disneygeek90
Well-Known Member
Ahh, I see. Yes. And not a distinction the lines are likely okay with.
-
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
SamusAranX
Well-Known Member
The ones who traveled from those states and brought it back bear the blame for that
Wealthier concentrations (on average) of the country are more apt to get the vaccine. I've seen soaring prices and unavailablity on airbnb for the rest of the year. People with money are ready to spend it and travel wherever to get on a cruise ship at this point.
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that you're holding that against him, just that there are people in this country who do and they are being dishonest when they do so.
Nubs70
Well-Known Member
Michigan, Big Box was only thing open and grocery stores. Both with strict occupancy limits and "non essential " items roped off. The trigger was a 3% positivity rate. Recently, we are open with restrictions at 15% positivity and higher.
Tony Perkis
Well-Known Member
Stamps, you’re fine with COVID-19 just becoming part of everyday life so your kid can play soccer again without issue?
That’s nonsensical.
Wait, is this a sequel I didn't hear about? THE RETURN!
SamusAranX
Well-Known Member
We were fine with it with influenza. Which killed 3 percent of the global population in its heyday.
what’s up for debate is what background level you’re comfortable with. 30k cases a year (aka flu level)? 10k? Practically zero? It’s finding that line that’s tricky and definitely a moral dilemma. Because it’s more then just wanting soccer games again. And you know it.
Last edited:
JD80
Premium Member
Sure if that's all there is to it. To implement everything it's probably a few weeks of prep and a few days of install maybe? Things may be very different in 4-5 weeks so I'm not sure if it's worth the effort.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Interesting. I read over Michigan's initial executive order and it only talks about businesses having to close based on the products they sell, not the size of the business. How were they determining if a businesses was a "mom & pop" business?
sullyinMT
Well-Known Member
They took the effort to implement a number of “one party of four” or whatever language in a number of places. Those didn’t stick around too long.
I don’t entirely disagree that they won’t remark everything, but I can see additional marking in “no man’s land” along switchbacks, the extended queues being re-marked, and updated audio announcements reflecting 3’. We might see additional outdoor seating availability at QS, and now that capacity increases for break rooms (from a gov’t guidance, not Disney policy that we know of), increases in staffing have somewhere to go. We’ve got a while between OC’s targets of today and phase 3, so it’s not like these things will be completely obsolete by June 1.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
It depends on the number/size of the signage needed, how many employees working at once, how many machines for production, etc. etc. If everyone available digs in, you'd be amazed at how quickly things can get done. I really think it's the implementation/training/etc. that would take longer.
And I agree with that last part. Not worth the expense until there's a drastic change
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
It isn't @21stamps.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Cases, positivity, tested, don’t mean all that much as there are folks who have it and don’t know it, got it, got sick and recovered at home, none of that is counted.
It would be cool to see the bar graphs for hospitalizations and deaths over time as those two things are the only things worth looking at. Hospitalizations and deaths was the reason for the initial 2 week shutdown to flatten the curve.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
carolina_yankee
Well-Known Member
I'm in charge of a house of worship in NJ. I'm open. Whole Diocese is, as is nearly every congregation of all faiths in our Borough. Leave NJ out of it.
Kevin_W
Well-Known Member
I agree that hospitalizations and deaths are more important, but there have been a lot of analyses over the past year showing that those lag 2-3 week behind cases... and that the trends match well. So cases are a pretty good indicator of where we are and where hospitalizations will be in a couple weeks.
Because there will be people who get sick and don't know it so don't get tested, but if that percentage stays roughly the same over time (and it has seemed to) then the overall trendline of cases is still quite relevant.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
After listening to the Press Conference and seeing the executive order I think the 3 feet now applies to all settings indoor and outdoor including dining. That allows a rather large expansion of Disney dining should they follow this. here is the relevant section and a link to the full EO from today.Right, it's a question of "in all settings where masks are required" because this is related to face coverings. Or if it's "in all settings no matter any other mask requirements".
I read it like you, that it's indoors, outdoors, wherever. But, I also read it as also only applying when you're wearing a face covering. You're not wearing one when you dine. This would also line up with that industry study from yesterday.
My read:
Phase 1
Phase 2
- Wearing a mask, distance reduced to 3 feet everywhere. Wouldn't apply to eating then.
Phase 3
- Distance reduced to 3 feet everywhere.
- Outdoors no mask needed. This would mean outdoor dining could be 3 feet. Pretty close to 100%, maybe 85% or 90%.
- Indoors still need a mask. Meaning, eating would still need more distance inside.
I'm reading the title header of "Face Covering Executive Order" as setting the context to "when you need a face covering", which wouldn't including dining then, since you're not wearing one then.
- No distance required anywhere.
- No mask required anywhere.
- Eating could be 100% everywhere.
The "and/or" on the poster is more confusing. Which is it? Do you need both or just one? If it's just one, which one or is it either? What's the "and" doing there if it's really "or". If it's not "or" at all, then why's the "or" even on the poster? I would definitely deduct "poster points" for this.
I'm less thrilled with the percent's being "of the population 16+" instead of "of the population". But, eh, that's a smaller thing. It's at least a definitive policy goal.
- Status