It's the best there is

Every editor, no matter how open-minded, has a peeve or two that never escapes

unranted-about. This is one of mine, and since it's now showed up in my local paper twice this week (today, above, and Tuesday, at right), you get to share it too.

Granted, Catch-22 is some catch -- by some accounts, the best there is. But it is not the problem facing the restaurants and bars (not "eateries," or you're getting into multiple peeve territory). Here's a summary from today's piece, which, aside from the kicker in the print edition, doesn't even mention Catch-22:

Now as they slowly reopen, they're faced with the new reality of keeping their customers and employees safe, while trying to be profitable.

Those are some serious issues, compounded by more challenges for the employees: who do you call out for breaking the rules and when, and with what expectation of support? If an officer walks in and says "gimme eat," do you give him eat or tell him to put on a goddamn mask and ask politely? But "Catch-22" is not a fancy word for a problem with no easy or pleasant answers; it's a problem that eats its own tail. Let's say the state Health Department has issued an order saying that employees who have an irrational fear of catching the coronavirus don't have to work. All they have to do is ask for paid time off. But if they ask for paid time off, they must have a rational fear of the coronavirus, so they're not eligible. That's a catch-22.

The source quoted in Tuesday's story gets it literally right: "It's a no-win for everyone." Call it that, or a lose-lose. It stands out better when it isn't dressed up as something it's not.