Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[danlb_2000]

There are thousand of reasons not to got to WDW Covid or no Covid....

Figment re-design is at the top of my list.

 

[Miss Bella]

That’s fine as long as we acknowledge that reasonable people can have a valid difference of opinion on what’s best for everyone. I won’t go to WDW as long as masks are required - that’s a sensible decision for me, personally. But if Disney is open with specified regulations and people want to go, I wouldn’t feel comfortable saying they are disregarding what’s best for everyone.

The law may have its limits, but it’s the only certain way to regulate our relationships with others.

My husband won’t go because of the mask rule. He also won’t go because of the no parks hoppers and no Hoop Dee Doo. Honestly I think if they brought back the the Hoop Dee Doo he might concede on the other two.

 

[GimpYancIent]

My husband won’t go because of the mask rule. He also won’t go because of the no parks hoppers and no Hoop Dee Doo. Honestly I think if they brought back the the Hoop Dee Doo he might concede on the other two.

Hey! got to respect the man for sticking to his principles. It helps alleviate the crowding concerns that many have expressed.

 

[GoofGoof]

That’s fine as long as we acknowledge that reasonable people can have a valid difference of opinion on what’s best for everyone. I won’t go to WDW as long as masks are required - that’s a sensible decision for me, personally. But if Disney is open with specified regulations and people want to go, I wouldn’t feel comfortable saying they are disregarding what’s best for everyone.

The law may have its limits, but it’s the only certain way to regulate our relationships with others.

I’m not disagreeing with any of that. You are sorta turning this around on me. I never said I was judging anyone who wanted to go to WDW. It’s open, it’s legal to do, feel free to go.

What I was trying to say is that some people who see a local recommendation not to travel to certain other places want to follow it for the greater good, not out of fear or doubt of Disney’s safety protocols and not because it’s against the law. Not every state or county even recommended people to avoid unnecessary travel to hot spots. If you were already in FL or already in a state with a similar spike in cases it was probably less of an issue. In areas that were hit hard in the spring many places were slower to re-open and didn’t want to give back some of the progress made because people were traveling to hot spots.

 

[Miss Bella]

Hey! got to respect the man for sticking to his principles. It helps alleviate the crowding concerns that many have expressed.

Or maybe it was to save money for the 80 inch TV he wants. He snuck out of the house today. He may be hitting the Labor Day sales.

 

[Chi84]

My husband won’t go because of the mask rule. He also won’t go because of the no parks hoppers and no Hoop Dee Doo. Honestly I think if they brought back the the Hoop Dee Doo he might concede on the other two.

My husband won’t stay at POR until they get rid of Yee Ha Bob.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Fear is a perfectly good word.

If there's a bad outcome that is definitely coming, you should indeed fear it.

If there's a *risk* of a bad outcome that *may* happen, you should still fear it... but provisionally, and with full knowledge of the risk.

We've been posting the stats of the risk so people can make a sound choice whether a certain risk (that one should fear) is worth chancing. We all face such a risk when we get into a car, or the tub.

The problem is when people judge the amount of risk differently. People of good faith and sound mind can look at the same stats and determine if a certain risk is worth the risk or not and disagree.

The problem comes when people aren't looking at the stats with a sound mind or do so in bad faith because they want a certain outcome to come about and so they ignore or trivialize or rationalize the risk away. And when the actual risk is pointed out to them and they're told the rest of society isn't going to take that risk, then it's not about "fear" any more.

It's about a *claim* of *fear-mongering.* They claim those who are pointing out the risk are overstating the case. They don't see, or refuse to see the risk of a bad outcome for themselves or others. And they twist the reality of the situation and claim those who disagree with them are just fear-mongering. Which is an ad hominem fallacy.

That's why this thread has become heavily moderated by requiring people to back up their claims with valid sources. This way, we're all using the same stats which tells us what the reality is.

Of course, it can go the other way when people become overly fearful and become obsessed with the risk. For example, leading up to the MLS/NBA bubble, Twitter was abuzz with Tweets telling the players they were heading to their deaths. Once the initial quarantine was over, not one player or staff member got infected.

Anyway... "fear" is good and healthy when well-informed. "Fear-mongering" is a claim that people are exaggerating the risks. What determines if it's fear-mongering or not is reliable data. And that's what we post here.

 

[Chomama]

My husband won’t go because of the mask rule. He also won’t go because of the no parks hoppers and no Hoop Dee Doo. Honestly I think if they brought back the the Hoop Dee Doo he might concede on the other two.

This is on my list too! We were just discussing how long it will be before HDDR is back and I am scared it won’t return

 

[Chomama]

Fear is a perfectly good word.

If there's a bad outcome that is definitely coming, you should indeed fear it.

If there's a *risk* of a bad outcome that *may* happen, you should still fear it... but provisionally, and with full knowledge of the risk.

We've been posting the stats of the risk so people can make a sound choice whether a certain risk (that one should fear) is worth chancing. We all face such a risk when we get into a car, or the tub.

The problem is when people judge the amount of risk differently. People of good faith and sound mind can look at the same stats and determine if a certain risk is worth the risk or not and disagree.

The problem comes when people aren't looking at the stats with a sound mind or do so in bad faith because they want a certain outcome to come about and so they ignore or trivialize or rationalize the risk away. And when the actual risk is pointed out to them and they're told the rest of society isn't going to take that risk, then it's not about "fear" any more.

It's about a *claim* of *fear-mongering.* They claim those who are pointing out the risk are overstating the case. They don't see, or refuse to see the risk of a bad outcome for themselves or others. And they twist the reality of the situation and claim those who disagree with them are just fear-mongering. Which is an ad hominem fallacy.

That's why this thread has become heavily moderated by requiring people to back up their claims with valid sources. This way, we're all using the same stats which tells us what the reality is.

Of course, it can go the other way when people become overly fearful and become obsessed with the risk. For example, leading up to the MLS/NBA bubble, Twitter was abuzz with Tweets telling the players they were heading to their deaths. Once the initial quarantine was over, not one player or staff member got infected.

Anyway... "fear" is good and healthy when well-informed. "Fear-mongering" is a claim that people are exaggerating the risks. What determines if it's fear-mongering or not is reliable data. And that's what we post here.

Welp. That pretty much sums up this entire thread. Thank you!

 

[GoofGoof]

This is on my list too! We were just discussing how long it will be before HDDR is back and I am scared it won’t return

I have no inside info but I think there’s a good chance it comes back. Disney of all companies knows the power and value of nostalgia. It’s iconic and super popular.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

This is on my list too! We were just discussing how long it will be before HDDR is back and I am scared it won’t return

It’s now considered racist

 

[Chomama]

It’s now considered racist

What? Which part? Not trying to be obtuse. ...oh the indian....seems like they could take him out?

 

[DisneyDebRob]

My husband won’t stay at POR until they get rid of Yee Ha Bob.

Its the only reason I do go to POR! That and a quick walk to POFQ for beignets.

 

[Miss Bella]

What? Which part? Not trying to be obtuse. ...oh the indian....seems like they could take him out?

My husband was the Indian last time. At least I still got the picture.

 

[Chi84]

Its the only reason I do go to POR! That and a quick walk to POFQ for beignets.

The boozy ones from Scat Cat's that you can inject with Bailey's liqueur are great!

 

[Chomama]

The boozy ones from Scat Cat's that you can inject with Bailey's liqueur are great!

What? That’s a thing?!

 

[ABQ]

It’s now considered racist

I do hope you are being sarcastic. honestly, it's been a huge favorite of our family and in decades, I've never heard anyone call it racist. But these days, anything in possible. However, the googler at least didn't think it was either. "hoop de doo revue" "racist"

 

[Chi84]

What? That’s a thing?!

You get a choice of Bailey’s, Kahlua or RumChata.

 

[_caleb]

More than Walmart, Costco or some other essential business that welcomes thousands of guests?

Sure. Seems like most people might use different criteria when deciding how/when/whether to visit an essential business vs. a non-essential vacation destination, right?

 

[oceanbreeze77]

Fear is a perfectly good word.

If there's a bad outcome that is definitely coming, you should indeed fear it.

If there's a *risk* of a bad outcome that *may* happen, you should still fear it... but provisionally, and with full knowledge of the risk.

We've been posting the stats of the risk so people can make a sound choice whether a certain risk (that one should fear) is worth chancing. We all face such a risk when we get into a car, or the tub.

The problem is when people judge the amount of risk differently. People of good faith and sound mind can look at the same stats and determine if a certain risk is worth the risk or not and disagree.

The problem comes when people aren't looking at the stats with a sound mind or do so in bad faith because they want a certain outcome to come about and so they ignore or trivialize or rationalize the risk away. And when the actual risk is pointed out to them and they're told the rest of society isn't going to take that risk, then it's not about "fear" any more.

It's about a *claim* of *fear-mongering.* They claim those who are pointing out the risk are overstating the case. They don't see, or refuse to see the risk of a bad outcome for themselves or others. And they twist the reality of the situation and claim those who disagree with them are just fear-mongering. Which is an ad hominem fallacy.

That's why this thread has become heavily moderated by requiring people to back up their claims with valid sources. This way, we're all using the same stats which tells us what the reality is.

Of course, it can go the other way when people become overly fearful and become obsessed with the risk. For example, leading up to the MLS/NBA bubble, Twitter was abuzz with Tweets telling the players they were heading to their deaths. Once the initial quarantine was over, not one player or staff member got infected.

Anyway... "fear" is good and healthy when well-informed. "Fear-mongering" is a claim that people are exaggerating the risks. What determines if it's fear-mongering or not is reliable data. And that's what we post here.

I read this as if I was hearing it in church

But srsly. Why do we fear fear? Fear makes us human, it drives our decisions. Fear is our natural bodily instinct when our nervous system tells us if something might be wrong or right.