Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

Jeff said:

While you might be right about the odds of survival being better than expected, the stupid people use that information to exercise blatant disregard for everyone else. That's why things aren't better.

That our country is full of stupid (or selfish) people isn't news. The percent chance that one of those people might be the cause of your death (or that of a loved one) seems to have risen rather dramatically in recent months. So, that kind of sucks.

It is pretty disheartening when it seems like Florida's leadership in particular is dead set on reopening and is basically waging an active disinformation campaign to make it seem like the data supports it. As if that will somehow change the outcome. Choosing Florida because I've heard the most about Florida, but I'm sure it's not the only culprit.

Some restaurants that had reopened dining rooms in the last month and a half are starting to revert back to the take out or delivery only model again here in Central Florida. It mainly seems to be the smaller, locally owned places that I've been trying to support as much as possible. I haven't really seen any of the big names or chains do anything yet, but I could see it coming.

I still don't see any delays with WDW reopening without it also including the re-closing of Universal and SeaWorld, which I also don't see happening. I have Cast Member friends that started work again last week and some more that are starting this week, and none of them are under the impression that delaying is even remotely on the table. Many of the Disney fan sites are calling for WDW to delay, but I can't imagine a scenario where they extend the closure while sitting on the sidelines watching Universal, SeaWorld, and Busch Gardens continue to stay open.

Broadway has now written off the rest of the year, and tour restarts are up in the air. Interestingly, it's largely the unions insisting that it isn't safe to work, and the general consensus of those losing the work agree. Granted, indoor theater, rooms full of a thousand plus people, is a fundamentally different business, but their embrace of reality is in stark contrast to other industries.

What industries would you say are avoiding reality? Not saying this to play the contrarian, but I'm genuinely curious.

Bars and restaurants, for one. It's an inherently social thing where people are putting things into their mouths. I think it's reasonable to believe that it can be done at reduced capacity, but local regulators want to go all-in, and we've seen already that 20-somethings want to line dance their way from one bar to the next. OK, so maybe that's the customers, not the businesses. Theme parks I suppose are a wait-and-see, but I'm skeptical that the locals will get it right. Education, Jesus, colleges want to put a bunch of freshmen into dorms? Restart kindergarten? Have you seen kids that age? They're gross.

Maybe I'm more skeptical of public behavior. I've been out of the house for a little more than a day and I'm shocked at how flippant people are about this.

Jeff said:

I've been out of the house for a little more than a day and I'm shocked at how flippant people are about this.

That's a dichotomy I've struggled with since the start of this. (I think I mentioned it somewhere in this thread)

If you stay holed up and watch your screens, it seems scary as ****.

If you go out into the real world, you'd think it's really not much of a thing.

I know going out makes me feel much better about...well every aspect of it...than sitting at home watching news, reading articles and arguing on CoasterBuzz does. That seems completely the inverse of how it should because I do agree that it's crazy how flippant a large portion of people in general are. But my experience (here in Ohio - which has supposedly done it 'right' for the most part) is that they've been this flippant since March.

My personal take (as usual) is somewhere in the middle. I know it doesn't seem that way compared to the opinions generally expressed here, but compared to my real world circles, a lot of you guys are insanely frightened. But the truth is, I'm often alarmed at how my real world circles seem to be among the flippant masses. To them, I'm the overcautious one. So I find myself in a weird place where I come online and can't believe how cautious and frightened people seem, but go into the actual public and can't believe how careless and unconcerned everyone seems.

I have no problem going out. Shopping doesn't scare me. We went to a graduation party this weekend. Stuff like that. But at the same time, as I mentioned before, flying in six weeks isn't something I'm eager to do. Moving my kid into freshman dorms with thousands of other familes feels like it's going to be uncomfortable. I haven't eaten inside a restaurant since this all went down, but my family members have...my wife does several times a week.

*shrug*

I don't really have a point. Just getting some thoughts off my chest.

Jeff said:

Granted, indoor theater, rooms full of a thousand plus people, is a fundamentally different business, but their embrace of reality is in stark contrast to other industries.

Locally the conversations I have been involved with in regards to the unions (IATSE and AEA) have been more about the safety backstage and less in the house. I would guess it is the same for those unions in NYC too. Backstage at any theater is almost always tight and basically impossible to social distance in. I mean think about a Costumer dressing a performer or a Stagehand harnessing up a stunt actor. You just can't do that and stay reasonably safe with the new standards. You can still social distance guests out in the house but at what point do you cut house size and still turn a profit.

Broadway shows have a number of issues. One, more than half the people are tourists from outside NYC metro area. And about 20% are international visitors. Not a lot of international travel is happening right now and somewhat more domestic travel (though mandatory quarantines for people coming from certain states will make trips to NYC to see a show much less appealing -- and for many they aren't really appealing anyway even if shows were happening). Two from what I have seen when you factor out tourists, the locals tend to be older. So a significant portion of ticket buyers are high risk. Three the theaters tend to be old with not so great ventilation systems, narrow halls, small restrooms, etc. Backstage for performers and staff is pretty much anti-social distancing. And singing seems like a bad idea at this point. Unions may well have been against re-opening but deck was already stacked in their favor.

Those issues are not true for many restaurants. Locals frequent. Younger people often frequent. Many are modern buildings. Have outside patios. Private dining rooms. You can reduce capacity and make it work. From what we know (and we are still learning) food is not considered to be a high risk item. Though x% capacity doesn't necessarily mean x% of the profit.

Bars seem like a very different story. Getting a lot of people together, often at high volume (yelling, singing, etc), and drinking and it doesn't seem like a good idea. Particularly not inside.

Kids in school seems like more wishful thinking right now than anything. Though 2 months is a long time. Impact on business world though will be significant if parents of young kids are looking for childcare with schools not open. College dorms seem a little like NYC all over again.

I think the "younger people" thing in this equation is not what people think it is (see above link about Houston), and also disregards the part that people keep glossing over: Regardless of how it affects any individual, every individual is a potential infection vector for people who may get very sick or die. What it does is only half the problem, the other half is how easy it spreads around.

My personal take (as usual) is somewhere in the middle. I know it doesn't seem that way compared to the opinions generally expressed here, but compared to my real world circles, a lot of you guys are insanely frightened. But the truth is, I'm often alarmed at how my real world circles seem to be among the flippant masses. To them, I'm the overcautious one. So I find myself in a weird place where I come online and can't believe how cautious and frightened people seem, but go into the actual public and can't believe how careless and unconcerned everyone seems.

I was reading the comments on a local (I think it was Sandusky) Cedar Point story about them opening. The comments were broken up into three very distinct groups.

1. No way because mah freedom!
2. No way because the virus!
3. Yay! Thank you for making a safe environment for us!

The doom and gloom is something I refuse to engage in. Therapy has taught me that's a dangerous place to go. I am pretty confident that if I stay away from the places that that are vectors for the spread that I will be fine. That means no large groups, no prolonged exposure indoors where ventilation is poor, and keeping my distance and wearing a face covering.

And therapy has taught me that I need to live in the present and in the moment more often and enjoy opportunities as they come and not waste today worrying about or overly looking forward to tomorrow while at the same time as regretting yesterday. So I'll take the risk and go to places like parks and restaurants when I feel the risk/reward balances itself out to a level I am comfortable with.

And that's why, as long as you are following the recommended safety protocols, there is nothing wrong or bad about choosing to participate in activities and going to places that have reopened. And there is nothing wrong or bad about choosing to continue to isolate as much as possible.

The study hasn't been peer reviewed yet, but the cited evidence suggests that protests did not contribute to community spread of Covid-19:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/07/01/research-determin...rus-cases/

...and that might be very good news for amusement parks. If this is true, then people gathering together outdoors taking reasonable precautions (wearing masks, using sanitizer, etc.) don't seem to materially increase spread. The big difference between a protest and an amusement park is high-touch areas (queue rails, backs and sides of ride vehicles getting in/out, etc.) but with good hand sanitation discipline you could minimize that too.

Theme parks with indoor attractions/queues/shows may still have other risks, but most parks don't have those in huge numbers.

That's really the challenge to figuring out how to coexist with this until we have vaccines: The mitigation strategies are surprisingly not complex, but human behavior (or American behavior, at least) is making it difficult to prove that the mitigation can work.

I recognize that general narcissism complicates everything, and our society is way to prone to it, but I think that some of the mitigation strategies aren’t being followed because they’ve been total 180s at points. First it was that we shouldn’t wear masks, and now they’re made out to be borderline forcefields. You also couldn’t touch anything, and now it supposedly doesn’t spread on surfaces very well. There’s also social distancing, but if the protests turn out to have been minimal contributors to spread, while fantastic for a host of reasons, be prepared for an awful lot of pushback against social distancing as well.

I’m very passionate about the usefulness of science and while I might not agree with every scientifically-accepted theory, I still vehemently support its necessity. However, while I’ve said before that I recognize that hypotheses being wrong is completely understandable and perhaps even essential in application of the scientific method, the fact that there have been so many flip-flops over recommendations and the often life-altering decisions they’re driving makes me at least understand where some of these people are coming from. I think COVID parties are absolutely stupid, but while I think everyone should suck it up and wear a mask, I also get why people think they’re a farce. Science is by its nature fallible, and while I don’t approve of decisions made that essentially rejoice in that (anti-vaccinationism, for example), I’m loathe to pass judgment on those skeptical of the effectiveness of the measures implemented.

Please keep in mind that I say none of this to attack the scientists who I know are under enormous pressure and who are fighting the good fight here.

sirloindude said:

I might not agree with every scientifically-accepted theory

Curious what you mean by this. It might seem like a nitpick, but I think it may actually be relevant to the issue.

The best example that I can give is that I take a pretty literal interpretation of the book of Genesis on the origins of humanity over macro-evolution. I realize how that may affect views of my stance, but if it comes as any sort of assurance, even when I’m skeptical of something, I support research in the area. What’s the worst that can happen? Either the scientists will learn something, I will, or everyone will.

I didn’t interpret your post as a nitpick. It was a valid question. I’m also a vigilant mask-wearer if it makes you feel any better. Might have saved my bacon during a recent exposure I had.

sirloindude said:

I recognize that general narcissism complicates everything, and our society is way to prone to it, but I think that some of the mitigation strategies aren’t being followed because they’ve been total 180s at points. First it was that we shouldn’t wear masks, and now they’re made out to be borderline forcefields.

See it wasn't that we shouldn't wear them because they didn't do anything. It was that, if every member of the public ran out and bought up masks, there wouldn't be enough for the first responders and medical professionals treating sick people. Everyone seems to forget that there really wasn't a 180 on the effectiveness of masks.

Well, they did say that they wouldn’t protect you from getting it. It was very clear that they wanted them preserved for medical professionals, first responders, etc., but the way it came off was that not only did those folks need them, but that they were the only ones who needed them. I know they were recommended for those who had it because it’s been agreed upon that it hinders those who have it from spreading it, but the notion of it potentially protecting you from getting it is pretty new.

Granted, I think a lot of the push for wearing them is that so many people are potentially infected and don’t know it, and that’s really what I wish those who push against it would realize. It’s not just about protecting yourself, and the scientific consensus about it potentially protecting others from you has been one of the most consistent conclusions drawn over the course of this.

At a more surface level, though, there was a bit of a direction change on it that, perhaps with a little more vulnerability in communication, would have made it seem like less of a direction shift.

I still think that wearing a mask is such a small inconvenience that it doesn’t seem worth the backlash it gets, though, haha.