Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[danlb_2000]

The Supreme Court has, in the last few weeks, ruled in several cases against restrictions that have been placed on churches. One order was just handed down on Friday night forcing San Rafael County, California to permit indoor religious gatherings.

True, they ruled that the churches could not be closed, but they are still allowing restrictions on capacity, and whether people can sing or not.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Suppose a new variant emerges that successfully evades the vaccine. And then one after that. And then another. Or suppose another new virus appears in the wild just as this one is winding down. What if the timeline continues to be extended? Should we stay locked down for 5 years? 10? At what point do you have to say that, regardless of risk, life has to go on?

So the best argument you have against taking precautions to prevent the spread of this virus is that a new variant might pop up or a different virus might appear years later??? And that argument's validity rests solely on the assumption that things would be just great now if we'd just drop those pesky restrictions.

 

[GoofGoof]

Mondays are usually lower numbers also so it is possible.

It’s possible, but I try to assume the best case scenario and not the worst. That significant a drop in testing would be a big red flag if it was real. I assume it’s just a reporting lag.

 

[Flugell]

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Everything You Need to Know | Healthline

Live news & updates on the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak

www.healthline.com

Appreciate that attending face to face religious services is much better for well being, when there, doubt if the possible consequences that have happened, would improve well being if truly a believer in whatever God you believe in. I’ve phrased it like that as all religions have been impacted by the lockdowns/restrictions but I feel secure in the knowledge that my God can listen to me even if I’m alone and not in a place of worship. Though it is much more edifying to be with others and share it is even better to know that my private worship is not placing others, or myself at risk.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I missed that statement. Wow, just... wow. You'd be fine with almost 10 times the total death count for all US war casualties in our history? All that for a narrow definition of "liberty and autonomy"? And you think that 3% of the US population dying wouldn't have far worse add-on consequences than restricting the number of people who can dine indoors or mandating mask wearing in certain circumstances?

How do you think actual fascists take power? Not pretend fascists than leave office when they lose elections after throwing temper tantrums about voter fraud, but real, genuine totalitarians.

Yeah, I used flippant language on purpose to get a reaction. Of course I care about the people who have lost their lives and recognize it as a tragedy. My point in saying "I don't care" is that even great tragedies aren't an excuse to subvert the constitutional order.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So, do you think churches should be except from fire safety codes?

I think everything should be exempt from fire safety codes.

Step 1: Publish fire safety standards.

Step 2: Publicly identify places that are not in compliance with those standards, but do not force them to comply.

Step 3: Let grown adults decide what level of risk they want to take, provided that they're adequately informed of those risks.

 

[Rich Brownn]

How do you think actual fascists take power? Not pretend fascists than leave office when they lose elections after throwing temper tantrums about voter fraud, but real, genuine totalitarians.

Yeah, I used flippant language on purpose to get a reaction. Of course I care about the people who have lost their lives and recognize it as a tragedy. My point in saying "I don't care" is that even great tragedies aren't an excuse to subvert the constitutional order.

Nothing thats been done is unconstitutional. In fact the SCOTUS ruled decades ago the government can actually force you to take a vaccine. They ruled it fell under the constitutional clause of "general welfare"

 

[correcaminos]

So what? EVERYONE is entitled to their religion. The fact that one religion (or one individual) is "okay with restrictions" does not obligate very other religion to be okay with restrictions.

Can you give any real specifics on how people were prohibited from practicing religion in some form during the pandemic other than touting this over and over again with no real argument? Asking as a person who has been in my church 2x during mass over the last year - one of which was a private wedding. I do go weekly to do my work there though, I just haven't gone in person much, but not because it wasn't allowed. And when the church was close we streamed so.... what was yanked from the population that you are fighting so hard for?

 

[Parker in NYC]

I missed that statement. Wow, just... wow. You'd be fine with almost 10 times the total death count for all US war casualties in our history? All that for a narrow definition of "liberty and autonomy"? And you think that 3% of the US population dying wouldn't have far worse add-on consequences than restricting the number of people who can dine indoors or mandating mask wearing in certain circumstances?

Of course not. People can make their own decisions. Lose your job? Get another. Lose the breadwinner in your family? Get another job. Lose your health insurance? Boo hoo. Lose your kids? Sorry not sorry. Don't get in my way, I have a life to live.

There we go. 'Murica. Wheee!!!

 

[correcaminos]

I think everything should be exempt from fire safety codes.

Step 1: Publish fire safety standards.

Step 2: Publicly identify places that are not in compliance with those standards, but do not force them to comply.

Step 3: Let grown *** adults decide what level of risk they want to take, provided that they're adequately informed of those risks.

Just saw this, you're officially off your rocker if you really believe fire codes should be tossed out. They are there for a reason. Codes are not meant to be guidelines. Unlike pirates, we live in a civilized world.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Just saw this, you're officially off your rocker if you really believe fire codes should be tossed out. They are there for a reason. Codes are not meant to be guidelines. Unlike pirates, we live in a civilized world.

Are you British?

 

[Flugell]

I can't believe you've actually written that statement. That you don't care if 10 million people died, just so you could carry on life as normal.

Here in England, we're in our third and hopefully final lockdown. We haven't been able to get back to the USA since the pandemic hit to see my wife's family. I've barely seen my parents who live 30 minutes away since last February, and like everybody else various plans have gone down the drain. But I'm quite happy to stay indoors and cancel plans to save lives and prevent our healthcare system from being completely overwhelmed. A former colleague lost both of her parents to Covid last week which was heartbreaking, and the more we can prevent that the better. We actually should have locked down sooner than we did on each occasion, but our government's incompetency can never be questioned.

I was totally with you till your final sentence.
Our government, along with almost every government on earth has made errors but I give thanks every day that Jeremy Corbin wasn’t elected and thus dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. So our government’s “incompetency” can be questioned and argued against. This is a totally unprecedented situation with no guidance or handbook so there will undoubtedly be mistakes. However I feel that the overall handling of the situation has been well intentioned and that’s a positive that seems to be missing from many governments in the world.
As for your first paragraph if I could award paragraph of the day - you would be the winner!

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I think everything should be exempt from fire safety codes.

Step 1: Publish fire safety standards.

Step 2: Publicly identify places that are not in compliance with those standards, but do not force them to comply.

Step 3: Let grown *** adults decide what level of risk they want to take, provided that they're adequately informed of those risks.

A few problems:

1. How do you publicly identify them in any meaningful way that ensures people know the risk before entering the establishment? You could post it in a newspaper, but how many people don't read newspapers? Post it online on the municipality's website? How many people actually visit that on a regular basis? Put a sign outside the business? Now you're venturing into the territory you seem to be against by forcing the business to have a sign on its property.

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.

3. Since when does the Constitution allow for anyone to intentionally put the safety of others at risk?

 

[Flugell]

Are you British?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Since when does the Constitution allow for anyone to intentionally put the safety of others at risk?

If I have an unsafe [restaurant/rollercoaster/bar/hotel] and you know that it's unsafe but choose to enter anyways, that's not me putting you at risk, that's you putting yourself at risk.

A few problems:

1. How do you publicly identify them in any meaningful way that ensures people know the risk before entering the establishment? You could post it in a newspaper, but how many people don't read newspapers? Post it online on the municipality's website? How many people actually visit that on a regular basis? Put a sign outside the business? Now you're venturing into the territory you seem to be against by forcing the business to have a sign on its property.

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.

Well the Station Night Club *was* certified by the existing process, so that's kind of a point in my column I'd think.

The way it would work itself out mechanically is via insurance. Companies don't like to be sued into oblivion and insurance companies don't like to cover properties with huge liability exposure. The State doesn't tell me that I can't have a giant oak tree growing over my house, but I won't be able to insure my dwelling unless I hate it removed.

What does that have to do with anything?

The UK locked down much harder than the United States and nonetheless has a worse rate of deaths.

 

[correcaminos]

Are you British?

Why because I care about others and think fire codes are a good thing? Yeah no. American born and bred, thank you.

 

[Chi84]

I think everything should be exempt from fire safety codes.

Step 1: Publish fire safety standards.

Step 2: Publicly identify places that are not in compliance with those standards, but do not force them to comply.

Step 3: Let grown *** adults decide what level of risk they want to take, provided that they're adequately informed of those risks.

That's an interesting world you're proposing. How about restaurants? Publish health codes, identify places that are not in compliance, then let adults decide if they want to eat there? What about daycare centers? Publish hiring standards but don't enforce them - let parents do their own background checks? It kind of makes sense to require businesses to comply with fire codes and other standards rather than forcing people to research every place they decide to enter.

I'm guessing you haven't thought through the fire safety code thing. It's not enough to publish them and then let people decide whether or not they want to avoid fire hazards. Burning buildings or ones that give way when there are too many people inside endanger far more than just the people who voluntarily enter them. What about the firefighters or the people in nearby buildings? Or do we just get to pick and choose which fire safety standards should be enforced and which to leave to people's whims?

 

[havoc315]

How do you think actual fascists take power? Not pretend fascists than leave office when they lose elections after throwing temper tantrums about voter fraud, but real, genuine totalitarians.

Yeah, I used flippant language on purpose to get a reaction. Of course I care about the people who have lost their lives and recognize it as a tragedy. My point in saying "I don't care" is that even great tragedies aren't an excuse to subvert the constitutional order.

No, real actual fascists don't take power by legitimately temporarily restricting indoor gathering capacity in light of a public health emergency.

Real actual fascists instill fear through dishonesty and hate.. they blame a pandemic on being "China's fault" and use it to stir up nationalism, use it as an excuse to stir up anti-immigration sentiment.

 

[SamusAranX]

Was there a NASCAR race yesterday....or just a reporting delay

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

If I have an unsafe [restaurant/rollercoaster/bar/hotel] and you know that it's unsafe but choose to enter anyways, that's not me putting you at risk, that's you putting yourself at risk.

Wait... were you the poster a while back who said child labor should be legal?