Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[ArmoredRodent]

The answer is simple: if a forum is not owned by the government then it is a private forum just like any building not owned by the government is a private building. In both cases, the government has no right to censor you, but the owner of the forum or building can say, "We don't tolerate that here. Get out."

Actually, not so simple as that. Private fora must sometimes respect others' right of free expression: Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) (students have the right under California Constitution to circulate initiative petitions in a private shopping center that doesn't want them). Governments can often close its own buildings and grounds to free speech: Pleasant Grove v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government can refuse to permit expressive statue to be placed on government land). You have to look at who is speaking, the content of the speech, and the circumstances of the speech.

One rule of thumb I have long used is the "speech spectrum:" speech can be placed on a spectrum of restrictions and freedoms on expression. The closer speech is to core government functions (including, but not limited to, government's own speech), the more power the government has to limit it. The further away from core government functions (personal beliefs), the greater the burden on government to show that it has the power to limit the speech. These can be tough decisions (as is true in most Supreme Court questions). For example, an extensive set of cases involving this question were decided in the 1990's, including those involving government employees' personal expression vs. government's desire to manage its own activities, control its own funds and protect against erroneous decisions.

 

[ArmoredRodent]

Any treatment aimed at the nasal mucosa could be a potential game-changer. As effective as the vaccines are in protecting the lungs, the antibodies induced by them can't penetrate the nasal mucosa nearly as well, So, the ability to deny the virus its initial temporary safe haven in the body could cut vastly cut down on the rate of asymptomatic spread.

I've often wondered about this area of research using existing medications. For example, Nasalcrom (Cromoglicic acid or cromolyn sodium) is an OTC nasal mast cell stabilizer, long used as the non-corticosteroid treatment of choice in the treatment of asthma, for which it has largely been replaced by leukotriene receptor antagonists because of their convenience (and perceived safety), and in treating allergies. A bunch of studies have come out in the last two years touting some success using Nasalcrom against a whole series of conditions; in several cases the actual cause-and-effect is unknown. It also (at least in my case) also produces a substantial physical barrier of "crusts" (commonly known as "boogers").

Last year, Nasalcrom was one of a number of drugs tested as emergency treatments. https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1252 ("In summary, Cromolyn may be effective in decreasing inflammation, ARDS, and cytokine storm in COVID 19 patients. It may also reduce viral replication and systemic inflammation, in particular cardiac inflammation."). But I haven't seen anything promising come out recently on direct inhibition of the Covid virus. I'm assuming that it wouldn't work as @Heppenheimer was suggesting, but perhaps because it was tested only as a mediator, not as a blocker. But I'm not capable of figuring that out.

 

[October82]

Each wave has corresponded to a different varient, FL had its summer wave 2020 which was the wild (Wuhan) type virus, its 2020 winter wave from alpha, which was not as bad due to partial protection from the last wave, and 2021 summer wave from delta. Barring a more infectious varient (and it’s going to get hard to get more infectious from delta) there shouldn’t be another one.

There's little evidence that the behavior of "seasonal" viruses is caused by variants or specific new mutations. Cyclical behavior is driven primarily by behavioral modifications, in the case of influenza, by the time spent indoors in the winter. In the case of Covid-19, masking and social distancing. We can expect continued large spikes in infection until measures are in place that control community spread. This might be high vaccination numbers or it might be permanent changes to work habits.

I would be surprised if we don't see another substantial wave of infections unless the vaccination numbers improve substantially.

 

[DCBaker]

"After weeks of internal strife at the Food and Drug Administration, the agency on Wednesday authorized people over 65 who had received Pfizer-BioNTech’s coronavirus vaccine to get a booster shot at least six months after their second injection.

The F.D.A. also authorized booster shots for adult Pfizer-BioNTech recipients who are at high risk of becoming severely ill with Covid-19 or are at risk of serious complications from the disease due to frequent exposure to the coronavirus at their jobs."

"The F.D.A.’s decision will be followed as soon as Thursday by a recommendation from the C.D.C., which issues guidance on vaccine policy for clinicians and public health officials throughout the United States. An advisory committee of the C.D.C. is now in the midst of a two-day meeting on the issue. But even if the C.D.C. takes a different stance, health care providers are now authorized to offer third shots to Pfizer-BioNTech recipients who meet the F.D.A.’s eligibility criteria."

F.D.A. Authorizes Pfizer Booster Shots for Older and At-Risk Americans (Published 2021)

Regulators said that people over 65 or at high risk of severe Covid-19 were eligible for an extra shot, setting up a staggered national booster campaign.

www.nytimes.com

 

[ABQ]

When is moderna going to get its FDA approval for its initial dose?

 

[DisneyDebRob]

When is moderna going to get its FDA approval for its initial dose?

They were about a month behind Pfizer..so if it follows the same path, maybe in a few weeks? It’s a guess, only going by the timeline of Pfizer. Someone else here may know better then my guess.

 

[ABQ]

They were about a month behind Pfizer..so if it follows the same path, maybe in a few weeks? It’s a guess, only going by the timeline of Pfizer. Someone else here may know better then my guess.

That's what has me concerned, not over safety or anything, just timing, Pfizer got its EUA one week prior to Moderna back in December, 11th and 18th respectively, and then its full FDA approval on August 27th. Hopefully soon, as I'm dealing with someone that FINALLY got their 1st dose of Moderna less than a month ago and is wishy washy on dose 2. At the time, which it was lucky at all to get them into a CVS for a shot, Moderna was what was available.

 

[EpcoTim]

Vermont looks "bad" in the rate per 100K because there's nobody in VT generally speaking (apologies to @Heppenheimer). Assuming my math is correct, VT has about 600K people, total. While FL has 34 times more people. So, if a large family of 6 all catches COVID the VT rate/100K goes up 1. Say, a family that's back from a FL vacation. In FL, to move the rate up 1/100K that family would need to be 215 people.

It's the same problem looking at the percents. Each individual person in VT contributes to a much larger change in percent than a single person in FL. The huge difference in size between VT and FL makes even trying to use a normalized metric questionable.

I bought 1000 shares of a stock at 20 dollars a share. It went up 5 dollars.

At the same time I bought 100 shares of a stock at 200 dollars a share. It went up 50 dollars.

Which stock was the better purchase?

 

[Bullseye1967]

I bought 1000 shares of a stock at 20 dollars a share. It went up 5 dollars.

At the same time I bought 100 shares of a stock at 200 dollars a share. It went up 50 dollars.

Which stock was the better purchase?

You made the same off both so depends on your brokerage fee. Probably the 100 shares.

 

[EpcoTim]

You made the same off both so depends on your brokerage fee. Probably the 100 shares.

Thank you, Bullseye.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I've often wondered about this area of research using existing medications. For example, Nasalcrom (Cromoglicic acid or cromolyn sodium) is an OTC nasal mast cell stabilizer, long used as the non-corticosteroid treatment of choice in the treatment of asthma, for which it has largely been replaced by leukotriene receptor antagonists because of their convenience (and perceived safety), and in treating allergies. A bunch of studies have come out in the last two years touting some success using Nasalcrom against a whole series of conditions; in several cases the actual cause-and-effect is unknown. It also (at least in my case) also produces a substantial physical barrier of "crusts" (commonly known as "boogers").

Last year, Nasalcrom was one of a number of drugs tested as emergency treatments. https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1252 ("In summary, Cromolyn may be effective in decreasing inflammation, ARDS, and cytokine storm in COVID 19 patients. It may also reduce viral replication and systemic inflammation, in particular cardiac inflammation."). But I haven't seen anything promising come out recently on direct inhibition of the Covid virus. I'm assuming that it wouldn't work as @Heppenheimer was suggesting, but perhaps because it was tested only as a mediator, not as a blocker. But I'm not capable of figuring that out.

That was back when they were trying to calm the 'cytokine storm.' As a mast cell stabilizer it keeps histamine from blowing up all your cells to stop an infection, whether it be a real one, or in the case of a allergy, an imagined threat. I've used it for allergies, and at the OTC dosage, it takes a few days to start working, which isn't promising if someone is in danger of immediate death. I don't know what a higher dose might do, tho.

Anyway, I haven't heard of cromolyn as a therapy. But back then, they were throwing everything that *might* work to see if anything works. I think they rely on other anti-inflammatory agents now.

Cytokine storm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nubs70]

You made the same off both so depends on your brokerage fee. Probably the 100 shares.

Technically, only action mentioned was the purchase of shares. The improved situation is only on paper.

Are there dividends associated with either stock.

 

[Kevin_W]

When is moderna going to get its FDA approval for its initial dose?

Good question. Pfizer submitted for full approval on May 7 and Moderna in early June. Pfizer was approved August 27, so by that timing one would think Moderna would be any day now.

The approval process is interesting to watch as anyone in the medical comunity or even discussing it treats it as a 100% assurance that it will be approved. And yet we wait months.

 

[DisneyCane]

I assume we know absolutely nothing other than what history has taught us, which is that vaccines work.

My issue (and many others have the same issue with this poster) is that this particular person tends to downplay the ultimate solution, which is getting shots in arms.

No, this particular person doesn't "downplay" getting shots in the arms. In fact, I have promoted people getting vaccinated including convincing (or trying to convince) people that I know personally.

I also constantly say that they are extremely effective in preventing severe illness and death. Not the 95%+ level that it first looked to be but very high and to the point where it will make death from COVID a statistically insignificant risk compared to the risk of death from any and all other causes. That doesn't mean that no fully vaccinated people will ever die from COVID.

What I am downplaying is the effect the vaccines have on reducing cases because there seems to be an attitude by many (including those in power) that we need mitigations until community transmission is "low enough." They are selling vaccine mandates and passports as necessary to get cases low enough to remove other mitigations and return to "normal." Data from high vaccination rate places like Vermont, Israel and the UK indicate that forcing people to be vaccinated (many of whom have already had COVID and are likely naturally protected) will not suppress spread to a "low enough" level.

Then what? My very consistent opinion since vaccines have become readily available is that since the vaccines work so well to reduce risks of serious outcomes from becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, no mitigation should be mandated to protect the unvaccinated. People will argue that 5-11 year old people can't be vaccinated which would be a valid point if data didn't show that children under 12 are at practically no risk from COVID. I posted the death numbers for under 12 from the CDC yesterday to prove this as a fact. IIRC, COVID deaths in children was 79 for the entire 18 month pandemic.

Then they'll argue that there are immunocompromised adults for whom the vaccines aren't very effective or other adults who can't be vaccinated due to other medical reasons. Unfortunately, these people will have to take extreme precautions long term because SARS-CoV-2 is likely to be spreading at some level for years or eternity regardless of how many people are vaccinated or what mitigations are in place.

This particular person got the Moderna vaccine as soon as I could which was before my age was even eligible (due to a spare dose) so it is ridiculous that people are trying to paint me as anti-vax because they don't want to believe the the data about what the vaccines do and what they don't do.

 

[Heppenheimer]

That was back when they were trying to calm the 'cytokine storm.' As a mast cell stabilizer it keeps histamine from blowing up all your cells to stop an infection, whether it be a real one, or in the case of a allergy, an imagined threat. I've used it for allergies, and at the OTC dosage, it takes a few days to start working, which isn't promising if someone is in danger of immediate death. I don't know what a higher dose might do, tho.

Anyway, I haven't heard of cromolyn as a therapy. But back then, they were throwing everything that *might* work to see if anything works. I think they rely on other anti-inflammatory agents now.

Cytokine storm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Corticosteroids. In this manner, COVID-19 is no different from any other cause of adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), other than triggering ARDS at an alarmingly high frequency. Of note, the corticosteroids don't directly help fight the infection (in theory, they would do the opposite). Rather, they dampen the out-of-control immune response that causes more harm than the actual virus. This is why any product that claims to "boost your immune system" should probably be viewed with suspicion (the exceptions being approved vaccines and one particular group of medications given to some people on chemotherapy). Activation of the immune system is obviously important to fighting an infection, but equally important is the ability to down-regulate the immune response so that it doesn't cause more damage than the pathogen it's trying to fight.

EDIT: And another reason why I roll my eyes when people refuse vaccination because they "trust their immune system".

 

[mmascari]

I bought 1000 shares of a stock at 20 dollars a share. It went up 5 dollars.

At the same time I bought 100 shares of a stock at 200 dollars a share. It went up 50 dollars.

Which stock was the better purchase?

What does share vs the stock vs the price increase represent in this analogy?

So confused and no idea how this relates to the VT or FL COVID spread. I cannot find a way to relate any of those values to the stats that makes sense. All the combinations break down, unless COVID in VT is 10 times worse than COVID in FL. Which doesn't seem likely.

 

[correcaminos]

No, this particular person doesn't "downplay" getting shots in the arms. In fact, I have promoted people getting vaccinated including convincing (or trying to convince) people that I know personally.

I also constantly say that they are extremely effective in preventing severe illness and death. Not the 95%+ level that it first looked to be but very high and to the point where it will make death from COVID a statistically insignificant risk compared to the risk of death from any and all other causes. That doesn't mean that no fully vaccinated people will ever die from COVID.

What I am downplaying is the effect the vaccines have on reducing cases because there seems to be an attitude by many (including those in power) that we need mitigations until community transmission is "low enough." They are selling vaccine mandates and passports as necessary to get cases low enough to remove other mitigations and return to "normal." Data from high vaccination rate places like Vermont, Israel and the UK indicate that forcing people to be vaccinated (many of whom have already had COVID and are likely naturally protected) will not suppress spread to a "low enough" level.

Then what? My very consistent opinion since vaccines have become readily available is that since the vaccines work so well to reduce risks of serious outcomes from becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, no mitigation should be mandated to protect the unvaccinated. People will argue that 5-11 year old people can't be vaccinated which would be a valid point if data didn't show that children under 12 are at practically no risk from COVID. I posted the death numbers for under 12 from the CDC yesterday to prove this as a fact. IIRC, COVID deaths in children was 79 for the entire 18 month pandemic.

Then they'll argue that there are immunocompromised adults for whom the vaccines aren't very effective or other adults who can't be vaccinated due to other medical reasons. Unfortunately, these people will have to take extreme precautions long term because SARS-CoV-2 is likely to be spreading at some level for years or eternity regardless of how many people are vaccinated or what mitigations are in place.

This particular person got the Moderna vaccine as soon as I could which was before my age was even eligible (due to a spare dose) so it is ridiculous that people are trying to paint me as anti-vax because they don't want to believe the the data about what the vaccines do and what they don't do.

How many times do we have to say it's not the risk to kids that is the issue, but the spread the kids create. One of the few breakthrough cases I know was because kid at school got it (and was pretty sick, but not horrid) and gave it to one vaccinated parent. The vaccinated parent was super high risk, works in a hospital etc (not with covid patients) but they know the kid gave it to them as the kid tested then the adult and other unvaccinated family members. I am glad my friend was vaccinated because the case would've been way worse most likely.

While kids that age I think are higher risk from something like the flu, that's not what I care about.

You want mitigations and stuff to end. Can you seriously just wait another month or so? Your itchiness to remove everything and fight against theoretical passports - which aren't happening in most places in the US - is really coming across as a political push and not really caring to bring the pandemic to good levels. Uncool and if you miss that, then I don't know what else to say. You're abrupt change is noticeable by many.

 

[mmascari]

Testing way down too

State	Date	Daily Test Volume	7-Day % Positivity
Florida	Sep 19, 2021	N/A	0
Florida	Sep 18, 2021	N/A	0
Florida	Sep 17, 2021	29,881	11.32
Florida	Sep 16, 2021	67,373	11.69
Florida	Sep 15, 2021	96,071	12.1
Florida	Sep 14, 2021	112,550	12.64
Florida	Sep 13, 2021	133,475	13.07
Florida	Sep 12, 2021	62,769	13.45
Florida	Sep 11, 2021	56,666	13.64
Florida	Sep 10, 2021	97,627	13.78
Florida	Sep 9, 2021	107,506	13.75
Florida	Sep 8, 2021	116,475	13.91
Florida	Sep 7, 2021	155,414	13.95
Florida	Sep 6, 2021	57,073	14.16
Florida	Sep 5, 2021	65,960	14.45
Florida	Sep 4, 2021	75,686	14.58
Florida	Sep 3, 2021	128,190	14.69
Florida	Sep 2, 2021	133,415	15.11
Florida	Sep 1, 2021	140,138	15.49
Florida	Aug 31, 2021	144,308	16.05
Florida	Aug 30, 2021	160,343	16.58

Unless it's all getting backfilled in every day and all those test numbers in the last 2 weeks are junk that's still changing and not useful to look at.

It's all getting backfilled. No sense looking at the CDC testing volume for FL for anything in the most recent two weeks. Cannot be used to tell how cases vs testing vs positivity really look. It all changes.

State	Date	Daily Test Volume	7-Day % Positivity
Florida	Sep 21, 2021	N/A	0
Florida	Sep 20, 2021	N/A	0
Florida	Sep 19, 2021	18,042	10.4
Florida	Sep 18, 2021	39,139	10.65
Florida	Sep 17, 2021	81,071	10.89
Florida	Sep 16, 2021	98,524	11.34
Florida	Sep 15, 2021	110,226	11.8
Florida	Sep 14, 2021	130,880	12.4
Florida	Sep 13, 2021	147,094	12.96
Florida	Sep 12, 2021	63,079	13.44
Florida	Sep 11, 2021	56,852	13.63
Florida	Sep 10, 2021	98,025	13.77
Florida	Sep 9, 2021	107,790	13.74
Florida	Sep 8, 2021	117,444	13.9
Florida	Sep 7, 2021	156,285	13.94
Florida	Sep 6, 2021	57,124	14.16
Florida	Sep 5, 2021	65,966	14.45
Florida	Sep 4, 2021	75,711	14.58
Florida	Sep 3, 2021	128,231	14.69
Florida	Sep 2, 2021	133,437	15.1
Florida	Sep 1, 2021	140,155	15.49
Florida	Aug 31, 2021	144,444	16.05
Florida	Aug 30, 2021	160,367	16.58

I tried to bold all the dates with new case counts, it was the entire table back to 8/30. Some days by just a couple of cases, some days by tens of thousands. The 7-Day % Positivity updates each day too, presumably because the test data changed.

What this tells me is that that we can look at the @DCBaker post of the FL press announcements weekly. We can look at the CDC numbers from 2 to 4 weeks ago, but anything more recent on the CDC site is suspect. It may just be a mirage and all shift over the next few weeks. If it matches the death and case data, after a month it seems to stop shifting.

Meaning, watching the most recent CDC data to see if we've turned a corner or are on the downslope is very suspect. It could all change. Looking at the CDC data today to know where we were a month ago looks pretty good. It's just super delayed.

 

[dreday3]

It's all getting backfilled. No sense looking at the CDC testing volume for FL for anything in the most recent two weeks. Cannot be used to tell how cases vs testing vs positivity really look. It all changes.

State	Date	Daily Test Volume	7-Day % Positivity
Florida	Sep 21, 2021	N/A	0
Florida	Sep 20, 2021	N/A	0
Florida	Sep 19, 2021	18,042	10.4
Florida	Sep 18, 2021	39,139	10.65
Florida	Sep 17, 2021	81,071	10.89
Florida	Sep 16, 2021	98,524	11.34
Florida	Sep 15, 2021	110,226	11.8
Florida	Sep 14, 2021	130,880	12.4
Florida	Sep 13, 2021	147,094	12.96
Florida	Sep 12, 2021	63,079	13.44
Florida	Sep 11, 2021	56,852	13.63
Florida	Sep 10, 2021	98,025	13.77
Florida	Sep 9, 2021	107,790	13.74
Florida	Sep 8, 2021	117,444	13.9
Florida	Sep 7, 2021	156,285	13.94
Florida	Sep 6, 2021	57,124	14.16
Florida	Sep 5, 2021	65,966	14.45
Florida	Sep 4, 2021	75,711	14.58
Florida	Sep 3, 2021	128,231	14.69
Florida	Sep 2, 2021	133,437	15.1
Florida	Sep 1, 2021	140,155	15.49
Florida	Aug 31, 2021	144,444	16.05
Florida	Aug 30, 2021	160,367	16.58

I tried to bold all the dates with new case counts, it was the entire table back to 8/30. Some days by just a couple of cases, some days by tens of thousands. The 7-Day % Positivity updates each day too, presumably because the test data changed.

What this tells me is that that we can look at the @DCBaker post of the FL press announcements weekly. We can look at the CDC numbers from 2 to 4 weeks ago, but anything more recent on the CDC site is suspect. It may just be a mirage and all shift over the next few weeks. If it matches the death and case data, after a month it seems to stop shifting.

Meaning, watching the most recent CDC data to see if we've turned a corner or are on the downslope is very suspect. It could all change. Looking at the CDC data today to know where we were a month ago looks pretty good. It's just super delayed.

sooo....are cases going down in Florida or not? I feel like when I read @DCBaker 's posts that hospitalizations are decreasing just about every day and cases are slowly decreasing. Right?

I'm confused.

 

[Touchdown]

It's all getting backfilled. No sense looking at the CDC testing volume for FL for anything in the most recent two weeks. Cannot be used to tell how cases vs testing vs positivity really look. It all changes.

State	Date	Daily Test Volume	7-Day % Positivity
Florida	Sep 21, 2021	N/A	0
Florida	Sep 20, 2021	N/A	0
Florida	Sep 19, 2021	18,042	10.4
Florida	Sep 18, 2021	39,139	10.65
Florida	Sep 17, 2021	81,071	10.89
Florida	Sep 16, 2021	98,524	11.34
Florida	Sep 15, 2021	110,226	11.8
Florida	Sep 14, 2021	130,880	12.4
Florida	Sep 13, 2021	147,094	12.96
Florida	Sep 12, 2021	63,079	13.44
Florida	Sep 11, 2021	56,852	13.63
Florida	Sep 10, 2021	98,025	13.77
Florida	Sep 9, 2021	107,790	13.74
Florida	Sep 8, 2021	117,444	13.9
Florida	Sep 7, 2021	156,285	13.94
Florida	Sep 6, 2021	57,124	14.16
Florida	Sep 5, 2021	65,966	14.45
Florida	Sep 4, 2021	75,711	14.58
Florida	Sep 3, 2021	128,231	14.69
Florida	Sep 2, 2021	133,437	15.1
Florida	Sep 1, 2021	140,155	15.49
Florida	Aug 31, 2021	144,444	16.05
Florida	Aug 30, 2021	160,367	16.58

I tried to bold all the dates with new case counts, it was the entire table back to 8/30. Some days by just a couple of cases, some days by tens of thousands. The 7-Day % Positivity updates each day too, presumably because the test data changed.

What this tells me is that that we can look at the @DCBaker post of the FL press announcements weekly. We can look at the CDC numbers from 2 to 4 weeks ago, but anything more recent on the CDC site is suspect. It may just be a mirage and all shift over the next few weeks. If it matches the death and case data, after a month it seems to stop shifting.

Meaning, watching the most recent CDC data to see if we've turned a corner or are on the downslope is very suspect. It could all change. Looking at the CDC data today to know where we were a month ago looks pretty good. It's just super delayed.

Except hospitalizations are downtrending on a consistent basis which is super easy to report and is more up to date. It’s also a lagging indicator to cases, Florida is definitely in its rapid decline phase. Will be interesting to see when it bottoms out.