Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Chi84]

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.


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.


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

So we put the insurance companies in charge of public safety. My husband worked for State Farm, but you do know that there's a reason insurance companies are among the most regulated businesses in existence.

 

[danlb_2000]

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?

This takes us right back to the point of public safety measures. The fire code not only protects the people who choose to be in the building but protects others outside the building who didn't make that choice.

 

[danlb_2000]

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.

So if all the restrictions are fascist plot to take power, why do so many states keep removing and re-apply them as conditions change. Why not just take away the rights and be done with it?

 

[havoc315]

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?

And thus, the debate of essentially pure libertarianism collides with the tragedy of the commons.
When we presume our consequences of our actions and choices can be solely isolated onto ourselves, total liberterianism seems pretty appealing. Why not let people assume risks. Under such a theory, at most laws should require disclosures. Taken to the extreme form, you don't even need police or Judges -- they can be privatized.

But the reality is, the consequences of so many actions and choices impact not just ourselves...

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So if all the restrictions are fascist plot to take power, why do so many states keep removing and re-apply them as conditions change. Why not just take away the rights and be done with it?

I am NOT saying that COVID restrictions are a fascist plot to take power. I'm saying that our accepting attitude towards COVID restrictions, which were enacted by well-meaning people in response to a real crisis, make us susceptible to ACTUAL fascist plots to take power (to use your words) in response to a faux crisis in the future.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You know it was literally *illegal to go to church* in many parts of the country for the better part of a year, right?

So I guess no one is keeping the evil spirits at bay then, huh?

Why do you think those restrictions were put in place?

 

[havoc315]

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

Actually, the UK resisted lockdown measures while the rest of Europe was locking down. They began their lockdown AFTER parts of the US were already locking down, causing thousands and thousands of deaths.

 

[DCBaker]

 

[Heppenheimer]

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.

Fires tend to spread, you know. They effect people who had no choice in the level of risk they accept if others are nor following the guidelines. Kind of like pandemic-level infectious diseases.

 

[kong1802]

Fires tend to spread, you know. Kind of like pandemic-level infectious diseases.

It becomes so ridiculous the more you think about it.

"It was your decision to live 6 blocks from a building that may catch fire one day!"

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

Are you unaware that fires spread? That my tinderbox catching fire can cause your well built building to catch fire or fall over onto it? It’s perfectly okay for me to build a structurally deficient building that can at any moment can collapse onto you children’s bedroom because it is my choice and you can’t complain when bricks rain down on your family?

 

[DCBaker]

 

[Tom P.]

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.

Please answer my question.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Are you unaware that fires spread? That my tinderbox catching fire can cause your well built building to catch fire or fall over onto it? It’s perfectly okay for me to build a structurally deficient building that can at any moment can collapse onto you children’s bedroom because it is my choice and you can’t complain when bricks rain down on your family?

My massive push for deregulation would go along with an expansion of people's ability to file class action lawsuits. "Getting sued into insolvency" is a much stronger incentive to get your act together than a government fine.

 

[kong1802]

My massive push for deregulation would go along with an expansion of people's ability to file class action lawsuits. "Getting sued into insolvency" is a much stronger incentive to get your act together than a government fine.

Who is appointing the judges?

 

[kong1802]

Are you unaware that fires spread? That my tinderbox catching fire can cause your well built building to catch fire or fall over onto it? It’s perfectly okay for me to build a structurally deficient building that can at any moment can collapse onto you children’s bedroom because it is my choice and you can’t complain when bricks rain down on your family?

That's on you for living anywhere near another human being.

You know they are dangerous! /s

 

[mmascari]

I'm saying *I don't care* how serious it is, because nothing justifies what they've done to people's liberty and autonomy for the past year. I don't care if it would have lead to 10 million deaths. So be it.

I once asked, many posts ago, "how many deaths are acceptable to you?" and got very few responses from people.

Thanks for being honest, now we know your personal number is 10,000,000.

That provides important context when reading your posts. You didn't mention if that's per year or total over some timespan, but unless it's a 20 year timespan, we've probably got the correct context.

My personal number is somewhere under 40,000 per year. If I look in the mirror, I can wish it was a lower number. But, if I'm being honest, that's probably my number.

I'm sure we have posters in the 200,000 to 100,000 range and others under 10,000.

Anyone looking to relate their own number to the daily stats:

Yearly	Per Day
200,000	547.95
150,000	410.96
100,000	273.97
50,000	136.99
40,000	109.59
30,000	82.19
20,000	54.79
10,000	27.40
5,000	13.70
2,500	6.85
1,000	2.74

Both Motor vehicle fatalities and the flu are in the 30,000 to 40,000 a year rate. Deaths by vending machine are about 2.18 yearly, 0.006 daily. I wouldn't bet on COVID getting to vending machine levels.

 

[GoofGoof]

Good stuff. It seems like at least that part of FL is moving along well. It’s a little concerning that they are a little over 50% and demand is a bit soft, but that may just be that people lack the info to know the appointments are available. Many people probably got frustrated and gave up checking multiple times a day. I imagine once the news gets out those appointments will get snatched up. As I laid out earlier, I think vaccines for the general public may start to be a reality in some places in the next 30 days if we can hit the targets and get the jabs done.

 

[James J]

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!

I'll take a partial agreement FWIW, I agree that Corbyn would have done a worse job.

 

[lazyboy97o]

My massive push for deregulation would go along with an expansion of people's ability to file class action lawsuits. "Getting sued into insolvency" is a much stronger incentive to get your act together than a government fine.

Except it’s not. That’s exactly what happened to push for fire codes. Entire cities being wiped out and it’s only after the fact that someone has to pay up. That money has to come from somewhere and if it’s not there are dozens or hundreds or even thousands of victims all left with nothing. An an IOU that will never be paid isn’t exactly going to help with your losses.