Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I’m not arguing against the CDC’s recommendation...we’re talking about a post you made. I’m not assuming your opinion at all, I know what it is because I’m responding to something you said...

“But if the average human misses out on 6 months (which is all it would have taken) on a 90 Year lifespan...I don’t know that’s a bad trade?“

If I’m reading this quote wrong, please tell me what it means - what did you want everyone to do for 6 months to be done with this?

Ok...you are reading it wrong.

I was saying six months of quarantine/limits...loosened when data improved...is probably an acceptable trade.

Things would be missed...but we may lengthen the economic and social disruption by bickering and not following a sound policy. A rush to open is NOT helping the financial situation. That’s really going to show now that the effects of trillions in injection is Wearing off.

I’m tired of this...but it’s not a debate or “ideology”. It’s science and human nature in control here.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

To me, that means letting young/healthy people do whatever they need to do to support the people who really should be isolating.

You can do whatever you want / need to. Who’s stopping you?

 

[disneycp]

You can do whatever you want / need to. Who’s stopping you?

well I’m furloughed from my job due to restrictions so, there’s that...

 

[disneycp]

Ok...you are reading it wrong.

I was saying six months of quarantine/limits...loosened when data improved...is probably an acceptable trade.

Things would be missed...but we may lengthen the economic and social disruption by bickering and not following a sound policy. A rush to open is NOT helping the financial situation. That’s really going to show now that the effects of trillions in injection is Wearing off.

I’m tired of this...but it’s not a debate or “ideology”. It’s science and human nature in control here.

This I can kind of agree with (although I think restrictions would have to last until a vaccine is widely distributed or else cases would just become out of control again. I don’t see how this could have been over in six months no matter what we did).

 

[wdisney9000]

I don’t consider anything that causes over 200,000 deaths and climbing to be “ overblown”.
If you are 10 years old or 90, no one should think that with what’s happened.

It is overblown in the sense of how it's being covered. A large majority of any and all news coverage strictly focuses on new cases and deaths count only. Why? Especially considering that there are other issues causing a far larger death toll each year?

They've pounded away at that non stop for over 6 months. Very little (if any) mention of the 99% who will (and do) survive. Non stop coverage of death rates. Non stop coverage of new cases.

People have become so dependent (and trusting) of the media that they will defend it at all costs. If tomorrow the media began non stop coverage of a 99% recovery rate and strictly focussed on less than 1% fatality rate, you would have people throwing parades. The very same people who currently complain to a manager if someone in the store isn't wearing a mask.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

well I’m furloughed from my job due to restrictions so, there’s that...

There’s what? Nobody is stopping you from getting another job are they?

I’m not trying to be cold I’m just trying to figure out what you want. The country is pretty much open now.

When Disneyland opens they will bring back furloughed workers and they won’t bring back the workers they laid off. That was going to happen October 1, no matter what I’m afraid. That’s why so many were laid off in Florida, even though they are open.

Edit - that’s not what I think SHOULD have happened, but with current managers, Josh included, it was going to happen.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

well I’m furloughed from my job due to restrictions so, there’s that...

I sensed that angst...and it is a bad situation for you and others impacted. Not your fault. And what I want is to get back to normal for you and all others as quickly as possible. I just don’t think shortcuts will work.

(By the way...your name doesn’t indicate you’re a “boomerang” CP, are you?)

 

[disneycp]

I sensed that angst...and it is a bad situation for you and others impacted. Not your fault. And what I want is to get back to normal for you and all others as quickly as possible. I just don’t think shortcuts will work.

(By the way...your name doesn’t indicate you’re a “boomerang” CP, are you?)

I appreciate that. Thank you. My name indicates I’m an idiot...I thought I type CM as in cast member and didn’t notice until it was too late

 

[GoofGoof]

I’m sorry but what are you talking about? The entire reason we’re having this conversation is because you said that if we “did what we were supposed to do” for six months, this would all be over this. Now you didn’t get into the specifics of “what we’re supposed to do,” but I’m guessing that meant having everyone stay home, close the borders, etc. until cases were down to zero, is that not right? You’re switching arguments to whatever is convenient to you.

No one here, myself included, said anything negative about isolating the infected; I think that’s a very reasonable approach.

Cases won’t go to zero. That’s too black and white thinking. The goal shouldn’t be zero cases, the goal is to get case load low enough that when someone gets sick they can isolate immediately and trace their contacts to avoid further infections. Once you have widespread community spread there’s no way to effectively do this. So the concept wasn’t lock everyone down for 6 months and the virus vanishes, it was keep more restrictions in place until the percent positive and case numbers are low enough that effective contact tracing can be done. Once the situation is under control you open more stuff and assess the impact and if/when there is a spike pull back and roll out blanket testing to snuff out the outbreak before widespread community spread starts up. You would have waves of time with more restrictions followed by a loosening but overall you keep cases way down and long term the economic impact is much less than where we sit today.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Especially considering that there are other issues causing a far larger death toll each year?

We are now at the point where there are only two other leading causes of death, heart disease and cancer. Both are groups of diseases with various causes, not a single disease with a single cause that is transmitted person-to-person.

FastStats

FastStats is an official application from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and puts access to topic-specific statistics at your fingertips.

www.cdc.gov

 

[DisneyCane]

It’s 79...if you’re 20 RIGHT NOW...will it perhaps end up being there??

Think either:
A. Outside the box
B. Inside the hole you keep digging

Nobody said seal borders. Infact in 7 months I don’t believe anyone has even suggested it.

Follow the guidelines, isolate the infected, screen those moving around.
Rocket science.

Perhaps you can understand that even if you did everything your brilliant mind has come up with to eliminate the virus in the US, it will come back when people come into the US from outside the country and bring the virus with them. That's why you would have to seal the borders for the foreseeable future.

You're the one that said it would have only taken 6 months of lockdowns or whatever and then we could have been back to normal life and not have to be dealing with restrictions/interruptions now. That just isn't true as long as people can come across the border. As soon as the virus started spreading again, the same plan would need to be implemented again.

 

[DisneyCane]

Cases won’t go to zero. That’s too black and white thinking. The goal shouldn’t be zero cases, the goal is to get case load low enough that when someone gets sick they can isolate immediately and trace their contacts to avoid further infections. Once you have widespread community spread there’s no way to effectively do this. So the concept wasn’t lock everyone down for 6 months and the virus vanishes, it was keep more restrictions in place until the percent positive and case numbers are low enough that effective contact tracing can be done. Once the situation is under control you open more stuff and assess the impact and if/when there is a spike pull back and roll out blanket testing to snuff out the outbreak before widespread community spread starts up. You would have waves of time with more restrictions followed by a loosening but overall you keep cases way down and long term the economic impact is much less than where we sit today.

A prominent person contracted the virus even though everybody that comes into contact with said person was tested EVERY DAY. If that didn't prevent the spread, how would contact tracing and isolation? Especially given the high percentage of completely asymptomatic infections.

 

[disneycp]

Cases won’t go to zero. That’s too black and white thinking. The goal shouldn’t be zero cases, the goal is to get case load low enough that when someone gets sick they can isolate immediately and trace their contacts to avoid further infections. Once you have widespread community spread there’s no way to effectively do this. So the concept wasn’t lock everyone down for 6 months and the virus vanishes, it was keep more restrictions in place until the percent positive and case numbers are low enough that effective contact tracing can be done. Once the situation is under control you open more stuff and assess the impact and if/when there is a spike pull back and roll out blanket testing to snuff out the outbreak before widespread community spread starts up. You would have waves of time with more restrictions followed by a loosening but overall you keep cases way down and long term the economic impact is much less than where we sit today.

I do understand/partially agree with this. My fear is that we would start out saying we know 0 cases can’t be accomplished (at least for the foreseeable future) and, in the beginning, we would focus solely on getting cases down as low as possible. But then I can imagine what happens next - people see the cases are low and say “why would we ever remove restrictions? That would just undo all of the hard work we’ve been doing. If anything, we should ADD restrictions to get numbers even lower” and then it’s a slippery slope of restrictions for the next 2 years until the vaccine has been given to everyone. That’s basically what happened when we said we would quarantine for 2 weeks to “flatten the curve”.... that very quickly turned into acting as if every case reported is a death sentence; we’re focusing on new cases now almost as much as new deaths.

 

[wdisney9000]

Ok...you are reading it wrong.

I was saying six months of quarantine/limits...loosened when data improved...is probably an acceptable trade.

Things would be missed...but we may lengthen the economic and social disruption by bickering and not following a sound policy. A rush to open is NOT helping the financial situation. That’s really going to show now that the effects of trillions in injection is Wearing off.

I’m tired of this...but it’s not a debate or “ideology”. It’s science and human nature in control here.

Do you own your own business? If not, you have no idea of the impact all this causes.

And the politicization of all this has been detrimental to the stimulus packages. From both sides.

We are now at the point where there are only two other leading causes of death, heart disease and cancer. Both are groups of diseases with various causes, not a single disease with a single cause that is transmitted person-to-person.

FastStats

FastStats is an official application from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and puts access to topic-specific statistics at your fingertips.

www.cdc.gov

What if you applied "died with" not "from" to the death count to cancer or heart disease? The numbers would astronomical.

Person dies from a car accident, but they had cancer so we will label the cause of death as cancer.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What if you applied "died with" not "from" to the death count to cancer or heart disease? The numbers would astronomical.

Person dies from a car accident, but they had cancer so we will label the cause of death as cancer.

Right, I forgot about that conspiracy. The numbers still wouldn't be astronomical because accidents are listed.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

A prominent person contracted the virus even though everybody that comes into contact with said person was tested EVERY DAY. If that didn't prevent the spread, how would contact tracing and isolation? Especially given the high percentage of completely asymptomatic infections.

Every person who is identified as being positive and can then isolate and alert others they have had contact with means that the spread can be reduced. Also, if we all wear masks and social distance when in public (or visiting family) then that further reduces the spread. Testing alone doesn't do much since it doesn't prevent you from getting it after the test, but that doesn't mean that it isn't helpful.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

What if you applied "died with" not "from" to the death count to cancer or heart disease? The numbers would astronomical.

My understanding is that many people who die “from cancer” die from infections that their body can’t fight because they have cancer.

Seems like cancer research and prevention is still a good idea though. And also showing compassion for those who have been affected by it.

 

[wdisney9000]

Right, I forgot about that conspiracy. The numbers still wouldn't be astronomical because accidents are listed.

The numerous videos of government and medical officials stating that death tolls include those dying "with covid", not specifically "from covid" are fake?

 

[Heppenheimer]

Do you own your own business? If not, you have no idea of the impact all this causes.

And the politicization of all this has been detrimental to the stimulus packages. From both sides.

What if you applied "died with" not "from" to the death count to cancer or heart disease? The numbers would astronomical.

Person dies from a car accident, but they had cancer so we will label the cause of death as cancer.

That is not how death certificates work. At all.

 

[wdisney9000]

My understanding is that many people who die “from cancer” die from infections that their body can’t fight because they have cancer.

Seems like cancer research and prevention is still a good idea though. And also showing compassion for those who have been affected by it.

You make an extremely valid point. The only difference is that we don't have medical and media outlets telling people 24 x 7 to be cautious of smoking or hereditary issues.

We only a get a paid advertisment for a big pharma company promoting their latest concoction, which most likely includes symptoms far worse than the disease itself.