TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
So if you don’t want to discuss it, it’s a bad comparison or doesn’t apply.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
There are absolutely no case to be made that businesses can’t be shut down due to public Health threats...if there were...business owners in every single US state would have marched into court in March and demanded they be allowed to open.
Did it happen?
A bad comparison is a bad comparison, sorry. I outlined the reason I thought it wasn’t comparable (which is me discussing it) and you either agree with it or not, I don’t really care either way. Lazyboy then responded to my response with more info on his side of the argument. I didn’t agree with it but that’s fine, that’s how a discussion works.
And no, I’m not crying any tears over Starbucks. Starbucks will be fine. I’m more worried about small businesses that won’t be fine. If you want to hold up Starbucks and Chik fil a, well established brands that are huge in the US, as good examples of “look, businesses will be fine even with government restrictions!” then I’m going to disagree with it because I don’t think that applies to most businesses.
Uhh I don’t know where you live but business owners have been going to court to be able to open...
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
And have we heard of any winning?
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
That’s not at all what I said.
I was saying that those businesses are continuing to operate without dining rooms even though dining rooms can be open. But you read it the way you wanted to read it and then said it didn’t apply.
So what small businesses do you know of that have closed? Don’t google them, let’s talk.
In my town one of the coffee shops closed and never reopened. They blamed that on the college kids leaving since that’s the majority of there market. Nobody forced them to close.
The other coffee shop (and the one that roasts their own) stayed open the entire time with to-go orders and seems to be doing good business. They did sales and specials on at home brew kits during the quarantine. They are smart business owners and are doing well.
sullyinMT
Well-Known Member
The problem with the “boondocks” is they’re incredibly underserved in all aspects of life. So, when they go to Fargo, or Billings, or Spokane, etc, to a Costco or for ranch supplies and don’t wear a mask because they don’t frankly need to in a county of 2500 people and 8000 cattle, they take it home with them.The US has a LARGE percentage of its land mass that is sparsely populated...boondocks - basically.
Controlling those areas should not have been that hard. Look at the flash map today...it’s not Manhattan and LA County getting crushed.
I know...amazon...blame amazon
And the attitude that the US “isn’t really part of this planet” has been a major hindrance here.
The 20th century is over...we need to wise up and move beyond some of those tropes.
That type of messaging has been terrible. The “don’t take it home to your town” message could have been better as we reopened. For a good while (not so much now with fatigue), our primary reservation populations didn’t “take it home” with them because the tribal leadership had great messaging of “protecting the elders.” It’s been lost of late, but they really handled in well in the summer.
Yes. You said they’re operating without dining rooms. The implication of that is that they’re still making plenty of money even with having their dining rooms closed. And the answer to that is: duh? They’re huge companies that people love, people will still go to them even with the dining rooms closed. They’re also FAST FOOD restaurants that people eat at because they’re fast and convenient. Do people eat inside of them? Yeah, sure. Some people probably hang out at Starbucks all day. But most people go there because they want to quickly grab coffee or food before moving on with their day. Drive-thrus make that very convenient to do. A lot of places don’t have the luxury of having a drive-thru to entice people to come quickly grab their food. They also don’t have the brand recognition that big chains have. It’s completely different.
sullyinMT
Well-Known Member
No, but the precedence isn’t lost in their example. Most of our coffee shops never opened their dining rooms here. Carry out or drive through when available has been it for months.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Exactly. I was trying to use an example that everyone understood.
sullyinMT
Well-Known Member
While waitstaff would be severely cut, likely, and some kitchen staff to boot, curbside takeout is a real possibility for most restaurants. We’ve lost a few during this period, but it’s not like some massive % didn’t make it.
Also, some of that displaced staff could be driving DoorDash et al. They’re doing a big business right now.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
There are many examples where the government prevents a business from operating due to public health and environmental regulations. Trust me, I work in the energy industry. It’s not uncommon and they don’t let the business decide which regulations should be followed. Typically companies get more lead time to implement changes, but it’s a worldwide pandemic and we can’t really wait to implement restrictions. I personally don’t worry about this setting some sort of precedent for future over reach. It’s a pretty unique situation.
If a sensible set of restrictions is in place the vast majority of the economy can be open and most people can go back to work. For the businesses that cannot operate the government can and should assist them and their workers. I think we fumbled that big time in this whole situation, but that was partially caused by some elements within the government resisting the restrictions in the first place. If everyone was on board with the sensible set of rules across the board the focus could have been placed on identifying and helping those negatively impacted. Instead we got political BS and not nearly enough help.
DisneyDebRob
Well-Known Member
I wrote about my friend who owns a sandwich place the other day. He is doing fantastically with pick up and deliveries but his socially spaced little shop hardly gets people in to sit. He actually said that doesn’t bother him because he’s booming with take out. The ones that adjusted quickly and learned the “new way” for a lack of a better term can make it and even thrive is some cases. I understand that some won’t and didn’t make it and that’s really a shame.
MaryJaneP
Well-Known Member
One usually-respected publication has an article on whether WDW may be forced to close due to the surge in COVID infections. Another reports an administration expert as being worried that the numbers are headed in the wrong direction while at the same time another administration spokesman denies that letting everyone get the corona virus is their preferred strategy, although other experts confirm it is quietly being implemented.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Courts are closed due to covid - case can't progress....
sullyinMT
Well-Known Member
And, like your friend, if most people are given a choice between Subway and the local little guy, they’ll support small in crisis. Even franchisees of the big boys are protected a little by large group policies and will probably survive.
Quackers5000
Member
Could you share the article please?
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Yes, many businesses adapted quite nicely. Some did not. A lot of that does depend on the type of business. A coffee shop whether locally owned or Starbucks should have had a much easier time adapting. A small bar without room for a lot of tables could be much more outa luck.
It’s very encouraging to me to see a lot of businesses thinking outside the box and succeeding. True example that the American entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well. I have a local brew pub near me that started beer deliveries when the stay at home orders first were issued. I’m not even sure it’s legal to do, but it’s a pandemic and the cops have better stuff to do than bust these guys. They had no way to operate even once restaurants were allowed to open due to size but they figured out a way to make ends meet selling growlers.
Last edited:
While those are nice stories, in most cases that's just not true. Maybe in smaller towns it is.
So many "mom and pop" local places are closing here in Chicago because even though they tried, they couldn't stay open with drive up or delivery only. In major cities - given the choice, more people are choosing Subway because it's what they know and it's cheaper.
hopemax
Well-Known Member
Oh hey! I found an example of what "protect the vulnerable" means. Microbiologist in the UK, David Livermore.
He says a better use of government funds, since so much has been lost due to fraud, would be to use it for support:
"Support could include well-paid live-in staff, rotated at care homes, food deliveries to those alone, and the option (not compulsion) of hotels for those living in multigenerational families."
This is from a Telegraph opinion piece from October 11th, that I had to Google my way around the pay wall, so that's why I didn't include a link.
In another article he suggested that the live-in staff could stay in isolation with their charges for 1 month intervals. And I think I saw in a different one that he suggested that "well paid" meant that salaries for caregivers should be tripled. But now I can't find that one. So in addition to locking up the vulnerable, we would also need to temporarily lockup nonvulnerable so when they interact with the vulnerable they are safe. I'm not sure what hotels he would be suggesting would be "safe" since the whole point of this is that non-vulnerable would go back to normal life, which I would assume would mean they were staying in hotels on business trips and holidays...
So we're cool with this type of stuff, believe it's viable, yes?
He says a better use of government funds, since so much has been lost due to fraud, would be to use it for support:
"Support could include well-paid live-in staff, rotated at care homes, food deliveries to those alone, and the option (not compulsion) of hotels for those living in multigenerational families."
This is from a Telegraph opinion piece from October 11th, that I had to Google my way around the pay wall, so that's why I didn't include a link.
In another article he suggested that the live-in staff could stay in isolation with their charges for 1 month intervals. And I think I saw in a different one that he suggested that "well paid" meant that salaries for caregivers should be tripled. But now I can't find that one. So in addition to locking up the vulnerable, we would also need to temporarily lockup nonvulnerable so when they interact with the vulnerable they are safe. I'm not sure what hotels he would be suggesting would be "safe" since the whole point of this is that non-vulnerable would go back to normal life, which I would assume would mean they were staying in hotels on business trips and holidays...
So we're cool with this type of stuff, believe it's viable, yes?
- Status