Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[baymenxpac]

Instead worrying about being "forced to wear a mask". Maybe we should focus on getting more businesses to offer sick time. People keep saying if your sick stay home but many won't as they can't afford it. If more businesses have out sick days it would help a lot.

instead of a $1,200 check and indiscriminate shut downs, an emergency paid sick leave program back in march and april would have been a fantastic idea.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

instead of a $1,200 check and indiscriminate shut downs, an emergency paid sick leave program back in march and april would have been a fantastic idea.

That would have taken smart decisions, there has been none in 7 months. Agree though, would have helped, along with some other creative things that this administration just doesn’t seem to have with this virus.

 

[DisneyCane]

That's an interesting point. One of our plants had a mini-outbreak (11 employees infected with Covid), that was traced to a contractor working in the plant who came in sick. The contractor has no benefits, so he didn't get paid if he didn't come in. He knew he was sick, but had (incorrectly) self-diagnosed as "non-Covid".

Temperature checks and screening of people coming to work should be used to keep sick people out until they get tested and confirm it isn't COVID.

instead of a $1,200 check and indiscriminate shut downs, an emergency paid sick leave program back in march and april would have been a fantastic idea.

I agree with that but it would have had to have been carefully written in a way that prevented abuse. There needed to be some kind of verification that the person getting paid leave was actually sick.

 

[SamusAranX]

Interesting article I read today

Has Covid killed off the flu?

It was feared by many to be the perfect winter storm: the 'twin-demic' of flu, which kills about 10,000 Britons every year, and a second deadly wave of Covid-19.

www.dailymail.co.uk

If true, this could be much needed good news. A twin-demic would be a nightmare

 

[GoofGoof]

More than half the population isn't truly at risk. For the middle age and younger demographics the "underlying conditions" that are the most likely to lead to a major COVID issue are morbid obesity (not slightly obese) and diabetes. A 45 year old that takes medication to control high blood pressure isn't "high risk."

Yes, there will be exceptions and a health 30 year old can be killed by COVID but it isn't a common occurrence.

The "high risk" people that need to be isolated are people aged 65+. The data is clear worldwide that people in that age range are the ones with a significant risk of hospitalization and death. Also, everything possible should be done to keep the virus out of nursing homes. Even with focusing on them, 40% of Florida's deaths were nursing home residents at my last check a few days ago.

I don't know what the percentage is nationwide but if you even figure 30% it shows how disproportionate it is because nowhere near that percentage of the population resides in a nursing home.

If by "common sense" restrictions you mean social distancing and masks then I agree. If by "common sense" restrictions you mean that certain businesses (bars, restaurants in some places, movie theatres in some places, etc.) aren't allowed to operate then I disagree because that is essentially a partial lockdown.

Sorry, but you don’t get to decide who is high risk. I get that YOU feel how YOU feel but you can’t make other people follow that. The truth is we have no idea yet what the true high risk is. It has changed several times as we learn more so you saying arbitrarily that certain people in the high risk group aren’t really high risk is meaningless and a little insulting to those people. So in this dream world where we isolate the high risk and then everyone else goes about their normal life you expect people who are in the high risk group that is defined by the CDC and experts to ignore those experts and go about life as if the virus doesn’t exist because you THINK they aren’t really high risk. That’s just not going to happen. The high risk group is over half the population. That’s factual, not my opinion. A lot of those people still need to work and or interact with people outside their home. I think maybe it’s easy for people who are younger and healthy to think this way because you want to go to bars and do what you want to do, but that has an impact on others too. There’s no such thing as just worrying about the risk to you.

I think keeping people from going to an indoor establishment and interacting without social distancing or masks to be a “common sense“ restriction. Restaurants can be open if they follow simple requirements, masks for all workers, masks for all patrons except when seated at their table eating, tables are distanced 6 feet apart, no bar seating and no standing room option. Most restaurants and some bars can be open under those requirements. Clubs and small bars without tables would be out of luck. Those businesses should receive bailout money just like the airlines or other industries directly impacted. IMHO that’s pretty common sense. What makes no sense is to have people shoulder to shoulder in a packed bar with no masks. By now just about everyone looking at this with a level head knows that’s not a good situation. I believe a lot of people are falling on the economic excuse when the reality is they just want to go to the bar and act like it’s not a pandemic. I hope that when the pandemic is over people remember how concerned they were about the workers out of work when bills come along to support paying them a living wage or providing them health insurance.

Bottom line is the vast majority of the economy can be open and functioning if some simple restrictions were in place and enforced across the board. No need to lock old people and people with high risk conditions in their homes for several years to keep bars open or have more fans in the stands. I fail to see how implementing what I suggest is a partial lockdown. A lockdown to me means you can’t leave your home except for essential tasks. What I’m suggesting allows almost all activity to happen with a few exceptions for things that just can’t be done safely.

 

[Kevin_W]

Temperature checks and screening of people coming to work should be used to keep sick people out until they get tested and confirm it isn't COVID.



I agree with that but it would have had to have been carefully written in a way that prevented abuse. There needed to be some kind of verification that the person getting paid leave was actually sick.

They were actually doing temperature checks at the location - he wasn't running a fever.

Preventing abuse of a lenient sick policy is definitely a concern of management.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

They were actually doing temperature checks at the location - he wasn't running a fever.

Preventing abuse of a lenient sick policy is definitely a concern of management.

That's the problem...people don't always run a fever. Temp checks are helpful, but they aren't a guarantee.

 

[SamusAranX]

That's the problem...people don't always run a fever. Temp checks are helpful, but they aren't a guarantee.

my job, once we return to in person work, has a brief wireless form that will be required even once covid is over certifying you have no symptoms of illness. If you lie, well....I wouldn’t want to be in that managerial one on one

 

[DisneyCane]

Sorry, but you don’t get to decide who is high risk. I get that YOU feel how YOU feel but you can’t make other people follow that. The truth is we have no idea yet what the true high risk is. It has changed several times as we learn more so you saying arbitrarily that certain people in the high risk group aren’t really high risk is meaningless and a little insulting to those people. So in this dream world where we isolate the high risk and then everyone else goes about their normal life you expect people who are in the high risk group that is defined by the CDC and experts to ignore those experts and go about life as if the virus doesn’t exist because you THINK they aren’t really high risk. That’s just not going to happen. The high risk group is over half the population. That’s factual, not my opinion. A lot of those people still need to work and or interact with people outside their home. I think maybe it’s easy for people who are younger and healthy to think this way because you want to go to bars and do what you want to do, but that has an impact on others too. There’s no such thing as just worrying about the risk to you.

I think keeping people from going to an indoor establishment and interacting without social distancing or masks to be a “common sense“ restriction. Restaurants can be open if they follow simple requirements, masks for all workers, masks for all patrons except when seated at their table eating, tables are distanced 6 feet apart, no bar seating and no standing room option. Most restaurants and some bars can be open under those requirements. Clubs and small bars without tables would be out of luck. Those businesses should receive bailout money just like the airlines or other industries directly impacted. IMHO that’s pretty common sense. What makes no sense is to have people shoulder to shoulder in a packed bar with no masks. By now just about everyone looking at this with a level head knows that’s not a good situation. I believe a lot of people are falling on the economic excuse when the reality is they just want to go to the bar and act like it’s not a pandemic. I hope that when the pandemic is over people remember how concerned they were about the workers out of work when bills come along to support paying them a living wage or providing them health insurance.

Bottom line is the vast majority of the economy can be open and functioning if some simple restrictions were in place and enforced across the board. No need to lock old people and people with high risk conditions in their homes for several years to keep bars open or have more fans in the stands. I fail to see how implementing what I suggest is a partial lockdown. A lockdown to me means you can’t leave your home except for essential tasks. What I’m suggesting allows almost all activity to happen with a few exceptions for things that just can’t be done safely.

There are worldwide statistics on over 40 million known cases that clearly show that the non-elderly population isn't a "high risk" population regardless of whatever medical conditions they may have. Just look at the percentage of people in those age groups with those conditions and compare against the COVID hospitalization and fatalities within those age groups. It is very clear that the vast majority of middle aged and younger people do not fall into a high risk category for COVID. I'm sure a 45 year old with high blood pressure is at a higher risk than I am but that doesn't make them "high risk."

As to your "common sense" restrictions, yes most places can be open (although not in some locations as presently is ordered) but being open and being able to operate profitably are two different things. If there are restrictions that do not allow a business to operate as normal then the government which orders the restrictions should be required to compensate the business and make it whole.

Luckily I got out of the business early in the decade but I was once the owner of a small chain of movie theatres. If I would have still been in that business, we'd be bankrupt if we had to operate under the restrictions I've seen some places impose. Not just social distanced seating which hurts greatly when you can't fill the key showtimes but some places that won't allow food and drinks to be sold. That throws out the entire business model. My "partial lockdown" terminology was in reference to partial lockdown of the economy.

When you don't allow a bar to open, it isn't just the owners of the bar that are adversely effected. It's the employees, the landlord when the bar can't pay the rent or survive, the suppliers, etc.

At the beginning when nobody knew anything about the virus and China was lying and it seemed like half of Italy's population was dropping dead I can understand all the restrictions to try and drastically slow the spread. With everything known now about who it is likely to adversely effect, the focus should be on protecting the most vulnerable. I don't see the need to slow the spread in the population at large as long as hospital capacity is maintained to treat both COVID and other patients. `At this point, in my opinion, that should be the only metric that drives restrictions. The daily "numbers" watch isn't really necessary outside of that.

I believe it should be up to the business to put in restrictions that they think are needed for their customers to feel safe. If a restaurant can attract more diners by having lower capacity then they should do it. If their clientele doesn't care and they can fill all tables then do it. I feel strongly because even in a hot spot during a spike, the percentage of the population walking around and contagious is very low. I do not think it is the right response to treat everybody as if it is likely they are infected and contagious and that is exactly what all of these restrictions assume.

 

[DisneyCane]

They were actually doing temperature checks at the location - he wasn't running a fever.

Preventing abuse of a lenient sick policy is definitely a concern of management.

What were his symptoms? Were they apparent to others?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

What were his symptoms? Were they apparent to others?

That's what people arguing against restrictions forget...people may have ZERO symptoms and transmit the virus to others.

 

[Touchdown]

Also it’s way, way, way too early to say the flu season is dead. We typically start seeing it regularly in December, with a peak in late January (Influenza A) and a secondary peak in March (Influenza B.) How high those peaks go depends on how good the vaccine is that year.

I will say that the pandemic completely ended the flu season by April last year, but that was when we locked down; it remains far too early to say that the flu season will be non existent this year.

It’s early, but now that we test people for viruses regularly I can say anecdotally there is a real nasty rhinovirus going around my area (in addition to Covid.)

 

[GoofGoof]

There are worldwide statistics on over 40 million known cases that clearly show that the non-elderly population isn't a "high risk" population regardless of whatever medical conditions they may have. Just look at the percentage of people in those age groups with those conditions and compare against the COVID hospitalization and fatalities within those age groups. It is very clear that the vast majority of middle aged and younger people do not fall into a high risk category for COVID. I'm sure a 45 year old with high blood pressure is at a higher risk than I am but that doesn't make them "high risk."

As to your "common sense" restrictions, yes most places can be open (although not in some locations as presently is ordered) but being open and being able to operate profitably are two different things. If there are restrictions that do not allow a business to operate as normal then the government which orders the restrictions should be required to compensate the business and make it whole.

Luckily I got out of the business early in the decade but I was once the owner of a small chain of movie theatres. If I would have still been in that business, we'd be bankrupt if we had to operate under the restrictions I've seen some places impose. Not just social distanced seating which hurts greatly when you can't fill the key showtimes but some places that won't allow food and drinks to be sold. That throws out the entire business model. My "partial lockdown" terminology was in reference to partial lockdown of the economy.

When you don't allow a bar to open, it isn't just the owners of the bar that are adversely effected. It's the employees, the landlord when the bar can't pay the rent or survive, the suppliers, etc.

At the beginning when nobody knew anything about the virus and China was lying and it seemed like half of Italy's population was dropping dead I can understand all the restrictions to try and drastically slow the spread. With everything known now about who it is likely to adversely effect, the focus should be on protecting the most vulnerable. I don't see the need to slow the spread in the population at large as long as hospital capacity is maintained to treat both COVID and other patients. `At this point, in my opinion, that should be the only metric that drives restrictions. The daily "numbers" watch isn't really necessary outside of that.

I believe it should be up to the business to put in restrictions that they think are needed for their customers to feel safe. If a restaurant can attract more diners by having lower capacity then they should do it. If their clientele doesn't care and they can fill all tables then do it. I feel strongly because even in a hot spot during a spike, the percentage of the population walking around and contagious is very low. I do not think it is the right response to treat everybody as if it is likely they are infected and contagious and that is exactly what all of these restrictions assume.

There’s no point in going back and forth on this. You can believe what you want but the CDC and other actual experts define high risk how they define it. I’m going to defer to the experts on that. I will restate my original point. You can’t just lock away the high risk population so everyone can go along business as usual. It doesn’t work and would be devastating for the economy as a whole.

The restrictions aren’t a punishment and it’s not about who is willing to take a risk. I would buy into that argument if you told me the plan was to let people do what they want, but if you go to a packed bar or any other high risk area than you can’t go to a grocery store, a doctor‘s appointment, ride the bus or eat in a restaurant. If the people “willing to take the risk” had a way to not expose themselves to the general public than it would be fine. Instead you go to that packed bar, get sick, ride the bus the next day and the 70 year old bus driver with asthma and high blood pressure ends up dead or the 80 year old woman riding with you who is on a fixed income but needs to ride the bus to get dialysis is infected. See you can’t really isolate the high risk, they are people who need to do things too, but in this over-simplified view where we just isolate high risk people why are the high risk people asked to make the sacrifice? Couldn’t we just say if you do something with a high risk of exposure you need to refrain from activities where the elderly or high risk would be? It seems less appealing when you are the one being inconvenienced. You can sub bus ride with doctor’s appointment or eating at a restaurant or even visiting WDW. The point is you can’t isolate the high risk easily and you aren‘t going to agree to restrictions on people that go to the bar. It doesn’t work. I’m just using the bar as an example, It’s far from the only problem. You could easily sub in private party, sporting event with a crowd with no masks, etc...

 

[lazyboy97o]

Preventing abuse of a lenient sick policy is definitely a concern of management.

This did not really happen with swine flu when organizations temporarily changed their policies.

 

[baymenxpac]

Interesting article I read today

Has Covid killed off the flu?

It was feared by many to be the perfect winter storm: the 'twin-demic' of flu, which kills about 10,000 Britons every year, and a second deadly wave of Covid-19.

www.dailymail.co.uk

If true, this could be much needed good news. A twin-demic would be a nightmare

yup, it's big. biden and fauci's "dark winter" comments have been based on combating COVID and the flu at the same time.

while it's tempting to ascribe this to non-pharmaceutical interventions, there is evidence, dating back to the '09 h1n1 pandemic, that viruses compete and the dominant one can tamp the secondary one down. and we know flu shot utilization is going to be much, much higher this year, which -- depending on its efficacy -- will help, too.

one of the data firms i work with is mapping this trend right now. when we get more, i'll let you guys know.

 

[GoofGoof]

yup, it's big. biden and fauci's "dark winter" comments have been based on combating COVID and the flu at the same time.

while it's tempting to ascribe this to non-pharmaceutical interventions, there is evidence, dating back to the '09 h1n1 pandemic, that viruses compete and the dominant one can tamper the secondary one down. and we know flu shot utilization is going to be much, much higher this year, which -- depending on its efficacy -- will help, too.

one of the data firms i work with is mapping this trend right now. when we get more, i'll let you guys know.

As we learned from Mr. Burns sometimes all the diseases fight each other cancelling them all out:

 

[DCBaker]

Numbers are out - there were 56 new reported deaths.

 

[Polkadotdress]

It’s been mentioned several times to “just” isolate the high-risk? Where? How? Are they going to living in special segregated apartments all by themselves? Also, do they no longer work? If so, how do they afford to live?

It’s also ironic that many who say “isolate the high risk” are the same ones complaining about the draconian no-visit measures at retirement/senior homes, which has resulted in their family member being...isolated because they are...you betcha, high risk.

 

[HongKongFooy]

The truth is we have no idea yet what the true high risk is......................................................... The high risk group is over half the population. That’s factual, not my opinion.

Your stance evolved in the same post.

Maybe we do have an idea afterall.

 

[MisterPenguin]