Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[DisneyCane]

Because if I'm fat and smoke, I am not going to give someone a deadly disease. A HUGE difference that you seem to want to ignore. And I know you are all for people getting vaccinated, so exactly why do you have an issue with a company requiring it?

The main reason I have an issue with a company requirement because it wasn't a condition of employment for most of the employees and I believe that people should make their own decisions. The pilots and flight attendants that travel internationally probably had to agree to get required vaccinations to enter other countries as a condition of employment. I'm sure there was never a condition of employment for a gate agent that they agree to United Airlines employee vaccination policies which may change from time to time.

And, again, the vaccinated employees are at extremely low risk if they are infected. Therefore an unvaccinated employee is not putting them at higher risk.

Other than the pilots, most other airline employees are socially distanced from each other most of the time anyway by accident.

 

[mmascari]

You have to consider what percentage were vaccinated anyway before you can try to measure the impact. I think it is less a specific number of days and more comparing cancelled and delayed flights and baggage with and without the policy.

From a thread on an aviation forum two weeks ago, there was a day where United cancelled 9% of the scheduled flights, Delta 6%, JetBlue 5% and American fewer than 1%.

The difference at American wasn't vaccination rate. It was that they offered 300% pay to flight attendants who were off to work and cover the call outs.

Doesn't that very accurately show the economic impact?

The numbers aren't perfectly comparable, since we don't know how lean vs how much cushion each airline operates with. Based on the different airline stereotypes, we can probably assume that United runs with less backup. Not because they're just better, but because they're cheap.

So, now you have to ask, for each of those, compared to itself, what would the impact be if they had the opposite vaccination policy? Would United have had more cancellations, would Delta and Jet blue had different, and would American had to spend more or less money?

I think it's a fairly safe guess that United would have had more cancelations if everything was the same and only the vaccination policy was different. If only because more people would be out at once, since those out would be out for longer durations.

For American Airlines, if everyone was vaccinated, and hence less people out for longer, would they have needed to offer 300% pay to as many people? That's not even considering the operations impact of juggling all the scheduling changes and backfill process, just the direct pay number.

From a business impact question, it's not difficult. Was the employee loss from the vaccine mandate and any costs of getting new employees more or less than the cost of cancelling flights, paying some 300%, and the increased operations cost created? As a bonus, the first is a one time impact while the second is ongoing and will ebb and flow as waves ebb and flow.

I don't disagree that the employee vaccine mandate had a cost. Both administrative (which was probably cheap) and with employee turnover (which was less than 1% if I remember). Comparing those costs, if the impact was one weekend or one week, maybe it would be wash. But, it's been going on a month now, destabilizing all of the airline operations. That's a huge cost.

I'm sure the United CEO did the math (his actuarial and accounting teams anyway) and determined the one time cost was less than the ongoing operations cost were likely to be. He's not going to do news releases and employee messages about how he did the math and it's cheaper to require them to be vaccinated than not and it's just a nice side effect they're les likely to die, especially when viewed as interchangeable resources instead of as people. Hence a nice sunny message about how it's all good for them.

The public health implications don't have to matter or be considered at all in the calculation.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

The main reason I have an issue with a company requirement because it wasn't a condition of employment for most of the employees and I believe that people should make their own decisions. The pilots and flight attendants that travel internationally probably had to agree to get required vaccinations to enter other countries as a condition of employment. I'm sure there was never a condition of employment for a gate agent that they agree to United Airlines employee vaccination policies which may change from time to time.

And, again, the vaccinated employees are at extremely low risk if they are infected. Therefore an unvaccinated employee is not putting them at higher risk.

Other than the pilots, most other airline employees are socially distanced from each other most of the time anyway by accident.

I will agree that people should make their own decisions for things that affect ONLY them. I completely disagree with it during a world-wide pandemic that has killed millions of people. This is a joint effort, not an individual one, so everyone should be required to be vaccinated (with the medical exemption, of course).

So that gate agent that refuses vaccination, has COVID without symptoms, can still pass the deadly disease to a whole bunch of people, some of whom will need to be hospitalized, and some that may die. You are OK with this?????????

 

[Lilofan]

Since not one single company that I have ever heard of has those policies, yours is an invalid argument. You simply cannot state "it is a slippery slope" when you know as well as anyone that those types of policies are never going to happen. The only thing a company can do is force higher insurance rates on those employees. If you know of even one company that terminates employees for smoking or being overweight, please let us know who that is.

Some that are runway models, in entertainment , fitness have been fired for being overweight from their current jobs/contracts. It is not pretty but it is a one way ticket back to the USA for some.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Some that are runway models, in entertainment , fitness have been fired for being overweight from their current jobs/contracts. It is not pretty but it is a one way ticket back to the USA for some.

Completely different scenario. If it is part of a contract that the employee signed prior to employment, then sure, they can get fired for not adhering to the contract. Not at all the same.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

With this news I think many Canadians will have second thoughts about traveling right now.

I was reading a bit more on this today.

One thing being changed is the ability to enter 11 days after testing positive instead of 15, starting tomorrow.

It sounds like policy may not have changed so much as the wording. It says you won't be denied entry if positive but may be turned away.

Some people are saying they were not fined because they had a quarantine plan in place. In other words, if you can demonstrate an ability to drive straight home and not leave said home for a period you may be allowed entry with no fine.

While this policy is really only in place to discourage travel, I don't love it. If someone is positive for COVID, instead of going home they have to stay in a hotel in the USA. They'll also need to eat out and stuff.

I agree with the recommendation of not travelling, but ultimately it makes more sense to let people return home rather than put more people, from a neighbouring country no less, at risk.

 

[Andrew C]

If someone is positive for COVID, instead of going home they have to stay in a hotel in the USA. They'll also need to eat out and stuff.

While my parents were in Europe this past September between the waves, my dad's biggest concern was testing positive and then being stuck in a hotel room for 10 days with my mom.

 

[sullyinMT]

That's acceptable if that is what the company has that as a condition of being hired, but you stated that NO employees are terminated if already smokers, so there is no slippery slope to further terminations. My company states that you must be fully vaccinated and boosted (if eligible) in order to get hired at all. I fully support that policy.

Some around here will never agree, but I think every single person in the U.S. that can get vaccinated, should have been required to do so, and we should have had vaccine passports from day 1 of vaccines being available. There are places that are requiring proof of vaccination to pretty much do anything indoors outside of their house. I fully support this as well. Knowing I don't have to sit next to some dumb idiot that refuses to get vaccinated makes it much less stressful for my family.

I’m all for businesses operating as they see fit. I wish my state would get out of the way and allow bars, restaurants, movie theaters, and employers operate how they see fit. Free market capitalism and all that.

Maybe none around here would adopt such a policy. Maybe the national chains would if states like mine didn’t make it so dang difficult.

I don’t necessarily agree with your day 1 timing, but certainly by April when vaccines were widely available and easy to obtain.

 

[Lilofan]

Completely different scenario. If it is part of a contract that the employee signed prior to employment, then sure, they can get fired for not adhering to the contract. Not at all the same.

That is a big "if" but nice try. A model was told at a Yves St Laurent event to lose 6.5 pounds in a few days for an upcoming event and there is intense pressure to follow instructions to make it happen through various ways or get sent home.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I don't know exactly what you're fishing for.

Are you expecting "Expert X says Y%" and that is the unequivocal goal? Are you expecting any of us to say "Y% is the definite goal"?

Because...

1. You're not going to get that. No one has a definitive goal, especially when you take into account the vaccine hesitant, the mitigation deniers, and a virus that keeps mutating into more contagious variants.

2. It seems you want that specific number so you can start a fight about its validity. Is that your goal with this question?

At one point weren’t the experts saying 70%? I’m not crying out “the goalposts are moving” cause I get it. This thing has evolved and changed. But if 70% isn’t enough that’s concerning. Would 80%? 90%?

I’m not trying to start a fight only have a discussion. But I will point out when I feel something is unrealistic.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I actually re-read the statement and see that he didn't say that no vaccinated employees were hospitalized, just that none are currently hospitalized and the rate of hospitalization is 100x lower than the general population. Then he restates the hospitalization number in a way that makes it looks like none has ever been hospitalized.

Given that this was a communication to employees, what he is doing is basically telling the employees who disagreed with the requirement that he did such a good job and probably saved your life. It's the "nanny state" philosophy on a micro level.

He also talks about all the call outs (1/3 in Newark in one day) that are happening with Omicron despite just about all employees being vaccinated. He doesn't say that United is experiencing fewer call outs or disruptions from Omicron than peer airlines that don't have a vaccine mandate.

In my opinion, the only justifications for a vaccinate or be terminated mandate are either:

1) The unvaccinated employees are a high risk to the vaccinated employees; or
2) Having all employees vaccinated leads to significantly fewer disruptions to the operation.

Since neither appears to be true, the mandate is being done because the CEO (and other upper management) believe everybody should have no choice but to be vaccinated and have the power to make sure that happens for everybody who works for them. Like I said earlier, it's the same thing conceptually as if they had a "quit smoking or be terminated" or "lose weight or be terminated" policy. All cases are to force employees to lower their risk of health issues.

For starters, the mandate was in place prior to Omicron emerging. Also, the vaccines do still provide protection, although it is reduced. So even the reduced protection means that it is less likely that a vaccinated employee will miss work than an unvaccinated employee. You are also focusing solely on the employees of the airline and ignoring the customers. If customers feel a sense of assurance knowing that every United employee they encounter is vaccinated, then that's good for business.

As far as flight cancellations, it certainly seems as though United has fared better than some other airlines that don't have a vaccine requirement in place.

Airlines Say Storms and Omicron Caused Flight Cancellations

United Airlines’ chief executive said that 3,000 workers recently tested positive and that it was cutting its flight schedule to manage the shortage of workers.

www.nytimes.com

Bad weather and staffing problems hit different airlines at different times. Since Christmas, SkyWest Airlines, which operates shorter flights for major carriers, including United, has canceled more than 5,100 trips, more than any other airline. Southwest Airlines was close behind with more than 4,800 canceled flights, followed by United, with over 2,800 cancellations, and Delta, with more than 2,000.

Southwest currently is not enforcing a vaccine requirement and has gone back and forth on whether they will. Delta doesn't have a requirement but did impose a $200/month health insurance surcharge on employees and have reported 90% compliance. As far as I can tell, SkyWest hasn't imposed a vaccine requirement but may have one in place for employees on flights under major airlines that do have them. United has more flights per day than Southwest (averaging 4,500 per day vs. Southwest's 4,000 according to each airline's website), yet had 2,000 fewer cancellations.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business...oyee-vaccine-mandate-while-waiting-on-courts/ (it's behind a paywall, but if you read quick you can see enough before the screen is blocked out)

Dallas-based Southwest Airlines is not enforcing a Jan. 4 deadline for all employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to comply with a White House mandate for federal contractors while the carrier waits on federal court challenges.

Large airlines including Southwest and Fort Worth-based American Airlines had set a Jan. 4 deadline for all employees to be vaccinated or granted an exemption on religious or medical grounds, but the status of the Biden administration requirement is uncertain amid lawsuits. Those deadlines have come and gone without airlines moving to fire workers.

 

[mmascari]

So that gate agent that refuses vaccination, has COVID without symptoms, can still pass the deadly disease to a whole bunch of people, some of whom will need to be hospitalized, and some that may die. You are OK with this?????????

He is. He'll say that it was on the "bunch of people" to protect themselves.

It's a view where the entire cost is individual and there is no external social cost.

I believe it's the wrong view, but @DisneyCane has been very consistent on that view. You may note that in our recent exchange, I confined my debate to the individual company impacts for a company decision and didn't mention any external social cost or impact. We differ on the concept and implications of the external social impact and it's not likely anyone will change his mind that it exists.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

I don’t necessarily agree with your day 1 timing, but certainly by April when vaccines were widely available and easy to obtain.

I should have put a caveat on that, in that the passports wouldn't actually be required for anything until such time as everyone finally eligible would have had time to get at least one J&J or two of the others. Then the requirement would've kicked in. I only meant that the passports would be handed out, just not initially required for entry to anywhere.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

That is a big "if" but nice try. A model was told at a Yves St Laurent event to lose 6.5 pounds in a few days for an upcoming event and there is intense pressure to follow instructions to make it happen through various ways or get sent home.

OK, so, one person. Again, you are talking about models, not a normal company doing everyday work.

 

[Lilofan]

OK, so, one person. Again, you are talking about models, not a normal company doing everyday work.

Last time I checked, models are employed by modeling companies doing everyday work, some I met vacationing and working in Miami South Beach.

 

[Andrew C]

At one point weren’t the experts saying 70%? I’m not crying out “the goalposts are moving” cause I get it. This thing has evolved and changed. But if 70% isn’t enough that’s concerning. Would 80%? 90%?

Vaccinate as many as you can, and hopefully the virus will burn itself out. That is how I feel about it all...don't think there is a magic number

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Exactly but this policy is essentially the same thing as those would be and those were never even considered for a millisecond.

It's not even close to the same thing. These other examples you're trying to say are the same thing don't impact a business's daily operations on anything close to the same level. When was the last time a business had to close for days because too many employees were out sick with emphysema or lung cancer? Or because too many people called out with heart conditions or diabetes? When was the last time someone said, "I think I caught obesity from that bank teller?"

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Last time I checked, models are employed by modeling companies doing everyday work, some I met vacationing and working in Miami South Beach.

My point is that you are cherry picking one field. This is NOT a widespread requirement for employees.

 

[maui2k7]

Our recent experience with COVID.

To give a little context, my wife is a labor and delivery nurse who is fully vaxxed and boosted in September (Pfizer). I am fully vaxxed and boosted in October (Moderna). My 13 yo was fully vaxxed in July (Pfizer). My 11 yo was fully vaxxed in December (Pfizer).

Fast forward to this past week.

Our oldest came down with a low grade fever last Thursday and started to have a mild cough. We kept her home and conducted 3 at home tests Thursday, Friday, Saturday, a PCR test for her and I Thursday and all came back negative. She still had a low grade fever on Sunday so we took her to the urgent care to be checked out by a doctor. The urgent care ran another rapid antigen test which was again negative and they also sent off another PCR test which was also negative.

On Monday, our youngest started to exhibit cold like symptoms (mild sore throat, slight cough, a little stuffy) and we gave her an at home test which was negative. On Tuesday she still had symptoms so I gave her another at home test which came back positive. She and I then went to the local testing location and both got PCR tested. While we were awaiting the results, my wife got rapid PCR tested on Wednesday, which was negative. Today we received the PCR results for my daughter which was positive for COVID and mine was negative.

This all leads me to wonder if the tests that are used today, both PCR and rapid antigen, are sensitive enough to detect Omicron or should testing be done in another way such as swabbing the throat.

In the end, my oldest has recovered and is back to normal and our youngest has only had very mild cold like symptoms and is already better. My wife and I have not experienced any symptoms.

 

[DisneyCane]

I will agree that people should make their own decisions for things that affect ONLY them. I completely disagree with it during a world-wide pandemic that has killed millions of people. This is a joint effort, not an individual one, so everyone should be required to be vaccinated (with the medical exemption, of course).

So that gate agent that refuses vaccination, has COVID without symptoms, can still pass the deadly disease to a whole bunch of people, some of whom will need to be hospitalized, and some that may die. You are OK with this?????????

He is. He'll say that it was on the "bunch of people" to protect themselves.

It's a view where the entire cost is individual and there is no external social cost.

I believe it's the wrong view, but @DisneyCane has been very consistent on that view. You may note that in our recent exchange, I confined my debate to the individual company impacts for a company decision and didn't mention any external social cost or impact. We differ on the concept and implications of the external social impact and it's not likely anyone will change his mind that it exists.

That's pretty much exactly what I will say. I'd also add that even with Omicron, the passengers are not in close proximity to the gate agent for long enough for it to be a high risk of transmission. The person sitting in the back to back seat in the terminal waiting area is just as likely as the gate agent to be unvaccinated and/or infected and is a much higher risk to you.