Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Chip Chipperson]

Please answer my question.

Your question was one big logical fallcy, but here goes: Restrictions end when the virus stops being a major threat. If 500,000+ people are dying from it each year for the next 3 years, then you keep some level of restrictions in place. Realistically, that's not likely to happen, which is why I said your point was flawed. You assumed a worst-case scenario and tried to use it as justification for not taking preventative measures now.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I once asked, many posts ago, "how many deaths are acceptable to you?" and got very few responses from people.

Thanks for being honest, now we know your personal number is 10,000,000.

Again, I feel that you're missing my point.

I am against lockdowns, period. I have no number. The number could be 7 billion and I still would be against lockdowns.

 

[Patcheslee]

2. What about people who are among the first to enter one of these businesses that are violating safety standards and don't know that the management intends to ignore those standards? You could enter a bar thinking it's safe and then an hour later find yourself in a fire hazard. I don't think anyone entered the venue the night of the Great White concert fire thinking they were in danger of being burned alive.

That was my first thought as well. I've been to at least 1 questionable concert venue since then and it was beyond disturbing to be aware of what could occur. Enough to say nope and leave 15 minutes before the first band. Some piece of paper saying it's safe or up to code wouldn't have made me feel any better.
Odd as it sounds I still have a habit of looking for exits even when we go in show buildings.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Again, I feel that you're missing my point.

I am against lockdowns, period. I have no number. The number could be 7 billion and I still would be against lockdowns.

And what would the upside of millions of deaths be?

 

[lazyboy97o]

And what would the upside of millions of deaths be?

The sort of social, political and economic turmoil that breeds despotism.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

That was my first thought as well. I've been to at least 1 questionable concert venue since then and it was beyond disturbing to be aware of what could occur. Enough to say nope and leave 15 minutes before the first band. Some piece of paper saying it's safe or up to code wouldn't have made me feel any better.
Odd as it sounds I still have a habit of looking for exits even when we go in show buildings.

Right, so in my anarcho-utopia*, you and all of the other people is those venues would be able to file class action lawsuits for something along the lines of reckless endangerment.

*I'm not really an anarchist.

 

[sullyinMT]

And thus, the debate of essentially pure libertarianism collides with the tragedy of the commons.
When we presume our consequences of our actions and choices can be solely isolated onto ourselves, total liberterianism seems pretty appealing. Why not let people assume risks. Under such a theory, at most laws should require disclosures. Taken to the extreme form, you don't even need police or Judges -- they can be privatized.

But the reality is, the consequences of so many actions and choices impact not just ourselves...

I won’t speak for anyone who considers themselves a pure libertarian, but this is why in a limited scope, regulating businesses as individuals makes some sense. Fire codes, employee (workplace) safety, etc etc. Allowing business to act recklessly with human life is no different than one individual acting in a way that endangers another’s liberty (or life and it’s pursuit).

Specifically to WDW and travel, companies have gone to great length to try and maintain some level of operations and safety. It’s not inexpensive for them, but the opposite (just opening back up full bore) would have been flat out reckless.

The debate of what should open when and how and what should change going forward is a fair point of debate. But to say with a straight face that places of any type of gathering should be operating like they were in Jan 2020 right now (especially after what we’ve seen and learned) is just ignorant or head in the sand.

 

[Chi84]

Except it’s not. That’s exactly what happened to push for fire codes. Entire cities being wiped out and it’s only after the fact that someone has to pay up. That money has to come from somewhere and if it’s not there are dozens or hundreds or even thousands of victims all left with nothing. An an IOU that will never be paid isn’t exactly going to help with your losses.

And the money sure as heck isn't going to come from the insurance companies. Insurance contracts make coverage contingent upon the insured's compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

 

[Patcheslee]

So guess doctors shouldn't need licenses to practice then either? Let's just publish their diplomas, proof of malpractice insurance, and how success stats. People can decide if that's safe enough for them.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

My massive push for deregulation would go along with an expansion of people's ability to file class action lawsuits. "Getting sued into insolvency" is a much stronger incentive to get your act together than a government fine.

People can be sued into bankruptcy now, but they still do stupid and selfish things and justify it by saying things like, "Nothing bad has happened yet so nothing bad will happen this time, either." People drive drunk at 100+mph and if they're lucky enough to not kill someone else then it's all good? And if they kill me then my family can sue and hope that whatever money they eventually collect makes up for my absence!

 

[havoc315]

I won’t speak for anyone who considers themselves a pure libertarian, but this is why in a limited scope, regulating businesses as individuals makes some sense. Fire codes, employee (workplace) safety, etc etc. Allowing business to act recklessly with human life is no different than one individual acting in a way that endangers another’s liberty (or life and it’s pursuit).

Specifically to WDW and travel, companies have gone to great length to try and maintain some level of operations and safety. It’s not inexpensive for them, but the opposite (just opening back up full bore) would have been flat out reckless.

The debate of what should open when and how and what should change going forward is a fair point of debate. But to say with a straight face that places of any type of gathering should be operating like they were in Jan 2020 right now (especially after what we’ve seen and learned) is just ignorant or head in the sand.

Agreed, there can be a good faith debate and disagreement about the degree to which personal liberty could/should be compromised to protect the public good. This is an ongoing debate, not just about Covid. And there is plenty of room for good faith disagreement.
But *most* people would agree that the extremes on both sides are not tenable.

 

[JAKECOTCenter]

Numbers are out - there were 147 new reported deaths, along with 3 Non-Florida Resident deaths.

View attachment 536567View attachment 536568View attachment 536569View attachment 536570

Drop-in cases. Some good news there

 

[unmitigated disaster]

And what would the upside of millions of deaths be?

Fewer people in line at Disney World.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

People can be sued into bankruptcy now, but they still do stupid and selfish things and justify it by saying things like, "Nothing bad has happened yet so nothing bad will happen this time, either." People drive drunk at 100+mph and if they're lucky enough to not kill someone else then it's all good? And if they kill me then my family can sue and hope that whatever money they eventually collect makes up for my absence!

I'm not talking about lawsuits after the fact, I'm talking about lawsuits in advance of the fact.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Right, so in my anarcho-utopia*, you and all of the other people is those venues would be able to file class action lawsuits for something along the lines of reckless endangerment.

*I'm not really an anarchist.

What do the dead ones get? And what happens when the person/business responsible doesn't have enough money to pay everyone?

 

[Chi84]

Right, so in my anarcho-utopia*, you and all of the other people is those venues would be able to file class action lawsuits for something along the lines of reckless endangerment.

*I'm not really an anarchist.

Class action lawsuits are probably the most inefficient, time-consuming and ineffective ways of enforcing public safety. Not to mention that if you're seeking compensation for a child killed as a result of public safety violations . . .

 

[lazyboy97o]

Right, so in my anarcho-utopia*, you and all of the other people is those venues would be able to file class action lawsuits for something along the lines of reckless endangerment.

*I'm not really an anarchist.

File a lawsuit and get nothing. You’re taking about letting people engage in activity that risks and destroys huge swaths of life and property and then essentially get away with it. That is not protecting rights. It is selfishness of the worst sort.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I'm not talking about lawsuits after the fact, I'm talking about lawsuits in advance of the fact.

So you don't want regulations, but you want to be able to sue in advance for something that might happen? Or are you arguing that the mere threat of a lawsuit will get people to behave responsibly? Because I already explained why that's not true.

 

[Chi84]

I'm not talking about lawsuits after the fact, I'm talking about lawsuits in advance of the fact.

Okay, now I'm invested. What kind of lawsuit can you file in advance of the fact?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

What do the dead ones get? And what happens when the person/business responsible doesn't have enough money to pay everyone?

Nobody is dead because the lawsuit happens *before* the bad stuff happens. And the lawsuit itself probably doesn't happen because the businesses voluntarily comply with safety standards to avoid said lawsuits.