Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[MaryJaneP]

Behavior does NOT equal belief or values. Perhaps many on this thread believe in and value maximum freedom with minimal sacrifice. The three primary suggestions by WHO and CDC of universal mask wearing, social distancing, and proper hand washing seem to by some to be minimal sacrifices, while they are the hill upon which others want to die upon. Maybe if there was a chance to asked the ultimate victims who died, before their deaths, if they felt masks, distancing, and washing, were worth dying for. Hoping WDW returns to normal while being so rooted in beliefs may insure neither.

 

[LittleBuford]

@Tink242424, what did I say that you found so amusing?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I can’t disagree there. I think a consistent message would help a lot and I do believe most people want to do what’s right. It’s not like people are looking to go out and infect other people. There is a lot of conflicting info out there and the politicians peddling conspiracy theories and outright lies doesn‘t help either.

For example, what is the guideline for Thanksgiving get togethers? I have a friend that I talked to about the topic and they said they were still doing Thanksgiving with their whole family and didn’t think it was a big deal because the total number of people would be under 25 so they were within the guidelines for a group gathering. I don’t think it’s any less risk if 24 family members get together indoor with no masks vs 25 and I’ve heard some “experts” suggest not to get together at all but there hasn’t been a consistent message. I don’t believe everyone would follow all the recommendations but it would be a step in the right direction to at least make them and let people decide.

Hopefully after Wednesday - Friday (I hope...please dear sweet baby Jesus) that thanksgiving can be addressed on an official level.

That “it’s under 25” is completely wrong!! Thanksgiving is an extended family activity that many don’t often see...getting together as normal and then fighting malls and then returning home is a miniature superspreader potential at the absolute worst time possible.

No...no...no!!! Bad idea. It will happen next year...period.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Ok, and how many of them died? In any given year most of the world's population gets some sort of cold or illness and they recover. So if most of the population are recovering from COVID then what is the big deal? These are college kids who are in a group that it is rare for death or serious complications to occur.

This has been stated several times, but I guess here it goes again. When a disease has a high prevalence, the seemingly small-ish percentage of people who will suffer a severe outcome becomes increasingly large in raw numbers.

Let's give a conservative estimate of the fatality rate from COVID-19 (not even considering the extensive morbidity associated with the condition) at 1-3%. And now lets consider a situation in which we did nothing to prevent the spread of the disease, it became endemic, and affects virtually the entire population of the US (as chicken pox, measles, mumps and rubella did before vaccination). In this situation, with the US population of 331 million, anywhere from 3.31 to almost 10 million people would die in this country alone. That's 3-10 million EXCESS deaths, at a minimum, and there would probably be many more indirect deaths because this sheer number of sick individuals would cause the health care system to collapse. Even if only 10% of the population catches the disease, this would still result in an excess of 331,000 to 1 million deaths. We're well on our way to hitting the lower estimate already.

For comparison, the two most deadly wars for the US were WWII and the Civil War, with 291K and 218K combat deaths, respectively. And because people keep mentioning the flu, the most deadly year for influenza in recent years in the US killed about 16,000. For COVID-19 deaths, in less than a year, at 231K, we've long surpassed the Civil War body count, but we're closing in on our total in 3+ years of fighting in WWII.

 

[baymenxpac]

This has been stated several times, but I guess here it goes again. When a disease has a high prevalence, the seemingly small-ish percentage of people who will suffer a severe outcome becomes increasingly large in raw numbers.

Let's give a conservative estimate of the fatality rate from COVID-19 (not even considering the extensive morbidity associated with the condition) at 1-3%. And now lets consider a situation in which we did nothing to prevent the spread of the disease, it became endemic, and affects virtually the entire population of the US (as chicken pox, measles, mumps and rubella did before vaccination). In this situation, with the US population of 331 million, anywhere from 3.31 to almost 10 million people would die in this country alone. That's 3-10 million EXCESS deaths, at a minimum, and there would probably be many more indirect deaths because this sheer number of sick individuals would cause the health care system to collapse. Even if only 10% of the population catches the disease, this would still result in an excess of 331,000 to 1 million deaths. We're well on our way to hitting the lower estimate already.

For comparison, the two most deadly wars for the US were WWII and the Civil War, with 291K and 218K combat deaths, respectively. And because people keep mentioning the flu, the most deadly year for influenza in recent years in the US killed about 16,000. For COVID-19 deaths, in less than a year, at 231K, we've long surpassed the Civil War body count, but we're closing in on our total in 3+ years of fighting in WWII.

holy smokes this is arguably the worst and misinformed post i've ever read on here. and that's saying something.

 

[Heppenheimer]

I was supposed to check in to art of animation yesterday...and go to beach club villas for 5 days starting Wednesday...

My daughter always asked to stay at AoA and it never worked out prior...

So we’re home...and yet she’s surviving and so am I. Life didn’t end

Yup, we're not checking into the Wilderness Lodge next week, like we had longed planned. We'll enjoy ourselves locally instead.

We can't eat ice cream all the time, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy our meals otherwise.

 

[Tink242424]

How do you enforce keeping the people who choose to engage in high risk behaviors away from the at risk population? It sounds good as a theory but how does that actually work? So if I want to go to a party and not wear a mask I can but then I have to quit my job because I work with someone who is high risk? I can’t eat in a restaurant because my server is high risk and so is the guy at the next table? I can’t ride a bus or train because someone riding with me is high risk? I can’t go to WDW because there are both CMs and other guests in the high risk group? This would have to be an honor system where we would have to trust that people would do this, yet some of the people advocating for a plan like this are openly saying they think they should be allowed to do whatever they want, it’s their choice, so how do we trust they will avoid all contact with the high risk population? How would they even know who was high risk?

You don't have to enforce anything. You have public places & places of work with the same protocols we have now. You just can't mandate that everyone follow the protocols in their own homes or that they can't go somewhere higher risk (restaurants, theme parks, movie theaters, bars). It really isn't that crazy of an idea. You are just taking it that I'm saying no restrictions anywhere. I've already said several times that in public places go ahead and do social distancing, masking and whatever other protocols you need. At the same time allow all businesses to be open with safe modifications and let people choose. I'm not saying no safety protocols.

Then assuming the safety protocols work you won't have any issues. You can't force other people to be the same as you. Bottom line.

And to take it one step further I do think we need a public campaign to get everyone to work together. Help people understand that we should do our best for our neighbors. A good public campaign would help to get 99% of people on board. Instead we get a lot of finger pointing and people telling others they are selfish. That is just causing people to rebel. That is not the messaging we need.

 

[marni1971]

One person laughed at this comment. That’s an example of why the world is still in such a mess.

 

[DisneyTransport]

Hopefully after Wednesday - Friday (I hope...please dear sweet baby Jesus) that thanksgiving can be addressed on an official level.

That “it’s under 25” is completely wrong!! Thanksgiving is an extended family activity that many don’t often see...getting together as normal and then fighting malls and then returning home is a miniature superspreader potential at the absolute worst time possible.

No...no...no!!! Bad idea. It will happen next year...period.

hmmm COVID or 50% off flat screen TV.... that's a tough call!

just kidding, the half priced TV is definitely worth it! /s

But, back to seriousness, there is social pressure here. Family members getting mad, missing what could be your last time you see a loved one in person.... it's tough. My family is leaning towards a safer get together (no eating) then going back to their respected places to eat within the nuclear family. But I can see how some people would still want to have a large get together... not the choice I would make though

 

[Tink242424]

Which is why I said everything non-essential needs to close.

No, for a lockdown to work EVERYTHING essential or non-essential needs to close. You don't leave to go to the hospital, you don't leave for food, you don't leave for exercise. You leave for nothing for like 2-3 months. That is what would work but it isn't feasible at all. Your idea of closing all non-essential does nothing. Spread will still occur. Maybe not at the same rate but it will still occur.

 

[GoofGoof]

Hopefully after Wednesday - Friday (I hope...please dear sweet baby Jesus) that thanksgiving can be addressed on an official level.

That “it’s under 25” is completely wrong!! Thanksgiving is an extended family activity that many don’t often see...getting together as normal and then fighting malls and then returning home is a miniature superspreader potential at the absolute worst time possible.

No...no...no!!! Bad idea. It will happen next year...period.

If one side wins nothing changes by the end of this week and if the other wins they still don’t have power until Jan so not sure anything can be done now. Fauci may be fired either way by the end of the week so it won’t likely come from him in any official capacity. Maybe the CDC will issue guidelines themselves.

 

[Tink242424]

For Halloween in my neighborhood most people set out candy on tables. The majority of them had placed the candy in individual bags. That's a whole other level of work compared to a typical Halloween just to pass out candy to kids. A number of folks were sitting outside greeting the kids and directing them to the candy while keeping their distance. And it didn't matter what sign was in their yard. Adults and kids out trick-or-treating were almost universally wearing masks. Basically, people went out of their way to ensure that kids had a good and safe time. It was awesome.

So maybe if we can just get candy involved in the Covid response we'd be fine.

I actually think the good majority of people are doing the right thing. I can certainly see that in my neighborhood and with my friends.

It is my opinion that we are taking our safety protocols as being more safe then they are and that we are also having more aerosol spread. I think that is also leading to a significant amount of cases.

I do think we are getting spread from people with house parties, bars and maybe indoor dining so for the people that are worried about contracting COVID they should stay away from those activities.

 

[mmascari]

For example, what is the guideline for Thanksgiving get togethers? I have a friend that I talked to about the topic and they said they were still doing Thanksgiving with their whole family and didn’t think it was a big deal because the total number of people would be under 25 so they were within the guidelines for a group gathering. I don’t think it’s any less risk if 24 family members get together indoor with no masks vs 25 and I’ve heard some “experts” suggest not to get together at all but there hasn’t been a consistent message.

Are those really guidelines though?

That up to 25 people can gather indoors with no social distancing and no masks?

Or, are the guidelines more layered than that. Something like up to 25 people can gather, with controls around droplet and aerosol transmission between independent contamination groups?

So, sure, have 25 over for Thanksgiving, but do it in a way to minimize cross contamination. Maybe outside, or with increased fresh air ventilation, or wear source control for droplets and aerosols, or combinations of these.

Lots of activities are largely OK, but have little issues. We're planning an outdoor gathering if the weather is good. With tables set 6-10 feet apart for air control. But, there's still bathrooms, cooking, and other indoor parts. For those parts, we'll need to use different controls.

Just like WDW, people that are spread out while walking outdoors probably don't really need masks. There's low risk while those things are true. It's when they're not spread out, or no longer outside. Those things change frequently at WDW. They could have a rule to put a mask on whenever they occur, but it's easier to just have one rule.

I don't wear a mask when I walk the dog. If we pass someone, we move aside and give a large space for a short interaction. When we walk the trails around the lake, we bring a mask and put it on whenever we pass someone or there's a crowd. There's less space on the lake path and more people. I can see where WDW is more like walking a park trail than walking the dog in the neighborhood.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

If one side wins nothing changes by the end of this week and if the other wins they still don’t have power until Jan so not sure anything can be done now. Fauci may be fired either way by the end of the week so it won’t likely come from him in any official capacity. Maybe the CDC will issue guidelines themselves.

If anyone thinks that either side can "control" the pandemic, they are smoking some real good stuff.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No, for a lockdown to work EVERYTHING essential or non-essential needs to close. You don't leave to go to the hospital, you don't leave for food, you don't leave for exercise. You leave for nothing for like 2-3 months. That is what would work but it isn't feasible at all. Your idea of closing all non-essential does nothing. Spread will still occur. Maybe not at the same rate but it will still occur.

The rate of spread is an incredibly important factor...

 

[LittleBuford]

No, for a lockdown to work EVERYTHING essential or non-essential needs to close. You don't leave to go to the hospital, you don't leave for food, you don't leave for exercise. You leave for nothing for like 2-3 months. That is what would work but it isn't feasible at all. Your idea of closing all non-essential does nothing. Spread will still occur. Maybe not at the same rate but it will still occur.

I don't agree, but thank you for at least using your words instead of a snide laugh emoji.

 

[Tink242424]

The big deal is that in developed countries COVID is killing more people then any other infectious disease by a long shot. It should be our goal to work towards a healthier society instead of a sicker one. A large portion of the population being sick benefits no one, except for maybe insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry.

True we should be working on making ourselves healthier I don't deny that and I am very much in agreement. Still it does nothing to say that 700 people got COVID and so we should be upset. I don't care if the whole world gets COVID. What I care about is how many of them have serious outcomes and how many die.

 

[GoofGoof]

You don't have to enforce anything. You have public places & places of work with the same protocols we have now. You just can't mandate that everyone follow the protocols in their own homes or that they can't go somewhere higher risk (restaurants, theme parks, movie theaters, bars). It really isn't that crazy of an idea. You are just taking it that I'm saying no restrictions anywhere. I've already said several times that in public places go ahead and do social distancing, masking and whatever other protocols you need. At the same time allow all businesses to be open with safe modifications and let people choose. I'm not saying no safety protocols.

Then assuming the safety protocols work you won't have any issues. You can't force other people to be the same as you. Bottom line.

And to take it one step further I do think we need a public campaign to get everyone to work together. Help people understand that we should do our best for our neighbors. A good public campaign would help to get 99% of people on board. Instead we get a lot of finger pointing and people telling others they are selfish. That is just causing people to rebel. That is not the messaging we need.

I agree 100% that businesses should all be allowed to open with safety protocols. I am in no way in favor of just shutting everything down. That means capacity limits at bars and restaurants, tables spaced 6 feet apart and no bar seating where people without masks are interacting at a close distance. Places like retail stores, hospitals and WDW continue to operate as they are today with safety protocols. Large group gatherings are not allowed. We can’t really stop people from getting together in private residences against recommendations but if people either avoided that scenario by staying outside and/or wore masks then at least part of the problem would be solved. If people can walk around in 90+ degree heat in FL in the summer in a mask would it be that big a deal to wear one at a get together?

 

[lazyboy97o]

True we should be working on making ourselves healthier I don't deny that and I am very much in agreement. Still it does nothing to say that 700 people got COVID and so we should be upset. I don't care if the whole world gets COVID. What I care about is how many of them have serious outcomes and how many die.

Then what is too much?

 

[Tink242424]

I can’t disagree there. I think a consistent message would help a lot and I do believe most people want to do what’s right. It’s not like people are looking to go out and infect other people. There is a lot of conflicting info out there and the politicians peddling conspiracy theories and outright lies doesn‘t help either.

For example, what is the guideline for Thanksgiving get togethers? I have a friend that I talked to about the topic and they said they were still doing Thanksgiving with their whole family and didn’t think it was a big deal because the total number of people would be under 25 so they were within the guidelines for a group gathering. I don’t think it’s any less risk if 24 family members get together indoor with no masks vs 25 and I’ve heard some “experts” suggest not to get together at all but there hasn’t been a consistent message. I don’t believe everyone would follow all the recommendations but it would be a step in the right direction to at least make them and let people decide.

Yes! I was just speaking with my Mother about Christmas Eve (our Thanksgiving is always small just immediate family so we don't have an issue there) and if we should get together with our extended family. We are going to wait and see how everyone feels and what the current state of the pandemic is in our area. My Mom is 76 with multiple co-morbidities and so we do what we need to in order to protect her. On the other hand she has made it clear that she will not be locked in a bubble and if she gets COVID and dies she is ok with that. So we work with her to determine what is the right path and where to have her get out and still live.