Disney World theme parks are closing

magicofdisney;2527356 wrote: I know, it's horrible how this has hit our economy. When the shutdowns first began, I was optimistically hoping it truly would be for only a couple of weeks. I know better now. :(

When they started taking radical stances like killing the economy, I knew this was not going to be a short thing. The financial ruin will probably kill more people than corona.

On the upside, still holding out for the gator down mainstreet.

Yep, this is going to be a long haul. We've had this discussion at home, about the value of lives vs. the value of the economy. Some people have said that we shouldn't be killing the economy to "keep Grandma alive". But I pointed out that it's not just Grandma that we're trying to keep alive. It's my friend, Derick, who is recovering from his year-long cancer fight who has four children under the age of 9. It's my friend, Chris, who was diagnosed with MS last year and whose meds make him immunosuppressed. He runs a company and has two teenage children. That's who i'm trying to save. I'll stay home for six months if it means that they'll get to live to raise and provide for their families.

And to maybe go on vacation with them to Walt Disney World!

azcavalier;2527379 wrote: about the value of lives vs. the value of the economy. But I pointed out that it's not just Grandma that we're trying to keep alive. It's my friend, Derick, who is recovering from his year-long cancer fight who has four children under the age of 9. It's my friend, Chris, who was diagnosed with MS last year and whose meds make him immunosuppressed. He runs a company and has two teenage children. That's who i'm trying to save. I'll stay home for six months if it means that they'll get to live to raise and provide for their families.

And to maybe go on vacation with them to Walt Disney World!

It seems like it is an easy choice, but it isn't. What if Chris' company tanks and he can no longer afford his medications? What if Derick's cancer returns and he and his wife don't have a job with insurance to pay for treatment? It's a lot more convoluted that it seems at first glance. While I applaud the people who are willing and able to make sacrifices for the health of others, I understand that some people have no choice but to work to support their families and most of those people need customers.

Cinderelley;2527380 wrote: It seems like it is an easy choice, but it isn't. What if Chris' company tanks and he can no longer afford his medications? What if Derick's cancer returns and he and his wife don't have a job with insurance to pay for treatment? It's a lot more convoluted that it seems at first glance. While I applaud the people who are willing and able to make sacrifices for the health of others, I understand that some people have no choice but to work to support their families and most of those people need customers.

No doubt. And there is no good answer. I'm not particularly worried about these two guys' employment because of their industries and client bases. But that's not the case for everyone.

azcavalier;2527387 wrote: No doubt. And there is no good answer. I'm not particularly worried about these two guys' employment because of their industries and client bases. But that's not the case for everyone.

Wow, it is refreshing to see an adult exchange/conversation on this topic. The other Disney board that I look at is incapable of this kind of exchange without blame, name-calling, and general melt-down!

Park Hopper;2527388 wrote: Wow, it is refreshing to see an adult exchange/conversation on this topic. The other Disney board that I look at is incapable of this kind of exchange without blame, name-calling, and general melt-down!

Yeah, well, a long time ago I realized that what is really important in this life is our relationships with others. And melting down (or name-calling) doesn't help at all. Can't have a discussion when communication breaks down.

Park Hopper;2527388 wrote: Wow, it is refreshing to see an adult exchange/conversation on this topic. The other Disney board that I look at is incapable of this kind of exchange without blame, name-calling, and general melt-down!

Yeah, well, a long time ago I realized that what is really important in this life is our relationships with others. And melting down (or name-calling) doesn't help at all. Can't have a discussion when communication breaks down.

Park Hopper;2527388 wrote: Wow, it is refreshing to see an adult exchange/conversation on this topic. The other Disney board that I look at is incapable of this kind of exchange without blame, name-calling, and general melt-down!

It is.

And I do feel bad for the minority of people that do have immune issues (for whatever reasons, conditions, age, etc). But, I'm concerned about my mortgage, and the mortgage/rent/food on the table for those that need money and can't sit around not working for 6 months or longer. I've lived in places where money is scare, and, yeah, a virus is dangerous. So are desperate and hopeless people. Way more dangerous. So that's why to me, it is a numbers game. The needs of the many vs the few. But, I do hope those are affected by the virus (rather hoping to avoid it) are able to do so.

And like I said, I want my gator walking down mainstreet. Or, Hollywood blvd towards Manns.

For those who have studied economics, we know that there not only cost of doing something (taking action), but also a cost of not doing something (inaction). Many times, the cost of inaction can be greater than taking action, but they are usually not readily evident until after the fact. If asked, most people will usually say that saving lives is worth almost any cost of taking action to do so, but that is not actually the case.

For instance, if we wanted to save 25,000 lives a year of people who die in auto accidents, we could easily prevent almost all those deaths by reducing speed limits and strictly enforcing them down to say 25 mph or so. Yet we choose not to do so. Why? It appears that inconvenience of increased travel times and the direct costs of strict highway law enforcement are just not worth saving those lives. That sounds so harsh. Yet our culture makes significant risk and cost benefit decisions like this all the time. In the U.S. alone, more than 34,000 people died from influenza during the 2018-19 flu season. Yet there were no draconian measures imposed to reduce those deaths. Ask yourselves why.

So far in the U.S., there have been 787 deaths attributed to COVID-19. I agree that saving as many live as possible is a desirable goal. I question why our society largely ignores the risk or cause of many other illnesses or activities that cause vast numbers of deaths. I would suggest that the answer lies in economic reasons.

I fear getting sick from COVID-19. My wife is at very high risk of death if she gets it because she suffers from a chronic auto immune disorder and takes medication that severely compromises her immune system. I am going to try to protect her no matter what it takes fro me to do. But when all of this is over and behind us, I fear the economic costs of our response to this threat will be many times greater than the medical results. Many thousands may die. Tens of millions of people are going to lose their jobs and livelihood, although they will survive. I am not suggesting that we should not respond to the COVID-19 threat. But there is a reason that we as a culture/society don't react this way to the massive loss of life due to other reasons. Something to think about.

joonyer;2527398 wrote: Something to think about.

Oh, definitely something to think about. My wife is a surgeon, and before COVID-19 was even a twinkle in our eye we have had this discussion. She has seen so many patients that come in with such complications, related to age/poor health, and they are clearly suffering and the quality of life is (and will be after) terrible. But the family wants *everything possible* done to keep them alive. They'd rather rack up tens of thousands of dollars in hospital bills to keep 85-year old, demented Grandma alive indefinitely with machine-assistance than just let her go peacefully. Is it worth it?

Now, we're talking about hospitals having to decide who gets a ventilator and who doesn't. It's going to come down to survivability, which will include age, co-morbidity factors (health issues), etc.

Religiously, all life has value. We'd like to see everyone be healed. Every life's value is immeasurable. But economically/socially, that is a terrible choice.

azcavalier;2527399 wrote: Oh, definitely something to think about. My wife is a surgeon, and before COVID-19 was even a twinkle in our eye we have had this discussion. She has seen so many patients that come in with such complications, related to age/poor health, and they are clearly suffering and the quality of life is (and will be after) terrible. But the family wants *everything possible* done to keep them alive. They'd rather rack up tens of thousands of dollars in hospital bills to keep 85-year old, demented Grandma alive indefinitely with machine-assistance than just let her go peacefully. Is it worth it?

Now, we're talking about hospitals having to decide who gets a ventilator and who doesn't. It's going to come down to survivability, which will include age, co-morbidity factors (health issues), etc.

Religiously, all life has value. We'd like to see everyone be healed. Every life's value is immeasurable. But economically/socially, that is a terrible choice.

That’s why economics should never play a part in a very personal decision. My wife is also in healthcare and bothers her when someone wants everything done knowing the effects CPR will have on a 90 year old patient. But....If a person or their family wants to rack up the debit let them make that choice.

In this case though it won’t be a choice for families to make due to lack of equipment and staffing unless we collectively make an effort to stop the spread which in turn has consequences on our economy. It is also not a choice to get this virus by most people (South Korean cults excluded). While I sympathize with people and their monthly bills...it is secondary to saving lives at this time.

We’ve gone through tough times before (1918, WW1, Great Depression, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam, 1987 crash, tech bust, 9/11, and the Great Recession to name a few) and came through okay and will do so again....after we beat this virus.

Actually, during the 1918 flu pandemic, some cities did enforce social distancing and shut downs. There's a great, recent article on it you can google. The cities that took action saw far fewer deaths. The cities that didn't had their hospitals overwhelmed.

I think that's what people are often missing here, we're trying to make sure our hospitals don't get overwhelmed. That impacts everyone who needs them, not just those who are high risk for this virus. We can't have our health system in crisis right now. I could be wrong, but my impression is that there's not really the expectation to eliminate this virus before it spreads, just to slow it so that it can be managed and to give the opportunity to save more lives.

I agree that economically shutting down is incredibly frightening and is it's own crisis. Hopefully one that we can manage as well. We live in a small town filled with small businesses owned by local people. I worry about them the most.

And in terms of other things that take lives, we do take them seriously. We may not have 25mph speed limits everywhere, but we have safety regulations on cars and highways to mitigate. The flu kills people every year. That's why there's a vaccine. That's why every year, health professionals work very hard to convince people to get the vaccine. It's a false impression that other dangers aren't taken seriously, and definitely not any kind of reasoning for not trying to mitigate this danger.

TheVBs;2527403 wrote: Actually, during the 1918 flu pandemic, some cities did enforce social distancing and shut downs. There's a great, recent article on it you can google. The cities that took action saw far fewer deaths. The cities that didn't had their hospitals overwhelmed.

I think that's what people are often missing here, we're trying to make sure our hospitals don't get overwhelmed. That impacts everyone who needs them, not just those who are high risk for this virus. We can't have our health system in crisis right now. I could be wrong, but my impression is that there's not really the expectation to eliminate this virus before it spreads, just to slow it so that it can be managed and to give the opportunity to save more lives.

I agree that economically shutting down is incredibly frightening and is it's own crisis. Hopefully one that we can manage as well. We live in a small town filled with small businesses owned by local people. I worry about them the most.

And in terms of other things that take lives, we do take them seriously. We may not have 25mph speed limits everywhere, but we have safety regulations on cars and highways to mitigate. The flu kills people every year. That's why there's a vaccine. That's why every year, health professionals work very hard to convince people to get the vaccine. It's a false impression that other dangers aren't taken seriously, and definitely not any kind of reasoning for not trying to mitigate this danger.

I read the same article. It compared Philadelphia and Saint Louis and the difference in response. Philly allowed a parade to go on as planned and some short time later had a huge influx of individuals overwhelm the hospital system and had a much higher mortality rate overall than Saint Louis. It proved 100 years ago that this Social Distancing works.

Park Hopper;2527388 wrote: Wow, it is refreshing to see an adult exchange/conversation on this topic. The other Disney board that I look at is incapable of this kind of exchange without blame, name-calling, and general melt-down!

I really give a lot of kudos to the moderators on here. They keep it as a very pleasant place to visit. I don't look at any other discussion boards.

goofyskier;2527407 wrote: I read the same article. It compared Philadelphia and Saint Louis and the difference in response. Philly allowed a parade to go on as planned and some short time later had a huge influx of individuals overwhelm the hospital system and had a much higher mortality rate overall than Saint Louis. It proved 100 years ago that this Social Distancing works.

NPR news did a piece on this the other morning. It was very interesting to hear. You can probably go to their website and listen to it if anyone is interested.