Harvard Study - Social Distancing until 2022

[Ms.Minnie]

There is a new study done my Harvard saying "intermittent distancing may be required into 2022 unless critical care capacity is increased substantially or a treatment or vaccine becomes available". Please say it isn't so!

I do believe that we will have a vaccine for CV-19 so I'm in the camp this isn't going to happen. If it did I think I would rather take my chances and resume the life I had before CV-19. I want to be able to live my life with my family and friends as I did before all this happened. The world as we know it would not be the same and I really don't think Disney would survive so all this discussion about loosing point wouldn't matter. We would all be loosing all our points because most likely there wouldn't be any WDW or Disneyland.

I surely hope that the Harvard study is WRONG!

 

[The Prophet]

The only thing the government shutdowns are doing is slowing the spread so hospitals will not get overwhelmed with COVID cases
Once it is eased (or lifted) the virus will still be around until a vaccine is available, which is at least 12 - 18 months out

Of course stores, such as supermarkets, which are open, has found ways to mitigate the risk. So this is what we need to do until a vaccine is available.

 

[The Jackal]

There are some studies in other countries testing people for antibodies for Covid19. Early results are that way more people have been infected than once thought. The estimated death rate when more studies are finished will be much lower than what is reported today. It is predicted to be around the same death rate as the flu which is 0.2%. It just appears that Covid 19 spreads much quicker, which could over run hospitals. Some studies report between 25-47% of people infected never show signs or symptoms.

 

[Ms.Minnie]

I agree, I think we need to get people tested as part of their regular annual checkup (if not sooner) to see who has and who has not been exposed to the CV-19 virus. I think we might be surprised by the numbers.

I know that the virus will be around just like the flu which requires an annual immunization shot. I think the same will be true for this virus, once we have a vaccine we should all get the shot, I just hope they have enough to go around.

Again I don't want to live my life in lockdown and I don't plan on doing so. People are already starting to rebel against some of the orders give by some governors and mayors. It will only get worse if this goes on for too long. We have to start moving towards reopening our world in an orderly fashion. We have some brilliant minds working on it now and I have confidence that they will come up with a plan that will get us back to normal sooner rather then later.

I hope everyone stays safe and well.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

There are some studies in other countries testing people for antibodies for Covid19. Early results are that way more people have been infected than once thought. The estimated death rate when more studies are finished will be much lower than what is reported today. It is predicted to be around the same death rate as the flu which is 0.2%. It just appears that Covid 19 spreads much quicker, which could over run hospitals. Some studies report between 25-47% of people infected never show signs or symptoms.

But it is just math games. If you let the virus rip through the US population and create hot spots, there will be millions dead.

 

[siren0119]

Well and they are still studying the antibody/immunity factor of this virus. They don't know how LONG antibodies stay in our system, whether there is long term immunity, or whether this will be something that requires seasonal vaccination once a vaccine is developed. Having an antibody test won't mean a lot if our bodies only retain them for a few months at a time. So many "If" factors right now.

 

[rkstocke5609]

But it is just math games. If you let the virus rip through the US population and create hot spots, there will be millions dead.

Really? With 136,000 deaths worldwide so far, I don’t believe “millions” in the US. You might want to turn off CNN.
Even if 1 million people die out of 7 billion worldwide, it’s still only .014% . Tragic? Yes. But not actually a huge percentage of the population.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Really? With 136,000 deaths worldwide so far, I don’t believe “millions” in the US. You might want to turn off CNN.
Even if 1 million people die out of 7 billion worldwide, it’s still only .014% . Tragic? Yes. But not actually a huge percentage of the population.

I don't watch CNN. I have been paying more attention to people like the Mayo Clinic. One key indicator of mortality is ability to initiate and accelerate care, and when you create hotspots mortality rates go up.

There is also question of if herd immunity is a thing with this virus.

The science is developing, and I would rather not be the guinea pig. And the problem of public health - which is an element of urban planning, which I have background is - is that "personal choice!" isn't really personal. This is how you can have measles outbreaks at Disneyland, because the personal choice enters a public realm. This is also frequently seen with issues like pollution and emissions, which are big concerns in planning. You may not care if you get the virus, but we're breathing the same air and you sneezed on me.

 

[jlb727]

The problem is we need more testing. LOTS LOTS more testing for both the virus and antibodies (even if they are only present in the body for a short time) so we really know what we are dealing with and we can confirm those estimates of asymptomatic infections. Then we can get a handle on this. Until then, social distancing is going to stretch on for a long time.

What that means is that places where lots of people gather (like Disney) will have to be creative about how they minimize risk of infection.The types of things you can do at those places will look a lot different in the next two years, too. This will be good and bad! I hate when you get crammed into pre-ride queue areas like the Haunted Mansion and It's Tough to Be a Bug or on the monorail. I doubt that will be happening any more!

Disney is already starting to make changes. They are definitely limiting Fast Passes/capacity for popular rides, too. I just tried to make FPs for a mid-June trip and there was nothing at DHS for the Tier 1 rides at a little after 7. Almost everyone on the June board has had similar experiences for FPs early in their trip. I would compare that to my canceled March trip, when I could get anything I wanted at 7. So life will look different, but people without risk factors will be able to get somewhat back to (a new) normal before 2022, I think.

 

[Ms.Minnie]

Ahh the naysayers. So many questions that only time will supply the answers for. There is a lot of conflicting information out there some going for opening sooner but carefully in select areas to start with and some for lockdown until 2022. I don't think I have it in me to be in lockdown that long. I don't want to miss a whole year or two of my children or grandchildren's lives. I would rather take my chances and if I kick the bucket so be it, I guess it was my time to go.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people who don't have that much time for science to figure it out before they will be in direr straights. There are millions of people who can't afford to not have a job and we as a country (or the world for that matter) don't have enough money to support everybody. What do you propose those people do? You either take your chances and work or you starve to death and find yourself and those in you household out on the streets with no place to live. That's what it could come down to if we continue on the course we are currently on and that some people seems to have no problem with.

The other day I heard it said that the people that are all in favor of the lockdown to continue indefinitely are those that are financial well off and can afford to be without a steady flow of income. I think there is something to that, those people either forget what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck or they never had to.

I hope that we as a county and the world as a whole finds a way to come back from this so life can begin again. Lockdown is no way to live unless your a convicted criminal. JMHO

 

[siren0119]

The other day I heard it said that the people that are all in favor of the lockdown to continue indefinitely are those that are financial well off and can afford to be without a steady flow of income. I think there is something to that, those people either forget what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck or they never had too.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but we are a paycheck to paycheck family and my husband got laid off on March 17th. And I am NOT in favor of jumping the gun on reopening, because I get that the short term view is going to have long term consequences. If we rush to reopen, we are going to cause a second surge of infections and cause the very thing we are trying to prevent (overwhelming the medical resources we have available). That's why the Harvard study includes the caveat that their timeline is assuming we can't find a way to increase medical facility capacity. Most of the folks we know are in the same financial boat we are (some are also small business owners who are currently unable to open) and feel the same way we do. It's obviously not representative of every part of the country, but it sounds like the information you are getting is a very targeted message that also doesn't represent complete truth. think about the picture that statement you heard paints, and how it makes you feel. Chances are there's a reason it is eliciting certain feelings and it's totally intentional whether or not there's truth in it.

We are dealing with the very real possibility that my husband may not get to see his grandfather again in person before he passes away. he's 93 with advanced alzheimer's. We would love to see restrictions lifted to give him a little time with his grandfather before he goes....but I am not willing to put large amounts of people at risk in order to make that possible by rushing to reopen.

 

[tjkraz]

We're going to spend the next 2 years debating lives vs jobs. It's going to be very loud, very partisan and very ugly. On the surface, something like a theme park vacation seems frivolous. But it's also a source of income for literally hundreds-of-thousands of Americans. Not just Disney Cast Members but airline & airport employees, Uber drivers, hotel workers, restaurant workers, stroller rental companies and dozens of other cottage industries.

If those people cannot get back to work, where are they going to find other jobs? How long can our government keep writing unemployment checks, stimulus checks and corporate bailout checks?

With US speed limits up to 70 MPH, 38k people die annually in traffic accidents. Thousands more are injured and there are billions in property damage. We could take that down to 10 MPH and reduce traffic fatalities to near 0. But we don't do that because of the negative repercussions. It's a compromise our society has agreed to accept.

Viral hot spots have emerged. We're starting to identify trends in vulnerable groups. Most areas have seen their hospitalization and fatality numbers come in far lower than models predicted. The public has embraced social distancing, wearing masks in public and other recommended measures.

Few are advocating a complete return to normalcy. But with every passing day, we lose more restaurant and retail jobs that may never come back. Food banks are overwhelmed. Retirement savings is dwindling. Students are getting short-changed on their education. Mental health issues will rise as people struggle with job loss and/or isolation.

In these early weeks of shutdown, Disney and many other big companies were still paying workers. Pro athletes and owners pledged millions in funds to support stadium workers. That money is running out. Things will get worse soon.

The process of "reopening" isn't simply flipping a switch and returning to February 2020. We have to start taking sensible steps toward getting people back to work before this shutdown has done irreparable harm to our economy.

 

[Frogman88]

And please people stop regurgitating media info as it’s not factual at all.

it’s seems like just about anyone now is an expert on the matter Smh

 

[Heather07438]

With US speed limits up to 70 MPH, 38k people die annually in traffic accidents. Thousands more are injured and there are billions in property damage. We could take that down to 10 MPH and reduce traffic fatalities to near 0. But we don't do that because of the negative repercussions. It's a compromise our society has agreed to accept.

That's not how that works. Not even close.

eta- Speed limits are increased to help decrease unsafe speed variations among the fastest and slowest drivers.
http://www.sehinc.com/news/truth-about-speed-limits-explained-engineerArterial have highest speeds and fewest access points (example: interstates with on-ramps and off-ramps).

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Also, I've said this before and it remains true: "Reopening the economy" isn't all or nothing. It's not off or on. Newsom compared it to a dimmer, which seems to me a much better representation. You can open more business without opening everything. You can allow a bar to open but not a theme park based on total volume of people, distance traveled to be there and other risk factors (ease of cleaning, ability to police volume in specific locations). You might have a sporting event in an empty arena.

For a company like Disney, it may come down to what alterations need to be made to open, and if those alterations support the total critical mass for the opening to lose less money/break even vs. closure. Meaning not even a snapshot of profits, but if they can achieve what is required to open and decrease losses.

 

[Frogman88]

Also, I've said this before and it remains true: "Reopening the economy" isn't all or nothing. It's not off or on. Newsom compared it to a dimmer, which seems to me a much better representation. You can open more business without opening everything. You can allow a bar to open but not a theme park based on total volume of people, distance traveled to be there and other risk factors (ease of cleaning, ability to police volume in specific locations). You might have a sporting event in an empty arena.

For a company like Disney, it may come down to what alterations need to be made to open, and if those alterations support the total critical mass for the opening to lose less money/break even vs. closure. Meaning not even a snapshot of profits, but if they can achieve what is required to open and decrease losses.

I guess everyone here loves speaking hypothetically so I’ll continue.

Yea let’s say Disney opens soon it will be great because they won’t allow 75-80% of crowds.
They need to remove the AP to mitigate the crowd problem at Disney.

Expect Disney to jack up prices dramatically and maybe not daily openings maybe only weekends this won’t be business as usual for years and that’s in a perfect world but we are in an in perfect world that something less could very well happen tomorrow everything has accelerated.

 

[tjkraz]

That's not how that works. Not even close.

eta- Speed limits are increased to help decrease unsafe speed variations among the fastest and slowest drivers.
http://www.sehinc.com/news/truth-about-speed-limits-explained-engineerArterial have highest speeds and fewest access points (example: interstates with on-ramps and off-ramps).

I'm not sure if you're overthinking my comments or misreading. The comparison didn't involve reducing speed limits BY 10 MPH, rather reducing speed limits TO 10 MPH. If all motor vehicle traffic were moving at 10 miles per hour, very very few collisions (if any) would be severe cause fatalities. Mandating a 10 MPH speed limit would save almost 40,000 lives per year--and prevent many more injuries--but the negative impact on our society would be immeasurable.

We could draw similar risk/reward comparisons in many other areas: drug efficacy, swimming, sports, to name a few. Motorcycles are objectively dangerous to operate. But rather than banning them entirely, most communities look at helmet laws as an acceptable compromise.

We cannot save every Covid victim. There needs to be consideration for how lives are damaged or destroyed in the process.

 

[Matty B13]

If all motor vehicle traffic were moving at 10 miles per hour, very very few collisions (if any) would be severe cause fatalities.

I think there would be more....... because people would be falling asleep at the wheel.

 

[CraigInPA]

I'm not sure if you're overthinking my comments or misreading. The comparison didn't involve reducing speed limits BY 10 MPH, rather reducing speed limits TO 10 MPH. If all motor vehicle traffic were moving at 10 miles per hour, very very few collisions (if any) would be severe cause fatalities. Mandating a 10 MPH speed limit would save almost 40,000 lives per year--and prevent many more injuries--but the negative impact on our society would be immeasurable.

According to a DOT study, the primary cause of "at speed" accidents is a differential in the speed at which people drive. If the speed on a road is set artificially low, 70% of people will drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable, and 30% will try to stay to the speed limit. This is why the DOT recommends an 85th percentile approach to setting speed limits. If 85% are within compliance, the remaining outliers (the ones likely to cause accidents) can be targeted for enforcement.

 

[tjkraz]

According to a DOT study, the primary cause of "at speed" accidents is a differential in the speed at which people drive. If the speed on a road is set artificially low, 70% of people will drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable, and 30% will try to stay to the speed limit. This is why the DOT recommends an 85th percentile approach to setting speed limits. If 85% are within compliance, the remaining outliers (the ones likely to cause accidents) can be targeted for enforcement.

Sigh. It is within our technology to put regulators on cars. If the government wanted to mandate, it is POSSIBLE to limit vehicles to 10 miles per hour, no more. Fatalities would plummet, lives would be saved. Associated medical costs and property damage would also decrease. Meanwhile, society--as we know it--would suffer significant damage.

Point being, there are many areas of our lives where government power and technology could be used to impose stricter regulations in the interest of saving lives. Such regulations bring negative repercussions.