if you are closer than 6 ft., but not risky if you are spaced 6t. or more.

But when inside, and around people you don’t know, it is risky no matter how far apart you are. But assuming indoor distancing makes a difference, there must be a scale of riskiness that applies, depending on how far the distancing is. It would quantify distancing where 6ft. is safer than 5 ft., but 7 ft. is safer than 6 ft., etc. If there is risk no matter how far the distance is, why is 6 ft. chosen?

I have noticed that in some of the broadcasts of the PSA, they omit the phrase, “no matter how far you are” with no other changes to the message. But they still run both versions.

Ron, my biggest frustration throughout all of this is how everyone is deciding what is safe and what is not. If I knew the actual risks I would be getting out and about more, but since I don’t know any data I’m choosing to stay safe.

That being said, if a railroad museum is going to open, they should be doing everything they can to provide a safe environment for their guests and employees.

But:
What if doing "everything they can" (however we want to define that--dipping the entire train and place in 70%+ alcohol?) is not judged to be "enough" by:

1) "Powers That Be" with enforcement authority, i.e. the ability to not only lock your doors but assess financial sanctions;
2) More importantly, your potential riders/patrons?

As I've long said, you can "maybe" yourself into never arising from bed again.

Then you're f***ed. So you better be doing a good faith best effort to comply.

Sometimes we have to do things because we live in a society with other people, and sometimes other people get to tell you what to do if you want to continue being part of that society. Get over it.

I would say that “safe” is not either/or, but rather a continuum that is unknown by anybody including the experts. So all we have to go by are the mandates of the States to provide the minimum precautions.

Beyond that, every business is free to exceed those requirements. They can change their distancing to 10 ft. instead of 6 ft. They can require double masks. They can establish mask specifications and enforce them. They can hire 4 people to continuously wash all surfaces that are touchable. They can enforce hand washing with a schedule and specification for the procedure. For maximum possible safety, they can close their business until the pandemic is declared over.

Short of that closing, I think it is fair to say that everyone could always do more, and so by definition, nobody is doing enough. And the more we do, the more it suppresses our businesses. The larger point is that this is not a matter of doing enough because we don’t know what enough is. And there is a real price to be paid for doing more than enough. So it is not hard to see why there is disagreement over these measures when they are mandated.

Well if it’s #1 you don’t have a choice. If the powers that be say you have to close than you have to close.

#2 - that’s the customers decision. I didn’t ride any trains in 2020, something unheard of for myself but it’s what I feel is the safest decision.

And thus the fundamental problem at the heart of this discussion:

"Safe" may not be "either/or" (and the very government we're supposed to trust keeps "moving the goalposts" because of that), but the (assumed) powers of the government and their dictates (or, in many cases nationwide, "diktats") are most assuredly "either/or."

The targets keep moving as the virus evolves more, the evolving information is filtered through a succession of nonscientific individuals before being publicized, and the actual scientific method is one of constant evolution so your weapon isn't only tracking a randomly moving target but it's being aimed by a committee of people with different targets in mind, while being redesigned and reassembled by a team of engineers who use different measuring devices. That's how these situations happen. Even if there wasn't a pandemic a visitor could be bitten by a wasp and die of it, one visitor's kid could shove another's off the platform and break his leg, the roof could collapse, a sinkhole could open up, meteorites fall....... the best we can do is make the best choices we can based on the best information we have available right now and take reasonable and publicly recommended steps to reduce the risk to the extent reasonable assuming we chose to open at all. Those pesky meteorites don't seem so bad now, do they?

The dinosaurs beg to differ..............

Nope. They didn't take an precautions and so are extinct.... leaving only their successors, the chickens, to carry on.

My take:

I googled: “marketing to gain customers during covid”

That brings up many sites offering advice, although very little seems specific enough to act on. Most of it is platitudes and buzzwords. A common theme is that businesses should increase empathy with the customers.

Another common theme is that the pandemic will usher in a “new normal,” and marketing will have to adjust to that.

One common theme that I expect is a “New Frugality.” This is being driven by the austerity element of the pandemic experience which is teaching people that they can do with less. Also, it seems that an economic downturn is setting in almost as a delayed response which would be a natural effect of a trend with such great inertia as a pandemic and national economic shutdown. So in addition to learning that they can do with less; there will be the impetus to save money as the recession makes itself felt.

Another question raised in these references is whether marketing should be increased to compensate for the impact of the pandemic, or decreased in order to save scarce resources during the pandemic.

In my area, retail stores are down to maybe only 10-20% of normal pre-pandemic customer counts. It is not uncommon for me to be the only customer in a store. Some of these businesses routinely advertise on the radio, but the only covid related ads are pleading with people to buy local. I assume this is related to people shopping online because they fear going into stores during the pandemic.