Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Seriously though, 2 days is not going to save any business if this goes longer then anyone expects it. But the possible number of new infections could tilt it to a even longer shutdown. Do it now and let’s get started.


I think there’s a lot of reasons why a delay would be in the best interest. This country is in a terrible spot right now. Every day my entire office watches the latest update from our governor...Every day we hold our breath until he announces what his latest decision on what businesses should close.
The last couple days I have gone back and forth on what I think the best possible decision would be. To shut us all down for 2-3 weeks and see what happens, allow us to stay home with our families.. or remain open and see what happens.
We all think that if this gets worse then the order will come eventually, so do it now or prolong? The thing is, what if it’s done now and then closure extend into 6-8 weeks? That’s when a serious issue will arise.

So, maybe staying open, following the rules on social distancing, still generating profits and paychecks, will slow the spread without creating more havoc than what already exists from the businesses that are currently shut down.


We’ll see which course of action was the best to take.. right now we just don’t know.
 

DisneyDebRob

Well-Known Member
Just saw that all Florida restaurants will be closed, take out only until May 8? Just read it, linking won’t work. Sorry if this was posted already.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
I think there’s a lot of reasons why a delay would be in the best interest. This country is in a terrible spot right now. Every day my entire office watched the latest update from our governor...Every day we hold our breath until he announces what his latest decision on what businesses should close.
The last couple days I have gone back and forth on what I think the best possible decision would be. To shut us all down for 2-3 weeks and see what happens, allow us to stay home with our families.. or remain open and see what happens.
We all think that if this gets worse then the order will come eventually, so do it now or prolong? The thing is, what if it’s done now and then closure extend into 6-8 weeks? That’s when a serious issue will arise.

So, maybe staying open, following the rules on social distancing, still generating profits and paychecks, will slow the spread without creating more havoc than what already exists from the businesses that are currently shut down.


We’ll see which course of action was the best to take.. right now we just don’t know.
if you wait a few days, it is much more likely that it's going to be a six to eight week closure than if you start now. The more you let the virus spread, the worse it will get and the harder it will be to shut down. We should just shut down everything right now in order to minimize disruption. Because waiting leads to more infections, and more infections will lead to a longer period before a shelter in place will have an effect.
 

fradz

Well-Known Member
I haven't read the 426 pages in here, I will just drop my perspective as someone who has the virus (for 10days now)

I'm 28, generally live a healthy life, am in good shape and exercise from time to time. I have an asthma history, and have smoked in the past.
The worst part is really the pain in the lungs, and finding yourself out of breath for no apparent reason. If you have questions, feel free to ask.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
if you wait a few days, it is much more likely that it's going to be a six to eight week closure than if you start now. The more you let the virus spread, the worse it will get and the harder it will be to shut down. We should just shut down everything right now in order to minimize disruption. Because waiting leads to more infections, and more infections will lead to a longer period before a shelter in place will have an effect.

Maybe, maybe not. So many people are already bunkered down. The company I work for has given all employees the option to immediately take PTO or non-PTO if they either can’t work, don’t want to work, or are high risk.. If you look sick or have a fever you can not come to work for 2 weeks, period. No one can stand or sit in a group. Must be 6 ft unless impossible, sanitizing the office hourly, ordering in every day (this is something awesome that we are doing to help out local restaurants) people eating at their own desks or offices.


So, if all remaining in-office companies are doing this, then it may work, without such a huge loss in profits.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
Maybe, maybe not. So many people are already bunkered down. The company I work for has given all employees the option to immediately take PTO or non-PTO if they either can’t work, don’t want to work, or are high risk.. If you look sick or have a fever you can not come to work for 2 weeks, period. No one can stand or sit in a group. Must be 6 ft unless impossible, sanitizing the office hourly, ordering in every day, people eating at their own desks or offices.


So, if all remaining in-office companies are doing this, then it may work, without such a huge loss in profits.
The problem is, not all in office companies are doing this. A friend of mine is being forced to go in by his boss even though he could very easily work from home. You also see reports of college students going and partying in large groups. all we know is that the countries that lock down immediately have had less of an issue and the countries that have not have had chaos.
 

thomas998

Well-Known Member
Essential businesses like grocery, convenience, pharmacy and gas stations are staying open. Nobody’s supply is being impacted.
But what you find to be a necessity isn't just confined to those stores... for others what they need may require a different store, or the stores you are going to have remain open may need things so they can remain open. Providing advanced notice of a shut down is the proper thing to do, whether someone going to that store you think should have been shut down doesn't impact you, at worst the person think is an idiot for going their gets sick... but you didn't go there so you didn't get sick. Why do you care so much about what someone else does? The simple fact is the virus has already gotten past the point of containment. It is not a matter of whether you will become infected but rather when will you become infected. I expect the government already knows we are all going to get infected sooner or later and is just trying to slow the spread because that's all they can hope for now... a slower rather than faster infection of everyone. If the virus was a one off where you couldn't be reinfected after having it, then the better question might be whether you should go out and try to get infect now when their are still plenty of hospital beds available or risk waiting and hoping that they aren't all full when you get infected.... but if its a virus that can reinfect you then getting infected too soon could result in your second infection happening when the hospitals are still full.
 

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
.
The last couple days I have gone back and forth on what I think the best possible decision would be. To shut us all down for 2-3 weeks and see what happens, allow us to stay home with our families.. or remain open and see what happens.
We all think that if this gets worse then the order will come eventually, so do it now or prolong? The thing is, what if it’s done now and then closure extend into 6-8 weeks? That’s when a serious issue will arise..

Over here, I assume your press / government has gone into detail about to too, the “shut down“ isn’t to contain or reduce people catching it. It’s too late for that. Many more will catch it. Limiting social contact, be it in restaurants, cinemas or at work, is to spread out the speed that the population will catch it so that the health service has a chance of coping with a steady and prolonged stream of cases as opposed to being inundated all at once.

Government thinking is 6-8 weeks and some dead is better than stay open for another month, then close when half a million were projected to die in the UK alone. Time may tell which way was right.
 

"El Gran Magnifico"

Bring Me A Shrubbery
Premium Member
Over here, I assume your press / government has gone into detail about to too, the “shut down“ isn’t to contain or reduce people catching it. It’s too late for that. Many more will catch it. Limiting social contact, be it in restaurants, cinemas or at work, is to spread out the speed that the population will catch it so that the health service has a chance of coping with a steady and prolonged stream of cases as opposed to being inundated all at once.

Government thinking is 6-8 weeks and some dead is better than stay open for another month, then close when half a million were projected to die in the UK alone. Time may tell which way was right.

Right. I think the figure I saw was 1 to 4. (Every one person that has it will infect 4 others). I think the shut down drops it to like 1.5 for every one. Or something like that. It can be controlled better in those circumstances.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
The problem is, not all in office companies are doing this. A friend of mine is being forced to go in by his boss even though he could very easily work from home. You also see reports of college students going and partying in large groups. all we know is that the countries that lock down immediately have had less of an issue and the countries that have not have had chaos.


Tell him to check what bills have passed in his state. I know Ohio has one going into action in April, where your employer must allow you to take time off for any reason related to COVID-19. Reasons can include- high risk, needing to care for family members, needing to care for children out of school, etc.
I’m not sure how many states have done this, but definitely look into it.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Right. I think the figure I saw was 1 to 4. (Every one person that has it will infect 4 others). I think the shut down drops it to like 1.5 for every one. Or something like that. It can be controlled better in those circumstances.
I’m not sure I believe these numbers, not if all aforementioned precautions are taken.
 

thomas998

Well-Known Member
Maybe, maybe not. So many people are already bunkered down. The company I work for has given all employees the option to immediately take PTO or non-PTO if they either can’t work, don’t want to work, or are high risk.. If you look sick or have a fever you can not come to work for 2 weeks, period. No one can stand or sit in a group. Must be 6 ft unless impossible, sanitizing the office hourly, ordering in every day (this is something awesome that we are doing to help out local restaurants) people eating at their own desks or offices.


So, if all remaining in-office companies are doing this, then it may work, without such a huge loss in profits.
There will be a huge impact to most every companies profits. The only difference will be that some companies will see the impact sooner, like the bars or restaurants, while others will see a delay because they are indirectly impacted... but even an insurance company that only sells car insurance will see an eventual impact as the people that lost their jobs will cut their insurance coverage when it comes down to food or car insurance. There will be huge consequences to ever business, I wish it weren't so but it will be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom