Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Patcheslee]

You may actually enjoy a cutback in the United Way activities... I know one company I worked for went so far overboard for the United Way stuff that for the entire week you could not really do any work because various departments would be down to a skeleton crew and you were forced to pretty much wait until the United Way week was done and dusted. I much preferred the places I've worked that ask you donate and called it day without the other add-ons.

Mostly we went to seniors homes to help with yard and house maintenance. Kinda sucks because they still need the help.

 

[RobWDW1971]

It will be interesting. My cousins husband has lost 3 relatives thus far. He is from Bergamo. They are getting slaughtered there right now.

Like I have said previously, it is hard to gauge loss of life vs economic disaster in this situation as we just don’t know how Many could potentially die.

Unfortunately, for third world countries, especially those in Africa, social distancing will likely not happen and they will just get slaughtered until a vaccine comes about. So we can definitely see how this does in Africa and gauge retrospectively with some speculation if we did the right thing. We lose millions in Africa every year to HIV, Malaria, Measles, dehydration (from norovirus or other GI disease), and other causes. Most of these deaths are preventable with first world medicine but due to poor healthcare systems these people die of totally preventable and treatable diseases. I am betting African travel will be off limits to the world until a COVID vaccine is developed as this will sadly wipeout Africa and likely become endemic there.

Last year in the United States, 2,067,404 people over the age of 65 died. This did not make the news, because the elderly die in massive numbers every year obviously.

Assuming the virus continues to mostly kill older people and those with pre-existing condition for conversation purposes, is avoiding a 20% increase in elderly deaths worth it? 10%? 5%? 1%?

If we did nothing and the virus killed (pick your own percentages) 10% more elderly (200K more) vs. if we shut down society and destroyed the economy and it only killed 5% more (100K), will that have been worth it?

Not a pleasant conversation to be sure, but the pragmatic one we need to be having.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Last year in the United States, 2,067,404 people over the age of 65 died. This did not make the news, because the elderly die in massive numbers every year obviously.

Assuming the virus continues to mostly kill older people and those with pre-existing condition for conversation purposes, is avoiding a 20% increase in elderly deaths worth it? 10%? 5%? 1%?

If we did nothing and the virus killed (pick your own percentages) 10% more elderly (200K more) vs. if we shut down society and destroyed the economy and it only killed 5% more (100K), will that have been worth it?

Not a pleasant conversation to be sure, but the pragmatic one we need to be having.

It's not just the elderly dying. Please stop trying to further that argument.

 

[DisAl]

Last year in the United States, 2,067,404 people over the age of 65 died. This did not make the news, because the elderly die in massive numbers every year obviously.

Assuming the virus continues to mostly kill older people and those with pre-existing condition for conversation purposes, is avoiding a 20% increase in elderly deaths worth it? 10%? 5%? 1%?

If we did nothing and the virus killed (pick your own percentages) 10% more elderly (200K more) vs. if we shut down society and destroyed the economy and it only killed 5% more (100K), will that have been worth it?

Not a pleasant conversation to be sure, but the pragmatic one we need to be having.

Since you are trying to be so pragmatic, why don't you volunteer? That would help the percentages.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Last year in the United States, 2,067,404 people over the age of 65 died. This did not make the news, because the elderly die in massive numbers every year obviously.

Assuming the virus continues to mostly kill older people and those with pre-existing condition for conversation purposes, is avoiding a 20% increase in elderly deaths worth it? 10%? 5%? 1%?

If we did nothing and the virus killed (pick your own percentages) 10% more elderly (200K more) vs. if we shut down society and destroyed the economy and it only killed 5% more (100K), will that have been worth it?

Not a pleasant conversation to be sure, but the pragmatic one we need to be having.

Any chance you work for UK's National Health Service?

 

[21stamps]

Last year in the United States, 2,067,404 people over the age of 65 died. This did not make the news, because the elderly die in massive numbers every year obviously.

Assuming the virus continues to mostly kill older people and those with pre-existing condition for conversation purposes, is avoiding a 20% increase in elderly deaths worth it? 10%? 5%? 1%?

If we did nothing and the virus killed (pick your own percentages) 10% more elderly (200K more) vs. if we shut down society and destroyed the economy and it only killed 5% more (100K), will that have been worth it?

Not a pleasant conversation to be sure, but the pragmatic one we need to be having.

My governor tweeted today that “schools may stay closed for the remainder of the year”
This is the second time he’s said this.. but has not officially extended the date past the original 3 week closure.
I just keep thinking about our economy and K-12 students of whom many will advance to the next grade... without the proper knowledge to do so. Whether the schools close for the year or even another 2 weeks, too many will be so far behind.

There is going to be a huge ripple effect in this country on so many levels.

 

[Andrew C]

Last year in the United States, 2,067,404 people over the age of 65 died. This did not make the news, because the elderly die in massive numbers every year obviously.

Assuming the virus continues to mostly kill older people and those with pre-existing condition for conversation purposes, is avoiding a 20% increase in elderly deaths worth it? 10%? 5%? 1%?

If we did nothing and the virus killed (pick your own percentages) 10% more elderly (200K more) vs. if we shut down society and destroyed the economy and it only killed 5% more (100K), will that have been worth it?

Not a pleasant conversation to be sure, but the pragmatic one we need to be having.

If you believe that every life is important, you would typically try to save as many lives as possible. In this situation, you can also try to do what you can to save as much as the economy as possible to prevent the most lives from being destroyed. These are easy decisions, but you can work both sides....

 

[marni1971]

There is going to be a huge ripple effect in this country world on so many levels.

 

[21stamps]

Correct. @marni1971

 

[GoofGoof]

Last year in the United States, 2,067,404 people over the age of 65 died. This did not make the news, because the elderly die in massive numbers every year obviously.

Assuming the virus continues to mostly kill older people and those with pre-existing condition for conversation purposes, is avoiding a 20% increase in elderly deaths worth it? 10%? 5%? 1%?

If we did nothing and the virus killed (pick your own percentages) 10% more elderly (200K more) vs. if we shut down society and destroyed the economy and it only killed 5% more (100K), will that have been worth it?

Not a pleasant conversation to be sure, but the pragmatic one we need to be having.

To answer your question, yes it’s worth it. You disagree, that’s fine too. Nobody is going to change their minds on this so It’s not really much of a discussion.

 

[Rimmit]

Last year in the United States, 2,067,404 people over the age of 65 died. This did not make the news, because the elderly die in massive numbers every year obviously.

Assuming the virus continues to mostly kill older people and those with pre-existing condition for conversation purposes, is avoiding a 20% increase in elderly deaths worth it? 10%? 5%? 1%?

If we did nothing and the virus killed (pick your own percentages) 10% more elderly (200K more) vs. if we shut down society and destroyed the economy and it only killed 5% more (100K), will that have been worth it?

Not a pleasant conversation to be sure, but the pragmatic one we need to be having.

We’ve had the discussion about this on here before I think and it comes down to the fact that if uncontrolled this will interfere with aspects of daily life on all fronts. I know you are tired of how we need to “flatten the curve” so I will not reiterate that.

The other thing is that the fact that you can spout out stats like that is exactly why we tolerate those deaths. You’ve proven the whole argument why we need to do something NOW. We know with reasonable certainty how many elderly will die each year. How many die from heart attacks, strokes, flu, etc. It is a relatively stable number.

Most keep arguing why if we tolerate X number of deaths per year from DUIs why don’t we stop using cars. It’s cause it is not increasing exponentially.

I pass a sign on the highway that regularly updates throughout the year how many DUI deaths we have had YTD for that year and has a comparison to the total of the year before. It’s amazing that once we get to Dec. 31st, how we Have an almost identical number of deaths every year. It’s like clockwork.

If the DUIs were exponentially increasing every day by a factor of 1.2-1.5 (what COVID is doing) you can bet the government would shut down the roads till we fixed our drunk driving problem.

Again, I agree the shutdown the economy vs lives argument is valid, it will just be more valid at a later time when we have more data on this disease.

 

[hopemax]

Last year in the United States, 2,067,404 people over the age of 65 died. This did not make the news, because the elderly die in massive numbers every year obviously.

Assuming the virus continues to mostly kill older people and those with pre-existing condition for conversation purposes, is avoiding a 20% increase in elderly deaths worth it? 10%? 5%? 1%?

If we did nothing and the virus killed (pick your own percentages) 10% more elderly (200K more) vs. if we shut down society and destroyed the economy and it only killed 5% more (100K), will that have been worth it?

Not a pleasant conversation to be sure, but the pragmatic one we need to be having.

The economy went to hell over the deaths of 2,977 people + 19. Not even to save them, in reaction to their deaths. Recently, the economy also went to hell over the deaths of no people. Throughout history, economies have been ruined over the deaths of a single person (if they are important enough).

Why are you so certain that if we had done nothing, that the economy wouldn't have cratered anyway? China closing negatively impacted US businesses. Europe shutting down, which they would have done, would have further negative impacts. Our "cheap" manufacturing centers in places like Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia are going to be affected like China was, in the future, and likely with more death. Why would the US economy remain strong when so much of it depends on demand from the rest of the world?

 

[21stamps]

The economy went to hell over the deaths of 2,977 people + 19. Not even to save them, in reaction to their deaths. Recently, the economy also went to hell over the deaths of no people. Throughout history, economies have been ruined over the deaths of a single person (if they are important enough).

Why are you so certain that if we had done nothing, that the economy wouldn't have cratered anyway? China closing negatively impacted US businesses. Europe shutting down, which they would have done, would have further negative impacts. Our "cheap" manufacturing centers in places like Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia are going to be affected like China was, in the future, and likely with more death. Why would the US economy remain strong when so much of it depends on demand from the rest of the world?

That’s not exactly accurate.

 

[JohnD]

So far China looks pretty good on that front. Only 1 new case yesterday in Wuhan. It’s really early but they lifted the quarantine and the spread didn’t pick back up. I’m not sure if that’s just herd immunity or if the lock down really did the trick.

Shh! You’re not supposed to use the W-word.

 

[LittleBuford]

Not a pleasant conversation to be sure, but the pragmatic one we need to be having.

Thankfully, only a minority of people seem to think we "need" to have this conversation. The rest of the world is on the same page and determined not to let this virus cause more harm than it has to.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I agree, but there comes a point where sometimes you need to save people from themselves. There are plenty of laws on the books written for that exact purpose.

But couldn’t that be used for lots of laws? Alcohol related deaths kill 88,000 in the USA and Tobacco kills 480,000. And before you say that’s their choice..... those numbers include drunk drivers and second hand smoke. So we let over 500,000 die each year when we could ban alcohol and tobacco. (I’m not a smoker but I enjoy a shot of Baileys in my Joffrey’s when strolling world showcase so know where I’m coming from.)

I don’t want more people dying but I also don’t want everyone to be out of a job!!!

 

[hopemax]

That’s not exactly accurate.

You disagree that shock events can crater economies? The way the rest of the world is reacting, this is a shock event. What the US does or doesn't do isn't going to change that.

 

[LittleBuford]

Any chance you work for UK's National Health Service?

Please let's be fair to the fantastic medics who make up the NHS. They're not the ones responsible for the British government's (thankfully changing) approach. On the contrary, many have spoken up against it.

 

[LittleBuford]

But I think it’s dangerous for a government to physically keep a group of people from assembling for religious purposes. (And you can count worship to the church of Walt if you want!)

Why is it dangerous? Under the present circumstances, it's the very opposite of that.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

But couldn’t that be used for lots of laws? Alcohol related deaths kill 88,000 in the USA and Tobacco kills 480,000. And before you say that’s their choice..... those numbers include drunk drivers and second hand smoke. So we let over 500,000 die each year when we could ban alcohol and tobacco. (I’m not a smoker but I enjoy a shot of Baileys in my Joffrey’s when strolling world showcase so know where I’m coming from.)

I don’t want more people dying but I also don’t want everyone to be out of a job!!!

I personally think we've taken the "protect them from themselves" thing a little too far in some areas, but in the case of this pastor holding services and going against what he's being told by experts he should do, he's endangering FAR more than just himself, and his congregation are endangering every single person they all come in contact with. Things like this could be the source of a resurgence of the virus in the future.

ETA: As I and at least one other have repeated, all of us buying into the restrictions and social distancing are the key to this working.