Indeed.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
baymenxpac
Well-Known Member
the question that no one can seem to get past here (because of politics) is:
what laws/temporary restrictions ACTUALLY contribute to the greater good? that's the problem. and people don't want to face it, because the case made by some politicians is masked in virtue: just wear this, just stay home longer, just keep your distance, we're all in this together. but public health in general occurs on a continuum; it's a multi-faceted, highly nuanced balancing act. myopic policies undermine even the best of intentions.
COVID restrictions ask the bulk of the working class to wear it on the chin for the upper and upper middle classes. i know this because people that make $15 an hour were asked to keep stocking grocery shelves for eight hours a day. i know this because transit employees kept driving the buses and running the trains. and all these new "sanitizing" policies were done by...regular ol' cleaning people. "essential" work is a myth created by policymakers.
then there's people that are in their homes longer that aren't in safe relationships with their spouse/partner. kids that are being abused by their caregivers and having it go unnoticed because they're not in school. there are recovering addicts that couldn't attend meetings, and succumbed to overdoses. as did many suffering with mental health succumbed to suicide. millions of children in the US rely on public schools for their hot meals. in the developing world, disrupted supply chains will cause mass catatrophy. in may, UNICEF projected 1.2 million deaths to children in the next six months due to lockdowns (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-...ckdown-could-kill-covid-19-model-predicts-12/).
not to mention mass unemployement (and the loss of employer-sponsored healthcare for many americans...yes, i support medicare for all, but it's just a fairly tale for now). crippling debt that a $1,200 stimulus check isn't going to fix. oh, and i didn't even get to the fact that homes is where most of the transmission of COVID happens and by forcing healthy people in the same house as sick people, you're exacerbating the problem.
so this is what at least some people are driving at. it's easy to say, "just SACRIFICE, people! for the GREATER GOOD! FOR THE BENEFIT OF MANY!" not working? "SACRIFICE MORE. WHY ARE YOU SELFISH?!?!" but the reason why mass quarantine and lockdown strategies were not considered viable by the WHO, CDC, nor any other public agency around the world prior to 2020 was that everyone knew there would be mass unintended consequences.
and i think we can spare the fact that this is simply a 'MURICA problem. thanks to globalization, we're all interconnected. and we're social animals with more basic needs that foraged nuts in the middle of the wilderness.
Last edited:
There’s some middle-of-the-roaders in both 3 and 4, too. I think there’s a fair number of people who would go to Disney if they didn’t require masks outdoors (unless in an area where social distancing isn’t possible) but kept the requirements when indoors and when on attractions. I think there’s a good number of people in your group 4 who would still go even in that case, but would also be more likely to wear masks the entire time despite not “needing” to per the rules. And I think there’s a good number in group 3 who aren’t going today due to the mask rules but would go if the requirement was only for indoors.
I think there’s a lot of “gray” opinions on masks. For example, I know plenty of people who wear their masks religiously, and take Covid very seriously, but have still been getting together to visit extended family on occasion, visit friends once in a while, and are making plans for thanksgiving and Christmas.
But as everyone says, as to what any of these numbers actually are is anyone’s guess.
Kind of a moot point since I doubt Disney will be changing their mask rules any time soon.
Some did.
bdearl41
Well-Known Member
My point is simply it isn’t the hell its made out to be.
Kman
Well-Known Member
unfortunately, this president, his administration and the conspiracy theorists who support them are anti-science. When you believe in a flat earth, that humans have no impact on their environment and that scientists and doctors are all in collusion to destroy society/ the economy then there is not much hope
Chi84
Premium Member
Yes, I absolutely hate those labels and don't fit into any of those boxes, either. I think the mask rules will be relaxed as soon as circumstances allow. Right now, with people being indoors more often, the holidays coming and no vaccine, Disney needs to keep a mask requirement that it can easily enforce, which means no exceptions. That will change, but we don't know when. No one is looking at a WDW commercial with people in masks and saying, "Look, honey, let's go to WDW because it's safe!"There’s some middle-of-the-roaders in both 3 and 4, too. I think there’s a fair number of people who would go to Disney if they didn’t require masks outdoors (unless in an area where social distancing isn’t possible) but kept the requirements when indoors and when on attractions. I think there’s a good number of people in your group 4 who would still go even in that case, but would also be more likely to wear masks the entire time despite not “needing” to per the rules. And I think there’s a good number in group 3 who aren’t going today due to the mask rules but would go if the requirement was only for indoors.
I think there’s a lot of “gray” opinions on masks. For example, I know plenty of people who wear their masks religiously, and take Covid very seriously, but have still been getting together to visit extended family on occasion, visit friends once in a while, and are making plans for thanksgiving and Christmas.
But as everyone says, as to what any of these numbers actually are is anyone’s guess.
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
I do get what you are saying. I will say no one is in lockdown anymore and I don't think wearing a mask and social distancing really affects the economy like many of you claim.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
Thank you for posting this! It is well thought out, balanced and spot on. It also eloquently illustrates why the response to COVID is not as "simple" as some like to make it out to be. Everything in life is about trade offs.
Finally an extra thank you for pointing out that most of the transmission of COVID happens inside homes where people spend a lot of time in close proximity to each other.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
@Tink242424 perhaps you'd like to share what's so funny about wearing a mask during a pandemic and discussing the science that proves that masks help reduce spread seeing as you continue to put laughing reactions on posts that aren't remotely funny.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Well typically there isn’t a global pandemic going on. If this was just the USA I’d question it more, but globally the overwhelming majority of leaders have agreed to restrictions on bars, theaters, and large group activities.
I think that’s the whole point. It’s obvious that many leaders don’t want people traveling right now. Again, this is not red states vs. blue states, this is a decision made by the majority of the global leaders.
trainplane3
Well-Known Member
Just take a scroll through their post history.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
baymenxpac
Well-Known Member
right, but let's not get pedantic about the term "lockdown." restrictions do just as much harm. let's just go with this one:
school closures.
we've knew for months from observing data from europe and asia that schools were not a factor in furthering the spread of COVID. but we hemmed and hawed about it all summer, and many schools in the US started -- at best -- in a hybrid model. many remained all virtual. this not only hurts poor and/or rural families (those without access to proper internet access), but it also stresses every middle class family that are now being asked, whether their jobs have brought them back to the office or not, to oversee the schooling of their kids. 1) if parents were qualified for that, why would we need teachers? and 2) that places not only undue stress on parents that both work, but also of parents where maybe there is one school age child in the house, but a younger sibling. what's more, virtual attendance is terrible, reading comprehension is down across the board, with kindergarten performance being absolutely dreadful, and grading standards have fallen (because, on many virtual tests/quizzes, there's no time limit, so kids can just cheat and look up the answers).
then there are the kids that just aren't safe at home, like i mentioned in my earlier post. or kids whose parents have to go to work and are left in alternate daycare in the best of cases (alone in the worst of cases). kids miss vital socialization, the effects of which we won't know for years. all of these factors have immediate and future ripple effects on the economy, the biggest of which will be lost wages for kids that don't have the tools to compete in a global economy.
and if you don't believe me on the points from the previous two posts, here are pandemic preparedness documents (one from some very prominent experts you'll undoubtedly recognize if you're on twitter), one from the WHO, from 2006 and 2011 respectfully, that basically spell out the infeasibility of societal restrictions:
WHO | Health is more than influenza
www.who.int
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
Here all schools are open the thing is a lot of parents have chosen to keep doing virtual learning due to Covid. Cases do happen at school. We had almost 800 cases in 2 weeks from schools. So it does happen in schools.right, but let's not get pedantic about the term "lockdown." restrictions do just as much harm. let's just go with this one:
school closures.
we've knew for months from observing data from europe and asia that schools were not a factor in furthering the spread of COVID. but we hemmed and hawed about it all summer, and many schools in the US started -- at best -- in a hybrid model. many remained all virtual. this not only hurts poor and/or rural families (those without access to proper internet access), but it also stresses every middle class family that are now being asked, whether their jobs have brought them back to the office or not, to oversee the schooling of their kids. 1) if parents were qualified for that, why would we need teachers? and 2) that places not only undue stress on parents that both work, but also of parents where maybe there is one school age child in the house, but a younger sibling. what's more, virtual attendance is terrible, reading comprehension is down across the board, with kindergarten performance being absolutely dreadful, and grading standards have fallen (because, on many virtual tests/quizzes, there's no time limit, so kids can just cheat and look up the answers).
then there are the kids that just aren't safe at home, like i mentioned in my earlier post. or kids whose parents have to go to work and are left in alternate daycare in the best of cases (alone in the worst of cases). kids miss vital socialization, the effects of which we won't know for years. all of these factors have immediate and future ripple effects on the economy, the biggest of which will be lost wages for kids that don't have the tools to compete in a global economy.
and if you don't believe me on the points from the previous two posts, here are pandemic preparedness documents (one from some very prominent experts you'll undoubtedly recognize if you're on twitter), one from the WHO, from 2006 and 2011 respectfully, that basically spell out the infeasibility of societal restrictions:
WHO | Health is more than influenza
baymenxpac
Well-Known Member
actually, no you can't know they "happen in schools" unless you can isolate the index case. and trust me, if you could find index cases in schools that led to 800 cases, it would be front page news everywhere.
am i surprised many parents (i'm sure the bulk of whom are middle-to-upper-middle class) opted for virtual learning? no. that's what happens when healthcare messaging incites panic.
more on my position articulated nicely here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54662485
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
I'm in MA, and only ~700 students chose virtual over hybrid (the only two options) out of more than 7,000 students in our district.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Agreed, the point isn’t that people can only be in one group it’s to point out that for some people on both extremes the safety protocols don’t matter. For the rest of the people there is some balance of people who are willing to go or not go based on the particular safety protocols in place. 100% agreed there. You could blow it out into 100s or maybe 1000s of distinct groups based on each type of safety measure, but in the interest of time I summarized into 4 broad categories. It wasn’t my intent to say everyone has to pick one of those 4.There’s some middle-of-the-roaders in both 3 and 4, too. I think there’s a fair number of people who would go to Disney if they didn’t require masks outdoors (unless in an area where social distancing isn’t possible) but kept the requirements when indoors and when on attractions. I think there’s a good number of people in your group 4 who would still go even in that case, but would also be more likely to wear masks the entire time despite not “needing” to per the rules. And I think there’s a good number in group 3 who aren’t going today due to the mask rules but would go if the requirement was only for indoors.
I think there’s a lot of “gray” opinions on masks. For example, I know plenty of people who wear their masks religiously, and take Covid very seriously, but have still been getting together to visit extended family on occasion, visit friends once in a while, and are making plans for thanksgiving and Christmas.
But as everyone says, as to what any of these numbers actually are is anyone’s guess.
The statement was made by another poster and agreed by others that if Disney removed safety protocols and specifically the mask one that the parks would be more crowded than with safety protocols in place and that the only reason WDW isn’t back to pretty much normal business is because of artificial restrictions. I don’t agree with that. I see no evidence that that would be the case. I posted one of the polls done, there were others posted further back in the thread that all showed that the people surveyed are more likely to go with safety protocols than without. I haven‘t seen any links to polls or surveys conducted that showed the opposite. Disney’s own policies and their move toward stricter enforcement tells me they believe the safety protocols are a positive not a negative.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Hey those laugh emojis count as likes for my profile...quit trying to kill my statistics
We all need a little more laughter in our lives these days so I’m happy to make someone laugh even it’s in a very bizarre way. Who knew wearing masks could be so funny, especially since you can’t even see if the other person is smiling under them
baymenxpac
Well-Known Member
yeah, i have found this to be the more common experience. i'm in NY and we had parents literally protesting by the hundreds to allow their kids be given the option to be in school five days a week.
in our district, they brought all the elementary schools back full time earlier this month. a neighboring district is bringing back all kids in two weeks. that's great news.
- Status