Thinking only of risks to ones self, without considering risks to other people is selfish, short sighted and myopic. Think about other people besides yourself. Low risk, healthy people may be asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic, yet Covid19 positive and highly contagious as carriers and spreaders. You may not be endangering yourselves by being in public, but may be endangering others. So, you may not get sick, but other people may. Protecting other people is the reason you are being asked to shelter in place as much as possible. It's ok if you want to risk your own health, but not ok to risk the health of other people in the process. First do no harm.

The economy works when person A employs another to do something person A cannot do or doesn't want to do in exchange for consideration (money). And right now that process is being seriously hindered. So, is it wrong for people to want to get that process back up and running as soon as possible... both the people who employ and those who are employed? I mean, what is the alternative? From each their ability to each their need?

Anyone who thinks it is a hoax is an idiot. No one made definitive statements about the death rates, they constructed estimates and models based on various factors. Only idiots don't understand how flawed those estimates can be. If you rely on one msm source for all your news, and don't read past the headline, you can't come crawling back and claim it was a hoax and expect any credibility.

But whatever. Have fun on dialysis for the rest of your life after covid destroys your kidneys. I won't pay for the hoaxers to get tx. I'll pull out and self pay my medical from now on.

Furthermore, no one from the conservative side said **** after 9/11 which was a lucky shot and we turned the usa upside down after that for <4k deaths.

I'm not "just assuming it to be true." A hint would be where I used the phrases "would seem to be" and "a primary mechanism" not "the primary mechanism." Didn't you just go off on someone about reading comprehension? Why do you have to find anything possible in people's posts as something to attack with a long rant (especially when it's not well founded)? It's getting old, as has already been pointed out.

Furthermore, what you stated supports the point of my post. If transmission via touching surfaces is not mainly how the virus is spread, then most of what they are doing is largely for show. To whatever level transmission via surfaces does play a role, they are not really addressing the items that players and dealers must touch in order to play poker while sanitizing many things that players can avoid touching if they're careful.

The only restricted travel I see is the Key West highway. Not sure if they arrest you if you arrive via foot, water, etc. But Florida and other states are not restricting travel, they are telling people to isolate depending on if they say they came from NY. I think restricting travel is illegal. Possibly they could refuse travel by car on certain highways legally? But they have to apply the law equally to their own state residents.

Here is a document from the Wynn...

https://www.visitwynn.com/documents/...ealth-Plan.pdf

11 Poker Operations

Cleaning & Sanitizing Protocol
a) Supervisors to sanitize table game rails after each customer leaves (ongoing)
b) Supervisors to sanitize each chair area after a customer leaves (ongoing)
c) Supervisors to sanitize the outside of shufflers every hour; inside to be cleaned once
per week
d) Supervisors to sanitize podiums at least once per hour including phones, computers,
Veridocs, all hard surface and cabinetry
e) Dealers to sanitize in table rating units each time they enter a game
f) Dealers to sanitize toke boxes
g) Chip sanitation solutions being reviewed – pending expert guidance
Physical Distancing Protocol
a) Every other table open and tables to be staggered
b) Maximum seating to be established based on expert guidance
c) Dealers to verbally give breaks instead of “tapping in” and maintain appropriate
separation
Guest Considerations
a) Guests will be reminded to sanitize their hands prior to the start of play
b) Food service protocols to be reviewed

I'm not entirely sure what this all means, but I think you are underestimating the public and their tolerance for being told something and then have that end up not being true, even if the people telling them had every reasonable reason to do so.

And while 9/11 was certainly a seminal moment in US history, and the aftermath has caused repercussions we continue to feel today, I don't think it is a stretch to say this covid-19 situation is shaping up to be far more impactful.

Here's a list from a 9 days ago. I would think this will only increase in the near term as states re-open, at least with regard to travel between states.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/t...trictions.html

There can only be one primary mechanism. But in any case, I was trying to agree with the "for show" part, and clearly failed.

On the point of the so called herd immunity.
1) it only works where everyone on the planet takes the same approach at the same time. And even them only if infection leads to you having natural antibodies which in the case of covid 19 it does not.

The most worrying point of heard immunity is that most people advocating it seem also to be of the idea that covid 19 only really affects the old and people who already have life threatening underline illness.
This shows that you are willing to let all those people die as you believe you will be ok.
The degree of our humanity is shown by how we treat our most vulnerable in society ??
The last laugh will be on the fit young healthy herd immunity advocates will be as they lie in the hospital bed begging for help and struggling to breath wondering how this happened to them

The real argument is do we sacrifice many to save the economy.
Basically capitalism over all other considerations.
Also please remember goverments around the world are now basically paying you to do the below:
Stay at home, drink what you like/ eat what you like /slepp when you want and if you do all this the reward is life for you and countless others ????
and idiots still object, its baffeling.


Education is a wonderful thing please look at all evidence from all countries.

Thx for posting. Interesting read.

As a guest in a casino following these protocols its going to feel pretty weird. Everywhere you look everything you do you will be reminded that being in the Casino is still pretty risky (if you are concerned about getting infected).


As an operator this is going to suck an enormous amount of focus from customer service, game security, and really just about everything else.

Channel 8 in Vegas has the story and the link to the document.

It will be interesting to see hen the other casino operators will release theirs.

A lot of you guys really have your heads stuck in the sand. It's amazing to me that anyone thinks people WON'T be going to bars, casinos, restuarants etc the moment the reopen.

There are tons of people who can't wait for things to reopen. Not just business owners and employees, but people who want to be able to do things again.

Lots of these businesses would have stayed open thru the whole thing if they were allowed. They would have had plenty of customers, even in the height of epidemic and fear mongering. The governments forced them to close. Anything that remained open were plenty busy , supermarkets, parks, convenience stores, all busy with plenty of customers.

When beaches reopen. People will go.
When stores reopen, people will go.
When Vegas reopens , people will go , with incentives most likely because travelling can still worry alot of people. The local casinos will be swamped as soon as they reopen.

As soon as poker rooms reopen there will be people there to play the very first day.

The only people who really think the entire population is quarantining and scared to go anyway or the people who haven't been going out every day and watch to much of the news, whose ratings are based off of making people as afraid as possible , just like they do with storms, the middle east, Korea, etc etc.

My store is considered essential and has never closed. Even being in PA and right in the middle of the epidemic, not as bad as New York, but like like the middle if bumblefuk either. Plenty of customers come in, some with masks, some not, about 50/50. We do extra cleaning and sanitizing but other then that things aren't much different. We service a lot of other businesses including hospitals. It's pretty unanimous, people are ready to get back to business and back on with their lives.

Nobody needs Trump to get these protests going, people want to get moving again. Not only for the economy but for life itself. Just take some precautions and be aware of the threat and you'll be fine. If you are high risk take extra precautions.

My argument for herd immunity is that it would protect the vulnerable populations more than our current approach. Herd immunity doesn’t mean that everyone will get the virus, it means that most people will get the virus. Once herd immunity is achieved, the remaining people who weren’t infected will be relatively protected by immunity built up by everyone around them.

Right now, we are basically trying to equally slow the spread of the virus among everyone. But if a certain percentage of people are going to be infected eventually regardless of what we do, it makes much more sense to make more effort in differentiating who we make sure to protect.

The universal “flatten the curve approach” might still make sense if it were preventing the breakdown of the health care system. But so far, the evidence suggests that our models have dramatically overestimated the strain on existing healthcare supplies (much more so than it has overestimated infections or deaths).

To be clear, I don’t know if herd immunity is the right approach. We need much more data on asymptomatic prevalence and difference in fatality rates. But I do think it makes sense to make a much greater effort to gather this data.

I don't think anyone who objects to premature reopening of businesses doesn't expect businesses to reopen soon. Some of us think it will be a mistake, even if expected. I understand that people will flock to crowded places as soon as they open, but that doesn't make it a smart thing to do, or mean that it is not a mistake to do so. Yes, that will happen, to open up businesses, and it will inevitably create unsafe conditions that will result in additional illnesses and deaths. In hindsight, some people who are ignoring or denying this reality may wind up agreeing. Others will continue to believe what they want, regardless of what actually happens.

Nobody with a temp above 100.0 is allowed in the hotel, what happens if you're a hotel guest and your temp goes above 100.0? Do you get 86ed from the hotel?

There you go again, acting like an authority when you are clearly not. The example from dictionary.com: "his primary goals in life." See that? It’s plural. Have you heard of primary colors? Do you know how many there are? There are three of them. There are primary effects and secondary effects. I could go on.

Anything else you wish to correct (and fail in doing so)?

yup. they escort you back to your room to get your stuff. Not sure how they contract trace while you were in Casino though.

What do they mean by "arrange transportation"? put a potentially infected person in uber, limo, taxi?

bottom of document

Jesus, that sounds fun, can I pay $400/night to stay there please?

Not sure if I believe in the herd immunity case either. I guess we'll se how things turn out in Sweden. They have volunteered themselves as a test case.

This waaaay over the top. You can isolate/protect those most at risk without shutting the whole world down. There may come a point where it becomes clear that this would have been a far better approach. Not sure we're there yet, but it s certainly a possibility.

I'm glad you agree there is a cost/benefit angle to this. Its pretty much a part of everyone's life every day. But you don't think two months of shutdowns constitutes "considerations"?

The natural state of the world is not for everybody to sit at home while governments pay them to do nothing. Many people naturally object to this. They are not idiots.

It's even better, you even might be charged for room nights after you've been 86'd ?

"Hotel Management will determine the best course of action to handle the outstanding folio on a case by case basis "

Yeah, sounds like a lot of fun, expect lots of repeat business after the initial rush subsides....

^^^^

yes, its going to be a slow grind back to anything close to previous revenue.

But they have to get started somewhere.

What I honestly don't get about the view of "its too early" is "when is it going to be safe?". Some people will die if economies will re-open. and some people will suffer life-altering economic distress and indeed die if things stay shut down. We cannot remain shuttered in until its absolutely safe. There is no such state of reality. There a risks and pros and cons to any approach. But I don't get the sanctimonious view that re-opening is some sort of moral offense.

I don't know about other governments, but in the US, the federal government has come up with a phased and methodical process for re-opening. And people who are privy to significantly more information than any of us, both from a health standpoint and also from a public policy standpoint, have all signed off on this process. I am not going to say that a "plan" is guaranteed to succeed, but why should our default position be to doubt the plan?

At the end of the day, if somebody simply doesn't believe in the plan, or doesn't believe in our leaders, they can always simply abstain. In a free society, it is highly unlikely anyone is going to barge into someone's home and force them to go out and rejoin society. If a location re-opens too early in someone's opinion, they can just stay at home. People with this outlook have a choice. Those who hold a different viewpoint don't have the same choice.

I would say that is an clunky use of the term in an example. They could certainly have chosen better. Its funny that they use that example under their #1 definition:

"first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal:"

That doesn't seem like something that defines a pluralistic thing.

In any case, its sort of silly to keep debating that. I apologize that my attempt to agree with your discussion of "show activity" went awry. I got hung up on your first sentence. The contact transmission stuff is a pet peeve of mine. I liken it to hording toilet paper. Its a psychological thing people do to try to have the semblance of control in a chaotic situation. I feel the same way about the sanitization stuff. Until such time as they show this is significant factor, I view it as just people trying to look like they're doing something.