News Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

GoofGoof

Premium Member
If you made $100k last year, you should have been smart enough to plan to be able to survive for a few months.

If you made under $100k last year, you may very well need some money just to take care of yourself and your family.

Obviously it will be a little unfair cause the $99 k will get a check and the $101k won’t but nothing in life is totally fair.
I think everyone has likely learned a little lesson from this. The economy was booming and a lot of times that makes people accept more risk. A lot of Americans should have had a little more in their rainy day fund. It’s a tough lesson to learn but as a nation we all live a little too much paycheck to paycheck. I know not everyone can afford to save money, but there are plenty of people driving around in nice new cars with nice clothing and taking expensive vacations (the mouse ain’t cheap). I can’t put a dollar threshold on it since the cost of living varies dramatically from place to place. As a general guideline we should all try to have several months worth of expenses as a minimum in savings. That won’t help people who are unemployed for months but it would get most people through this immediate crisis.
 

thomas998

Well-Known Member
Well, your new nickname is "Doubting Thomas."
I'm just a realist. Which means while I may not be burping rainbows I don't get disappointed when something happens that anyone that bothered to be honest with themselves wouldn't have already known was going to happen. Some people enjoy being optimistic, but they also tend to get their hearts broken all the time when they don't win the lottery or become a rock star because they sang karaoke in a bar.
 

TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
If you made $100k last year, you should have been smart enough to plan to be able to survive for a few months.

If you made under $100k last year, you may very well need some money just to take care of yourself and your family.

Obviously it will be a little unfair cause the $99 k will get a check and the $101k won’t but nothing in life is totally fair.

People are so quick to judge what others should be able to do with their money without knowing what is going on in their lives. If you live in HCOL, $100K isn't much. If you have a family of five with a wife that is a SAHM, $100K isn't much. If you're helping take care of your parents, $100K isn't much.

In all reality, the government should just issue checks out to everyone and then based on 2020 tax returns, require refunds of it if you exceed a certain income level (I'm more along the lines of if you have make more than 150K individually or 250K as a couple in 2020, you would then repay the money the government gives out). It also needs to be more money and for a longer time period.
 

thomas998

Well-Known Member
Not curable yet. But treatable. It's no longer a death sentence. I'd think the Billions were well used.
Were they? Imagine if we had simply done mass testing of everyone and quarantined everyone that had HIV in the last 80's... how many lives would have been saved because we had eliminated the virus? And how many do we still see cut short because the virus is still infecting people and if you don't have the money to pay for the medicine your doomed. A treatment for it is only making drug companies rich and frankly probably gives them an incentive to try and stop anyone from finding a cure or vaccine.
 

disneygeek90

Premium Member
People are so quick to judge what others should be able to do with their money without knowing what is going on in their lives. If you live in HCOL, $100K isn't much. If you have a family of five with a wife that is a SAHM, $100K isn't much. If you're helping take care of your parents, $100K isn't much.

In all reality, the government should just issue checks out to everyone and then based on 2020 tax returns, require refunds of it if you exceed a certain income level (I'm more along the lines of if you have make more than 150K individually or 250K as a couple in 2020, you would then repay the money the government gives out). It also needs to be more money and for a longer time period.
Good point, size of families is a huge factor. Think of a family of 5 making $100k and a single person making $60k. The lives of those two people and what they spend their money on is quite different. It would be reasonable to assume the person making $100k feels more strain overall fiscally.
 

TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
I think everyone has likely learned a little lesson from this. The economy was booming and a lot of times that makes people accept more risk. A lot of Americans should have had a little more in their rainy day fund. It’s a tough lesson to learn but as a nation we all live a little too much paycheck to paycheck. I know not everyone can afford to save money, but there are plenty of people driving around in nice new cars with nice clothing and taking expensive vacations (the mouse ain’t cheap). I can’t put a dollar threshold on it since the cost of living varies dramatically from place to place. As a general guideline we should all try to have several months worth of expenses as a minimum in savings. That won’t help people who are unemployed for months but it would get most people through this immediate crisis.

I do hope everyone has learned a lesson from this, though that lesson isn't necessarily great for the economy (economy wants people spending their money, not saving it). The funny part is we have spent the last six months paying off all of our debt (we still have a little bit left, but not much). Good timing! While, knock on wood, my job is considered safe at the moment (company has said we have good cash reserves, plus the client I'm working with has a contract signed with us until the end of the year and they've been talking about extending it into 2021), I will be happy to not have this debt and will have eliminated all debt (except for car) by end of 2020 with a significant amount in savings. We've only been able to do that because I received a job that increased my pay significantly and they pay all premiums for health insurance.

Wife and I have looked at this and know we're lucky, taking this opportunity to save money and now looking at buying a house next year (I was waiting for the market to soften in terms of house prices and I think that's going to happen). We'll also be in a good position to do our part in spending money in the economy while ensuring we don't take on any additional debt.
 

"El Scorpion"

Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Premium Member
In the Parks
No
Were they? Imagine if we had simply done mass testing of everyone and quarantined everyone that had HIV in the last 80's... how many lives would have been saved because we had eliminated the virus?

The bubonic plague is still around. You know, "Black Death". There are still people contracting Polio. You need to do better than that.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
The biggest if is that they have a vaccine for the virus in 2 years. How many billions of dollars have been pumped into finding a cure for HIV and still nothing... a cure for cancer? And you think that suddenly they will find one for this virus pretty much overnight.... I hope they do... but I seriously doubt it.

As for the length of immunity other viruses in the same family only provide the person with as little as 3 months immunity after they get over the infection... So 9 months may very well be wishful thinking.

Finding a cure for cancer is basically impossible because cancer isn't one thing. It's hundreds (or maybe even thousands) of different things that we just lump in together as cancer. They have essentially found cures for specific types of cancer, though.

Regardless, this isn't like HIV or cancer. Finding a vaccine, or at least a highly effective treatment, shouldn't be that difficult. It just takes some time.
 

RobWDW1971

Well-Known Member
Where are you getting the figure of 1,000 from?
It's called modeling - I used 1,000, 10,000, etc. Feel free to use a number, 100,000, million? Tell me the number of those elderly and with pre-existing conditions that will die from shutting down the economy vs. those that would have died without these extreme measures and we can model out that cost. Last year nearly 2.1 million elderly died in the US - what is the increase we are preventing from those two scenarios?

I assume your position is not that if we lose 5 million jobs and $1.5 trillion dollars it is "worth it" if we save just one person or a hundred is it? Or is it?

A hypothetical headline in the WSJ of "Hospitals overwhelmed across America, patients can't get care" would not crater the economy, in fact, hospital and medical stocks would boom. People dying in the short term from lack of medical care would not drive this level of economic loss.
 
Last edited:

TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Good point, size of families is a huge factor. Think of a family of 5 making $100k and a single person making $60k. The lives of those two people and what they spend their money on is quite different. It would be reasonable to assume the person making $100k feels more strain overall fiscally.

It is and I feel it (I'm that family of 5 making $100K). The funny part is I feel the financial stress less now with paying off debt and being able to put some money away, but I've only been at that level for six months. Before that? Massive stress and right now, I would be freaking out because we were just making what we needed.

That's why I'm a proponent of UBI (my wife is a SAHM) and am hoping the government does the right thing here ($2K/$1K per month for the next six months). In our case, that allows us to build up our savings and buy a house next year in addition to doing vacations, eating out, etc. which will help the economy rebound. For others, it allows them to just survive for a while until we're on the other side of this and businesses are back up and running.

Long term, we need to have UBI in this country because unemployment benefits are meager to begin with and if you're working a job that does exceed a certain amount, you're getting a pittance of what you were making before with almost a guaranteed 6-12 weeks before you can start the next job. I hope we start really looking at our country and trying to figure out a better balance that prioritizes a social net and people over wars and corporate profits. I hope this is the wake up call our country needed.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
A hypothetical headline in the WSJ of "Hospitals overwhelmed across America, patients can't get care" would not crater the economy, in fact, hospital and medical stocks would boom.

You're totally misunderstanding the situation.

That kind of headline WOULD crater the economy. Not because of the headline itself, but because most of the country would be sick and unable to work, and thousands of people would be dying. Not only from the coronavirus, but from heart attacks, car accidents (well, there'd be probably be far less of these), etc.

It's not as though people being treated for Covid-19 are in some totally separate healthcare system. It would overwhelm the ENTIRE system. The number of deaths would skyrocket from things that are normally treatable because we wouldn't have the resources to treat them. That's where the real issue is. I'm making up these numbers, but just as an example, it could easily be that while 10% of people normally die after a heart attack, that number could jump to 50% because they're unable to effectively treat them.

That's why doctors are terrified right now. It's not the coronavirus itself (although that's part of it), it's the cascading effects that would tremendously hinder their ability to provide care for all patients and all conditions.
 

thomas998

Well-Known Member
Finding a cure for cancer is basically impossible because cancer isn't one thing. It's hundreds (or maybe even thousands) of different things that we just lump in together as cancer. They have essentially found cures for specific types of cancer, though.

Regardless, this isn't like HIV or cancer. Finding a vaccine, or at least a highly effective treatment, shouldn't be that difficult. It just takes some time.
Well, consider SARS the brother of the current virus... It has been almost 20 years and still no vaccine for it... in fact that was what China was working on in the Wuhan bio-lab near ground zero. So it isn't like this is going to be easy if it was we would have already found a vaccine for SARS and the common cold.
 
Top Bottom