Disneyland Resort delays theme park reopening indefinitely

BrettV said:

your average apolitical citizen doesn't understand why the mass protesting is ok, but having a gathering in the party room at Golden Corral is not.

Also, the government should be able to see the difference as well. Just because it's not out cracking down on protests and sending in cops to enforce social distancing, doesn't mean it should then open bowling alleys.

As someone from Lorain, those are fighting words. Bowl on.

But to play Devil's advocate, how do you justify allowing the protests while not allowing the bowling alleys, baseball games, and roller coasters purely from a scientific standpoint? The argument for the last three and a half months has been that science and the virus don't care. That's still no different here. To many, allowing and endorsing what they perceive as dangerous and unnecessary protests while still keeping businesses closed is a confusing double standard.

That’s what I’ve been trying to say. I’m not suggesting moral equivalence, but what I am trying to point out is that we got hit over the head with, “But science! But the experts!,” for weeks by people who clearly are willing to forgo science when it suits them. I agree that civil rights are worth the risk, but maybe be a little more understanding of the politicians and people who wanted these reopenings because as fun as it is to reduce all of the pro-reopening crowd to a bunch of Karens looking for mani-pedis, the reality is far more complex and justifiable for a lot of us. For many people, it has nothing to do with entitlement.

I completely support the cause of the protests and agree that it’s on a higher level than a lot of other concerns, but where everyone stands on a moral perspective doesn’t have bearing on where they stand from a scientific perspective. Protests > happy hour at Applebee’s in a moral sense, but protestors = Karens from a scientific (at least social-distancing-wise) perspective.

Yes. I'm not disagreeing with anyone on the importance of the protests. But so many that participated are the same ones vilifying anyone who dares be selfish enough to get back out in the world and asking why people can't just wait to do their stuff again. Couldn't the other side say the same thing? Shouldn't they have respected the science and waited before taking to the streets?

Again, I say this as someone who completely understands the need for change and for protesting, but also can't help but see the almost laughable double standard coming from several social media and work acquaintances.

There were very few places in the US where the mitigation efforts were enforced with actual consequences. Because there was no top-down coordination or legislation, what really happened was a largely voluntary effort, which is exactly the reason why it's getting out of control now. So no one "allowed" the protests... there was no consequence to begin with.

And like I said, there's growing evidence that the protest was done "right," while the bar/beach thing going on has most certainly been occurring with wreckless abandon.

Maybe I'm not seeing or hearing the same people that you are but I feel like you're making a black and white strawman. Nobody I've heard ever said "Don't do anything at all." There's obviously some kind of spectrum of the importance vs. risk for activities that you can leave your home for and I feel like it it's not controversial to suppose it's kind of like:

Grocery shopping
Emergency Response/Medical Care
Essential infrastructure
Protesting injustice (even if it means bringing an assault rifle to the Michigan capitol building <rolls eyes>)
Exercise
Visiting dying friends people in the hospital
Religious services
Schools
Haircuts
Restaurants
Bowling
Bars
Amusement parks
Movies

I don't know why it's considered hypocritical to have such a list of priorities and to say "It's neccesary to go to the grocery store because you need to. Wear a mask. It's important to protest injustice so do it in as safe a way as possible. It doesn't make sense to go to a bar right now, regardless of what precautions you take. They should be closed and you shouldn't go if they're open." Why is this such a controversial position?

Maybe I'm jaded because of the three "do absolutely nothing until there is a vaccine" individuals that I do know that all went to protest multiple times.

And when I use the term "allow", it's indirectly tied to people in this group or others with similar mindsets who were fine with protests, but are fighting tooth and nail for the opinion that nothing else should even consider reopening. Not any state or city actually allowing or not allowing said protests.

BrettV said:

people in this group [...] who were fine with protests, but are fighting tooth and nail for the opinion that nothing else should even consider reopening.

Who is that?

No one on here. Co workers and social media acquaintances.

By "group" I meant like minded individuals in society.

Some of what is happening in Florida, Texas and California is the result of something we talked about a month or two here on another thread. Until something hits you in the mouth, there is a tendency to ignore it or at least not focus on it. Until very recently (like a couple days ago), those states were all comfortably in the bottom half of the country in terms of Covid cases and deaths. Texas had 8 deaths per 100,000 residents. NY and NJ had 160. Florida, Texas and California are getting hit in the mouth and now focusing more on the issue. And NY and NJ got smacked in the mouth earlier and took a much different approach in the time since. Basic human nature. Not a good thing but it is reality. Same is true in terms of countries getting smacked with prior outbreaks. Would be great if that didn't have to happen (with a number of issues in addition to pandemics).

BrettV said:

Maybe I'm jaded because of the three "do absolutely nothing until there is a vaccine" individuals that I do know that all went to protest multiple times.

Not even go to the grocery store? That's kind of a weird position to take.

I just came from the supermarket and I’d say 80% of the customers and 100% of the employees were masked. Here in Ohio we’re holding our own as far as increases go, in spite of serious protests and more openings. I hope we don’t backslide like the southern states.

A man on the radio the other day made an interesting point about how and why people may be paying little attention. And that’s because Covid-19 is an “invisible” disease- in other words, we don’t actually see it on a daily basis. Front line workers have done a fine (if not horrifying) job of writing and describing the details of the disease, but still- we never see it. People are quarantined. Even if a loved one is ill and admitted to the hospital, we will never visit with them. There are few pictures. Communication is lacking.
He pointed out that even during the worst of the AIDS epidemic it got to where just about everybody knew somebody that had fallen to the virus and were able to see first hand the horrific wasting. And maybe that made a difference in safe practices. I know it did with me.
As awful as this may sound, perhaps if the American public had a real glimpse of the devastating effect the virus has on human bodies they wouldn’t be so flip about it.

My understanding is HIPAA prevents or severely limits TV coverage of the ICUs. If the masses could see all these people on ventilators it might make it more real.

Up here at the Polaris Kroger it more like 60-70% with masks and 90% on employees. Seen some baggers with it on the chin.

At the grocery in NYC yesterday, I can recall two people wearing masks on their chins; everybody else masked up. So I would say that's somewhere between 96 and 98%. I wanted to ask the people with masks on their chins when they were planning to wear them, if not on that occasion.

(Technically I think they were breaking the law by not wearing them, but the store wasn't attempting to enforce anything.)

Illinois residents have been pretty good about wearing masks. We've had a mandate in place since May 1st. In all of my trips to Aldi and Costco I have yet to see a patron or employee not wearing a mask. Home Depot is another story. At one everyone was masked up. At another about 10-15% weren't wearing masks or wearing them around their chins, mostly employees.

Since outdoor dining opened up all bets are off. The employees are still wearing their masks in those situations but patrons are most definitely not. At the outdoor outlet mall I saw about 25% who were wearing the mask around their chin while outdoors but put them on once they got in the store.

I think it's important to point out that there are no fines or penalties associated with this mandate. Yet, people are complying.

Even in states which mandate masks and where fines are in place, its very difficult to enforce as a practical matter.

Protest is a constitutionally protected right, whereas Senor Frog's body shot night and the AMF Scotch Doubles tournament are not. That's what it comes down to for me.

I don't like to see people going to protests without masking up and trying to distance, same as I don't see the need to open carry guns around the Kroger when you pop in for a loaf of bread, but I'll defend your right to do either.

sirloindude said:

You’re going to say that spaced-out tables at Five Guys are a bigger problem from a spread perspective than the hordes that were in the streets a couple weeks ago?

Coming out of long time lurker status to respond to this, but the short answer is yes, based on what experts know about how the virus spreads, spaced out, Five Guys is a bigger problem than mass protests.

1- Indoor environments are a much greater risk than outdoors. And with an AC system blowing air around, the 6 foot distancing isn't nearly enough. There is likely no distance that's "safe" within the confines of a typical Five Guys joint.

2- Mask compliance greatly reduces the risk of spread. The vast majority of protesters wore masks. Patrons at restaurants and bars cannot wear masks by the very nature of the activity they're engaged in.

3- The duration of your exposure to an infected person seems to be the single biggest deciding factor. Sitting near somebody in a restaurant for 30 minutes or more is significantly riskier than just passing by someone like you generally would at a protest or even a grocery store. Add in the lack of masks and indoor environment, and that compounds the risk.

Well, the flip side of that is that in a typical resturant, you're exposed to about 30 people whereas at a protest you're often exposed (admittedly for extremely brief amounts of time) to thousands.