Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Jwink]

Congress did not make it possible to maintain our income, not for most.. if you are currently a strictly salaried or hourly worker who never lost income during this time, you’ll see a bonus.
If you are lower income and lost your job or furloughed, your unemployment payments + the one time money will almost be equal to your income.

If you are in the upper income level of middle class or lower income level of upper middle class, and you aren’t a salary or hourly employee who didn’t lose income during this time, well, then you’re going to see major impact on your income

I’m sorry I know you put a lot of thought in to your reply but you’ve confused me ...

so my husband is hourly and works 2 jobs...from what I’ve read he should get $275+$600 a week.... and also the stimulus right? Why wouldn’t some?

 

[21stamps]

I quite agree. But then you may live in the only Western democracy where abrigation of duty is regarded as acceptable in leadership.

Our flag’s stars are more than a decoration. They are representative of our 50 states. We are a democratic republic.

 

[21stamps]

I’m sorry I know you put a lot of thought in to your reply but you’ve confused me ...

so my husband is hourly and works 2 jobs...from what I’ve read he should get $275+$600 a week.... and also the stimulus right? Why wouldn’t some?

It’s income based, on your prior tax returns. A lot of people who are seeing major reductions in income right now, will not see any stimulus check or unemployment, some will see unemployment at a much lower income than what they were bringing in, and no stimulus check.
What Congress did is what they felt the needed to do, but it shouldn’t be looked at as all Americans somehow still have their same (or close the same) pay just because the bill passed.

 

[Jwink]

It’s income based, on your prior tax returns.

The stimulus is but not unemployment

 

[LittleBuford]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/epid...admits-he-was-wrong-drastically-revises-model

so it looks like this might peak in 2-3 WEEKS, not moths, in the UK. The guy who made the imperial model just corrected himself.

This is a misleading narrative that the Daily Wire and certain other outlets have run away with. Please see the links below.

No, a COVID Scientist Didn’t Walk Back His Prediction | National Review

From the beginning he has said that lockdowns work.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Calmdownnow]

If you are in the upper income level of middle class or lower income level of upper middle class, and you aren’t a salary or hourly employee who didn’t lose income during this time, well, then you’re going to see major impact on your income

I suspect that you will at least get a tax break, but if you "didn't lose income during this time" what are you complaining about?

 

[Calmdownnow]

Our flag’s stars are more than a decoration. They are representative of our 50 states. We are a democratic republic.

Lovely sentiment, proud concept, aspirational vision, shining city on a hill. But you still need a federal government that can lead based on hard facts and difficult choices. Remember to always test a political statement through the prism of Samuel Johnson's 1775 statement that "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".

 

[21stamps]

Lovely sentiment, proud concept, aspirational vision, shining city on a hill. But you still need a federal government that can lead based on hard facts and difficult choices. Remember to always test a political statement through the prism of Samuel Johnson's 1775 statement that "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".

It’s just simple facts about the USA, not a sentiment. We are a democratic republic.

 

[jmp85]

And the basis for those assumptions are....? Also death rates have tended to rise exponentially, not linearly, so it's far too early to tell.

Until very recently testing in the U.S. has been extremely limited (typically to those who had been in contact with a confirmed case). There's really no debating that. WaPo had an article published a few days ago regarding the "real" infection rate. There are other articles out there on this topic as well.

Regarding the death rate, if you assume the limited data we have is representative of the true population then the death rate will continue to raise in proportion to the number of cases. Exponential increases in the mortality rate would only be expected to happen if some environmental factor changed (lack of access to health care). I think perhaps you were referring to total deaths, which could exponentially increase along with case count -- to what extent is the real question.

 

[UNCgolf]

This is a misleading narrative that the Daily Wire and certain other outlets have run away with. Please see the links below.

No, a COVID Scientist Didn’t Walk Back His Prediction | National Review

From the beginning he has said that lockdowns work.

www.nationalreview.com

I think you misinterpreted my post. The other one, sure, but nothing I said was misleading. It's exactly what he said, and I wasn't suggesting this meant we should lift the lockdown.

I actually thought I specifically mentioned that it was because the lockdown was working, but I see I left that out.

 

[LittleBuford]

You misinterpreted my post, I guess. The other one, sure, but nothing I said was misleading. It's exactly what he said, and I wasn't suggesting this meant we should lift the lockdown.

I actually thought I specifically mentioned that it was because the lockdown was working, but I see I left that out.

Sorry for misunderstanding you. You mentioned a decrease in the mortality rate, which I took to be another version of the inaccurate claim that Ferguson had walked back his estimate of the virus’s lethality.

I will edit my post accordingly.

 

[Phil12]

Until very recently testing in the U.S. has been extremely limited (typically to those who had been in contact with a confirmed case). There's really no debating that. WaPo had an article published a few days ago regarding the "real" infection rate. There are other articles out there on this topic as well.

Regarding the death rate, if you assume the limited data we have is representative of the true population then the death rate will continue to raise in proportion to the number of cases. Exponential increases in the mortality rate would only be expected to happen if some environmental factor changed (lack of access to health care). I think perhaps you were referring to total deaths, which could exponentially increase along with case count -- to what extent is the real question.

The data we're collecting in the U.S. and Europe is not matching the early models. See some of Dr. Birx quotes from today's press briefing. She specifically singled out one study that has been quoted by many media outlets:

Birx, speaking at a White House press briefing, singled out a recent study on the United Kingdom that originally predicted 500,000 people would die from the virus and has since been revised down to predict 20,000 deaths in the U.K. She said the data the government has collected does not show that 20 percent of the U.S. population would be infected with COVID-19, cautioning against predictions that say so.

We had the opportunity early on to confine this pandemic, but hindsight is 20/20. The USA is now the epicenter. Thanks Obama!

The U.S. Now Leads the World in Confirmed Coronavirus Cases (Published 2020)

Following a series of missteps, the nation is now the epicenter of the pandemic.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Calmdownnow]

We are a democratic republic.

I think the question may be "are you an efficient and effective democratic republic".

 

[LittleBuford]

Birx, speaking at a White House press briefing, singled out a recent study on the United Kingdom that originally predicted 500,000 people would die from the virus and has since been revised down to predict 20,000 deaths in the U.K.

It’s important to represent this accurately. To quote the article I shared a few posts back, “[Neil’s] paper actually offered simulations of numerous scenarios. The one resulting in 500,000 deaths was one where Great Britain just carried on life as before. Other scenarios, where the country locked down whenever it was necessary to stop the disease’s spread, put death totals below 20,000.”

Neil himself has tweeted, “Without [social-distancing] controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand).”

 

[Jwink]

It’s income based, on your prior tax returns. A lot of people who are seeing major reductions in income right now, will not see any stimulus check or unemployment, some will see unemployment at a much lower income than what they were bringing in, and no stimulus check.
What Congress did is what they felt the needed to do, but it shouldn’t be looked at as all Americans somehow still have their same (or close the same) pay just because the bill passed.

Because maybe they had different income in 2018 you mean?

 

[jmp85]

It’s important to represent this accurately. To quote the article I shared a few posts back, “[Neil’s] paper actually offered simulations of numerous scenarios. The one resulting in 500,000 deaths was one where Great Britain just carried on life as before. Other scenarios, where the country locked down whenever it was necessary to stop the disease’s spread, put death totals below 20,000.”

Neil himself has tweeted, “Without [social-distancing] controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand).”

Thanks for the added context. I notice that he states that the disease is likely "more transmissible" than originally believed, but then goes on to essentially say total deaths will be much lower due to the ongoing efforts to combat the disease through self distancing. Being that everyone (including the UK) waited quite a while to introduce these measures, you'd think the disease would have already spread much more rapidly (and we'd be closer to peak). Either way, I'm glad to hear the more likely scenario now projects 20,000. Let's cross our fingers it keeps going down so we can get back to arguing about adding IPs to Epcot

 

[Bob Harlem]

Disney furlough of theme park employees in April could save $500 million, analysts say

An analyst’s report from J.P.Morgan estimates that furloughing some employees in April at the Disneyland, Walt Disney World and Disneyland Paris resorts could amount to $500 million in cost s…

www.ocregister.com

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Disney furlough of theme park employees in April could save $500 million, analysts say

An analyst’s report from J.P.Morgan estimates that furloughing some employees in April at the Disneyland, Walt Disney World and Disneyland Paris resorts could amount to $500 million in cost s…

www.ocregister.com

 

[Surferboy567]

Do we think they go with this option? Couldn't read most of the article, this would explain the quietness. 500 million is nothing to sneeze it.

Some really bad PR for Disney if they don’t follow Uni’s lead.

 

[RobWDW1971]

Do we think they go with this option? Couldn't read most of the article, this would explain the quietness. 500 million is nothing to sneeze it.

Some really bad PR for Disney if they don’t follow Uni’s lead.

Really though? What percentage of Disney guests would not go because they "only" paid their hundred thousand employees to NOT work for a few weeks? .01%?

People have short memories, they realize this is unprecedented, and frankly most don't really care about the cast members enough to change their plans.