Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[DisneyDebRob]

Any yet, you are cherry picking field data to support your case. Yes, California and Florida is an interesting comparison, but there are other places where there was a clear drop off in cases when mitigation efforts were put in place. If California had taken the same route as Florida when it comes to mitigation there is no way to say for sure that there cases wouldn't have gone up.

We also keep forgetting the huge number of seniors in Florida who when this hit, they themselves decided to stay in and not expose themselves. Good for them because they saw what was happening and did something about it. No matter what their leader down there was saying way back when. The young crowd in California was still running wild.

 

[danlb_2000]

Florida has actually had it a bit worse than California, even if they haven't had massively different numbers. And California was actually doing pretty well, until mitigation measures were reduced.

An interesting and easy study, that will take a few minutes with a spread sheet: Go through each state, eliminated deaths before June 2021. (since nobody had mitigation measures before March, and deaths lag). Look at how each state has done since June 2021... which mitigation measures were generally in effect, with great degree in variability between states. I suspect you'll see a clear trend, that states that have taken more aggressive measures have done better.

A great example is comparing the Dakotas with Hawaii and Vermont.

I posted the California vs Florida graph adjusted for population a few weeks ago here, I would have to dig through the thread to find it. As you say, it did show that Florida and California where pretty close together in new cases until Fall when California saw a much larger spike the Florida even though California has stronger mitigation in place. Some speculate that one of the variants might have driven that.

 

[havoc315]

Where is the data to support that statement? Is there a study that showed that the death rate would have remained the same if there had not been lockdowns?

Actually, let's do New York, New Jersey, etc: Most of those deaths are the results of infections BEFORE Lockdowns and mitigation. They are the result of infection spread in February and March, when we were oblivious.

Let's look at deaths since June 1, 2020.. when states like New York were taking significant mitigation measures, and states like Florida were not:

Florida and New York have similar populations... since June 1, 2020:
Florida has had 27,000 deaths
New York has had 16,000 deaths.

So, since the effect of mitigation measures have kicked in... New York has had SIGNIFICANTLY less death than Florida.

Let's do Georgia and Michigan -- Michigan also had a big pre-mitigation hit.
So since June 1, 2020:
Michigan 10,000 deaths
Georgia: 15,000 deaths

Mass vs AZ, since June 1, 2020:
Mass: 9,000 deaths
AZ: 14,000 deaths

Hmmm, I'm seeing a pattern. Once mitigation measures kicked in... states that took more serious mitigation measures did FAR better than states that didn't.

 

[danlb_2000]

Actually, let's do New York, New Jersey, etc: Most of those deaths are the results of infections BEFORE Lockdowns and mitigation. They are the result of infection spread in February and March, when we were oblivious.

Let's look at deaths since June 1, 2020.. when states like New York were taking significant mitigation measures, and states like Florida were not:

Florida and New York have similar populations... since June 1, 2020:
Florida has had 27,000 deaths
New York has had 16,000 deaths.

So, since the effect of mitigation measures have kicked in... New York has had SIGNIFICANTLY less death than Florida.

Let's do Georgia and Michigan -- Michigan also had a big pre-mitigation hit.
So since June 1, 2020:
Michigan 10,000 deaths
Georgia: 15,000 deaths

Mass vs AZ, since June 1, 2020:
Mass: 9,000 deaths
AZ: 14,000 deaths

Hmmm, I'm seeing a pattern. Once mitigation measures kicked in... states that took more serious mitigation measures did FAR better than states that didn't.

Yep, it's hard to make a case that mitigation didn't reduce the spread of the virus.

We know that a lot of the mitigations also had a downside, so the only thing that really should be up for debate is whether there was a proper balance between the two and did we actually know enough at the time to make the right decision. I am an NJ resident and in hind sight the level of lockdown we did was probably not necessary, but I still this it was the right choice at the time based on what we knew and didn't know.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Because it’s a ridiculous comparison. You are talking about deaths to people losing a year of there life to be not being able to go to do a few things. Praying doesn’t need to be done in a church by the way. Also your life expectancy of 79 just fldropped a whole year by this virus.
Not saying I am pro lockdown at all, just saying it’s a really bad comparison. Come at it from a different angle because comparing half a million deaths and counting in this country to.. I can’t do the things I cou do for a year doesn’t work.

Thought experiment.

If you could wave a magic wand, which would you pick:

1) COVID disappears from the world tomorrow. Everything goes back to normal immediately. But you die one year earlier than you otherwise would have.

2) Live through a repeat of the last 12 months.

Actually, let's do New York, New Jersey, etc: Most of those deaths are the results of infections BEFORE Lockdowns and mitigation. They are the result of infection spread in February and March, when we were oblivious.

Let's look at deaths since June 1, 2020.. when states like New York were taking significant mitigation measures, and states like Florida were not:

Florida and New York have similar populations... since June 1, 2020:
Florida has had 27,000 deaths
New York has had 16,000 deaths.

So, since the effect of mitigation measures have kicked in... New York has had SIGNIFICANTLY less death than Florida.

Let's do Georgia and Michigan -- Michigan also had a big pre-mitigation hit.
So since June 1, 2020:
Michigan 10,000 deaths
Georgia: 15,000 deaths

Mass vs AZ, since June 1, 2020:
Mass: 9,000 deaths
AZ: 14,000 deaths

Hmmm, I'm seeing a pattern. Once mitigation measures kicked in... states that took more serious mitigation measures did FAR better than states that didn't.

Are you joking? This has to be a troll post. Every single geographic area saw their spread come in waves. You don't get to pick a data set that entirely cuts off the first and worst of New York's waves.

 

[havoc315]

Yep, it's hard to make a case that mitigation didn't reduce the spread of the virus.

We know that a lot of the mitigations also had a downside, so the only thing that really should be up for debate is whether there was a proper balance between the two and did we actually know enough at the time to make the right decision. I am an NJ resident and in hind sight the level of lockdown we did was probably not necessary, but I still this it was the right choice at the time based on what we knew and didn't know.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Being in NY, near NJ (and my brother is in NJ.. and my parents live right on the border)... I feel sure that some things should have been locked down more, other things should have been looser. Masks should have started even sooner, which we all know now.

 

[_caleb]

People out here saying the quiet part out loud. People used to be embarrassed to be so selfish-especially during times of crises.

 

[havoc315]

Thought experiment.

If you could wave a magic wand, which would you pick:

1) COVID disappears from the world tomorrow. Everything goes back to normal immediately. But you die one year earlier than you otherwise would have.

2) Live through a repeat of the last 12 months.

Ok.... thought experiment:
1 -- Live through a repeat of the last 12 months
OR
2 -- 2 random members of your family die a painful death now.

I'd pick #1, every time.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

People out here saying the quiet part out loud. People used to be embarrassed to be so selfish-especially during a time of crises.

It's not selfish to want people to keep their jobs. It's not selfish to be disgusted watching my best friend torn to pieces as her mom died from cancer alone in a hospital room because she wasn't allowed to have visitors. It's not selfish to be furious that dementia patients have been cutoff from their family members without any clue what's going on. It's not selfish to want children to grow up with a normal developmental cadence.

I'm doing just fine. I've been working from home in my sneakers and a t-shirt, I haven't lost a dime of income, and I'm going to be up about $20,000 on stimulus payments I don't need.

Oh and my kids are doing just fine too. Because out here in the white collar neighborhoods, our schools our open and our kids are going to gymnastics and Little League together. It's the poor kids who are getting screwed by this madness.

Ok.... thought experiment:
1 -- Live through a repeat of the last 12 months
OR
2 -- 2 random members of your family die a painful death now.

I'd pick #1, every time.

That would be a relevant counter-point if the population fatality rate of COVID was 40%, and among all age groups.

 

[carolina_yankee]

This is where I've been the entire time.

500,000 people losing their lives is a tragedy. Average age 71. Life expectancy is 79. So we lost 4 million life-years to COVID deaths.

But 331,000,000 people each lost a year of their lives when they were banned from working, playing, and praying in response. That's 331 million life-years lost to COVID lockdowns.

I won't make a claim about which one is "worse" than the other, but the pro-lockdown crowd refuse to even acknowledge the latter as a consideration.

Check your stats. 331,000,000 weren't banned from working, playing, and praying. Not a single person in my church was banned from praying. They simply learned how to pray differently. I only know of five people who lost their job due to COVID (yes, I know many have, but 331,000,000 haven't). From the fact that WDW is open, I'm suspecting quite a few of that 331,000,000 have also figured out how to play.

And you have no clue how many lives and jobs would have been lost if we did not have lockdowns or mask requirements.

COVID sucks. Lockdowns suck. But the argument on strategies - and cost - has to be based in reality.

 

[Bob Harlem]

People out here saying the quiet part out loud. People used to be embarrassed to be so selfish-especially during a time of crises.

Mistrust is a way bigger problem than selfishness. And they don't trust people spouting this type of thing.

This is an observation from traveling for work all over since June. Why should they listen to people calling them selfish?

 

[_caleb]

It's not selfish to want people to keep their jobs. It's not selfish to be disgusted watching my best friend torn to pieces as her mom died from cancer alone in a hospital room because she wasn't allowed to have visitors. It's not selfish to be furious that dementia patients have been cutoff from their family members. It's not selfish to want children to grow up with a normal developmental cadence.

Right. But if we all really cared about the things you mention here, we wouldn't still be debating mask use or pushing for restrictions to end prematurely.

You're right that some folks are suffering more than others due to the restrictions. But the only way to get those lifted is if we all pull together and willingly suffer for the greater good (which, despite what others might say, is actually a thing).

 

[danlb_2000]

It's not selfish to want people to keep their jobs. It's not selfish to be disgusted watching my best friend torn to pieces as her mom died from cancer alone in a hospital room because she wasn't allowed to have visitors. It's not selfish to be furious that dementia patients have been cutoff from their family members without any clue what's going on. It's not selfish to want children to grow up with a normal developmental cadence.

How would those two things have been different if there were no lockdowns? Even if lockdown hadn't happen for day-to-day activities it's very likely that these sort of restrictions would still have happened.

 

[_caleb]

Mistrust is a way bigger problem than selfishness. And they don't trust people spouting this type of thing.

I'm not sure what you mean. People don't trust me because I called out what I see as selfish behavior? I think you're right that mistrust is a big problem too. Especially when everything treats random opinions on the internet as being equally valid (or invalid).

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

If he gets a “middling” grade, he should leave now...nowhere to go but down.

Trump fans tout DeSantis as their COVID hero and possible 2024 nominee. But Florida's data tells a different story.

A dispassionate look at the data suggests that, under Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida’s response has been middling.

www.aol.com

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Ok.... thought experiment:
1 -- Live through a repeat of the last 12 months
OR
2 -- 2 random members of your family die a painful death now.

I'd pick #1, every time.

1 also.. every time.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

How would those two things have been different if there were no lockdowns? Even if lockdown hadn't happen for day-to-day activities it's very likely that these sort of restrictions would still have happened.

I'm not making a pragmatic argument about "what the governments of the world would have done in such-and-such scenario."

I'm making a moral argument that it's evil to prevent people from visiting their dying relatives regardless of the justification, full stop.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Mistrust is a way bigger problem than selfishness. And they don't trust people spouting this type of thing.

This is an observation from traveling for work all over since June. Why should they listen to people calling them selfish?

Well “growing the hell up” would make this not so big of a deal.

 

[danlb_2000]

I'm not making a pragmatic argument about "what the governments of the world would have done in such-and-such scenario."

I'm making a moral argument that it's evil to prevent people from visiting their dying relatives regardless of the justification, full stop.

How about the moral argument that you desire to spend time with your dying relatives could lead to the death of others who may have other wise survived?

 

[havoc315]

It's not selfish to want people to keep their jobs. It's not selfish to be disgusted watching my best friend torn to pieces as her mom died from cancer alone in a hospital room because she wasn't allowed to have visitors. It's not selfish to be furious that dementia patients have been cutoff from their family members without any clue what's going on. It's not selfish to want children to grow up with a normal developmental cadence.

I'm doing just fine. I've been working from home in my sneakers and a t-shirt, I haven't lost a dime of income, and I'm going to be up about $20,000 on stimulus payments I don't need.

Oh and my kids are doing just fine too. Because out here in the white collar neighborhoods, our schools our open and our kids are going to gymnastics and Little League together. It's the poor kids who are getting screwed by this madness.


That would be a relevant counter-point if the population fatality rate of COVID was 40%, and among all age groups.

Your family is only 5 people?!?!?
I have cousins, kids, aunts, uncles, in-laws.

And where I got the number -- 2 members of my family have died from Covid.

So you willing to make the same trade: Willing to give up 2 family members, or rather take 12 months of not being able to go to the movies?