Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[GoofGoof]

I have to agree with @GoofGoof here (shocking, I know). The stay at home orders in the US were never really lockdowns in the sense that China locked down Wuhan. All they did was defined "essential" business and activities that were allowed to operate.

I'm not sure if anybody has brought a court challenge yet but I do not believe that measures which treat "essential" and "non-essential" businesses differently are constitutional. In the USA, we are guaranteed "equal protection" under the law by the constitution. To me, that clearly means either all businesses can operate under the same restrictions or no businesses can operate. People would still be able to eat if you forced grocery stores to do curbside pickup only so the argument that we will starve if you treat them the same as restaurants goes out the window.

Speaking from experience during the stay at home orders, I may have starved if it was curbside or delivery only for groceries...not really because DoorDash was still going strong, but assuming restaurants had to close too even for takeout I would have been stalking that deer who comes up to my fence every day . There were several months straight where I couldn’t get a time slot for pickup or delivery.

My position has been that we should open as much as we can with safety protocols and as cases spike we pull back. Same plan we had in April but really didn’t follow most places. I feel like today we know a lot more of the higher risk stuff so if you start by eliminating that first there’s no need to eliminate all activity. If cases surge like they are right now some places, pull more and more back until it’s reduced. It worked many places this summer during the sun belt spikes. We pulled back on indoor dining and bars and in some states gyms and movie theaters and the cases dropped. We didn’t need to go as far as limiting all non-essential activity.

 

[Patcheslee]

I have to agree with @GoofGoof here (shocking, I know). The stay at home orders in the US were never really lockdowns in the sense that China locked down Wuhan. All they did was defined "essential" business and activities that were allowed to operate.

I'm not sure if anybody has brought a court challenge yet but I do not believe that measures which treat "essential" and "non-essential" businesses differently are constitutional. In the USA, we are guaranteed "equal protection" under the law by the constitution. To me, that clearly means either all businesses can operate under the same restrictions or no businesses can operate. People would still be able to eat if you forced grocery stores to do curbside pickup only so the argument that we will starve if you treat them the same as restaurants goes out the window.

The "essential" tag was IMO too widespread and available. Factories around here used the fact they have government contracts as being essential. Manufacturing being the most prominent jobs, we had little difference except masks finally in May.

 

[_caleb]

I don’t disagree that there are a range of activities that are more or less essential. No matter how many buckets you have there are only 2 options either the activity is allowed or it’s not allowed. So while you are saying we shouldn’t have one bucket called essentials and then everything else not allowed (which was the stay at home orders) you are also saying we should limit our interactions to only activities that are essential. That’s a contradiction. That’s why I’m confused. The other issue is who decides what’s essential? I may think an activity is essential for me but someone else sees it as unnecessary. We can’t rely on people to self regulate. There have to be rules and recommendations laid out.

In almost every place that has large spikes in cases the governments and health experts are attributing a large portion of the spikes to people doing activities that are not recommended. In some cases private parties and gatherings, in some cases lack of mask mandates, in some cases indoor dining and bars open without good safety protocols. I gues what I’m saying is if those things are a big problem then shutting down those things as well asking people not to go to retail stores and hotels and theme parks and schools and doctor’s offices and other things operating with safety protocols seems like another version of stay at home orders. A blunt weapon that causes a lot of unnecessary damage.

When it comes to categories of "essential," I don't understand why the only options are "the activity is allowed or it's not allowed?" All sorts of things fall into "allowed, but with modifications/restrictions/limits," right? Restaurants can be open, but not for dining in. Drive in theaters can be open, but not for concessions. Schools could be open only for higher-need or higher-risk children. Maybe I'm misunderstanding here or miss communicating (either is likely).

I guess what I'm saying is, what about "allowed, but discouraged?" "Allowed, but only once per month?" "Allowed, but only for those with greater need/at higher risk?" "Allowed, but only on alternating Thursdays, provided fair weather?" Higher on the priority list, fewer restrictions.

I'm still not seeing the contradiction between "we need to prioritize multiple tiers of essential things" and "we should limit our interactions to only activities that are essential." The contradiction seems to be in you saying, "yes, there are a variety of levels of priority," but then saying, "but it's either stay at home or open up."

I agree that we can't seem rely on people to self regulate. But there is a place for public influence. It used to be embarrassing to have a green lawn during a drought.

What's different now, though, than during past times of hardship and crisis, when people did pull together and sacrifice for the common good?

 

[Chi84]

I have to agree with @GoofGoof here (shocking, I know). The stay at home orders in the US were never really lockdowns in the sense that China locked down Wuhan. All they did was defined "essential" business and activities that were allowed to operate.

I'm not sure if anybody has brought a court challenge yet but I do not believe that measures which treat "essential" and "non-essential" businesses differently are constitutional. In the USA, we are guaranteed "equal protection" under the law by the constitution. To me, that clearly means either all businesses can operate under the same restrictions or no businesses can operate. People would still be able to eat if you forced grocery stores to do curbside pickup only so the argument that we will starve if you treat them the same as restaurants goes out the window.

Honestly, I don't think requiring grocery stores to do curbside pickup would work. Some are the size of warehouses, and it might be unworkable for the store and a logistical nightmare for the customers. Trying to get a week's grocery order for a typical family is not the same as getting McDonald's for lunch.

Equal protection does not require the government to treat all businesses equally, just those that are similarly circumstanced. Very generally, the government has to establish that it has a legitimate governmental interest or goal and that the law is rationally related to achieving that goal.

Restaurant dining is different from grocery shopping because it brings people in close proximity to the same people for more than 15 minutes (usually much more) and necessarily requires removal of masks for the purposes of dining. People who are grocery shopping can wear masks the entire time, usually briefly pass one another and can generally maintain a good distance. Equal protection would not require the government to put additional, unnecessary restrictions on one business to make it "equal" to the harm necessarily sustained by another business.

 

[DCBaker]

"Moderna, Inc., (Nasdaq: MRNA) a biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients, today announced that it has completed case accrual for the first interim analysis of the Phase 3 COVE study of mRNA-1273, its COVID-19 vaccine candidate.

Moderna has seen a significant increase in the rate of case identification across sites in the last week. As a result, the Company expects the first interim analysis will include substantially more than 53 cases, the targeted trigger point for the analysis. The data on these cases is being prepared for submission to the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for analysis and recommendation. Moderna remains blinded to whether these participants received vaccine or placebo.

On October 22, the Phase 3 COVE study of mRNA-1273 completed enrollment of 30,000 participants in the U.S. The randomized, 1:1 placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial is studying mRNA-1273 at the 100 µg dose. The primary endpoint is the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease. Key secondary endpoints include prevention of severe COVID-19 disease and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2. The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT04470427.

The Phase 3 study was designed in collaboration with the FDA and NIH to evaluate Americans at the highest risk of severe COVID-19 disease and included more than 7,000 Americans over the age of 65. It also included more than 5,000 Americans who are under the age of 65, but have high-risk chronic diseases that put them at increased risk of severe COVID-19, such as diabetes, severe obesity and cardiac disease. These medically high-risk groups represent 42% of the total participants in the Phase 3 COVE study. Moderna also worked to develop a vaccine for everyone, including communities that have historically been under-represented in clinical research and are disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. The study included more than 11,000 participants from communities of color, representing 37% of the study population and similar to the diversity of the U.S. at large. This included more than 6,000 participants who identify as Hispanic or LatinX, and more than 3,000 participants who identify as Black or African American."

Moderna Has Completed Case Accrual for First Planned Interim Analysis of its mRNA Vaccine Against COVID-19 (mRNA-1273) | Moderna, Inc.

Acceleration in rate of COVID-19 disease across trial sites; Company expects more than 53 cases will be submitted to Data Safety Monitoring Board for the first interim analysis CAMBRIDGE, Mass. --(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 11, 2020-- Moderna, Inc. , (Nasdaq: MRNA) a biotechnology company pioneering

investors.modernatx.com

 

[FeelsSoGoodToBeBad]

I'm not sure if anybody has brought a court challenge yet....

There have been legal challenges in IL, at least:

Illinois' Stay-at-Home Challenges Will Likely be Decided by a Federal Court

The showdown over Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s emergency authority and that of the Illinois State Legislature will likely be decided by a federal judge. Shortly after Clay County Judge Michael McHaney ruled that Pritzker exceeded his authority by extending the state’s stay-at-home order, the state...

www.nbcchicago.com

This was a challenge of the EXTENSION of the SAH orders, to clarify, not the initial orders themselves.

 

[danlb_2000]

"New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the closing of bars, restaurants and gyms daily by 10 p.m.

The measures go into effect starting Friday at 10 p.m. Curb-side pick up may continue after 10 p.m.

Gov Cuomo said the new cases are coming from these three main areas."

Coronavirus Updates: Non high-risk Americans should be able to get vaccine by April, Fauci says

Dr. Anthony Fauci says that Americans who are not on the high-priority list for a COVID-19 vaccine should be able to get vaccinated by the end of April.

abc7ny.com

That last piece is almost unenforcable.

 

[Jrb1979]

That last piece is almost unenforcable.

Not true. Its enforced here. They fine the homeowner $10,000 and the people attending $750. It can be done. I know many don't believe it should be.

 

[danlb_2000]

What is the difference between stay at home orders and only doing activity that is deemed essential. At least where I live during the stay at home orders you could leave the house to shop for groceries, go to the pharmacy, go to a doctor‘s appointment, go to work if you have a job deemed essential. Restaurants were open take out only.

I guess asked a better way, what was restricted during stay at home orders that wouldn’t be restricted if we only left the house for essential activity?

NJ said residents should remain at home except to...

- shop at essential businesses
- Obtain take out from restaurants
- Seek medical, social services, or law enforcement services
- visit family or others the resident has a close personal relationship with
- Report to their job
- Exercising
- Educational, religious or political reasons.

Considering the things that were closed I can't really think of any reason you would need to leave your house that isn't covered by one of these exceptions.

 

[danlb_2000]

Not true. Its enforced here. They fine the homeowner $10,000 and the people attending $750. It can be done. I know many don't believe it should be.

I am sure there have been some cases of enforcement, but I am not sure how you enforce in on a large scale, especially when the numbers is that low. Although not common, you could have families with 10 or more people.

 

[GoofGoof]

When it comes to categories of "essential," I don't understand why the only options are "the activity is allowed or it's not allowed?" All sorts of things fall into "allowed, but with modifications/restrictions/limits," right? Restaurants can be open, but not for dining in. Drive in theaters can be open, but not for concessions. Schools could be open only for higher-need or higher-risk children. Maybe I'm misunderstanding here or miss communicating (either is likely).

This is exactly what I’ve been saying. Plenty of things can be done safely with modifications. Then you only have to restrict the things with no practical restrictions that will work.

I guess what I'm saying is, what about "allowed, but discouraged?" "Allowed, but only once per month?" "Allowed, but only for those with greater need/at higher risk?" "Allowed, but only on alternating Thursdays, provided fair weather?" Higher on the priority list, fewer restrictions.

I'm still not seeing the contradiction between "we need to prioritize multiple tiers of essential things" and "we should limit our interactions to only activities that are essential." The contradiction seems to be in you saying, "yes, there are a variety of levels of priority," but then saying, "but it's either stay at home or open up."

You lost me here. In a rules based system how can the government say something is allowed but then also discourage it? It’s either allowed or it’s not. So indoor dining is allowed some places (with capacity limits or distancing required) but still allowed. Indoor dining is never essential so theres never a case where someone has to do it. If the government says indoor dining is allowed (with modifications) then they can’t also say but it’s discouraged. That’s confusing for people.

Maybe the disconnect is I’m talking about government imposed rules. Can WDW be open? Can a hotel be open? Can a restaurant have indoor dining? The answer is either yes (with or without modifications) or no not allowed. You are talking about what people should or shouldn’t do even If it’s allowed. I agree that my standards are different than just what‘s allowed. I don’t think people should be traveling out of state right now as cases surge. I don’t eat indoor at restaurants at all right now. I wouldn’t go to a sporting event in the stands.

 

[DCBaker]

I am sure there have been some cases of enforcement, but I am not sure how you enforce in on a large scale, especially when the numbers is that low. Although not common, you could have families with 10 or more people.

It was clarified later that households with more than 10 are exempt.

Cuomo also acknowledged he doesn't have the resources for enforcement.

 

[GoofGoof]

"Moderna, Inc., (Nasdaq: MRNA) a biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients, today announced that it has completed case accrual for the first interim analysis of the Phase 3 COVE study of mRNA-1273, its COVID-19 vaccine candidate.

Moderna has seen a significant increase in the rate of case identification across sites in the last week. As a result, the Company expects the first interim analysis will include substantially more than 53 cases, the targeted trigger point for the analysis. The data on these cases is being prepared for submission to the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for analysis and recommendation. Moderna remains blinded to whether these participants received vaccine or placebo.

On October 22, the Phase 3 COVE study of mRNA-1273 completed enrollment of 30,000 participants in the U.S. The randomized, 1:1 placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial is studying mRNA-1273 at the 100 µg dose. The primary endpoint is the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease. Key secondary endpoints include prevention of severe COVID-19 disease and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2. The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT04470427.

The Phase 3 study was designed in collaboration with the FDA and NIH to evaluate Americans at the highest risk of severe COVID-19 disease and included more than 7,000 Americans over the age of 65. It also included more than 5,000 Americans who are under the age of 65, but have high-risk chronic diseases that put them at increased risk of severe COVID-19, such as diabetes, severe obesity and cardiac disease. These medically high-risk groups represent 42% of the total participants in the Phase 3 COVE study. Moderna also worked to develop a vaccine for everyone, including communities that have historically been under-represented in clinical research and are disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. The study included more than 11,000 participants from communities of color, representing 37% of the study population and similar to the diversity of the U.S. at large. This included more than 6,000 participants who identify as Hispanic or LatinX, and more than 3,000 participants who identify as Black or African American."

Moderna Has Completed Case Accrual for First Planned Interim Analysis of its mRNA Vaccine Against COVID-19 (mRNA-1273) | Moderna, Inc.

Acceleration in rate of COVID-19 disease across trial sites; Company expects more than 53 cases will be submitted to Data Safety Monitoring Board for the first interim analysis CAMBRIDGE, Mass. --(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 11, 2020-- Moderna, Inc. , (Nasdaq: MRNA) a biotechnology company pioneering

investors.modernatx.com

Such a tease. It’s like one of those shows where they cut to commercial right before the grand reveal. Unblind the results and let us know if we now have 2 potentially viable vaccines

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Trying to get a week's grocery order for a typical family is not the same as getting McDonald's for lunch.

It’s really easy.... I’ve been using instacart since this all began.

 

[lazyboy97o]

To me, that clearly means either all businesses can operate under the same restrictions or no businesses can operate.

This was not even true before the pandemic. Every jurisdiction have different rules depending on the type of business. Different businesses required different fees and licenses. Some require the business owners to hold an individual license in addition to a business license. Some businesses require different, more expensive equipment or more expensive facilities. Some types of businesses are not allowed in certain buildings. Most zoning codes have a schedule of which types of business are allowed to operate where.

 

[Chi84]

It’s really easy.... I’ve been using instacart since this all began.

It is, as long as it's optional and not required. If everyone who is currently shopping in the grocery stores (the great majority of shoppers, at least in my area) were all forced to use instacart, I suspect the system would break down. I was responding to a specific scenario raised by another poster.

In fact, when this all began, there were times we had to choose a delivery date several days in the future. It's fine now because not as many people are using it.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

It is, as long as it's optional and not required. If everyone who is currently shopping in the grocery stores (the great majority of shoppers, at least in my area) were all forced to use instacart, I suspect the system would break down. I was responding to a specific scenario raised by another poster.

In fact, when this all began, there were times we had to choose a delivery date several days in the future. It's fine now because not as many people are using it.

No, the store would adapt and hire more staff.

I’m not saying it should or shouldn’t be necessary, but it’s easy to see such a solution.

 

[GoofGoof]

It’s really easy.... I’ve been using instacart since this all began.

Like I said earlier...I would have starved. I guess if they made it mandatory the stores could have hired more workers but from mid-March through some time in May I couldn’t get a time slot anywhere. I have a co-worker who drove and hour each way to a supermarket because he happened to get a time slot there for pickup. It was crazy. From about mid-May until now it’s been better. I think half the reason is so many people gave up or got frustrated with poor service and vowed never to use it again.

 

[Chi84]

No, the store would adapt and hire more staff.

I’m not saying it should or shouldn’t be necessary, but it’s easy to see such a solution.

I don't think it would be that easy, nor do I believe people would accept it. The government walks a fine line with these restrictions. Also, there are areas where the stores don't provide a shopping and/or delivery service, making it much more difficult to manage.

That said, we had fairly good experiences with instacart, then our store eliminated them and started using its own shopping service. Terrible experiences with that one. We ordered 2 individual russet potatoes and they loaded 2 10-pound bags into our car - didn't see it until we got home. In fact, the last time we ordered, nearly half the order was either missing (out of stock) or incorrect (whole milk instead of fat free, and that sort of thing). We're pretty easy-going, but I know people who would go ballistic if they had to deal with those issues.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Like I said earlier...I would have starved. I guess if they made it mandatory the stores could have hired more workers but from mid-March through some time in May I couldn’t get a time slot anywhere. I have a co-worker who drove and hour each way to a supermarket because he happened to get a time slot there for pickup. It was crazy. From about mid-May until now it’s been better. I think half the reason is so many people gave up or got frustrated with poor service and vowed never to use it again.

Your only option was instacart? around me I have instacart at Publix pickup or delivery, Walmart curbside, Target curbside or delivery, and a local store that was pickup only and now has pickup or you can go inside again.

I’ve had great customer service from instacart, but I can see that could vary from region to region.