Hey, there! Log in / Register

Not many Chelsea residents use quarantine hotel so far, but city says it's worth the cost

The Chelsea Record reports, says Lynn and Somerville will soon start using the Revere Quality Inn that Chelsea and Revere rented out for Covid-19-positive residents who need a place to stay and who don't want to infect their families or neighbors.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:

Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

As of Tuesday, there were 37 people there with 100 rooms available. Only 18 of them were Chelsea residents. Meanwhile, the costs of the facility have already eclipsed $1 million for operations through the month of May.

$1 million / 37 people = $27,000 per person

up
Voting closed 16

You want to offer them a room?

If each one would have infected several others who then infected several others ... and even one person died, that's still a bargain.

Remember: these are the people who are working in/living with people working in nursing homes, food prep and handling facilities, etc. You can't just count one side of the ledger.

up
Voting closed 18

Why is it costing $1M? That's $300/night including for rooms which aren't being used.

It's reasonable for towns to spend big money for safety but it's not reasonable for private companies to use this as huge windfall.

up
Voting closed 23

Spending big money is seldom reasonable. Anyone who has ever had to make and spend their own money should be deeply offended at both sides for engaging in a $27,000pp hotel transaction.

The unreasonable factor in your scenario is a system where someone from another country is afraid they'll get booted out of here for being here illegally, which stops them from giving their city officials a holler about staying in the hotel. Seriously, 18 people have taken advantage of the offer? That's like four houses on my street worth of people for the entire city of Chelsea.

Again, what the (expletive) did John Lennon say? He's a scumbag for hitting Yoko, but he nailed it with "Imagine there's no countries." A person from somewhere dangerous coming somewhere safer wasn't a problem until someone drew a bunch of lines on the map.

They come, they work, they don't force their ways on me. Who's aggrieved?

up
Voting closed 5

You can't evaluate whether something is "too expensive" unless you also evaluate what happens if you don't spend the money.

up
Voting closed 10

The point is the people who DIDN'T GET SICK, because the contagious were in the hotel. You don't quibble about the cost of the plague tent, you just separate the sick.

BTW, I have some bad news for you about how much the tax payers have paid Trump for having the secret service stay in his bedbug infested hotels.

up
Voting closed 2

Due to colossal failures at the federal level, towns and MA is spending boatloads on the emergency now meanwhile entire departments are being laid off. For some towns, this will lead to drastic spending cuts for years (or decades) to come. This is going to cripple basic services and eliminate all discretionary spending that makes the cities good places to live.

Not debating the need to spend money right now, just sad about the future. With better testing and preparation in January and February, many of these hits could have been avoided.

up
Voting closed 16

n/t

up
Voting closed 13

How many people are using the rooms MassArt, BU, and other schools have made available?

up
Voting closed 13

Despite my negative subject line, I do hope they figure out a more efficient and effective execution. At the current rate, it is just costing a lot of money for a very tiny dent in the spread because it is only stopping 37 people. But when we have tens of thousands of cases - over 2,000 in Chelsea alone. Then it is essentially nothing.

I don't really know a solution. Well, technically I think I know a solution. Both China sent whole groups of people to isolate - by force. But that's not a solution that is acceptable here (and I'm not saying we should, just saying what is effective). But how to get people to isolate rather than infect other people in their households? Done voluntarily? And at a scale it is actually effective? I don't know.

Though I do say, at the cost being spent for the people who signed up so far. It sounds more efficient to just straight up give vouchers to the volunteers directly, choose a hotel they want, and let them camp there with room service. It may even be more effective in getting people to volunteer as the offer would mean free room in the nicest hotels in Boston. Still massively inefficient, but anything more than 37 people would imply it is more effective.

up
Voting closed 2