Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

The thing to keep in mind more now than ever is that the science doesn't change. Our understanding of it evolves.

I'll hit them one-by-one for you. Hope it helps.

Tekwardo said:

This may have been discussed but are you against the government mandating other vaccines to attend school?

Honestly, don't care either way.

Are you against the government mandating drivers wear seatbelts?

Can I just Gonchback to the seat belt "controversy" posts?

Have our cars inspected?

We already don't in Ohio. I think it's awesome.

The requirements for certain safety issues to be dealt with?

I don't know what this alludes to.

As for the idea of “I don’t like the government trying to force me to protect people that are choosing to be stupid, do you not think that those people have kids that they won’t get vaccinated, won’t let the children take any precautions?

Not my place to tell others how to raise their kids. I'm sure I did (and still do) a bunch of stuff as a parent that wouldn't be acceptable (or standard or correct or whatever word I'm struggling for here) by a lot of people's metrics.

I’m genuinely curious.

I hope I satisfied your curiousity in some little way.

All I know is this thread opened my eyes to the fact that I live my life VERY differently than a decent chunk of CB regulars.

“Not my place to tell others how to raise their kids.”

Im not saying that it is. What I’m saying is, we have CPS because some people are careless with their kids lives. Do you not think the government should remove kids from parents who aren’t parenting? In the same manor, do you not think that it’s appropriate for the government to institute a mask mandate to save the lives of kids for careless parents that won’t let them get vaxed or wear a mask?

As far as what I was alluding to are safety standards. Housing. Cars. Buildings. The government mandates them. It’s fine if you don’t like your state requiring safety inspections but as someone who gets in and out of hundreds of cars a month to evaluate how safe drivers are to give them a license, I’m glad for states that do.

I will say that I find it funny that your intention at times is to pull some of us off our pedestal when, and I could be taking this wrong, your final comment there I’ve inferred is made from a place of also being on your own pedestal. I like my pedestal. I can see a lot of BS from here. YMMV.

Tekwardo said:

Re: science that is unquestionable…

Nonsense. Facts are facts. Some things are absolute facts. Those that aren’t color blind know the sky is blue. That’s a scientific fact. If you question that, you’re either irrational or have a vision issue.

I mostly agree with you about scientific facts (although the history of science is the history of proving what we "knew" to be wrong), but your example is kind of funny. Yes, as a scientific matter, the light from the sky has a particular wavelength, etc. - but whether you perceive it as "blue" is to some degree cultural.

There's debate as to whether the ancient Greeks of Homer's day had a word for blue - Homer himself never uses it. More recent ancient Greek did apparently have multiple different words for blue, but which of them would one use to describe the sky? Homer called the sky bronze colored.

Or to use a different example, the word "orange" wasn't used as the name of a color in English until about 1500. Prior to that, the color was known as"yellow-red" or "red-yellow." Were oranges orange before that?

(This is all in fun, not debating the point about infectious diseases you were making.)

The CDC says you shouldn't cruise, at all, but it's not binding advice. While I'm generally patient with the CDC, I'd love to know what this is based on. If you look at Royal Caribbean Group, because they have numbers, they've had. 0.15% infections across all brands since June, which is literally better than not taking a cruise.

I can't account for what other lines are doing, but Disney is fanatical as ever, especially around dining. Still no buffet self service. We talked to a crew member that said they've had a few minor crew cases this year, a few passengers, but the isolation protocols are very strict. Crew has to be vaccinated and now get a booster, all passengers 12 and up have to be fully vaccinated, and everyone gets tested before boarding. What else can you do that's that strict?

Omicron might change the equation, but I'm not sure if it matters with the testing protocol.

Yeah, I don't get that either. The numbers on ships are way below those on land, and with the majority of passengers (100% on NCL, I think 95% on others) vaccinated, people aren't getting sick or being a drain on health systems. The vast majority of those testing positive on ships are asymptomatic which is what we were going for with the vaccines, right? Seems dumb to single out this one industry. You have a better chance of catching it at a movie theater or at a ball game.

I'd personally trust the CDC way before I'd trust Disney, Royal Caribbean, etc... Which of course will tell you what you want to hear to get you to book something at a time they are likely struggling.

How can you claim cruises are not being a drain on health systems? People test BEFORE getting on a cruise, not testing in order to get off the boat. They could easily spread it around home/work/wherever afterward and not know if they don't show symptoms.

It's pretty known that cruise ships are notorious/known for spreading diseases (flu, stomach bugs, whatever), arguably worse than say airplanes which have better air quality due to the packs bringing in fresh air at high altitude, HEPA filtration and high air exchanges per hour.

Disney Cruise Lines for example on their website note MERV13 filtration, not HEPA. RCI notes 15 air exchanges per hour in large public areas (also noted MERV13 filtration). Most modern aircraft are between 20-30 air exchanges per hour with HEPA filtration.

I'm sure the CDC isn't making stuff up or making suggestions to everyone because they don't like cruise ships or something.

Lying about what's going on to make a buck is like letting people get hurt on amusement rides. It's the opposite of being in their best interest. Royal Caribbean is absolutely not hurting right now.

You're also incorrect about testing onboard. Any cruise 5 nights or longer requires it to reenter the US, and crew is tested once or twice a week, depending on the line. You're also incorrect that cruise ships are "known for spreading disease." I can't speak for the other lines, but I've been on 20 Disney Cruise Line itineraries, and never come home sick from one. The ships are cleaner than my house. Restrooms are cleaned in real-time with people posted at them, every person entering a dining area has to wash their hands or at least sanitize, there is no individual self-serving anymore, thought to be one of the primary transmitters of things like norovirus.

You can quote air exchange rates, but there's no context. It may be less than a plane, but is it enough? What are the airflow models? Ever try to open a stateroom door with the verandah open? Like I said, the reality is that illness is exceptionally rare, less than what it is on land.

The amusement ride safety analogy is apt. The number of illness outbreaks on cruise ships that you hear about is incredibly small versus the number of cruise ship sailings. And the number of those ill versus the total passengers is small.

Tekwardo said:

Serious question since I agree with the sentiments of Gonch and Amilj re: I no longer care about people who choose not to get vaxed,

Some if you are against the government making masks mandates and vaccine mandates.

This may have been discussed but are you against the government mandating other vaccines to attend school?

Wouldn't concern me in the least what they choose to do here.

Are you against the government mandating drivers wear seatbelts?

Absolutely

Have our cars inspected?

Absolutely, it is nothing but a revenue generation tactic. I lived in a state with inspection, I had tints that were way past legal limit, I threw the inspection guy a $20 each year, he threw me a sticker, life was good.

The requirements for certain safety issues to be dealt with?

That would depend in the safety issues, we routinely have regulations in place which are bypassed, undermined, loopholed etc. I don't want to hear about having to try, or trying to do the right thing. If you put something in place which is ineffective or does not work as intended, say so, and remove or change it as needed.

I’m genuinely curious. If so, why is that different than mask mandates? Vaccine mandates? Quarantine mandates?

Because in the beginning I argued against these as not changing the outcomes, being continually changed and enhanced, and I was told that I was arguing a slippery slope, and that regulation, pseudo lockdown, masks, etc etc etc, were necessary to prevent the spread, then slow the spread, now endemic, now more masks, twenty shots, etc etc etc. So we are progressing very nicely down that slippery slope, and covid is doing just fine with whatever half hearted attempts we have thrown at it.

I have no concerns about getting covid, it doesn't even register on my daily thought process. I also understand that for many people it does, and I am totally ok with that, you can take your pills, your shots, your bleach, snake oil, whatever makes you sleep better at night. But at the end of the day regardless of what people are doing, the virus is still growing, evolving, and multiplying and nothing we do short of complete isolation is going to break that chain.

Cloth masks are not very effective, neither are the bulk of the junk people are wearing, so the regulation is ineffective, so either drop it, or regulate it based on wearing something effective. So yes, currently, the mandates are stupid.

As for the idea of “I don’t like the government trying to force me to protect people that are choosing to be stupid, do you not think that those people have kids that they won’t get vaccinated, won’t let the children take any precautions?

I’m genuinely curious.

People will do what people will do, the whole lead a horse to water can't make them drink thing. This country is really good at catering to the lowest common denominator compared to other places around the globe. I was chatting with someone from overseas one time and he summed things up here really really well regarding our safety and wellbeing. He said that in his country people took their safety and security in their own hands, and made sure they were protected. He said in the US people expect others to make sure they are safe and secure. Was a really interesting observations from an outside party, and what I thought was dead spot on.

Tekwardo said:

I will say that I find it funny that your intention at times is to pull some of us off our pedestal when, and I could be taking this wrong, your final comment there I’ve inferred is made from a place of also being on your own pedestal. I like my pedestal. I can see a lot of BS from here. YMMV.

I can assure you none of what I typed was intended that way. I think a lot of "Gonch" is lost in text. I try. I often fail.

My entire take at this point is that no one is "right" in the sense that there's a correct answer. There may be an answer that seems correct to you or me, but that doesn't make it right. Even looking at all the science, it's not following or denying science, it's taking the info and making a decision. No different than any decision any of us would make on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure we'd make different choices there too.

And, as I said, as we get more and more into our thought processes on this and things in general (as we do around here), I'm finding I live VERY differently than a bunch of the CB regulars. Even that is just my further acknowledgment that there isn't a 'right' way to do things.

So yeah, it's incredibly frustrating to see the same people continue to talk (and usually talk down) as if the choices they would make are the 'correct' ones. They're not. Mine aren't either.

I'm just curious how you would respond if there was a movement picking up momentum that claimed that Covid was only spread by college students in warm climates, say Southern California and Southern Florida, just for example. And the call to action would be to close all universities in those areas. Is that a "you do you" case or an "objectively wrong and needs to be corrected" case?

What could I do? I might disagree, but it is what it is.

In fact, The U just informed the boy that the first two weeks back for all students is back to virtual. That (to my entire family) feels like a knee jerk reaction in the abundance-of-caution lane with a dose of uneccessary. However, it's simply a decision. I would decide differently.

But guess what? When he shows up, he'll be in his room taking virtual classes.

I absolutely disagree with masks at this point. But if it's required, I'll wear it.

I got my initial vax shot the day it was avilable to me and the follow-up as soon as possible to the day. I waited a bit on the booster because I wasn't sure. I wasn't sure I needed it. I wasn't sure there wouldn't be a specific Omicron vax coming that would required a certain amount of time beyond the last show, so I hesitated there too. If they suggest more shots, I'm not sure if/when/how I'll get it.

Anything beyond shots and masks. I disagree with pretty much 100%. (feel free to point out something obvious that slipped my mind on this front)

I don't know what you're looking for here. I can disagree with your approach (and trust me, I do) and you with mine - but neither of us are 'wrong' in the sense that there's a correct answer.

Well, in the case I was proposing, the position being championed is objectively wrong. It has no basis in science or reality whatsoever. And yet, it would hypothetically have an impact on you and the people you care about. I am curious if you even make such a distinction at all or if everything is "subject to interpretation" bar nothing.

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" or anything. We just think in such different ways that I'm having a hard to relating to and thus understanding your position at all.

It would impact us. But there are degrees of impact. And degrees of separation.

Your example wouldn't be enough of an impact for me to care.

Again, I'm not being a smartass, but I'm not entirely sure exactly what you're asking.

EDITED TO ADD - And I don't actually actively think, ponder and consider almost anything in that way. I'm only trying to express what my mind sort of just does in the background. I wouldn't actually consider your example for more than a moment and maybe call it stupid.

This would be the literal scene in real time.

My kid: "There was a movement picking up momentum that claimed that Covid was only spread by college students in warm climates, say Southern California and Southern Florida, just for example. And the call to action would be to close all universities in those areas. So I'm probably remote."

Me: "Wow. That's ****ing dumb, huh?"

My kid: "Yep." (as he walks away)

Wow. Much zen.

At some point even an/the "objectively correct" approach has to deal with reality. In talking about the reduction of the isolation/quarantine time period from 10 to 5 days, the CDC director this week noted that a lot of the change had to do with what they thought people would tolerate.

Saying people with different views/approaches are selfish, dumb, political, etc. isn't likely to get you where you want to be.

And I agree that different people have different views and in most cases, they only thing we know for sure is they are different not one is right and the other wrong. People I interact with for work from NY, Chicago and California (most interactions outside Ohio are with people from there and they tend to live in large cities and work in large buildings) still are living very different lives than I am. None of them have any expectation of being in their offices. Some haven't been since early 2020. Back to office plans on voluntary and rotating basis have been repeatedly pushed back and haven't happened yet in some instances. My office did all of that back in May/June 2020 and was fulltime back in October 2020. People who haven't seen relatives/friends, do not go to restaurants or other inside public spaces, etc. Living very different lives on a day to day basis.

If there was any illusion that people who are in certain ways similar to you are living similar lives in general, have similar views, etc. the pandemic blew those out of the water. And I have always understood that different people have different views/experiences/etc. But the stark difference in how day to day lives are being led surprised me (and to a certain degree still does).

In 2020 I was pretty laid back about everything. I masked, yes, but I also went about my routine as best I could. I got a side gig delivering groceries for the 6-7 weeks our office was closed to get out of the house. I went back to Universal the first day they reopened. I started eating in restaurants the day they reopened for dine in (which in Florida was May 2020) and have been back at work in the office full time since June 1, 2020.

But in the last week and a half I have been more cautious than I have been through this entire thing. I'm boosted but masking again in the grocery store, masking again 100% of the time at work, and avoiding indoor dining in places I know are going to be crowded. I even turned down an offer to go to a friends house this weekend - a friend I fearlessly visited once a week from March to June 2020 when we were told to lock ourselves in our homes.

Why has Omicron spooked me? I honestly don't know. I'm boosted and know I'll be just fine if/when I get it. But we have more positive cases at work than we ever did in the height of things in 2020. So I'll likely continue to lay low for a couple of weeks.

I think your response is reasonable when the daily infection count blows away previous records and vaccinated people are getting omicron in huge numbers. I mean, cool, it might be less severe for you, unless it's not.

GoBucks89 said:

And I agree that different people have different views and in most cases, they only thing we know for sure is they are different not one is right and the other wrong.

But they can be based on factually incorrect information. I agree that if people start from the same correct understanding of reality, then there are many different valid ways to respond to that reality based on personal preference, belief, etc. etc. Hopefully there's some room for debate and discussion, but I don't really have an argument with someone who looks at the same set of facts and responds differently. But if someone is acting and/or calling for action based on factually incorrect information, then I think their position is wrong.

For instance, if someone quotes VAERS as evidence that vaccines aren't safe, they are wrong (VAERS is a database of all adverse events after vaccination including car accidents and unrelated events. It is not a database of adverse events caused by vaccines) and it's fairly easy to point that out. I would hope (but extremely disappointingly don't find) that people would then change their position, rather than just digging in.