Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[MickeyLuv'r]

Agreed, the point isn’t that people can only be in one group it’s to point out that for some people on both extremes the safety protocols don’t matter. For the rest of the people there is some balance of people who are willing to go or not go based on the particular safety protocols in place. 100% agreed there. You could blow it out into 100s or maybe 1000s of distinct groups based on each type of safety measure, but in the interest of time I summarized into 4 broad categories. It wasn’t my intent to say everyone has to pick one of those 4.

The statement was made by another poster and agreed by others that if Disney removed safety protocols and specifically the mask one that the parks would be more crowded than with safety protocols in place and that the only reason WDW isn’t back to pretty much normal business is because of artificial restrictions. I don’t agree with that. I see no evidence that that would be the case. I posted one of the polls done, there were others posted further back in the thread that all showed that the people surveyed are more likely to go with safety protocols than without. I haven‘t seen any links to polls or surveys conducted that showed the opposite. Disney’s own policies and their move toward stricter enforcement tells me they believe the safety protocols are a positive not a negative.

I think your list left off a significant chunk of the population who would consider going to WDW, if - forgive my wording - but more or less go to WDW if our country had a better lock on our overall case numbers/reduced politicization/anger.

First, I'm inclined to think if our case numbers were more like say, New Zealand's, more folks would weigh the risk/value differently.

Second, more folks would visit WDW if it was les of a hassle. I put some blame on WDW not for safety restrictions, but rather their long history of byzantine booking/cancelation policies. WDW trips have to be booked 6months out, fully paid at 45, and are partly non-refundable if cancelled at the last minute. What a hassle!

Just look at WDW's absurd tickets. There are over 100 variations. Ugh, who wants to spend an hour figuring out what ticket to buy? And oh, tickets are date specific and NON-refundable. Ugh! What a hassle! Have you tried simply calling WDW lately? What a hassle!

Suppose a member of your family gets sick a few days before you're supposed to leave? What then?

Most folks I know would enjoy a stress-free afternoon out of the house, but they want hassle-free last minute outings. Big vacation commitments only happen when people feel a sense of stability: safety, health, and financial.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think your list left off a significant chunk of the population who would consider going to WDW, if - forgive my wording - but more or less go to WDW if our country had a better lock on our overall case numbers/reduced politicization/anger.

First, I'm inclined to think if our case numbers were more like say, New Zealand's, more folks would weigh the risk/value differently.

Second, more folks would visit WDW if it was les of a hassle. I put some blame on WDW not for safety restrictions, but rather their long history of byzantine booking/cancelation policies. WDW trips have to be booked 6months out, fully paid at 45, and are partly non-refundable if cancelled at the last minute. What a hassle!

Just look at WDW's absurd tickets. There are over 100 variations. Ugh, who wants to spend an hour figuring out what ticket to buy? And oh, tickets are date specific and NON-refundable. Ugh! What a hassle! Have you tried simply calling WDW lately? What a hassle!

Suppose a member of your family gets sick a few days before you're supposed to leave? What then?

Most folks I know would enjoy a stress-free afternoon out of the house, but they want hassle-free last minute outings. Big vacation commitments only happen when people feel a sense of stability: safety, health, and financial.

All good points. Again, part of the reason I disagree with the other poster who thinks WDW would be filled to capacity if they just removed the safety protocols. I don’t think it’s that simple or even that overall that would help.

 

[The Mom]

@The Mom

Since this thread now contains a "Political" designation, do the rules against using laughing emojis on posts that aren't meant to be humorous apply here the same way they do in the Politics and Social Issues Forum?

No, that's a Politics Forum rule. But it might still influence my "benefit of the doubt" judgements.

 

[Kevin_W]

I'm in MA, and only ~700 students chose virtual over hybrid (the only two options) out of more than 7,000 students in our district.

In my daughter's middle school, 37% chose virtual over hybrid.

 

[The Mom]

The first message was masks don't work and please don't go buy them since the healthcare workers needed them. Then came well just any old mask is good (hell a t-shirt over your nose & mouth is fine) and may help. Then masks are the best thing since sliced bread. Then well some masks work and some are worse than wearing nothing. So the information was all over the map in the first few months. So it has been wishy washy.

You have been asked to present an epidemiological source for this statement.

Yes, in the beginning the general population was told that only those in direct contact with infected patients care masks. That was when the outbreaks were pretty much confined to those in nursing homes in the Northwest, and people being transferred off of cruise ships. If people started rushing out to purchase masks there would not be enough for those giving direct care. The average person had little to no chance of exposure. That changed as the virus spread.

But AFAIK no one in medicine said that they did not work. The only mask that was rated as worse than nothing were fleece masks, which are face warmers, not real masks. And different materials and styles will make a difference. I had to try various masks until I found the ones that fit me best and were comfortable to wear.

New Study Highlights New Evidence That Masks Prevent Coronavirus Spread

A new study sheds light on what masks work better at preventing the spread of respiratory droplets.

health.clevelandclinic.org

Please note that even the question of whether the fleece mask is worse than nothing has been raised in this article- many media outlets have retracted the original statement as even the Duke researchers did not agree on exactly what conclusion could be drawn.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

All good points. Again, part of the reason I disagree with the other poster who thinks WDW would be filled to capacity if they just removed the safety protocols. I don’t think it’s that simple or even that overall that would help.

Agreed. Mostly, this thread jumped the shark a long time ago. (I mostly stopped reading a while back.)

I find it a bit odd to characterize everyone who maybe isn't going to WDW into just one or two reasons, unless you want to lump everyone's concerns under an umbrella called "uncertainty."

The information is right on these boards, people trying to plan future WDW visits have more questions than answers. There's just much we don't know right now.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

You have been asked to present an epidemiological source for this statement.

Yes, in the beginning the general population was told that only those in direct contact with infected patients care masks. That was when the outbreaks were pretty much confined to those in nursing homes in the Northwest, and people being transferred off of cruise ships. If people started rushing out to purchase masks there would not be enough for those giving direct care. The average person had little to no chance of exposure. That changed as the virus spread.

But AFAIK no one in medicine said that they did not work. The only mask that was rated as worse than nothing were fleece masks, which are face warmers, not real masks.

New Study Highlights New Evidence That Masks Prevent Coronavirus Spread

A new study sheds light on what masks work better at preventing the spread of respiratory droplets.

health.clevelandclinic.org

Please note that even the question of whether the fleece mask is worse than nothing has been raised in this article- many outlets have retracted the original statement as even the Duke researchers did not agree on exactly what conclusion could be drawn.

Please post this again... in all capital letters please. Thanks.

 

[JoeCamel]

Please post this again... in all capital letters please. Thanks.

Nah, The Mom is an intelligent lady - she does not shout to make her point.

 

[LastoneOn]

I wonder if they were asked to leave property?
View attachment 508422

They should lose their jobs. /sarc

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Nah, The Mom is an intelligent lady - she does not shout to make her point.

Funny.. I just now after reading your post realized that it would be shouting. I actually meant if people saw it like that they may actually stop and read it.

 

[GoofGoof]

Agreed. Mostly, this thread jumped the shark a long time ago. (I mostly stopped reading a while back.)

I find it a bit odd to characterize everyone who maybe isn't going to WDW into just one or two reasons, unless you want to lump everyone's concerns under an umbrella called "uncertainty."

The information is right on these boards, people trying to visit WDW have more questions than answers.

My contention has always been that the uncertainty around the worldwide pandemic in general is a major factor on people avoiding traveling far away, especially on a plane. We saw this summer that local travel was through the roof but airfare was way down. I don’t think a lot of people would want to get involved with planning an expensive and complicated trip like WDW with so much uncertainty. Financial uncertainties as well as public health ones. Even people who didn’t lose their job may still not want to commit too much money on a vacation in the current environment. I think a lot of people who typically might visit WDW in normal times are avoiding it now due to a lot of different reasons, some related to safety protocols and a lot not directly related. I don’t think a large number would come back if they just dropped safety protocols.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

In my daughter's middle school, 37% chose virtual over hybrid.

I could see that.

Though virtual isn't ideal, at least for the time being, it offers some consistency.

It is my observation that most people, in general, like consistency. How many parents, even at WDW, opt to keep their children to near normal bed times?

I'm sure it depends how well each school system and region integrated tech before the pandemic, how well they were able to implement their online, hybrid, and in-person options. We don't all even have access to quality internet, and every school system has a different budget, and different leadership.

One district might see in-person as more consistent, while another sees online as more consistent. or hybrid offering the most promise.

 

[Chi84]

You have been asked to present an epidemiological source for this statement.

Yes, in the beginning the general population was told that only those in direct contact with infected patients care masks. That was when the outbreaks were pretty much confined to those in nursing homes in the Northwest, and people being transferred off of cruise ships. If people started rushing out to purchase masks there would not be enough for those giving direct care. The average person had little to no chance of exposure. That changed as the virus spread.

But AFAIK no one in medicine said that they did not work. The only mask that was rated as worse than nothing were fleece masks, which are face warmers, not real masks. And different materials and styles will make a difference. I had to try various masks until I found the ones that fit me best and were comfortable to wear.

New Study Highlights New Evidence That Masks Prevent Coronavirus Spread

A new study sheds light on what masks work better at preventing the spread of respiratory droplets.

health.clevelandclinic.org

Please note that even the question of whether the fleece mask is worse than nothing has been raised in this article- many media outlets have retracted the original statement as even the Duke researchers did not agree on exactly what conclusion could be drawn.

The only "cons" I've seen regarding face masks were based on issues like how they were being worn, whether they would give people a false sense of security, possible self-contamination, etc. - not based on the particular qualities of any mask. The CDC site still lists pros and cons of mask-wearing, but these have nothing to do with the material or type of mask. They are more in the nature of making people aware of how to best use them in conjunction with other COVID precautions. In the earliest days, we were told pretty much anything was better than nothing. Then when some jokers started wearing mesh masks or masks composed of just the strings, more was said about having two layers, ear loops, and other features.

 

[Tink242424]

I, for one, hope that Americans have the common sense to be upset when we hit 2000 deaths a day, and its going to be soon.

Apparently 1000 deaths a day from this thing is just fine.

As humans there is only so much that we can tolerate before our brains are desensitized. I know I am fatigued by all of this as well as a number of my friends and family. So I don't expect that we are any more upset about 2000 deaths a day then 1000 and it isn't a matter of saying it is fine. It is a survival mechanism that kicks in.

 

[Tink242424]

The times of people in this country making a sacrifice for the better good is long gone. Most people have no idea what our grandparents and their parents sacrificed through wars.. recessions.. pandemics.. for the good of all. It’s a “ I should be able to go out and not wear a mask if I want” attitude now. The constitution was in place back then also but people knew what they needed to do to make things better for all. Was their discussion on things that might not be constitutional? Of course, there are many examples of it but in the end, for almost every problem, they all worked together and solved it.
Funny thing is, the scientists aren’t even asking for a big sacrifice here. Wear masks and socially distance? Our forefathers would have laughed at that even being called a sacrifice. But here we are. We are going to need a good 20 years I think and a huge person/persons in office to get us back on track.

I completely disagree. The difference in the past was the way the information was communicated to the public. All the messages were about we are all in this together and how people could contribute to the cause. The media has failed to do this and is not the same media we had for WWI and WWII or the great depression. I said quite a few pages ago that if we gave people the truth and encouraged them to wear masks and protect high risk people most would do it without question. The division that the media wants to promote is not helpful and contributes to why people go against what is being promoted.

I still believe that as Americans we can come together and support. We don't however like when mandates that step on our individual liberties are enacted that may or may not be lawful. This could have been handled ten times better with messaging.

The old saying still stands "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar"

 

[ImperfectPixie]

The only "cons" I've seen regarding face masks were based on issues like how they were being worn, whether they would give people a false sense of security, possible self-contamination, etc. - not based on the particular qualities of any mask. The CDC site still lists pros and cons of mask-wearing, but these have nothing to do with the material or type of mask. They are more in the nature of making people aware of how to best use them in conjunction with other COVID precautions. In the earliest days, we were told pretty much anything was better than nothing. Then when some jokers started wearing mesh masks or masks composed of just the strings, more was said about having two layers, ear loops, and other features.

I saw some etsy sellers selling lace and tulle masks...they should be ashamed of themselves for helping people avoid wearing a proper mask when it's required.

 

[MisterPenguin]

 

[Tink242424]

Not at all. I am suggesting things are done for the survival of the many. If that means new laws or temporary restrictions then so be it.

Don't forget this is a slippery slope. I'm all for stopping the pandemic but we don't need new laws or to give our government the right to infringe on our liberties. Treating people like adults and using positive reinforcement would get a lot more people on board.

I truly fear what is happening to the citizens of the US and how much freedom people are willing to give up. One day we may end up in a world that we aren't free at all.

To be VERY CLEAR I'm NOT saying that we should not have people wear masks, social distance or any of the other measures that we are doing. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be mandated by the government.

 

[easyrowrdw]

The only "cons" I've seen regarding face masks were based on issues like how they were being worn, whether they would give people a false sense of security, possible self-contamination, etc. - not based on the particular qualities of any mask. The CDC site still lists pros and cons of mask-wearing, but these have nothing to do with the material or type of mask. They are more in the nature of making people aware of how to best use them in conjunction with other COVID precautions. In the earliest days, we were told pretty much anything was better than nothing. Then when some jokers started wearing mesh masks or masks composed of just the strings, more was said about having two layers, ear loops, and other features.

There was a study out of Duke that indicated gaiters and bandanas allowed droplets to spread farther than wearing no face covering at all. Evidently larger droplets were broken up as they passed through the coverings so they were transmitted a greater distance. It seems that subsequent studies have found other conditions where that was not the case. I don't think there are any questions about the effectiveness of "normal" masks.

 

[Tink242424]

the question that no one can seem to get past here (because of politics) is:

what laws/temporary restrictions ACTUALLY contribute to the greater good? that's the problem. and people don't want to face it, because the case made by some politicians is masked in virtue: just wear this, just stay home longer, just keep your distance, we're all in this together. but public health in general occurs on a continuum; it's a multi-faceted, highly nuanced balancing act. myopic policies undermine even the best of intentions.

COVID restrictions ask the bulk of the working class to wear it on the chin for the upper and upper middle classes. i know this because people that make $15 an hour were asked to keep stocking grocery shelves for eight hours a day. i know this because transit employees kept driving the buses and running the trains. and all these new "sanitizing" policies were done by...regular ol' cleaning people. "essential" work is a myth created by policymakers.

then there's people that are in their homes longer that aren't in safe relationships with their spouse/partner. kids that are being abused by their caregivers and having it go unnoticed because they're not in school. there are recovering addicts that couldn't attend meetings, and succumbed to overdoses. as did many suffering with mental health succumbed to suicide. millions of children in the US rely on public schools for their hot meals. in the developing world, disrupted supply chains will cause mass catatrophy. in may, UNICEF projected 1.2 million deaths to children in the next six months due to lockdowns (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-...ckdown-could-kill-covid-19-model-predicts-12/).

not to mention mass unemployement (and the loss of employer-sponsored healthcare for many americans...yes, i support medicare for all, but it's just a fairly tale for now). crippling debt that a $1,200 stimulus check isn't going to fix. oh, and i didn't even get to the fact that homes is where most of the transmission of COVID happens and by forcing healthy people in the same house as sick people, you're exacerbating the problem.

so this is what at least some people are driving at. it's easy to say, "just SACRIFICE, people! for the GREATER GOOD! FOR THE BENEFIT OF MANY!" not working? "SACRIFICE MORE. WHY ARE YOU SELFISH?!?!" but the reason why mass quarantine and lockdown strategies were not considered viable by the WHO, CDC, nor any other public agency around the world prior to 2020 was that everyone knew there would be mass unintended consequences.

and i think we can spare the fact that this is simply a 'MURICA problem. thanks to globalization, we're all interconnected. and we're social animals with more basic needs that foraged nuts in the middle of the wilderness.

Yes!! My sister works in an assisted living facility and the residents aren't even allowed out of their rooms let alone are able to see their family. These residents have declined physically and mentally. This is just 1 consequence of the pandemic and the policies that cause harm.

It is very easy for me as I am able to work completely remotely and see my family as well. But I know there are a lot of people struggling and not being with friends and family for a year or more is just not feasible for many people. It isn't being selfish.