Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Capsin4]

Exactly how?

Do all of the high-risk get moved into (1) central living facility? Otherwise, if a high-risk person lives with any other person in their household, by default they would also need to be isolated to protect them.

Right?

Unless you have some sort of other genius idea...?

Exactly how?

Do all of the high-risk get moved into (1) central living facility? Otherwise, if a high-risk person lives with any other person in their household, by default they would also need to be isolated to protect them.

Right?

Unless you have some sort of other genius idea...?

I appreciate your crappy attitude. No idea where you live nor do I care but people like you are the reason we can’t have conversations in a decent manner. I’m sure you are proud and don’t gaf, but I’ll entertain you.

Its always all or nothing with the line of thinking you seem to subscribe to and you’re creating a false choice. If people are high risk then they and the people that must come into contact with them isolate or otherwise modify their behavior the same way they would if everything was closed or people were locked in.

Just because a restaurant is open doesn’t mean everyone should go to it. Doesn’t mean things are normal or without restrictions, but it’s pretty simple to see lockdowns aren’t always necessary to keep people safer that need to be.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Should I lock granma in her room and only bring her food from a basket and rope out the window?

Like this system?

 

[Heppenheimer]

100%. Isolating the vulnerable population Is common sense. There’s a lot we don’t know still but more than enough that we can protect the high risk populations without shutting everyone in for months.

We tried that, or at least pretended to try that. Its what brought us to the current situation. Nobody wanted another lockdown, but our collective failure to modify our behavior is the reason why the medical system is certain areas is on the verge of being overwhelmed.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I appreciate your crappy attitude. No idea where you live nor do I care but people like you are the reason we can’t have conversations in a decent manner. I’m sure you are proud and don’t gaf, but I’ll entertain you.

Its always all or nothing with the line of thinking you seem to subscribe to and you’re creating a false choice. If people are high risk then they and the people that must come into contact with them isolate or otherwise modify their behavior the same way they would if everything was closed or people were locked in.

Just because a restaurant is open doesn’t mean everyone should go to it. Doesn’t mean things are normal or without restrictions, but it’s pretty simple to see lockdowns aren’t always necessary to keep people safer that need to be.

And "isolating the vulnerable population" -- i.e., millions of people -- isn't an all or nothing line of thinking??

As if they don't need access to basic necessities that can only come from other people?

 

[GoofGoof]

Its always all or nothing with the line of thinking you seem to subscribe to and you’re creating a false choice. If people are high risk then they and the people that must come into contact with them isolate or otherwise modify their behavior the same way they would if everything was closed or people were locked in.

Just because a restaurant is open doesn’t mean everyone should go to it. Doesn’t mean things are normal or without restrictions, but it’s pretty simple to see lockdowns aren’t always necessary to keep people safer that need to be.

The math doesn’t work. More than half the population is either elderly or has one or more conditions that make them high risk and that doesn’t even count the people who live with or take care of them. So for example if a father of 4 kids has high blood pressure or asthma or diabetes or is obese than it’s not just him but his wife and 4 kids that would need to isolate. What do we do with people who are high risk that need to work? If they and their family just isolate they starve. If it was as easy as just isolating a small percent of people that would have been dome long ago.

 

[hopemax]

I appreciate your crappy attitude. No idea where you live nor do I care but people like you are the reason we can’t have conversations in a decent manner. I’m sure you are proud and don’t gaf, but I’ll entertain you.

Its always all or nothing with the line of thinking you seem to subscribe to and you’re creating a false choice. If people are high risk then they and the people that must come into contact with them isolate or otherwise modify their behavior the same way they would if everything was closed or people were locked in.

Just because a restaurant is open doesn’t mean everyone should go to it. Doesn’t mean things are normal or without restrictions, but it’s pretty simple to see lockdowns aren’t always necessary to keep people safer that need to be.

It's because it's been asked many times and no one has provided an answer on how the logistics will actually work.

LTCs are the most basic example, and other than one guy in the UK who suggests that we should have the employees live on-site or in designated hotels for 30 day intervals and triple their salary so they are motivated to follow the rules, I have not seen any suggestions. And, BTW, this one person said all of this should be paid by the government.

If you are a resident in an LTC you have absolutely no control on what your care team does during their personal time. And people believe if a care nurse wants to hold Thanksgiving dinner for 30 people, no entity has the right to tell them they can't. Which is why despite 6 months of knowing what needed to be done LTC infections and deaths are rising again because no one actually did what was necessary to protect the residents. Plus, regarding LTCs people are arguing for both things at once. Both "lock them up," and, "It's cruel that the residents can't have visitors, so let family visit." If we can't come up with a plan for protecting the most of risk, who are already separated from most of society, then why the heck should people we can protect the vulnerable anywhere else?

It all ends up that no one has any idea of how to protect the vulnerable. They want it to be someone else's problem so they can justify to themselves why they don't have to raise a finger.

 

[Polkadotdress]

I appreciate your crappy attitude. No idea where you live nor do I care but people like you are the reason we can’t have conversations in a decent manner. I’m sure you are proud and don’t gaf, but I’ll entertain you.

Its always all or nothing with the line of thinking you seem to subscribe to and you’re creating a false choice. If people are high risk then they and the people that must come into contact with them isolate or otherwise modify their behavior the same way they would if everything was closed or people were locked in.

You can call it “crappy attitude”, but I choose to think of it as “realist thinking”.

As a high-risk person myself, I need people to take reasonable precautions so that when I do go to doctor’s office, or grocery store, or get the oil changed in my car, I don’t get needlessly exposed to those aren’t being careful.

Given that there are a large percentage of us in this country (@GoofGoof just posted stats), you can’t keep all of us, and our family locked away. The logistics of it aren’t possible.

 

[Capsin4]

It's because it's been asked many times and no one has provided an answer on how the logistics will actually work.

LTCs are the most basic example, and other than one guy in the UK who suggests that we should have the employees live on-site or in designated hotels for 30 day intervals and triple their salary so they are motivated to follow the rules, I have not seen any suggestions. And, BTW, this one person said all of this should be paid by the government.

If you are a resident in an LTC you have absolutely no control on what your care team does during their personal time. And people believe if a care nurse wants to hold Thanksgiving dinner for 30 people, no entity has the right to tell them they can't. Which is why despite 6 months of knowing what needed to be done LTC infections and deaths are rising again because no one actually did what was necessary to protect the residents. Plus, regarding LTCs people are arguing for both things at once. Both "lock them up," and, "It's cruel that the residents can't have visitors, so let family visit." If we can't come up with a plan for protecting the most of risk, who are already separated from most of society, then why the heck should people we can protect the vulnerable anywhere else?

It all ends up that no one has any idea of how to protect the vulnerable. They want it to be someone else's problem so they can justify to themselves why they don't have to raise a finger.

The logistics are not the issue. You folks seem to think that the vulnerable population and their caretakers can isolate when everyone is isolating but not on their own. That’s the logical flaw in all of this. The thought that some subset of people can’t isolate unless everyone does. That’s nonsense.

 

[hopemax]

The logistics are not the issue. You folks seem to think that the vulnerable population and their caretakers can isolate when everyone is isolating but not on their own. That’s the logical flaw in all of this. The thought that some subset of people can’t isolate unless everyone does. That’s nonsense.

Why would someone who works at an LTC and makes slightly over minimum wage to care for some random person, CHOOSE to isolate?

 

[danlb_2000]

100%. Isolating the vulnerable population Is common sense. There’s a lot we don’t know still but more than enough that we can protect the high risk populations without shutting everyone in for months.

So if those people can't work from home, what happens to their jobs? Do they just loose them?

 

[GoofGoof]

The logistics are not the issue. You folks seem to think that the vulnerable population and their caretakers can isolate when everyone is isolating but not on their own. That’s the logical flaw in all of this. The thought that some subset of people can’t isolate unless everyone does. That’s nonsense.

Where is everyone isolating? I don’t think there is a single state with a full stay at home order right now let alone a full lockdown (which we never had anywhere in this country). I think the disconnect is you are equating any restrictions on the people who are not high risk as forcing them to isolate. It’s not black and white. The middle ground is everyone follows sensible restrictions, the vast majority of the economy stays open and nobody has to be locked away for months or years. That means some people who are not afraid of a virus or feel they should be allowed to take a risk are restricted from doing every single thing they want. For the greater good I’m OK with that.

 

[GoofGoof]

So if those people can't work from home, what happens to their jobs? Do they just loose them?

Who cares...as long as the bars are open and we have fans at a college football game. No skin off my back

 

[DisneyDebRob]

The logistics are not the issue. You folks seem to think that the vulnerable population and their caretakers can isolate when everyone is isolating but not on their own. That’s the logical flaw in all of this. The thought that some subset of people can’t isolate unless everyone does. That’s nonsense.

Explain to me how close to 60% of the population needs to isolate and we still have a economy. The problem with your thinking is assuming that it’s just people in nursing homes or the very elderly? If I’m wrong on that then you can answer my original question.
The vulnerable population could be over 60% by some accounts. No one has explained to me yet how this works. See Sweden, they tried the same thing. Didn’t work on any front.

 

[Capsin4]

So if those people can't work from home, what happens to their jobs? Do they just loose them?

The same thing that happens when we shut everything down. The impact is just less widespread. Not sure why this is difficult.

 

[SamusAranX]

I don’t know one way or the other, but if asymptomatic spread isn’t all that common are we to then assume that many, many people with symptoms are just going to work or to family parties or to social gatherings or schools or wherever the spread is occuring? I hate to believe that is the case. If asymptomatic spread is rare that means people who know they are sick are literally knowingly infecting other people. That’s hard to believe for me.

It’s not for me, because for a lot of people, it’s mild symptoms that can be mistaken for something else.

“oh don’t worry about my sore throat, I had it for a cpl days and it went away”

“This cough and stuffed nose won’t go away. Allergies amirite?”.

They may only have mild symptoms for a bit of time and don’t listen.

 

[Patcheslee]

I don’t know one way or the other, but if asymptomatic spread isn’t all that common are we to then assume that many, many people with symptoms are just going to work or to family parties or to social gatherings or schools or wherever the spread is occuring? I hate to believe that is the case. If asymptomatic spread is rare that means people who know they are sick are literally knowingly infecting other people. That’s hard to believe for me.

Just had a minor family member test positive. Her parents had her out and visiting family, shopping, ect. pending test results with a mild fever and sniffles.
Now 1 person they visited works in a grocery stores meat department cutting fresh meat, cooked food. Says he won't get tested because he feels okay.
It's unfortunately common.

 

[Polkadotdress]

The logistics are not the issue. You folks seem to think that the vulnerable population and their caretakers can isolate when everyone is isolating but not on their own. That’s the logical flaw in all of this. The thought that some subset of people can’t isolate unless everyone does. That’s nonsense.

And I would maintain that “the vulnerable” cannot just isolate as they are far too connected with others in their household and in the public.

For my family specifically:
Significant other: furloughed, putting me in the difficult position of having to work. If I don’t work, how do we pay our bills? And yes he has applied for over a hundred jobs.
2 teens, both with jobs in the service industry. Do they quit? They’re trying to save $ for college and/or cars.

aAd as @hopemax explained above with her example of care homes, those workers should also be isolated...but aren’t, which leads to additional Covid cases.

So indeed, logistics are the challlenge.

further, there simply aren’t enough social programs in place to assist with isolating the vulnerable like myself. I have to work otherwise we would have no money. What program would help me? Yes I could go on a medical leave for a short while but that would not bridge the gap in pay to cover my expenses. mM husband has exhausted unemployment benefits, which frankly here in the state of Florida or a pittance. So we’re stuck.

 

[Capsin4]

Explain to me how close to 60% of the population needs to isolate and we still have a economy. The problem with your thinking is assuming that it’s just people in nursing homes or the very elderly? If I’m wrong on that then you can answer my original question.
The vulnerable population could be over 60% by some accounts. No one has explained to me yet how this works. See Sweden, they tried the same thing. Didn’t work on any front.

I’m not assuming anything about the vulnerable population. If you simply look at death rates around the world, it’s nowhere near 60%. Even knowing it might not be infecting the vulnerable population as much thats a ridiculous number.

If businesses close because of a lack of business, that’s very different from forcing them to close to protect a small % of the population that could otherwise isolate in exactly the same way they would as if everything was forced to close.

You guys keep asking “how it would work”. It’s not a mystery. The groups that need to avoid the public because they’re vulnerable or support a vulnerable family member isolate in the same exact way they would if the government tells everyone to stay home. Then we deal with the impacts that come from that. Borrowing 3 trillion dollars for everyone to stay home is ridiculous.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I appreciate your crappy attitude. No idea where you live nor do I care but people like you are the reason we can’t have conversations in a decent manner. I’m sure you are proud and don’t gaf, but I’ll entertain you.

Its always all or nothing with the line of thinking you seem to subscribe to and you’re creating a false choice. If people are high risk then they and the people that must come into contact with them isolate or otherwise modify their behavior the same way they would if everything was closed or people were locked in.

Just because a restaurant is open doesn’t mean everyone should go to it. Doesn’t mean things are normal or without restrictions, but it’s pretty simple to see lockdowns aren’t always necessary to keep people safer that need to be.

Thank god...that “team” really needs some new players...they barely have enough to still field a squad at this point.

We tried that, or at least pretended to try that. Its what brought us to the current situation. Nobody wanted another lockdown, but our collective failure to modify our behavior is the reason why the medical system is certain areas is on the verge of being overwhelmed.

Stop it with your reality/truth based approach!

And "isolating the vulnerable population" -- i.e., millions of people -- isn't an all or nothing line of thinking??

As if they don't need access to basic necessities that can only come from other people?

But that is somebody else’s “freedom”...I don’t care as long as you keep your dirty hands off “ma freedom”

The logistics are not the issue. You folks seem to think that the vulnerable population and their caretakers can isolate when everyone is isolating but not on their own. That’s the logical flaw in all of this. The thought that some subset of people can’t isolate unless everyone does. That’s nonsense.

In two sentences or less...describe how you keep the spreaders from any potential contact with “vulnerable populations” (which can’t be defined) in the United States??

I’ll wait.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I’m not assuming anything about the vulnerable population. If you simply look at death rates around the world, it’s nowhere near 60%. Even knowing it might not be infecting the vulnerable population as much thats a ridiculous number.

If businesses close because of a lack of business, that’s very different from forcing them to close to protect a small % of the population that could otherwise isolate in exactly the same way they would as if everything was forced to close.

You guys keep asking “how it would work”. It’s not a mystery. The groups that need to avoid the public because they’re vulnerable or support a vulnerable family member isolate in the same exact way they would if the government tells everyone to stay home. Then we deal with the impacts that come from that. Borrowing 3 trillion dollars for everyone to stay home is ridiculous.

I love when an “argument” is portrayed in terms of “you guys”....the international symbol that it’s not a discussion at all.