Politics Theme Park Reopening Guidelines to be released 10/20/20

[TP2000]

If Gavin and health officials aren't worried about an undistanced unmasked gathering at a restaurant, why should I be?

Everyone at that dinner is a very smart person, with access to all the science and data behind Covid and its risks. One of the guests was the President of the California Medical Association, for goodness sakes.

And they all weighed those risks and realized a long wine dinner in a small room was perfectly acceptable to them.

I actually agree with them on that count; I think their risk was acceptable too and they should enjoy a long maskless birthday dinner with a dozen friends in a small room. With the wine pairings.

And that exact same risk analysis they did is what my family has also done, and why Thanksgiving is definitely not cancelled this year for us.

 

[el_super]

That's not what The French Laundry was limited to.

Well whatever the capacity of the French Laundry is, could just be applied to all of Disneyland. That seems fair.

The French Laundry was able to sell their product to a dozen people from six different households and put them into a small indoor room for over 3 hours. No one wore a mask.

If The French Laundry can do that, Carthay Circle and the Blue Bayou should also be able to do that. That's all.

So basically the indoor dining rules that had been in effect until Tuesday?

 

[el_super]

I actually agree with them on that count; I think their risk was acceptable too and they should enjoy a long maskless birthday dinner with a dozen friends in a small room. With the wine pairings.

You do realize that a restaurant and a theme park are different... right?

 

[mickEblu]

If Gavin and health officials aren't worried about an undistanced unmasked gathering at a restaurant, why should I be? Thanksgiving is happening! Same goes for unmasked haircuts and blowouts or whatever the heck Nancy had done.

I was always going to have Thanksgiving (granted not the usual party of 40 ish people). This year we re only 12. But that’s less because of Newsoms guidelines and more because my immediate family and I have been waiting for an excuse to have an intimate Thanksgiving and for any reason to avoid driving to San Bernardino.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

If they had solid evidence that the rules were arbitrary and not based on science and data, they would be saying that every day to the media, and in court arguing their case. There isn't any science indicating that theme parks can be safely operated in a pandemic.

There have been a lot of good constructive arguments made here today, but in relation to the topic it was this one for me.

 

[planodisney]

Many doctors, nurses, and health care professionals tell us how bad smoking is and thus we shouldn't smoke. And elected representatives put into policy anti-smoking initiatives like high taxes, big warning labels, and restricting sale of tobacco to minors.

And many of them smoke.

So.... It's okay to smoke?

That's what I learned from those posting Newsom's hypocrisy. Which they post a dozen times a day as if the thirteenth time is when the masses take up their pitchforks and follow them into... oh wait... they're not leading... they're just riling up the crowds... how brave.

Anyway, hypocrisy of leaders is not an excuse for not doing the right thing oneself. Nor does it make their warnings or policies false or unwise. It just makes them hypocrites for not doing what we all should be doing.

And we all should be doing it. Even when leaders let us down. Whether it's a Democtratic governor not wearing a mask or a Republican governor finally realizing that their anti-mask policy was politically motivated and not scientifically motivated.

I think you’re missing the bigger point. To me, this isn’t about hypocrisy. In any of these public health demands, they are infringing on the public’s personal rights and freedoms. So, they have to make the decision on if it’s in the public’s best interest to sacrifice constitutional rights. So here are the 2 issues;
1. Politicians, particularly on the left, act like we are their idiot children and we don’t know what’s best for ourselves and our families.
2. The point is actually much much larger than simple hypocrisy, the actual point is that many of these politicians have EVER SO EASILY come to the conclusion that infringing on people’s constitutional rights is worth it, but feel they, in their superior intelligence and wisdom, can manage the situation safely without being subjected to the same constitutional infringement. Whether its going out to eat, getting haircuts, celebrating a presidential election victory and on and on...
So, you can’t argue the fact that even THEY personally believe the health threat can be managed with a little common sense and diligence. They just think you and I aren’t as worthy as they are.
And on a side not, what exactly are we doing wrong, individually, that the left keeps ridiculing is all for? This is a genuine question.
The stats show that almost 90% of Americans are wearing masks on a regular basis. All places of business hear in Texas require face masks for entry and everyone is complying. In fact 1 of my clients has been in San Diego for 4 months taking care of his sick father. He just got back and was very surprised to see everyone wearing masks. I’m not understanding the constant liberal mask shaming.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think you’re missing the bigger point. To me, this isn’t about hypocrisy. In any of these public health demands, they are infringing on the public’s personal rights and freedoms. So, they have to make the decision on if it’s in the public’s best interest to sacrifice constitutional rights. So here are the 2 issues;
1. Politicians, particularly on the left, act like we are their idiot children and we don’t know what’s best for ourselves and our families.
2. The point is actually much much larger than simple hypocrisy, the actual point is that many of these politicians have EVER SO EASILY come to the conclusion that infringing on people’s constitutional rights is worth it, but feel they, in their superior intelligence and wisdom, can manage the situation safely without being subjected to the same constitutional infringement. Whether its going out to eat, getting haircuts, celebrating a presidential election victory and on and on...
So, you can’t argue the fact that even THEY personally believe the health threat can be managed with a little common sense and diligence. They just think you and I aren’t as worthy as they are.
And on a side not, what exactly are we doing wrong, individually, that the left keeps ridiculing is all for? This is a genuine question.
The stats show that almost 90% of Americans are wearing masks on a regular basis. All places of business hear in Texas require face masks for entry and everyone is complying. In fact 1 of my clients has been in San Diego for 4 months taking care of his sick father. He just got back and was very surprised to see everyone wearing masks. I’m not understanding the constant liberal mask shaming.

You have never had a right to endanger others.

 

[el_super]

So, they have to make the decision on if it’s in the public’s best interest to sacrifice constitutional rights

Have you read the constitution? Which right exactly is being sacrificed?

 

[planodisney]

You have never had a right to endanger others.

Who wants to endanger others? I think we have pretty well identified the most vulnerable and we need to protect them with strong yet reasonable
measures. For the vast majority it’s not deadly, and those of us who fall into that category need to be cautious, but moving the country forward, while protecting those in our immediate and extended families who might be vulnerable.
Everyone I know is already doing this!

 

[mickEblu]

You have never had a right to endanger others.

So why can’t they people that are worried stay home? Why can’t family and friends of people that are higher at risk do what they can to protect their family. I’m wearing a mask all the time. My grandma and I have been air kissing since March but that doesn’t mean Disneyland and other businesses should be closed. It means Grandma should stay home.

 

[planodisney]

Have you read the constitution? Which right exactly is being sacrificed?

Yah I didn’t phrase that correctly. Good call.
What I should have said was sacrificing our stated rights in the Declaration of Independence. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Constitution was created expressly to protect those rights.
Somehow you guys have turned this into an argument, in your own minds, that this is wanting to be safe vs not caring if people die.
You do realize that’s ridiculous don’t you?

 

[el_super]

Who wants to endanger others? I think we have pretty well identified the most vulnerable and we need to protect them with strong yet reasonable
measures. For the vast majority it’s not deadly, and those of us who fall into that category need to be cautious, but moving the country forward, while protecting those in our immediate and extended families who might be vulnerable.
Everyone I know is already doing this!

"Not Deadly" does not mean safe. There is a lot of grey area between a virus being "not deadly", and hospitals being overwhelmed with patients. Even if 90% are expected to survive, there is no possible way the hospitals have the capacity to house 90% of the population for two weeks.

So why can’t they people that are worried stay home? Why can’t family and friends of people that are higher at risk do what they can to protect their family. I’m wearing a mask all the time. My grandma and I have been air kissing since March but that doesn’t mean Disneyland and other businesses should be closed. It means Grandma should stay home.

What happens if Grandma slips and falls and is denied entry to the hospital because too many people are in there with COVID? Or what happens if Grandma works at Disneyland?

 

[davis_unoxx]

FYI @TP2000 @Darkbeer1 The Anaheim hotel is offering free public parking for downtown Disney! Big banner out front

 

[el_super]

Somehow you guys have turned this into an argument, in your own minds, that this is wanting to be safe vs not caring if people die.
You do realize that’s ridiculous don’t you?

The right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness included creating laws that keep people safe. It is one of those laws that grants health authorities the ability to enact policies for the public's wellbeing.

My right to have access to health care shouldn't be taken away because people have a "right" to eat a churro on Main Street.

Assuming that everyone's "right" to life and liberty is equal, it just becomes a judgement call on which policies will provide the best access to life and liberty for the masses, and in this case, that is through public health codes.

 

[planodisney]

The right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness included creating laws that keep people safe. It is one of those laws that grants health authorities the ability to enact policies for the public's wellbeing.

My right to have access to health care shouldn't be taken away because people have a "right" to eat a churro on Main Street.

Assuming that everyone's "right" to life and liberty is equal, it just becomes a judgement call on which policies will provide the best access to life and liberty for the masses, and in this case, that is through public health codes.

We are arguing 2 separate points.
The point, for me personally is, is there a line where laws can’t go past or not? Is the government free to enact every single law they can think of to make us more safe. Because I can assure you there are many many more laws that would definitely make us more physically safe, covid times or not.
To me this is the central issue.

 

[mickEblu]

"Not Deadly" does not mean safe. There is a lot of grey area between a virus being "not deadly", and hospitals being overwhelmed with patients. Even if 90% are expected to survive, there is no possible way the hospitals have the capacity to house 90% of the population for two weeks.



What happens if Grandma slips and falls and is denied entry to the hospital because too many people are in there with COVID? Or what happens if Grandma works at Disneyland?

Hospitals have had good capacity for the majority of the pandemic.

Well plenty of grandmas works at DL. What are they doing now? Collecting unemployment. If DL was open and grandma works at Disneyland and is uncomfortable then she tries to find a new job where she is comfortable or collects unemployment. I don’t understand what you were getting at with this question.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So why can’t they people that are worried stay home? Why can’t family and friends of people that are higher at risk do what they can to protect their family. I’m wearing a mask all the time. My grandma and I have been air kissing since March but that doesn’t mean Disneyland and other businesses should be closed. It means Grandma should stay home.

Only just over 10,000 people a year die from drunk driving in the US, only about ⅓ of the annual motor vehicle deaths. That’s 1/25 the number of COVID-19 deaths. Only about 0.3% - 0.4% of all US deaths in a year. Shouldn’t we let people do what they want and those who are scared can just not drive?

How would you even go about isolating only the vulnerable? The majority of Americans has a risk factor, but for the sake of the thought experiment let’s just limit it to the elderly. The elderly, as has been noted, are not in the best of health. Are they supposed to also stop seeking any and all medical care? Do doctors with elderly patients refuse to see younger patients? Do these doctors isolate? What about their family, do they isolate as well or does the doctor find accommodations elsewhere? Doctors don’t work alone, so does the nurse isolate as well? The receptionist? What about an elderly person with custody of a grandchild? One who is dependent on a transportation service, does the driver isolate as well? Specifically spell out how this works.

Of course the only negative outcome is just death. What happens if you are t-boned coming home from Disneyland and there is no room at a nearby hospital? How many people can afford to essentially retire right now because they end up being a long hauler? Should someone who isn’t sick because they took precautions be paid by an employer who cannot open because too many employees are sick?

But again, if Disney thought they had strong evidence they would have done something. Cedar Fair sued Ohio the day after DeWine announced other venues could reopen. Does Newsom have kompromat on Bob Iger, Bob Chapek, Brian Roberts, Steve Burke, Mike Spanos, Richard Zimmerman, Matt Ouimet, José Díaz, Charles Canfield and Tom Canfield?

 

[el_super]

Hospitals have had good capacity for the majority of the pandemic.

In some places yes, and in other places no. I will only speak for Orange County as that's the place I am most familiar with, but at the beginning of Nov, the hospitalizations for COVID were around 180. Today it's reached 300. They have previously stated that the danger zone for hospitalizations in Orange County is around 750, and at this rate, that 300 will quickly become 600 before the end of November, and that will be without Thanksgiving being taken into account.

At the rate we are going, we will have no access to emergency health services in December.

 

[el_super]

We are arguing 2 separate points.
The point, for me personally is, is there a line where laws can’t go past or not? Is the government free to enact every single law they can think of to make us more safe. Because I can assure you there are many many more laws that would definitely make us more physically safe, covid times or not.
To me this is the central issue.

Isn't that the point of American democracy? People get to enact the laws that they see fit.

 

[el_super]

Additionally, because I just saw this graphic posted elsewhere, the daily rate of infections is increasing more rapidly now, than it was in June: