DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
However, I am curious as to your response to the first part of my reply.
First, upon returning it may be easy for someone to knowingly stay away from a high risk person, if they know they are a high risk person. What if you work with someone high risk, but don’t know they are high risk? What about the health care worker who works with any number of high risk individuals on a daily basis? Should they not be allowed to visit? Or if they do, be willing to skip work for 14 days upon return? If Disney World is open, I’m going to assume that many of the other current restrictions are lifted, which likely means the average person is interacting with many more people than they do today, 6 feet or not. You’re asking people to be a lot more transparent about their whereabouts and health in this scenario.
To start with, you need to read the part of my post before the part you quoted where I said, "My sense is that if you eliminated the densely packed, long duration queues by using some kind of virtual queue system (either all FP+ or some kind of boarding group system that worked like the old FP system for standby), suspended parades and fireworks, encouraged hand washing/hand sanitizer and put into place enhanced sanitizing of surfaces, there would be a relatively small amount of virus spread at WDW."
The premise I am starting with is that there are measures taken at WDW to reduce the likelihood of spread to start with. I am also assuming that there will still be distancing or protection measures in place at businesses and work places at home. This, of course, includes health care facilities where providers should be wearing masks in general and certainly if they have just returned from WDW.
What I meant, and was admittedly a little unclear about, by avoiding high risk people upon return was people that live in your household or family members/friends that you visit without taking precautions.
Thats not a surprise. Older people have lower immune systems and less ability to fight infection, also more likely to have pre-existing conditions that mean they are more likely to die. Basically if someone over 70 gets it, they are quite likely to die from it.
Specifically related to nursing homes and how the conditions in them are much more conducive to spread than other places, according to the Florida Health Care Association, there are approximately 71,000 residents of nursing homes statewide. That means that 0.33% of the population accounts for 8% of the cases and 25% of the deaths.
That hasn't happened to us BECAUSE of the shutdowns.
You can't say that with certainty. The only evidence is that the situation is different than predicted by models which leads to that conclusion. While there is no doubt that the shutdowns have to have prevented some number of infections from happening, we don't know (and never will know) what actually would have happened without them.
We especially don't know what would have happened if, instead of shutdowns, social distancing and protection were implemented while leaving everything open.
Honestly, if you look at the daily new case graphs for Italy and Spain your first thought isn't going to be, "wow, the lockdowns really slowed the spread!"