Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[matt9112]

I hope for the sake of mental health you aren't planning on reading the next 100 pages in one sitting

Oh i am legit was 200.....what else am i going to do?

 

[larryz]

Oh i am legit was 200.....what else am i going to do?

Well, don't bother asking people to slow down... didn't work for me the other night.

 

[RobWDW1971]

500K to 1.5 million Americans dead. Not worldwide. The mortality rate is 10 to 20 times really bad flu seasons.

This is not just the flu. You are at least 2 weeks behind on that argument.

I'm using the flu as simply perspective on scale of deaths. Fine, let's not use influenza as that seems to trigger people in these discussions.

In the US last year, cancer killed over 600K Americans. We as a country survived, the economy didn't crash, people went on with their daily lives, and there were no blaring nightly newscasts of "100,000 dead of cancer!!!", "200K dead of cancer!!!", 300K dead of cancer!!!".

If 500K+ Americans (almost entirely in the target categories) were to die from this virus, the country would move on. This continues to be the problem, there is no perspective and the goals of this virus were impossible for the start and the public was not prepared for what can/may/probably will happen.

 

[21stamps]

Are you serious? They can't even Get a test to each county in each state in the USA, much less count them.

They are definitely counting them. People aren’t going to their primary care physician for a quick test to be disregarded afterwards.
There are steps that have to be taken to get a test, and it is being/has been reported to each county & state. How do you think the numbers of infected are being announced?

The only curveball is now the private sector being involved, which the federal government should have no problem obtaining the info from. However, we were not receiving that info even prior to more testing locations.

 

[matt9112]

Well, don't bother asking people to slow down... didn't work for me the other night.

Stop posting or i will have to club you into tommorow

 

[disneygeek90]

I'm using the flu as simply perspective on scale of deaths. Fine, let's not use influenza as that seems to trigger people in these discussions.

In the US last year, cancer killed over 600K Americans. We as a country survived, the economy didn't crash, people went on with their daily lives, and there were no blaring nightly newscasts of "100,000 dead of cancer!!!", "200K dead of cancer!!!", 300K dead of cancer!!!".

If 500K+ Americans (almost entirely in the target categories) were to die, the country would move on. This continues to be the problem, there is no perspective and the goals of this virus were impossible for the start and the public was not prepared for what can/may/probably will happen.

The obvious argument is someone with mild cancer can't walk around at a mall and give someone else severe cancer. This is something that has perceived control.

 

[Shouldigo12]

Here’s my county,
Immediate Health risk “low”.. but no stats at all on how many people have been tested. Without that, how do they know what the risk is?
Can people trust it enough to not have to do such drastic arrangements as they’re currently doing?
Hamilton county, where Cincinnati is located, is directly to my south- they have 0 reported cases as well.. Butler county is my neighbor to the west, they have one family who was all infected and currently quarantined . We’re all 3 part of the same metropolitan area.
To be able to quantify a risk, wouldn’t we need more information than what is provided here?
View attachment 456756

Everyone involved in this discussion is just going around in circles. You want more, specific information related to testing released. I understand that. But I'm not really understanding what you think having that information will change. I get not wanting to just put blind trust into anyone who says their expert, but when you have so many governments and doctor's telling you this is serious and this is what we need to do to minimize impact....I don't know.

 

[RobWDW1971]

The obvious argument is someone with mild cancer can't walk around at a mall and give someone else severe cancer. This is something that has perceived control.

Two different conversations - one is scale of death and societal concern/impact and the other is how to prevent infection to those that are highly targeted. I'm all for the latter, which we should be focused on instead of the former.

 

[21stamps]

Answer this question: how many people are infected and infectious but are asymptomatic? If they're in that category, they would not be tested anyway.

I have no idea. I know they wouldn’t test me when I literally begged to be tested.. the tests were reserved for very specific circumstances, mainly knowingly around someone who had it.. or if I would have traveled to specific countries. We can’t know if we were exposed if people aren’t getting tested. Does that mean no one in this area fit their specific requirements? I’d like to know the answer to that.

That's why I think you should just assume that everyone is infected, and everyone should keep to themselves in a semi-isolated place until their area clears.

How do we know when it clears if it shows that it’s already clear now?

 

[RobWDW1971]

The conversation really comes down to what is the cost of each level of "abundance of caution". Abundance of caution isn't free. There is a trade-off that is not being considered, as in the current hysteria it is simply if it is MORE abundance of caution therefore it is inherently right and good. Back to our cars analogy - if the absolute goal was to eliminate auto deaths you could build all cars like tanks, make speed limits 25 max everywhere, or actually ban cars.

Each one of those strategies is more and more abundance of caution. But we have decided as a society that the 40,000+ deaths (nearly entirely preventable if you pursue those policies) are an acceptable trade off to the convenience to our lives and economic benefit.

What's missing in this hysteria and spiraling reaction is that analysis. Simplifying for conversation - is it worth $100 billion of market value to save 1,000 lives? 10,000 lives? How many lives is it worth to have the market down 50%, hundreds of thousands of unemployed, and the US in a recession for years? 100,000 lives? One million lives?

Again, no right answer, but that is the conversation we're having without having it - abundance of caution isn't free so we shouldn't pretend it is.

 

[larryz]

I have no idea. I know they wouldn’t test me when I literally begged to be tested.. the tests were reserved for very specific circumstances, mainly knowingly around someone who had it.. or if I would have traveled to specific countries. We can’t know if we were exposed if people aren’t getting tested. Does that mean no one in this area fit their specific requirements? I’d like to know the answer to that.

Isolate yourself as if you've been exposed.

How do we know when it clears if it shows that it’s already clear now?

Three weeks of isolation so it can burn itself out in the current population. Everybody has to cooperate.

If anybody breaks the rule, the clock has to start over. Someone in week 3 not yet fully recovered can infect someone brand new, and that extends the timeline.

That is why everybody should isolate for 3 weeks.

 

[21stamps]

Everyone involved in this discussion is just going around in circles. You want more, specific information related to testing released. I understand that. But I'm not really understanding what you think having that information will change. I get not wanting to just put blind trust into anyone who says their expert, but when you have so many governments and doctor's telling you this is serious and this is what we need to do to minimize impact....I don't know.

Transparency and knowledge. That’s all. I expect it as an American. China hides numbers and info, the US shouldn’t.

 

[larryz]

What's missing in this hysteria and spiraling reaction is that analysis. Simplifying for conversation - is it worth $100 billion of market value to save 1,000 lives? 10,000 lives? How many lives is it worth to have the market down 50%, hundreds of thousands of unemployed, and the US in a recession for years? 100,000 lives? One million lives?

If one-third of the US population gets infected, and the mortality rate remains at 4.5% (high estimate), then we're looking at 4,500,000 Americans dying...$22,222 per dead American using your $100 billion number.

Is it worth it? You have to ask yourself: how many Americans have to die to keep you in business?

 

[GoofGoof]

I'm using the flu as simply perspective on scale of deaths. Fine, let's not use influenza as that seems to trigger people in these discussions.

In the US last year, cancer killed over 600K Americans. We as a country survived, the economy didn't crash, people went on with their daily lives, and there were no blaring nightly newscasts of "100,000 dead of cancer!!!", "200K dead of cancer!!!", 300K dead of cancer!!!".

If 500K+ Americans (almost entirely in the target categories) were to die, the country would move on. This continues to be the problem, there is no perspective and the goals of this virus were impossible for the start and the public was not prepared for what can/may/probably will happen.

The cancer analogy is completely irrelevant. It’s not an infectious disease. If I could take a financial hit and inconvenience to slow the rate of cancer I gladly would, but it’s not possible. We do spend millions of dollars fighting it every year and people gladly and freely give their hard earned money.

I think where we disagree is how easy it is to just write off 1.5 million people. Assuming they are all old is not a true assumption. Let’s say for argument sake 95% are old. That’s still 75,000 “young“ people dead. Those are mothers and fathers of young children, future leaders, people we know and love. On the idea of letting the old people go and just moving on, its not just about death, we all die some time, it’s about how the end comes. Even the elderly deserve some dignity in death. Surely you must know some older people in the high risk group? Mother, father, grandparents, favorite uncle, neighbor who watches your dog for you when you go out for the day...whoever. Now imagine the hospitals are overrun (like Italy now) and some of those people are being turned down for care. So your friend or relative gets sick. They are terrified but you get them into your car and take them to the hospital where the doctor says they are positive but there is no room and there is nothing they can do, but you must take them home because they are contagious. So you bring them home and they lay in their bed gasping for breath until they finally pass, but the horror isn’t over yet. You have to wait a few days with the body for the proper infectious disease person to show up and take them away.

Google Italy coronavirus, right now that very thing is happening. We are 10 days behind Italy on cases. If we don’t flatten the curve right now that’s our fate. So in short I’m willing to take a short term economic hit and an inconvenience for a short period of time to avoid anyone having to experience that, especially someone I know or love. If there is one thing I am certain of is that we will recover financially. We will get beyond this. My 401k will go back up. WDW will re-open and eventually be packed with guests again.

 

[flynnibus]

United Airlines posted $1 billion in profits last year.

Delta posted $4 billion in profits last year.

American Airlines posted $1.7 billion in profits. Southwest was at $2.5 billion in profits.

Knock it off. That money needs to go to workers, directly.

You're quoting stuff that means nothing to the problem at hand. Profit over a 12month period sounds like a lot - but you're ignoring their ongoing expenses are WAY WAY WAY bigger - and even if they still had all that profit from 2019 sitting right on their desk, it alone would not cover the loss of revenue.

Take delta for instance... at the end of 2019, they pulled in over 11 billion in revenue in the quarter. They have roughly 10 billion in operating expenses in that quarter. So if your revenues completely tank... what covers that 10 billion flowing out?? The 2019 profit you mention.. 4 billion in profit? It's already gone. 3 billion went back to shareholders through dividends and buybacks. It's not in the company's hands. 1.6 billion went back to employees through profit sharing. But even if they still had it... it's not enough to offset the crashing revenue on it's own.


The financial impact of these slowdown will have to address both household sustainability... and keeping businesses from facing bankruptcies due to revenue collapse. Both will have to be addressed... and will need different methods.

 

[21stamps]

If one-third of the US population gets infected, and the mortality rate remains at 4.5% (high estimate), then we're looking at 4,500,000 Americans dying...$22,222 per dead American using your $100 billion number.

Is it worth it? You have to ask yourself: how many Americans have to die to keep you in business?

This is perfect example. You’re using a mortality rate that we all should realize is extremely overinflated given the fact that not enough people have been tested, worldwide.

 

[GoofGoof]

This is perfect example. You’re using a mortality rate that we all should realize is extremely overinflated given the fact that not enough people have been tested, worldwide.

If the hospitals are overrun the rate goes up. Look at Italy. Assuming this social distancing is followed and works hopefully the US rate will be closer to 1%. Even at 1% the death toll drops to 1M Americans. Or $100K per person. The argument still holds.

 

[Rimmit]

If 500K+ Americans (almost entirely in the target categories) were to die from this virus, the country would move on.

Thats what you don’t understand. The country would not just move on. The reason that having 500k die from cancer or 66k from drunk driving or whatever current disease you pick is an acceptable loss is because we know within a reasonable margin of error how many we have every year. For that reason we are prepared. We know how many ventilators we need. We know about how many nurses we need staffed.

The census of my ICU is reasonably stable. There are peaks and troughs and times when I can run out of beds for a period of time, But for the most part we have the equipment to handle the situations we are presented with 95 percent of the time. I know with a small margin of error how many admissions a year I will get to my ICU.

This is a brand new virus, of which about 20 percent require admission and around 10-8 percent become critically ill. The length of stay of these patients appears to be quite prolonged and can easily be 10-14 days at minimum. Longer if they end up on the vent in an ICU. Let’s say you just get 10 patients. They lock down 10 beds from 10-14 days. That is 100-140 patient days. A hospital can only absorb so much. This then trickles down to interruption of regular healthcare. Our hospital has already stopped elective procedures come Wed. In anticipation of the potential need to use the ORs for possible ICU use. You can run out of EMS staff as they are to busy transporting patients. They may not be able to respond to a car wreck or an emergency call as they are out on transport. Your regular PMD may not be available because he has been drafted to manage Covid patients because to many of the other doctors have been quarantined and are now sick.

Eventually if this disease becomes endemic there will be some innate immunity in the community. It will eventually become like the measles, chicken pox, HIV, TB, car wrecks, etc. In that we will be able to predict how many a year die and also adjust our hospital capacities accordingly. The issue is we don’t know what is going to happen, and with something like this where NO ONE has immunity it will crush our healthcare system if we don’t slow it down. The moment it overwhelms the system all aspects of life will be affected. Not just the old and dying.

 

[RobWDW1971]

[/QUOTE]
Google Italy coronavirus, right now that very thing is happening. We are 10 days behind Italy on cases. If we don’t flatten the curve right now that’s our fate.
[/QUOTE]

Here is Italy's "fate" by the stats as of today in a country of 60 million people. If they follow the trend of all other countries so far, their percent of active cases that are mild of 92% will slightly increase and their recovered percentage will grow and death percentage will decrease as more cases are resolved. In Italy today 92% of all active cases are mild and require no hospitalization. And 2,200 people out of 60 million are dead.

 

[GoofGoof]

Here is Italy's "fate" by the stats as of today in a country of 60 million people. If they follow the trend of all other countries so far, their percent of active cases that are mild of 92% will slightly increase and their recovered percentage will grow and death percentage will decrease as more cases are resolved. In Italy today 92% of all active cases are mild and require no hospitalization. And 2,200 people out of 60 million are dead.


View attachment 456760

Again, not over in Italy...not by a long shot. They are out of hospital space now and the number of sick needing hospitalization is going up, not down. Their nightmare is just beginning.