Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

That's a pretty fair metaphor.

ShadowThaHedgee said:

Yeah, Paisley, I get it. The CDC (Cutting Down Celebrations) blasted the PSAs over the radio that kept saying "STAY HOME! STAY HOME! STAY HOME!" Oh my goodness. That was the worst of this virus, and I can't say the same for ALL the Disney employees who had to go through all this pain. Please keep your prayers for those Disney and other amusement park workers.

I can't figure out what you're saying, but to me it sounds like listening to radio PSAs encouraging you to keep yourself and others safe was worse than 210,000+ deaths and 28,000+ Disney layoffs.

Jeff said:
...And as we've observed over and over, it's not like we don't know how to reduce risk.

We know how to reduce risk. Trouble is, we don't, as a species, know how to live like that.

And while that means we can't eliminate risk, the fact remains that we suck at managing residual risk.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Did Rideman say “We suck at risk management?” I have bingo!

GoBucks89 said:

We discussed months back how countries that were doing better with Covid had gotten bit by previous virus outbreaks. Getting kicked in the teeth makes you take things more seriously. Similar thing happened with Covid in US. States that got kicked in the mouth have been taking it more seriously since. But NY and NJ still lead the country in per capita Covid deaths. By a lot.

Yep. Though NY and NJ still lead the country in aggregate deaths per capita, they are currently 46th and 48th (CT is 47th) in new deaths per capita. Some might say that it's because of some communal immunity (though science doesn't support that theory), I would suggest it's exactly because getting kicked in the teeth makes you take things more seriously.

Though interesting to note, California is ~44th in new cases and peaked in July at about 50% of the per capita cases of Florida and has tracked consistantly at about 50% of the per capita cases of Florida (which is ~31st). So, I guess some people like getting their teeth kicked in more than others?

Have you been keeping track of how many times I have said that in this thread? 'Cause I know it has been a lot.

That I spent last week pretty much *living* amusement ride risk management for five hours a day didn't hurt your odds one bit.

(Do we still have smileys on this thing?)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

So, I guess some people like getting their teeth kicked in more than others?

Haven't followed the track in either California or Florida. Did they get a jab in the gut rather than kicked in the teeth? And with size of California were there outbreaks in part of the state but not others? California is about 2x the size of New England. In addition to mitigation fatigue being a factor as well.

RideMan said:

Jeff said:
...And as we've observed over and over, it's not like we don't know how to reduce risk.

We know how to reduce risk. Trouble is, we don't, as a species, know how to live like that.

No, Dave, you can't live like that. It's a little arrogant to suggest you represent the entire species.

GoBucks89 said:

So, I guess some people like getting their teeth kicked in more than others?

Haven't followed the track in either California or Florida. Did they get a jab in the gut rather than kicked in the teeth?

<Shrug>. I'm not 100% sure the distincion you're drawing, but here's the data:

For reference Florida is the first "large" peak of the second wave that looks like it's giving the middle finger.

Jeff said:

No, Dave, you can't live like that. It's a little arrogant to suggest you represent the entire species.

No, I think Dave is right.

In this case, it takes everyone. Not even a majority really works. Very few people can spread the virus throughout the population. "Only as strong as the weakest link" and so on and so forth.

In that sense, as a species, we don't know how to live like that. While individuals absolutely can.

And I totally agree:

Lord Gonchar said on October 6th:

At some point, (and this is mostly for conversation, devil's advocate type stuff), maybe the problem isn't that people (as a whole) won't lockdown/mask up long term, but rather that we expect them to...

RideMan said:

That I spent last week pretty much *living* amusement ride risk management for five hours a day didn't hurt your odds one bit.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

As long as you stay away from me for 14 days.

Well, I attended the meetings in question via WebEx from my own home office. Physically kind of like doing my day job but with my chair pivoted 45 degrees to the left.

I was at Indiana Beach a mere nine days ago, though. But that was three days before Ohio added Indiana to the soft-quarantine list, so I guess I am OK?

(Northern Indiana and Northwest Ohio appear to be in full-on "shpx-it" mode with regard to coronavirus. That said, the crowd density at IB was such that it never really concerned me that much. I still think I was able to maintain a low-risk visit.)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Jeff said:

RideMan said:

Jeff said:
...And as we've observed over and over, it's not like we don't know how to reduce risk.

We know how to reduce risk. Trouble is, we don't, as a species, know how to live like that.

No, Dave, you can't live like that. It's a little arrogant to suggest you represent the entire species

Well Jeff doesn't represent the entire species either. None of us here do. There are far more people than Dave who can't/won't live like this indefinitely.

No one is suggesting anyone has to live like this indefinitely. What is it with our generation? We've never been required to do anything hard, and now that we have, people are unwilling to rise to the challenge.

I think you answered your own question as to why.

It is the generation that is growing up right now amidst all of this calamity, that will have a greater capacity for positive change. I hope.

Absolutely agree with both Jeff and Fun. Prior to 9/11 my generation (I was already 31 at the time) really didn't know any significant national tragedy or drama. The Challenger disaster brought us together but didn't really impact the individual. The first Gulf War was relatively swift and fought by volunteer soldiers.

Other than waiting in longer lines at the airports and removing our shoes to get on airplanes I'm 50 years old now and this is the first time I'm being asked to "sacrifice" for my country. And, by sacrifice, that undue hardship is simply wearing a mask. Seems like a small price to pay to answer Kennedy's call of, "Ask what you can do for your country".

So which generations in the US have previously had to do something hard?

Well, from what I understand World War II (especially after Pearl Harbor) was pretty awful. WWI more so. Vietnam and Korea also weren't great, but were a lot more insulated from the everyday lives of many (you could make the argument that the impact of Vietnam was inversely proportional to your societal privilege). The Cold War (which I grew up during) wasn't super great either: there was a definite understanding that if it hit the fan, we would all pull together and do something about it. I'm sure the depression survivors didn't appreciate that time too much.

There is definitely something about being the "lone superpower" in the world that makes us entitled and soft.

Damn, now I sound like Gonch.

I don't see how this is a generation thing.

The Greatest Generation no doubt sacrificed and dealt with a lot of hard things. Grew up in the Great Depression and fought in WWII. Even if you didn't serve in the war there was a lot of sacrifice in the war effort. Silent Generation that followed grew up in the DP but didn't fight in WWII. Some served in Korea though. To me those were the last generations that as a whole did very much hard.

Very few of the boomers served in Vietnam. And there wasn't the broad based war effort sacrifice there. Not much hard there in terms of an entire generation. And to a large degree, much of our major issues today are because boomers by and large haven't wanted to take much in the way of hard actions or make hard decisions. But thats a whole 'nother issue.

If the Cold War counts as doing something hard, someone who is 50 now lived through the Cold War (and the generation issue is being discussed because of the statement that people in their 50s are part of a generation that was never required to do anything hard) was required to do something hard.