News Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

RobWDW1971

Well-Known Member
I've mentioned Pakistan a bunch of time and you continue to dodge what they are doing.
Uh, OK, I wasn't engaged with you, sorry to offend, but what is your point about Pakistan? Have they identified exactly what the cost of their actions are and exactly what results they are expecting? I haven't seen that, but would certainly love to review it to understand their goals.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Good thing my husband has me to run errands for him if that happens here.
I've offered to bring my mom and step-dad anything they might need, but since a supermarket chain up here started offering 6am-7:30am shopping specifically for folks over 60, I don't think it will be necessary.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Northam also asked all Virginia residents over the age of 65 to self-quarantine. Public health experts advise that individuals with underlying medical conditions and those aged 65 or older are at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Northam encouraged neighbors and friends to stay in touch and regularly check in with high-risk individuals.
A number of politicians in Washington live in affluent areas of Northern VA. Are they the exception? A number of them are over the age of 65.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Not pivoting at all - asking the exact same questions you refuse to even attempt to answer.

I ask "what are the costs of what we are doing" and "what is the actual result of the actions" and you keep just repeating "but that's what experts say to do". Not sure how that response is any way related to my question, but that seems to be your continued dodge/response.
I've already responded to your question (which basically boils down to "Should we be willing to wreck the economy in order to save a few thousand old people?") by challenging its very basis. It's a false dichotomy that ignores the long-term economic damage that an overwhelmed medical system would precipitate—and that's to say nothing of the loss of human life.

At any rate, we're going around in circles at this point, so this will be my last response to you for now.
 

Clyde Birdbrain

Unknown Member
Premium Member
Disney still to make decision on runDisney Star Wars Rival Run Weekend

I wish they would cancel this race already. There's no way they are having a race with 20,000+ runners in less than 4 weeks. People crammed together in corrals for hours and thousands of volunteers setting up water cups. One infected volunteer coughs over a few hundred cups and you have a big problem. I guess they could give volunteers face masks, or even have runners carry their own water, but why risk it? Just move it to the fall. My wife is signed up to run and I was supposed to be a water stop volunteer, but I don't want to stand there as thousands of people run by.

In China, after a nearly 2 month lockdown, they are just now starting to think about slowly opening cinemas in areas outside Hubei, but 62% of people said they will wait for complete containment before returning to cinemas. And that is after a successful containment in China. Who knows what's going to happen in Florida. Bill Gates said in his AMA today that "if a country does a good job with testing and "shut down" then within 6-10 weeks they should see very few cases and be able to open back up". But even then, I think people will initially be hesitant to go to very crowded places like Disney races and theme parks. I will be.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Our town is VERY spread out and covers tons and tons of land...it'll be interesting to see how this plays out around here as there are areas that are like mine - very woodsy (or beachy) and less populated, but there are also small pockets that are nearly as densely populated as just outside the city.

That’s what’s weird here. I live in a relatively small “city”, where many of the residents work for P&G, Luxotica, or GE.. these are large companies with many people who travel often for work, within the US and internationally.. but we have ZERO known cases here. Cincinnati has ZERO known cases. One county here has has had positives.. but all related to each other, not in serious condition.

So are people just running around with mild conditions.. or have symptoms not hit yet??
 

RobWDW1971

Well-Known Member
I've already responded to your question (which basically boils down to "Should we be willing to wreck the economy in order to save a few thousand old people?") by challenging its very basis. It's a false dichotomy that ignores the long-term economic damage that an overwhelmed medical system would precipitate—and that's to say nothing of the loss of human life.

At any rate, we're going around in circles at this point, so this will be my last response to you for now.
The question does not ignore the loss of human life - that EXACTLY is the question.

I will address your premise though - No, I do not believe the long-term economic impact of our medical system being temporarily overrun would come anywhere close the economic damage we have intentionally done to the economy. I strongly disagree with the premise that the market would crash 30% and millions would go unemployed if our hospitals were over run for several months - human tragedy yes, crush the markets and economy, no.

This is about an acceptable loss of human life, both direct (seniors/pre-existing) from the virus and the collateral loss due to the medical system being overwhelmed. If you had hundreds of thousands of elderly die and thousands die of collateral damage, the market would not drop like this, just as it doesn't drop when millions die every year. Sad, but true.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member

I wish they would cancel this race already. There's no way they are having a race with 20,000+ runners in less than 4 weeks. People crammed together in corrals for hours and thousands of volunteers setting up water cups. One infected volunteer coughs over a few hundred cups and you have a big problem. I guess they could give volunteers face masks, or even have runners carry their own water, but why risk it? Just move it to the fall. Why wife is signed up to run and I was supposed to be a water stop volunteer, but I don't want to stand there as thousands of people run by.

In China, after a nearly 2 month lockdown, they are just now starting to think about slowly opening cinemas in areas outside Hubei, but 62% of people said they will wait for complete containment before returning to cinemas. And that is after a successful containment in China. Who knows what's going to happen in Florida. Bill Gates said in his AMA today that "if a country does a good job with testing and "shut down" then within 6-10 weeks they should see very few cases and be able to open back up". But even then, I think people will initially be hesitant to go to very crowded places like Disney races and theme parks. I will be.
Would that require a notification from Disney or one from RunDisney?
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Not pivoting at all - asking the exact same questions you refuse to even attempt to answer.

I ask "what are the costs of what we are doing" and "what is the actual result of the actions" and you keep just repeating "but that's what experts say to do". Not sure how that response is any way related to my question, but that seems to be your continued dodge/response.

At least an honest reply is "I have absolutely no idea what the real costs of what we are doing will be and have absolutely no idea of how many lives it will save, but I feel good we are doing "something"".

At least that is connected to the question and that is all I can surmise from your lack of response to what are very straightforward questions.
You don’t think there would be huge economic consequences to have most world political and business leaders going into isolation? That there would not be a huge reaction to people becoming infected in popular destinations? No lost productivity due to long term lung damage even in “mild“ cases? If business is going to tank wouldn’t it be better to try and schedule and reduce it as much as possible instead of waiting for it to happen in an explosion of uncontrolled panic? You keep down playing the severity of symptoms, because “mild” can still be quite severe, and minimizing the sheer size of at risk groups and those with whom they interact. This course is being chosen because it is expected to be the less impactful, including economically.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
That’s what’s weird here. I live in a relatively small “city”, where many of the residents work for P&G, Luxotica, or GE.. these are large companies with many people who travel often for work, within the US and internationally.. but we have ZERO known cases here. Cincinnati has ZERO known cases. One county here has has had positives.. but all related to each other, not in serious condition.

So are people just running around with mild conditions.. or have symptoms not hit yet??
There's no way of knowing without extensive testing. And don't forget those who will carry the virus but be asymptomatic.
 

RobWDW1971

Well-Known Member
You don’t think there would be huge economic consequences to have most world political and business leaders going into isolation? That there would not be a huge reaction to people becoming infected in popular destinations? No lost productivity due to long term lung damage even in “mild“ cases? If business is going to tank wouldn’t it be better to try and schedule and reduce it as much as possible instead of waiting for it to happen in an explosion of uncontrolled panic? You keep down playing the severity of symptoms, because “mild” can still be quite severe, and minimizing the sheer size of at risk groups and those with whom they interact. This course is being chosen because it is expected to be the less impactful, including economically.
Fair enough, then they should be releasing those economic models and inherent assumptions to show that so we can review/debate their conclusions. I certainly didn't hear the mayor of San Francisco running down the model variables and quoting the financials when she shut down the city.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
The question does not ignore the loss of human life - that EXACTLY is the question.

I will address your premise though - No, I do not believe the long-term economic impact of our medical system being temporarily overrun would come anywhere close the economic damage we have intentionally done to the economy. I strongly disagree with the premise that the market would crash 30% and millions would go unemployed if our hospitals were over run for several months - human tragedy yes, crush the markets and economy, no.

This is about an acceptable loss of human life, both direct (seniors/pre-existing) from the virus and the collateral loss due to the medical system being overwhelmed. If you had hundreds of thousands of elderly die and thousands die of collateral damage, the market would not drop like this, just as it doesn't drop when millions die every year. Sad, but true.
One thing you are missing from the calculation is that dead is dead. You don’t come back. An economic downturn can be very bad, but the economy will recover. Let’s say for argument sake it takes 5 years for the economy to fully recover, in 5 years time we as a country will be financially back to where we were pre-virus. If we chose to favor the economy now and just let more people die in 5 years those people are still dead. Would some of them have died anyway in those 5 years, yes but not everyone who would die would be old and sick. We also have no idea what the impact to the economy will really be. The stock market will recover. There’s a lot of money sitting on the sidelines right now just waiting for a sign that the bottom has hit. Small businesses and some individuals may fair worse, but like 2001 and 2008 jobs will come back and unemployment will drop eventually.
 

Rimmit

Well-Known Member
The vast majority will never even need to see a doctor and even those that do, only a small percent will need to be in a hospital.
You may think 6-7 percent of those infected is a low number, but it’s not always about just the percentage of people who required admission that is important. There are many parts to this puzzle.

I will attempt to explain how hospitals operate (I work in healthcare, and only in an ICU setting).

Let’s say an ICU has 15 beds. Let’s say I get 3 easy admissions that only require a 2 day ICU stay. The average length of stay (LOS) is 2 days. It’s a total of 6 patient days. Now let’s say I get one Covid patient. The average LOS for a Covid patient that survives is 10 days. Longer if they die, but let’s work with just the living ones right now. That one Covid patient took nearly double the ICU patient days as the 3 other patients (6 patient days vs 10 patient days). The fact that these patients do not turn over quickly is a compounding factor in this disease.

It’s not just the percentage that require admissions that’s a problem, but the severity of disease matters as well. I’d rather have a 20 percent admission rate for a disease with a LOS of 2 days (40 total patient days/100 patients with disease) vs a 6 percent admission rate for a disease that has a LOS of 10 days (60 total patient days/100 patients with disease).
 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
That’s what’s weird here. I live in a relatively small “city”, where many of the residents work for P&G, Luxotica, or GE.. these are large companies with many people who travel often for work, within the US and internationally.. but we have ZERO known cases here. Cincinnati has ZERO known cases. One county here has has had positives.. but all related to each other, not in serious condition.

So are people just running around with mild conditions.. or have symptoms not hit yet??
Looks like Dayton and Cincinnati opened drive thru testing yesterday. Up to 72 hours to get the results. So you may start to get an answer soon.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Looks like Dayton and Cincinnati opened drive thru testing yesterday. Up to 72 hours to get the results. So you may start to get an answer soon.
Someone else just said that Ohio announced testing is limited to hospital patients only.. I don’t know either way. I quickly googled the latest update.. but didn’t read thru it.

I do know that no matter what, it’s still near impossible to get tested... according to my doctor, as of this morning.
 
Top Bottom