News Disneyland Resort CLOSED on March 14th Indefinitely - No Known Reopening Date

Smooch

Well-Known Member
Smooch, I much prefer to talk about Disneyland, and the surrounding area (aka Anaheim/Orange County), and how other Theme/Amusement parks are addressing COVID-19 and how/when they reopen.

I wish I could share more.

I have morning call in a few hours, Friday, on call Saturday and Sunday, but at 6 AM Memorial Day, we are having one, partially to discuss how the weekend went so far.

If things go as planned, it will be a quick reopening of the area when we get the green light.
I completely understand only being able to share so much, I wasn't trying to imply you don't give us much info because I am incredibly grateful we get any info from you at all. I really hope things are able to go according to plan. Where I live some dine in sections of restaurants have started re opening and more stores are opening up curbside pick ups. There's a record / comic / etc. store near me I mentioned who refused to do an online store that I mentioned on here before and they finally added curbside pickup so they post their newest pieces they receive / stuff they've had already on Instagram and people are able to call and purchase their items and pick them up. It's a start and it's nice to see some normalcy returning, I haven't eaten anywhere yet but I plan on doing so soon because I am happy we are starting to see things progress rather than remain where they had been for months.
 

planodisney

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Again, COVID is a contagious disease. Vehicular deaths are not. Regardless, the government also mandates a high # of precautions and safety measures to keep you safe - from seatbelts to airbags to car insurance. Those types of rules are no different than wearing a mask when inside a store or doing your shopping.





These are all false equivalencies.

We regularly take steps to protect citizens. In the case of alcohol that is last call times at bars, DUI laws, etc.

As far as the AIDS epidemic, people CHOOSE to have unprotected sex - wearing a condom is a mostly foolproof method to avoid HIV transmission. You can't get AIDS from walking down the street because Jane didn't want to wear a mask.



Must it be reiterated again this is NOT the flu? We shut everything down to prevent transmission yet still lost far more people in one month than we do in most flu years. Had we not, the number of deaths would have been in the many hundreds of thousands, which is not a number we "collectively as a society tolerate."
Yes, and virtually no one is saying we can’t enact certain safeties, precautions and so on.

420,000 Americans died in WW2.
750,000 Americans died in The Civil War.
24,000,000 Russians soldiers and civilians died in WW2.
I’m just curious what your loss of life number is on fighting those battles to keep our way of life and protect our individual freedoms would be?
Would you say 420,000 was too much of a cost and we should have stayed home to keep our body count as low as possible?
Surely 750,000 was way to high of a body count.
That would be millions of Americans when extrapolated into today’s population numbers.
What I’m saying we should have done is to be smart, but brave as a society. We could have taken a couple weeks to ensure that our hospitals weren’t going to get overrun. Then we should have taken action to protect our most vulnerable while the rest of us put on masks, put the sanitizer in our pockets, pulled up our boot straps and gotten our butts out to work to cary this country on our backs instead of hiding and panicking like a bunch of idiots!
 

trojanjustin

Well-Known Member
Yes, and virtually no one is saying we can’t enact certain safeties, precautions and so on.

420,000 Americans died in WW2.
750,000 Americans died in The Civil War.
24,000,000 Russians soldiers and civilians died in WW2.
I’m just curious what your loss of life number is on fighting those battles to keep our way of life and protect our individual freedoms would be?
Would you say 420,000 was too much of a cost and we should have stayed home to keep our body count as low as possible?
Surely 750,000 was way to high of a body count.
That would be millions of Americans when extrapolated into today’s population numbers.
What I’m saying we should have done is to be smart, but brave as a society. We could have taken a couple weeks to ensure that our hospitals weren’t going to get overrun. Then we should have taken action to protect our most vulnerable while the rest of us put on masks, put the sanitizer in our pockets, pulled up our boot straps and gotten our butts out to work to cary this country on our backs instead of hiding and panicking like a bunch of idiots!
The problem you and others fail to realize is that the "most vulnerable" is close to 120M Americans. Both people over 65 and those with a wide array of pre-existing conditions, many of whom aren't even aware they have said conditions. Further, COVID-19 sends lots of people to the hospital, including young seemingly health adults. They just pull through more.

Further, the 120M "at risk" Americans do not live in a bubble. They have spouses, children, family members, loved ones etc. Unless you're proposing to round all these people up and send them away on an ice flow, you can't "protect" them from society for two years.

There is no difference in "taking a few weeks" to not overwhelm our hospitals unless we make fundamental, substantive changes in some manner - massively increased testing, a new therapeutic drug, etc which will stem the spread.
 

unmitigated disaster

Well-Known Member
The '69 flu is continually referenced, including in an article you shared, that the site removed because it was based in no science or research. Simply unresearched conjecture.

The Flu started in '68 and ebbed/flowed as these things do. Many people were immune as it had some of the same enzymes as the 1957 flu. Also when Woodstock happened people thought it was over, but it came roaring back in the fall of 1969 killing more people than it had at any other peak. That flu also was less contagious and less deadly than COVID-19.

Even taken at face value that flu killed 100,000 people over about 14 months. This will kill that in 2.


Also the flu also does not cause a Kawasaki disease like illness in children. And, like other corona viruses, it's possible to end up with long-term respiratory diseases.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
My biggest problem like @T2000 is the fact that the rules about everything regarding COVID-19 change so frequently that it's impossible for business owners to prepare to re open when the policies are so easily thrown out the window and changed.
Because the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 keeps changing... Why would things not change based on new information?

The problem you and others fail to realize is that the "most vulnerable" is close to 120M Americans. Both people over 65 and those with a wide array of pre-existing conditions, many of whom aren't even aware they have said conditions. Further, COVID-19 sends lots of people to the hospital, including young seemingly health adults. They just pull through more.

Further, the 120M "at risk" Americans do not live in a bubble. They have spouses, children, family members, loved ones etc. Unless you're proposing to round all these people up and send them away on an ice flow, you can't "protect" them from society for two years.

There is no difference in "taking a few weeks" to not overwhelm our hospitals unless we make fundamental, substantive changes in some manner - massively increased testing, a new therapeutic drug, etc which will stem the spread.
Talk about inconsistency. The problem cannot "just" be at places like nursing homes and the strategy be to just lockdown places like nursing homes. Nursing homes were some of the first places to voluntarily restrict access and that did not stop it from overtaking many facilities.
 

BasiltheBatLord

Well-Known Member
The government tells you to do lots of things for your own safety and for the safety of others. How many cops write seatbelt tickets a day? Do you find that an infringement on your civil liberties, too?
This is not a good example to use because seatbelt laws are indeed a gross infringement of civil liberties.

I'm all for wearing masks. It's the smart thing to do. America would likely be much better off right now if more people were wearing masks. I've been wearing one every time I step outside. But forcing people to wear masks under threat of fine or imprisonment is absurd public policy which is likely unconstitutional. Same story with seatbelts.
 

Curious Constance

Well-Known Member
The government tells you to do lots of things for your own safety and for the safety of others. How many cops write seatbelt tickets a day? Do you find that an infringement on your civil liberties, too?
Seatbelt laws for children, yes. Seatbelt laws for adults choosing not to wear one? Stupid. Might as well jail people on motorcycles while you’re it.
 

unmitigated disaster

Well-Known Member
Seatbelt laws for children, yes. Seatbelt laws for adults choosing not to wear one? Stupid. Might as well jail people on motorcycles while you’re it.
I'd be fine with adults choosing not to use seatbelts if it guaranteed my insurance and taxes wouldn't get raised by people in long-term neurology wards.

In any case saying "wear masks to try and keep everyone as healthy as possible" isn't as much infringing on civil liberties as it is trying to get people to understand that they are not the only ones who matter in the universe.
 

Curious Constance

Well-Known Member
I'd be fine with adults choosing not to use seatbelts if it guaranteed my insurance and taxes wouldn't get raised by people in long-term neurology wards.

In any case saying "wear masks to try and keep everyone as healthy as possible" isn't as much infringing on civil liberties as it is trying to get people to understand that they are not the only ones who matter in the universe.
No one is refusing to wear a mask here. It’s not even required in OR and I wear one in public stores anyway. I am doubtful it does much in the long run, but if there is even a small chance it will, I’m willing to do it. So no need to bring up masks.
 

Stevek

Well-Known Member
Still not worth the hassle.
As someone who has lost a friend to this and has 3 ladies in my HH that are high risk, it's worth the hassle. I'm not willing to let them be part of your 10-20 million. Do I think there is a compromise and we can start letting some thing open, absolutely. But I'm not in the camp to let everything go back to normal and allow millions to die.
 
Last edited:

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
As someone who has lost a friend to this and has 3 ladies in my HH that are high risk, it's worth the hassle. I'm not willing to let them be part of your 10-20 million. Do I think there is a compromise and we can start letting some thing open, absolutely. But I'm not in the camp to let everything go back to normal and allow millions to die.
If you're bringing high risk people out into a crowded environment, even if people were 100% mask-compliant, that's a "you" problem, not a "me" problem.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
I was going back and forth about which new credit card to get for the big signup bonus, either the Southwest Priority card or the United Explorer card. Went with United, thinking I'd be going to Disneyland next before WDW. Oops.
 

unmitigated disaster

Well-Known Member
As someone who has lost a friend to this and has 3 ladies in my HH that are high risk, it's worth the hassle. I'm not willing to let them be part of your 10-20 million. Do I think there is a compromise and we can start letting some thing open, absolutely. But I'm not in the camp to let everything go back to normal and allow millions to die.
You'll never convince him unless he comes down with a bad case of it.
 

Stevek

Well-Known Member
If you're bringing high risk people out into a crowded environment, even if people were 100% mask-compliant, that's a "you" problem, not a "me" problem.
I don't. That being said, there are plenty of non high risk people that have died from this. That's not a you or me problem.
 

planodisney

Well-Known Member
I'd be fine with adults choosing not to use seatbelts if it guaranteed my insurance and taxes wouldn't get raised by people in long-term neurology wards.

In any case saying "wear masks to try and keep everyone as healthy as possible" isn't as much infringing on civil liberties as it is trying to get people to understand that they are not the only ones who matter in the universe.
The problem is that you could say that about everything.
People eating sugar, overeating, smoking, drinking
and so on.
Again, we have always collectively agreed to live with, tolerate, accept things that cause different sectors of our population in terms of inconvenience
or financially for the sake of personal freedom and it’s well worth it.
That’s why we don’t want/need mayors telling us how big our sodas can be or if we can have salt on our restaurant tables.
Collective personal freedom!
 
Top Bottom