Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Josh Hendy

Well-Known Member
For those of you interested in the malarial drug treatment for CV-19, the French doctors in Marseille have released the abstract of a much larger study. It is here: direct link to PDF.

1061 ... patients met our inclusion criteria. Their mean age was 43.6 years old ... No cardiac toxicity was observed. A good clinical outcome and virological cure was obtained in 973 patients within 10 days (91.7%). Prolonged viral carriage at completion of treatment was observed in 47 patients (4.4%) ... all but one were PCR-cleared at day 15. A poor outcome was observed for 46 patients (4.3%) ... 5 patients died (0.47%) (74-95 years old) ... Among this group, 25 patients are now cured and 16 are still hospitalized (98% of patients cured so far) ... Mortality was significantly lower in patients who had received > 3 days of HCQ-AZ than in patients treated with other regimens ... The HCQ-AZ combination, when started immediately after diagnosis, is a safe and efficient treatment for COVID-19, with a mortality rate of 0.5%, [mostly] in elderly patients. It avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagiosity in most cases.

The study had no control group so the crux of the matter is whether you believe this statement:

Mortality was significantly lower in patients who had received > 3 days of HCQ-AZ than in patients treated with other regimens ...

There are several other studies going on but so far virtually no other results are available, either final or preliminary.
 

Lora Baines Bradley

Well-Known Member
Someone else pointed out the potential security risk for people wearing masks. I know it’s not the same as a cloth mask, but aren’t guests over 14 not allowed to wear one into the park? I know that generally means full face masks, but I bet Disney is taking security into consideration with this. There’s going to be guests who want to wear masks.
 

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
I’m not trying to be pessimistic but it’s hard to imagine Disney World opening before Shanghai / Hong Kong. Do we think the USA will be different than China? Like so far the disease has been behaving similar right? Or is was China more widespread and USA is just the “hot spots”?
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Someone else pointed out the potential security risk for people wearing masks. I know it’s not the same as a cloth mask, but aren’t guests over 14 not allowed to wear one into the park? I know that generally means full face masks, but I bet Disney is taking security into consideration with this. There’s going to be guests who want to wear masks.

Like everything... you weigh the risks of one thing vs another and adjust your policies as needed.

Besides, covering your mouth/nose is not the same thing as full face masks either.

The security angle is far less of a concern vs the public health issue. It's much ado about nothing.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
As I mentioned in my scenario about wearing masks at Disney parks is that Disney may not have a choice.

*IF* the governmental authority mandates masks in public settings, then Disney will have two and only two choices:
1. Open and make everyone wear a mask, even if it means excluding those who don't or can't, and even if it's uncomfortable, OR..​
2. Stay closed.​

If you can't imagine Disney enforcing masks, or excluding those who can't (the tots), or if you can't imagine yourself wearing a mask in the heat or because it fogs up your glasses and it's uncomfortable... then do not go to Disney while masks are governmentally mandated. Or... live with no one going to Disney for many months because they remain closed.

The option of getting back to Disney soon with no masks is likely to be off the table... not an option at all.

I just don't understand the hand-wringing over this. It's the same "surely they wouldn't..." line of reasoning when everything was shutting down. "Surely Disney won't close. Surely Disney wouldn't be closed for two weeks. Surely Disney wouldn't be closed for two months.

We have to deal with the current reality and stop convincing ourselves that something won't happen because "surely it wouldn't!"
I agree that if masks are mandated by the state Disney has no choice but to follow. I also firmly believe that if they aren’t mandated then Disney will not require them. They may just encourage or allow them and leave it at that. Possibly even give out masks at the front gate to the parks. That being said I don’t think they will bar anyone based on age because of a mask requirement. Not even sure that’s legal but even if it is it’s not going to happen there. Call it a “surely they wouldn’t“ or whatever but if it comes down to toddlers must wear a face mask by law I think they just don’t open the parks vs banning them. Just my opinion.

I also have doubts about how well the rule will be enforced. Maybe at the front gate or when boarding a bus they might require them but I don’t see continual enforcement during the day. As anecdotal evidence I watched an elderly woman in an ECV and on oxygen smoke a cigarette on the path leading to the hub waiting for wishes. I got far enough away to avoid damage from the possible explosion and I saw a CM approach her. I assumed she was getting busted being she was openly smoking and surround by a cloud. Instead the CM just asked her to move over a little since she was slightly blocking the path. She didn’t even stop smoking the whole time. I don’t see CMs enforcing a mask rule.
 

DVCakaCarlF

Well-Known Member
Like everything... you weigh the risks of one thing vs another and adjust your policies as needed.

Besides, covering your mouth/nose is not the same thing as full face masks either.

The security angle is far less of a concern vs the public health issue. It's much ado about nothing.
I disagree...case in point:
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I disagree...case in point:
He’s making his rounds
E2743768-901F-454D-839B-6126DDFE062C.jpeg
 

"El Gran Magnifico"

Mr Flibble is Very Cross.

Kevin_W

Well-Known Member
For those of you interested in the malarial drug treatment for CV-19, the French doctors in Marseille have released the abstract of a much larger study. It is here: direct link to PDF.



The study had no control group so the crux of the matter is whether you believe this statement:

Mortality was significantly lower in patients who had received > 3 days of HCQ-AZ than in patients treated with other regimens ...

There are several other studies going on but so far virtually no other results are available, either final or preliminary.


Thanks for the post. With 1.5 million people infected, it seems that it shouldn't be that hard to find a statistical "control group". It also seems that if this is so promising, there would be more than 1 doctor in France working/publishing on it. I hope he's right.
 

Phil12

Well-Known Member
Hopefully this was meant as a joke

Sony is a direct competitor of some Disney businesses so of course they would not likely market each others brands in such a fashion and that basically invalidates your answer. And yet they are associated together in a variety of deals around the world regarding film tv and music and while they have had some high profile differences they still work together.
You obviously don't know the history of their relationship. However, Sony was just one of many major sponsors that left Disney. There was a time when all CRT screens at Disney were made by Sony back in the analog TV days when the Trinitron was top of the heap.

That was a time when sponsors sought out Disney for a high profile relationship. Disney could attract such major firms as United Technologies, American Express, AT&T, Coca-Cola and other powerhouse leaders. Now, major sponsors avoid Disney not only due to the cost but also because the Disney reputation has diminished in recent years.

The fact that they're now using televisions made by LG Electronics Inc. speaks volumes. Of course, General Motors still benefits from their relationship to Disney as does Coca-Cola. So, there are still some remnants left of the mighty public relations power that Disney once had at its command.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
You obviously don't know the history of their relationship. However, Sony was just one of many major sponsors that left Disney. There was a time when all CRT screens at Disney were made by Sony back in the analog TV days when the Trinitron was top of the heap.

That was a time when sponsors sought out Disney for a high profile relationship. Disney could attract such major firms as United Technologies, American Express, AT&T, Coca-Cola and other powerhouse leaders. Now, major sponsors avoid Disney not only due to the cost but also because the Disney reputation has diminished in recent years.

The fact that they're now using televisions made by LG Electronics Inc. speaks volumes. Of course, General Motors still benefits from their relationship to Disney as does Coca-Cola. So, there are still some remnants left of the mighty public relations power that Disney once had at its command.
Disney uses a variety of televisions across its property. It’s not exclusively LG. There are no less than 4 major brands that have been used for recent projects. This isn’t the Trinitron days and Sony isn’t the only name or even the best name in modern television.

Disney still attracts major corporations. Including 3 of the 5 you mentioned that still have huge active relationships with TWDC. And American Express has been replaced by VISA. This issue is not and has never been corporations not wanting to be associated with Disney and its certainly not due to diminishing reputations. How those relationships are structured and needed has changed do to the world and corporations changing. By almost any report Disney is still considered to have one of the highest corporate reputations in the world. Higher than every company you think doesn’t want to be associated with Disney.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Phil12

Well-Known Member
Disney uses a variety of televisions across its property. It’s not exclusively LG. There are no less than 4 major brands that have been used for recent projects. This isn’t the Trinitron days and Sony isn’t the only name or even the best name in modern television.

Disney still attracts major corporations. Including 3 of the 5 you mentioned that still have huge active relationships with TWDC. And American Express has been replaced by VISA. This issue is not and has never been corporations not wanting to be associated with Disney and its certainly not due to diminishing reputations. How those relationships are structured and needed has changed do to the world and corporations changing. By almost any report Disney is still considered to have one of the highest corporate reputations in the world. Higher than every company you think doesn’t want to be associated with Disney.
You're a true fan!
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Maybe a strong recommendation from Disney to wear them. And then a statement if you fail to adhere to their recommendations the guest is responsible for what may happen? I really have no idea.
Don’t know from a legal perspective how Disney will be comfortable with “optional” anything...at least not in the short term.
And still is

That has nothing to do with it
Ads/product placements have evolved a lot since the dawn of the internet age.
I don’t think Disney is shunned by companies as much as all old outlets aren’t as valued to advertise as they once were?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom