Man dies on Expedition Everest

From what I've personally observed, if something happens to you at
WDW, there are procedures and protocols to make sure you're taken
care of as quickly as poissble. One year at the Candlelight
Procession, an elderly gentleman seated next to us collapsed. My dh
did a cursory once over of the old guy, while I called over a CM.
There was an EMS crew with a loaded golf cart there within 4 to 5
minutes. Outstanding

My husband just told me that one of his crews ran a 28 year old
cardiac arrest in a gym yesterday and they couldn't get him back.
Difference is, nobody will ever hear about it and the gym's name won't
be drug through the mud while the medical examiner investigates.
There are 15 year olds who die from brain aneurisms every day. If
you're born with a time bomb ticking, it's going to explode somewhere,
sometime.

The ride on the carousel of life just isn't the same for everyone.
It's sad, but true, and Walt Disney World rarely has anything to do
with it.

-Fizzie

On Dec 19, 11:42 am, Rudeney <rude...@mickeypics.com> wrote:
> Steve Russo wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 10:09 am, Rudeney <rude...@mickeypics.com> wrote:
>
> >> I hate that ExE is closed for DS and his GF, but then again, I can't say
> >> I hate the negative publicity. Maybe this will scare some people away
> >> from WDW. Not enough to hurt the company, but enough to make them add
> >> back a few discounts and keep the crowds manageable! ;-)
>
> > Let's take this to the next step. If we all cooperate and injure a
> > random guest on a ride, the word will spread that WDW is unsafe.
>
> Do these *have8 to be random guests, or could we injure people that
> annoy us, like line-breakers, table-savers, breast-feeders, etc.?
>

I'm afraid so. If word got out that we were only targeting say...
breastfeeding Brazilian line-cutters or refillable-mug owning smokers
that are holding tables, then the rest of society would feel safe. We
don't want that.

> > Fewer
> > people will vacation there, parks will be uncrowded and discounts will
> > come back. Where's the down side?
>
> The only down side is making sure we don;t over-do it. If too many
> people get scared away and attendance really drops, then there will be
> cutbacks, closures, etc.
>
> > Now keep in mind, I'm not saying we should kill and maim but,
> > obviously, we need to inflict enough damage to interest the Orlando
> > Sentinel - basically anything that requires a band-aid or a good
> > squirt of Bactine. We could even enlist some local street gangs to
> > help... or has that been done already?
>
> Hmm, good idea! And then we could even profit ourselves by writing a
> book - "Staying Safe at WDW!" ;-)
>
> --

"So... You're Going to Disney World - Bring Kevlar"

Two years ago (next week), I was feeling so bad that my wife and
daughter made me call for an ambulance from DAK Lodge. Within minutes
the resort's service manager was in my room, and almost immediately
after that the EMS showed up and took me to the hospital where I was
diagnosed with Congestive Heart Failure. Fast response - no issue with
that at all.

Mark

"Rudeney" <rudeney@mickeypics.com> wrote in message
news:eOSdnTWljeQqFffanZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com ...

> Of course it comes as no surprise that half of the article was about the
> lack of AED's (defibrillators) at WDW. They slant the story to try to
> make the reader believe that Disney just hasn't put enough of these in
> place so maybe they are to blame. Ironically, then mention that a unit
> was just a few hundred feet from ExE, but I guess that's not good
> enough.

This is a bit surprising - given that there are lots of AED devices
scattered around WDW, one would think a likely location within the parks
would be *at* the thrill rides. On the surface, and from experience, that
seems to be the most likely area for incidents to occur.

This doesn't mean I put any *blame* on Disney - it just seems like a
no-brainer when deciding where to place the devices. A thrill ride is more
likely to induce a cardiac incident than a bird landing on your hand to take
a dollar bill. Not sure what the rule of thumb is - maybe something like "a
device every 200 yards (or whatever the number might be), including one at
the load/unload area of every thrill ride, but none at 'Sounds Dangerous',
which is proven unable to produce a thrill of any kind."

DJJ

"Rudeney" <rudeney@mickeypics.com> wrote in message
news:eZednWCGcY-zNPfanZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@giganews.com...
> Darrell Jefress wrote:

> > but none at 'Sounds Dangerous',
> > which is proven unable to produce a thrill of any kind."
>
> LOL! Well, except that a person might nearly die from boredom and need
> an AED to be resuscitated.

The danger is that when the lights come up at the end of "SD", near
everyone looks like they might be unconscious, and the units would be in
constant use. They'd need to hand out t-shirts at the entrance with the
infamous words "don't taze me, bro!"

DJJ

> That averages a little less than 1 death per year.
> Considering that 54 million people visit WDW/DL in a year, you have a better
> chance of winning the lottery.

Considering the average person lives about 700,000 hours and people
spend 400,000,000 hours at WDWDL, thats good odds.

"Charlie Foxtrot" <Bennett6570@msn.com> wrote in message
news:hi8om3d2am412btsnbc3jgtsqrvrfdb9or@...

> So you're math says that the average person spends a little over 57%
> of their life at WDW?
>
> Whoa. To think I figured those of us in RADP spent an unusual amount
> of time there. We got some catching up to do with the general
> population!

Check your numbers again, Charlie.

The 700,000 hours looks to be the lifespan of an individual who lives to age
80.

Meanwhile, the 400,000,000 (three extra zeros) I'm *guessing* is an estimate
of the total number of "person-hours" spent by guests at WDW in a given
year. That's about 45,000 guests, 24 hours a day for 365 days. Round it up
a bit to account for day guests, and down a bit if the resorts aren't quite
that full, . . . . .

.. . . . . . and I think rick's conclusion was that we might expect about 570
guest deaths a year (the ratio of those two numbers) on property. Lower
that by an order of magnitude because the elderly and infirm are less likely
to be at WDW, and the actual numbers are still looking pretty good.

As for the appearance of math on radp, to quote Bruce Willis, "don't be
nervous, I'm a professional".

"DJJ"

"Darrell Jefress" <evely7@tokyo.com> wrote in message
news:1IVaj.298056$kj1.180973@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Charlie Foxtrot" <Bennett6570@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:hi8om3d2am412btsnbc3jgtsqrvrfdb9or@...
>
>> So you're math says that the average person spends a little over 57%
>> of their life at WDW?
>>
>> Whoa. To think I figured those of us in RADP spent an unusual amount
>> of time there. We got some catching up to do with the general
>> population!
>
> Check your numbers again, Charlie.
>
> The 700,000 hours looks to be the lifespan of an individual who lives to
> age
> 80.
>
> Meanwhile, the 400,000,000 (three extra zeros) I'm *guessing* is an
> estimate
> of the total number of "person-hours" spent by guests at WDW in a given
> year. That's about 45,000 guests, 24 hours a day for 365 days. Round it
> up
> a bit to account for day guests, and down a bit if the resorts aren't
> quite
> that full, . . . . .
>
> . . . . . . and I think rick's conclusion was that we might expect about
> 570
> guest deaths a year (the ratio of those two numbers) on property. Lower
> that by an order of magnitude because the elderly and infirm are less
> likely
> to be at WDW, and the actual numbers are still looking pretty good.
>
> As for the appearance of math on radp, to quote Bruce Willis, "don't be
> nervous, I'm a professional".
>
> "DJJ"

Now you're cooking, only the OP said "WDWDL". I'm not an acronym guy, but I
think that includes Disneyland as well.

"Ed" <friday@fishinthe.net> wrote in message
news:FjWaj.88$Pt6.38@trndny07...

> Now you're cooking, only the OP said "WDWDL". I'm not an acronym guy, but
I
> think that includes Disneyland as well.

I can buy that. The only difference is that one would need to re-work the
calculations somewhat because far fewer DL guests stay overnight. I've
passed through the DL/DCA gates maybe as many as 500 times in my life, but
I've not yet spent my first night on property. (Unless you count the night
that I sat at the front gate until 2:30 in the morning waiting for what I
*thought* was my girlfriend, only to find out she had gone out the back way
through the CM lot.)

DJJ