Theme park group says state guidelines ‘sentence’ laid off and furloughed workers to ‘poverty’ - OCR/SCNG

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
That makes everything easier.
Certainly not “everything” as lockdowns make an untold number of lives much, much harder to bear. Now and in the future after the lockdown has passed.
I don't know if I agree with this. The overwhelming discussion around the idea of "lockdowns" in the media (at least that I consume, which is pretty mainstream) is about their relative costs and benefits.
Your experience is certainly different than mine.
Case studies ('single graphs') are fine ways of explaining or illustrating complicated points. I'm really not certain why it's something you're objecting to.
I object to it because it alone doesn’t show whether lockdowns are effective or not.

Stronger and better evidence is necessary to prove such a point.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Certainly not “everything” as lockdowns make an untold number of lives much, much harder to bear. Now and in the future after the lockdown has passed.
There is no single way to implement a lockdown. There are means of mitigating the burden born by some, but it’s not unquantifiable. Those hit hardest by a lockdown are also hit hardest by a pandemic. This idea that activity would otherwise carry on is completely unfounded.

I object to it because it alone doesn’t show whether lockdowns are effective or not.
They are effective for their intended purpose. They drastically reduce person-to-person interaction. If the virus has no place to go then it cannot spread. They’re not supposed to be a long term solution. During the spring was supposed to be when systems of containment were out in place. That largely did not happen and now we’re again left staring at blunt instruments.
 

October82

Well-Known Member
Certainly not “everything” as lockdowns make an untold number of lives much, much harder to bear. Now and in the future after the lockdown has passed.

I'm not certain that is certain. As @lazyboy97o points out, it is very difficult to untangle the effects of lockdowns from the overall impact of the pandemic.

That aside, there's a bit of goalpost moving thing going on here. What everything means here is everything related to controlling the spread of the virus itself. Lockdowns reduce the burden on contract tracing. They make achieving adequate testing easier. They lower the number of people who are infected. They lower the overall death toll. etc. And they do this (to some degree) whether the lockdown is long or short. All of those make people's lives much, much easier to bear. Now and in the future.

I object to it because it alone doesn’t show whether lockdowns are effective or not.

Stronger and better evidence is necessary to prove such a point.

So, again, the point of sharing a graph like that is that it is a case study. No one is suggesting it substitutes for a more thorough analysis in settings where such an analysis is appropriate. What nice graphics and cases studies do is illustrate points and suggest lines of future inquiry around complicated topics.

It's very strange (to me) to object to the use of graphics like this (on principle) when discussing a topic on a discussion forum like this one.
 
Last edited:

October82

Well-Known Member
My question would be: how doesn’t this increase the density of people performing non-essential activities from 5am-10pm?

In my family, Christmas shopping takes place in the very late and early hours. Now, if we were under this curfew, we would have to do that shopping during the day, thus increasing the density of people shopping during the day and further exacerbating a potential superspreader event.

The activities that take place between 10 pm-5 am are of a different type than those that take place at other times of the day. Most people aren't like your family, out doing Christmas shopping at 3 am.

Your criticism is not an unreasonable one, though. We don't know whether curfews are effective yet and it will take time to find out.
 

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
There is no single way to implement a lockdown. There are means of mitigating the burden born by some, but it’s not unquantifiable. Those hit hardest by a lockdown are also hit hardest by a pandemic. This idea that activity would otherwise carry on is completely unfounded.
I agree, it is quantifiable. It should be quantified.

Some would carry on. By no means all.
They are effective for their intended purpose. They drastically reduce person-to-person interaction. If the virus has no place to go then it cannot spread. They’re not supposed to be a long term solution. During the spring was supposed to be when systems of containment were out in place. That largely did not happen and now we’re again left staring at blunt instruments.
No disagreement. I disagree that a mandatory lockdown is good for overall public health.
I'm not certain that is certain. As @lazyboy97o points out, it is very difficult to untangle the effects of lockdowns from the overall impact of the pandemic.

The activities that take place between 10 pm-5 am are of a different type than those that take place at other times of the day. Most people aren't like your family, out doing Christmas shopping at 3 am.
We, like many families, want to keep the contents of the presents hidden from the children. The best way to do that, for us, is to shop during the night when the kids are sound asleep.
We don't know whether curfews are effective yet and it will take time to find out.
I think it should have been trialed in smaller communities first before being implemented for almost the entire population of the state of California to serve as guinea pigs.
In Minnesota, contact tracing showed that many cases were related to socializing in bars after 10 PM. Countries around the world and states in our nation aren't setting curfews just for the fun of it.
The data suggests that bars on the whole are bad for COVID spread. So shutdown the bars entirely or from 10pm to 5am.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FuturePort83

Premium Member
The data suggests that bars on the whole are bad for COVID spread. So shutdown the bars entirely or from 10pm to 5am.
Yes. We had the curfew on bars and restaurants for about a week and then things were still trending dramatically poorly so they are now closed for all but takeaway for the next month.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
We, like many families, want to keep the contents of the presents hidden from the children. The best way to do that, for us, is to shop during the night when the kids are sound asleep.

The good news is that I just checked the various big box store websites in OC; Target, WalMart, etc. and they are still staying open until 11pm or Midnight through the Christmas season, as per usual.

Also, almost every single County Sherriff in SoCal has already gone on record with the media stating they will not be enforcing curfew restrictions. They simply have better things to worry about and they just don't care. The LA County Sherriff in particular was furious last week that no one from Sacramento consulted with him or even told him about the upcoming curfew, he had to learn about it on the news like everyone else.


Just like Sacramento did with the nail salons and Disneyland, they are not communicating or consulting with anyone beyond the walls of the Capitol or the private dining room at The French Laundry. They are simply dictating, and then are in disbelief when the serfs won't obey.

This isn't a law enforcement concept exclusive to SoCal either, NorCal sherriffs and police chiefs are also saying no.


So head out late at night and go shopping! But also realize when you hide the gifts, that the kids have already figured out all the hiding places. ;)
 

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
The good news is that I just checked the various big box store websites in OC; Target, WalMart, etc. and they are still staying open until 11pm or Midnight through the Christmas season, as per usual.

Also, almost every single County Sherriff in SoCal has already gone on record with the media stating they will not be enforcing curfew restrictions. They simply have better things to worry about and they just don't care. The LA County Sherriff in particular was furious last week that no one from Sacramento consulted with him or even told him about the upcoming curfew, he had to learn about it on the news like everyone else.


Just like Sacramento did with the nail salons and Disneyland, they are not communicating or consulting with anyone beyond the walls of the Capitol or the private dining room at The French Laundry. They are simply dictating, and then are in disbelief when the serfs won't obey.

This isn't a law enforcement concept exclusive to SoCal either, NorCal sherriffs and police chiefs are also saying no.


So head out late at night and go shopping! But also realize when you hide the gifts, that the kids have already figured out all the hiding places. ;)
Wait, if LA County had a curfew that went into effect BEFORE the state's curfew doesn't that mean that its LA County Health Officials that should be taking the blame for "not communicating"? I mean they would have been the ones who instituted the LA County curfew. So why isn't the LA County Sheriff throwing shade at the LA County Health Officials?

Oh that's right because some in elected office, like the LA County Sheriff, have turned this into a political talking point about "personal freedoms" rather than the health crisis that it is.
 

Professortango1

Well-Known Member
My question would be: how doesn’t this increase the density of people performing non-essential activities from 5am-10pm?

In my family, Christmas shopping takes place in the very late and early hours. Now, if we were under this curfew, we would have to do that shopping during the day, thus increasing the density of people shopping during the day and further exacerbating a potential superspreader event.

I'm not sure where you were shopping that was open earlier than 5 am. You can still shop in the early hours and late as well. Plus, there's online shopping. Tons of options available. Most stores were already closed 10 pm till 5 am. This only affects restaurants and bars who had late night crowds which is generally more geared towards social activities rather than essential functions.
 

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure where you were shopping that was open earlier than 5 am. You can still shop in the early hours and late as well. Plus, there's online shopping. Tons of options available. Most stores were already closed 10 pm till 5 am. This only affects restaurants and bars who had late night crowds which is generally more geared towards social activities rather than essential functions.
In previous years, and based on my knowledge of the happenings in the retail sector this year as well, retailers extend their hours by a lot as we get closer and closer to Christmas.
 

Mousertainment

Well-Known Member
Maybe we should look at why alcohol sales are essential when trying to keep people out of hospitals.
I have been baffled by the liquor stores and pot shops being 'essential' (especially when one can get alcohol at the actually essential grocery stores).

Then again I don't understand why film and tv production crews are suddenly announced by the governor as essential workers, too.

I don't want anyone losing a job or family business, but I cannot fathom how pot brownies and filming Ellen's daytime talk show compare to nurses, pharmacists and keeping food and cleaning supplies stocked at Walmart.

Either 'essential' means something or it doesn't. Then again, CA's governor has his own arbitrary definitions of a lot of things...
 

LastoneOn

Well-Known Member
I have been baffled by the liquor stores and pot shops being 'essential' (especially when one can get alcohol at the actually essential grocery stores).

Then again I don't understand why film and tv production crews are suddenly announced by the governor as essential workers, too.

I don't want anyone losing a job or family business, but I cannot fathom how pot brownies and filming Ellen's daytime talk show compare to nurses, pharmacists and keeping food and cleaning supplies stocked at Walmart.

Either 'essential' means something or it doesn't. Then again, CA's governor has his own arbitrary definitions of a lot of things...
If there is one industry unessential to human well being, its the American "entertainment industry." With zillions of hours already out there, we can find something to watch and listen to, and probably better than the new stuff they're putting out.

Hollywood is also the most green house gas producing industry on the planet. There is a study done by USC, might have been UCLA that detailed that a decade or so ago. Enormous waste of energy, materials, everything.

Save the planet, end Hollywood.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Do tell... DO tell...
I’m a big fan of Frédéric Bastiat.
I have been baffled by the liquor stores and pot shops being 'essential' (especially when one can get alcohol at the actually essential grocery stores).

Then again I don't understand why film and tv production crews are suddenly announced by the governor as essential workers, too.

I don't want anyone losing a job or family business, but I cannot fathom how pot brownies and filming Ellen's daytime talk show compare to nurses, pharmacists and keeping food and cleaning supplies stocked at Walmart.

Either 'essential' means something or it doesn't. Then again, CA's governor has his own arbitrary definitions of a lot of things...
Food deserts would be why liquor stores are considered essential. Most of the states deferred to the Department of Homeland Security for the determination of essential businesses, using a list compiled a few years ago. In some cases the governor literally copy and pasted the document. While California may allow grocery stores to sell liquor (I don’t know what is specifically allowed) that is not the case in all states where regulations run from allowing sales of everything to only allowing sales at state-owned stores, so a list developed at the national level would have to account for those differences.

It seems hypocritical to complain about entertainment production being allowed when it’s a case of allowing more openness if it is important to the economy and can be done safely. “Essential” is probably not the best choice of wording.
 

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
I really don't mean to be dismissive here but I'm surprised you would try to make this argument. Especially given what you've mentioned in this very post about your family. I would seriously reconsider your view on this specific topic irrespective of all else, particularly because I know you are generally a caring and thoughtful person.

As anyone who is familiar with how abuse works, abuse is rarely visible or obvious. The reason that the pandemic reduced reporting of abuse is that it is most often found through 1) private disclosures to trusted adults (teachers, other caregivers) or 2) during routine but detailed medical exams. In both cases, you absolutely need close personal contact, often for extended amounts of time. Both are much more difficult and would be regardless of public health measures.

I want to caution again that the Disneyland sub-forum has strict rules on political/off-topic discussion which this definitely is at this point. So this will be my last post on the topic in order to avoid the wrath of the moderator. Again, happy to take this discussion elsewhere.
Imported to the Covid-19 politics thread.
https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/covid-19.963880/post-9550095
 

MoonRakerSCM

Well-Known Member
On the radio this morning reporters are talking about the news conference yesterday where many questions were asked about the LA county shutdown tomorrow evening. Dr Ferrer was specifically asked about numbers related to outdoor dining and her response was a bumbling mishmash of I don't know and I don't have those on me and she doesn't have that at this time...

One could say it's a little concerning that they are taking action against a specific activity and yet don't have any actual science about it during a press conference.
 

October82

Well-Known Member
On the radio this morning reporters are talking about the news conference yesterday where many questions were asked about the LA county shutdown tomorrow evening. Dr Ferrer was specifically asked about numbers related to outdoor dining and her response was a bumbling mishmash of I don't know and I don't have those on me and she doesn't have that at this time...

One could say it's a little concerning that they are taking action against a specific activity and yet don't have any actual science about it during a press conference.

One of the difficult things about being a scientist when speaking to the public is conveying both what we know and what our uncertainties are. This is especially difficult when many in the public take "I do not know" as a sign that something is wrong or suspect, when being able to say when something is known and when it isn't is a core part of science.

As with similar questions around mask wearing, we should all hope that things like shutting down dining at restaurants is an effective strategy for mitigating the virus because if it is not we will have to do more extreme things that are likely to impact our lives in more consequential ways. No one is unaware of the burden that closing down outdoor dining poses, and there is something deeply cynical about supposing that public health officials have a cavalier attitude towards doing so. We can disagree about the details, of course, but people who spend their lives devoted to public health know what they're doing and aren't making these decisions on a whim.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom