Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[DisneyCane]

We yet do not know how many people are truly asymptomatic. We do know a lot of people experience symptoms of some sort. The goal is reduction. If we can contact trace every symptomatic person and test even those without symptoms that they've come into contact with, we will start winning.

I don't disagree with that. However, if asymptomatic spreaders are not the major driver of spread then there is no reason to do any of what we're doing now. All of the "safer at home" orders could be replaced with "stay at home if you are sick or have a fever" orders tomorrow.

 

[csmat99]

I

I'd be curious about that study. I would see Restaurants/Breweries/Bars immediately hiring the staff back on once it is allowed. Stores I feel would be the same. I would however see a tiered approach for Theme Parks, Airlines, Concert Venues, Movie theaters etc taking longer to hire people back

If I had few hundred million around I would start building drive in movie theater's around the country. The other theater chain I would invest in would be Ipic. All their theater's are setup to be fall apart from other patrons. They are just two plush seats together.

 

[flynnibus]

Morgue capacity doesn't matter to treatment capacity. Go talk to people that work in a hospital and get an understanding for what has been done to prepare for the surge that isn't coming. The "hospitals are empty" rhetoric is coming because it is TRUE outside of a few hot spots. The unused capacity is available for COVID-19 patients due to the conversions that have happened.

The simple solution in your reality is move all the doctors and equipment from the places that aren't using it since it's clearly being wasted and could solve all of this. Or move patients to where all this excess capacity is.

Then come back to our reality, and try to articulate why beyond small doses... why this isn't happening.

"excess capacity" of the wrong type and at the wrong place does not nullify the reality of constraint somewhere else.

This is like saying "people can't be starving in africa... american farmers are dumping milk out!"

 

[peter11435]

But why would an asymptomatic person go and get tested?

Because we should be testing everyone. That’s how you track it, trace it, and stop it.

 

[GoofGoof]

The logic is that if asymptomatic spreaders are a large contributor to the spread, which many experts have said appears to be the case, then you can't limit a large portion of the spread because they will not get tested. Therefore, you can't contact trace to find other asymptomatic spreaders that the original one infected.

Sure, it will be better than nothing because you can isolate and contact trace the symptomatic spreaders and find some asymptomatic spreaders that they infected.

That’s the beauty of the app approach. Let’s say you are sick but asymptomatic and you infect 3 people. 2 are also asymptomatic but I’m the 3rd and I have symptoms so I get tested. When I test positive and change my status on the app you and the 2 other asymptomatic people get the alert. You all get tested, test positive and self quarantine. Its a simplified example but it would stop some of the spread. Not everyone will have the app too so it’s not perfect but better than nothing. You also have to have the ability to do widespread testing since a large portion of people will probably test negative.

 

[marni1971]

It is.

Thank you. In that case,

I've seen lots of conversations about how back furlough means you get your job back. That's not the case though. You're essentially laid off ..

seems to be incorrect. I’ve just been going through my own furlough agreement with my employer and it specifically states furlough is to avoid layoffs.

 

[TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives]

This really isn't true. You aren't getting a paycheck, but in the case of Disney CMs you retain all other benefits of employment, from healthcare to tuition assistance (many soon-to-be-furloughed CMs are taking this opportunity to take advantage of this), seniority, etc. If you were truly laid off, you'd lose all of that and have to go onto COBRA, which costs a fortune and retain no other benefits.

Some of the furloughed people may eventually be laid off, just as they would be if they were still working and Disney had layoffs, but they are all still Disney employees for at least 12 months.

Which if the boosted unemployment insurance isn't extended past July, means they're getting ~$275/week. Not every employee has healthcare or tuition assistance. If you are, that's great, but at the same time, I doubt many can get by on $275/week if they were barely scrapping by before. Which is my main point.

The cast members have a 12 month furlough. Disney wouldn’t lay-off until April 2021.

That's great. If unemployment insurance runs out and you're only getting $275/week, I doubt you're sticking around very long, especially if you were basically scrapping by before.

 

[TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives]

Thank you. In that case,

seems to be incorrect. I’ve just been going through my own furlough agreement with my employer and it specifically states furlough is to avoid layoffs.

I don't know why everyone is propping up furloughed as it means you're saved and lucky. If you have health insurance/benefits with your company and they've chosen to cover that for you then that's a positive in your favor (though companies are not required to do so). If the boosted unemployment insurance runs out and is not extended before Disney re-opens, then they're just receiving ~$275/week with no guarantee they're returning to work (or when Disney would even re-open to potentially get that role back). So those employees should be looking for other work in the interim unless they can survive on $275/week and just want to work at Disney and nowhere else.

 

[marni1971]

I don't know why everyone is propping up furloughed as it means you're saved and lucky.

Because over here it is?

 

[peter11435]

That's great. If unemployment insurance runs out and you're only getting $275/week, I doubt you're sticking around very long, especially if you were basically scrapping by before.

$275 sucks. But it’s not much less than the $350 or so most of them were making before. Factor in the fact that they are largely saving money by not being able to do anything, eat out, buy anything non essential, or even use gas. It’s likely a wash for most.

 

[TrojanUSC]

Because over here it is?

Your choices are terminated with no healthcare or other benefits.

Still employed with no paycheck but benefits including seniority and likely ability to return.

I'd choose the later, especially when nothing is precluding you from looking for another job during the furlough.

 

[TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives]

Because over here it is?

I can't speak to the UK furlough and from what I'm looking at, there's still no guarantee you will return to your job on either side (UK or US). That's my point.

 

[peter11435]

I don't know why everyone is propping up furloughed as it means you're saved and lucky. If you have health insurance/benefits with your company and they've chosen to cover that for you then that's a positive in your favor (though companies are not required to do so). If the boosted unemployment insurance runs out and is not extended before Disney re-opens, then they're just receiving ~$275/week with no guarantee they're returning to work (or when Disney would even re-open to potentially get that role back). So those employees should be looking for other work in the interim unless they can survive on $275/week and just want to work at Disney and nowhere else.

Nobody is saying furloughed is good. Everyone would prefer to be working as normal. But furloughed is better than Laid off. And furloughed with benefits is certainly preferable to not. So yeah, at the moment those that were furloughed with benefits as Disney has done are lucky. Given the circumstances.

 

[Polynesia]

Which if the boosted unemployment insurance isn't extended past July, means they're getting ~$275/week. Not every employee has healthcare or tuition assistance. If you are, that's great, but at the same time, I doubt many can get by on $275/week if they were barely scrapping by before. Which is my main point.



That's great. If unemployment insurance runs out and you're only getting $275/week, I doubt you're sticking around very long, especially if you were basically scrapping by before.

Not everybody is just scraping by as you say. Many cast members are already working part time at grocery stores and such. I’d bet unemployment will also be extended as it was several years ago. If I’m not mistaken it extended up to a year and perhaps beyond. If Disney and other businesses are shut down for a year there won’t be an economy anyone can go back to. People who have seemingly safe jobs now may not have them a year from now either. Something to think about.

 

[marni1971]

I can't speak to the UK furlough and from what I'm looking at, there's still no guarantee you will return to your job on either side (UK or US). That's my point.

Until you go back to work or are laid off, you’re furloughed.

 

[TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives]

Your choices are terminated with no healthcare or other benefits.

Still employed with no paycheck but benefits including seniority and likely ability to return.

I'd choose the later, especially when nothing is precluding you from looking for another job during the furlough.

Not necessarily true. I would be surprised if all 75K employees return to work at WDW. And the benefits is on a company-by-company basis.

 

[easyrowrdw]

I don't disagree with that. However, if asymptomatic spreaders are not the major driver of spread then there is no reason to do any of what we're doing now. All of the "safer at home" orders could be replaced with "stay at home if you are sick or have a fever" orders tomorrow.

Part of it is the presymptomatic spread. It seems that you can spread the disease before you've started to show symptoms. By the time they're sick it might be "too late." That makes it harder.

 

[marni1971]

Your choices are terminated with no healthcare or other benefits.

Still employed with no paycheck but benefits including seniority and likely ability to return.

I'd choose the later, especially when nothing is precluding you from looking for another job during the furlough.

Are they your choices in the US? Vastly different to the UK if so.

 

[nickys]

Thank you. In that case,

seems to be incorrect. I’ve just been going through my own furlough agreement with my employer and it specifically states furlough is to avoid layoffs.

It is to avoid lay-offs. It means the company is doing everything it can to reduce costs and keep afloat.

But the company could still go under, and even if it doesn’t there is no guarantee they wouldn’t have to lay people off later.

 

[TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives]

Until you go back to work or are laid off, you’re furloughed.

Which from what I read in the UK, you receive 80% of your pay up to 2500 pounds each month if you're furloughed. Without the enhanced unemployment here, you would potentially make far less. The UK furloughed seems like a much better deal than what the US is getting in the long term.