Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[DisneyDebRob]

You keep downplaying the effectiveness of covid vaccines because it supports your position that we cannot win and should just give up and drop all mitigations. You don’t want to be labeled anti-vaxx but that is in fact anti-vaccine. It’s fine to have that opinion, you are not alone. Many who won’t take the vaccine hear these arguments all day and use it as a reason to not get the vaccine.

Covid vaccines are highly effective and with boosters may get back to the 90%+ we started at. MMR requires boosters to reach full efficacy. Even if the efficacy never hits 95% again it doesn’t have to since covid is half as contagious as measles. You are in a rush to jump to a conclusion since you think that’s the fastest way to dropping masks.

This discussion only highlights why vaccine mandates and passports are the best and only viable path forward. Will they work? Will we get enough people vaccinated? Who knows, but I’m certainly glad the decision makers didn’t just give up.

I’ve been saying since we had a vaccine that the only way to get out of this.. at least quicker is to have mandates and passports. I got a lot of flack early but it seems many are on board now. I’m not saying this is the correct thing to do but knowing how divided this country is, politically, knowing how loud the minority of ant-vax people are, it might be the only way. I just wish it started back then. It’s a guess but I think we would be in much better shape right now.
As for your last sentence, agreed. Worse thing would have been to just give up and let it run it’s course. Keep working on it.

 

[mmascari]

I still ask the question, if we get 80% to 85% of the population vaccinated and community transmission is still "substantial" in a lot of places, where do we go from there? Mitigation forever? Have to wait for vaccine approval for 0-4 year olds?

If 80% to 85%, then we do more. Reduced transmission to an acceptable level. I'm not sure why that's a hard concept. We're not there today. Getting to 0 isn't the goal. Getting to an acceptable level that's manageable is the goal.

The MMR booster is years after the first dose. If COVID boosters are required every 6 months to maintain efficacy, that isn't a vaccine with a booster it's an ongoing prescription. Regardless, I'm not sure that the vaccines ever were 90% effective in preventing infection and transmission of delta.

Didn't the advisory committed just say it wasn't needed that often? That only people in a high risk scenario could use the extra protection because of the high level of spread currently occurring. If we get the spread under control, even that group shouldn't need boosters anymore since the lower spread would already reduce risk.

I'm only "downplaying" the reduction in spread because statements from the CDC and available data show that they are not nearly as effective in that aspect against delta as they were against prior variants.

I get that if the vaccines don’t stop spread that works for your narrative, but we can’t just conclude that because it’s convenient. Well actually you can and have, but the people in charge can’t and haven’t concluded the same.

We know that at a minimum vaccination reduces the transmissibility of the virus. That a vaccinated person is going to infect fewer additional people than an unvaccinated person. Even if we assume that every vaccinated person is just as likely to get infected as an unvaccinated person and assume that they're just as infectious as an unvaccinated person for some period of time. We know that that period of time is shorter for a vaccinated person than an unvaccinated one. Thus, the vaccinated person will pass the virus on to fewer additional people than an unvaccinated person.

As long as that number is less than 1, we'll get there. If it's 0.9 it's going to take a lot longer than if it's 0.1 clearly. If it's still over 1, or even if it's just under but we want to reduce how long it takes, we'll have to do other things beyond just vaccination to push the transmission down.

That could mean lots of surveillance testing or other things to try and spot those vaccinated that are infectious as fast as possible to minimize their contact with others. I'm sure there are others things that could be done too.

But, for now, we've chosen that the only thing we're willing to do on a large enough scale to reduce the pandemic is vaccination. Even that, we're just barely (or not quite) willing to do.

 

[ABQ]

It depends what question you're trying to answer.

CDC for NM:
At least 1 dose, age 65+: 98.3%
At least 1 dose, age 18+: 85.8%
At least 1 dose, age 12+: 84.4%
At least 1 dose, age 0+: 71.9%
Fully Vaccinated, age 65+: 89.1%
Fully Vaccinated, age 18+: 74.7%
Fully Vaccinated, age 12+: 73.2%
Fully Vaccinated, age 0+: 62.4%

Not sure why the state dashboard doesn't match the CDC for the 18+ number, they should agree or be very close based on the label.

If your question is "When will the pandemic come under control and be over?", the only number that matters is the last one, "Fully Vaccinated, age 0+: 62.4%". We know 62.4% isn't anywhere near enough. Likely we need over 80% but no real idea, it's all a guess.

If you're asking other questions, like "How are the most vulnerable protected", "How fast are we progressing", "How many of eligible are progressing", then the different numbers matter.

It's a huge pain and failing in the media reporting. Stories frequently use one of the numbers, sometimes without the qualifier of which one it is like in a headline. Or someone compares two numbers for different areas and they may be fore different groups.

Well that just confuses it even more, why are 0-11 being included when they are currently ineligible? And it confuses the NM DOH numbers even further as per those CDC numbers you provided, it should be 73.2%. Way too much voodoo accounting being done.

 

[Disney Analyst]

If 80% to 85%, then we do more. Reduced transmission to an acceptable level. I'm not sure why that's a hard concept. We're not there today. Getting to 0 isn't the goal. Getting to an acceptable level that's manageable is the goal.

Precisely. We get Covid down to what we consider “end of pandemic” - this means Covid still exists, but when it pops up it’s easy to manage and control.

Kind of like when measles randomly shows up and they get it snuffed out quickly.

 

[aliceismad]

they are being forced to either be vaccinated or lose their job. Not all have clear options. My friend is in HR for a large government contractor. They are instituting a policy of either get vaccinated or be terminated. There is no option for testing in lieu of vaccination.

All large government contractors are going that route. The military and government has gone that route. There are still testing options at some DC agencies, but they're fewer and fewer.

Well that just confuses it even more, why are 0-11 being included when they are currently ineligible? And it confuses the NM DOH numbers even further as per those CDC numbers you provided, it should be 73.2%. Way too much voodoo accounting being done.

Both are valid, but there are reasons to show the data differently. Showing just adults or just eligible population gives an indicator of how successful the push to vaccine it. However, if we're looking at vaccination as a sign of potential herd immunity, kids should be included.

 

[DisneyCane]

If 80% to 85%, then we do more. Reduced transmission to an acceptable level. I'm not sure why that's a hard concept. We're not there today. Getting to 0 isn't the goal. Getting to an acceptable level that's manageable is the goal.


Didn't the advisory committed just say it wasn't needed that often? That only people in a high risk scenario could use the extra protection because of the high level of spread currently occurring. If we get the spread under control, even that group shouldn't need boosters anymore since the lower spread would already reduce risk.




We know that at a minimum vaccination reduces the transmissibility of the virus. That a vaccinated person is going to infect fewer additional people than an unvaccinated person. Even if we assume that every vaccinated person is just as likely to get infected as an unvaccinated person and assume that they're just as infectious as an unvaccinated person for some period of time. We know that that period of time is shorter for a vaccinated person than an unvaccinated one. Thus, the vaccinated person will pass the virus on to fewer additional people than an unvaccinated person.

As long as that number is less than 1, we'll get there. If it's 0.9 it's going to take a lot longer than if it's 0.1 clearly. If it's still over 1, or even if it's just under but we want to reduce how long it takes, we'll have to do other things beyond just vaccination to push the transmission down.

That could mean lots of surveillance testing or other things to try and spot those vaccinated that are infectious as fast as possible to minimize their contact with others. I'm sure there are others things that could be done too.

But, for now, we've chosen that the only thing we're willing to do on a large enough scale to reduce the pandemic is vaccination. Even that, we're just barely (or not quite) willing to do.

What is level is "acceptable?" It is likely that your definition is a lot lower than mine.

I picked 80%-85% because 0-4 y/o aren't going to be eligible anytime soon so that's some percentage. Then there are the medically unable to be vaccinated of a few percent and there's always going to be at least 5% who just won't get vaccinated no matter what on some religious justification or something.

Also, the advisory committee basically said these are the recommendations for now and they will revisit. I'm not anti-booster if the studies show that they are required but mandating a vaccine that has to be constantly boosted is very different from one that is a two dose and done. IF boosters end up being required every 6-8 months to be considered fully vaccinated, the mandate would end up being for an ongoing medical treatment.

 

[DisneyCane]

All large government contractors are going that route. The military and government has gone that route. There are still testing options at some DC agencies, but they're fewer and fewer.

What's going to happen when some percentage of essential workers for military contractors decide to quit because of it and put our military supply at risk? My friend said they were already having trouble filling open positions before the mandate due to the current situation where too many people have opted to remain out of the work force.

 

[mmascari]

Well that just confuses it even more, why are 0-11 being included when they are currently ineligible? And it confuses the NM DOH numbers even further as per those CDC numbers you provided, it should be 73.2%. Way too much voodoo accounting being done.

It depends on the question and context you're trying to answer.

If the question is "How many eligible people are vaccinated?", then NOT including 0-11 makes sense.
If the question is "How close to enough vaccinated to drive down transmission are we?", then you MUST include 0-11, since they can be infectious just like everyone else.

The confusion is when people use the first one to answer the second question. That doesn't work and is misleading.

 

[GoofGoof]

I’ve been saying since we had a vaccine that the only way to get out of this.. at least quicker is to have mandates and passports. I got a lot of flack early but it seems many are on board now. I’m not saying this is the correct thing to do but knowing how divided this country is, politically, knowing how loud the minority of ant-vax people are, it might be the only way. I just wish it started back then. It’s a guess but I think we would be in much better shape right now.
As for your last sentence, agreed. Worse thing would have been to just give up and let it run it’s course. Keep working on it.

I think the timing played out the only way it could. Vaccine passports and vaccine mandates were not popular back when vaccines first came out. Society has evolved to accept them now. We had to take our shot at doing it the less divisive way first and give people the option to decide on their own. Yes, that failed, but if we came out the gate with mandates many more people would have been unhappy. Now 77% of adults have taken the shot so you are only alienating a portion of the other 23%. Still has the potential to add to our broken country but not as large a scale. In recent polling the majority of Americans support workplace vaccine requirements and the majority support passports for certain activity.

 

[GoofGoof]

What's going to happen when some percentage of essential workers for military contractors decide to quit because of it and put our military supply at risk? My friend said they were already having trouble filling open positions before the mandate due to the current situation where too many people have opted to remain out of the work force.

Hire new workers where that job would be a step up for them. Job opportunity for some people . If that doesn’t work then where possible start bringing in fully vaccinated foreign workers to fill in where we can’t find fully vaccinated American workers. People need to work so I don’t think it’s likely that all these people will just stop working. More likely they will complain a lot and then get the shot. I know a handful of people already in my small circle who did just that. Most people complain about their job but also don’t want to have to get a new one.

 

[EpcoTim]

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.

It’s percentages. Did I make more on the stock that went up 50 dollars or the stock that went up 5 dollars?

It’s the same as saying South Dakota is doing better than California because SD only had 900 infections vs California’s 1300 (made up numbers). If you only look at raw numbers, then yes, SD is better than CA. That’s why percentage’s are used. It levels the playing field. There’s a reason they use xxx/100,000 ratio. 6% is 6%, the population size doesn’t matter at that point.

 

[mmascari]

What is level is "acceptable?" It is likely that your definition is a lot lower than mine.

I'm sure it is. We covered this months ago. I'm on the record that 150 daily deaths nationally would do it for me. That's 54K a year. I feel a little guilty that I'm not a 100 daily/36K year person, but it is what it is. There were some 200 daily/73K year people and some larger. I believe you were larger.

We did the math back then and it was something like under 5 cases/100K daily and 0.05 deaths/100K daily I think to hit that level. You could search back to the old posts, I may have a decimal off in one of them. We got there, or pretty close in many places over the summer. I don't think any of them have been able to hold onto that. Looking at NY Times, my county that's at 75% of population fully vaccinated is sitting at 12/100K daily cases and 0.13. We're nowhere near the summer peaks.

If I'm reading our county dashboard right, 22% of people are 0-16 years old and they're 8% of people vaccinated. Not 8% of the group, 8% of all vaccination. It's a strange chart, all the other age groups have larger percent of vaccinations than their percent of age. The age buckets don't match vaccine availability either. Once 5-12 can be vaccinated, I'm sure we'll boost our rate. Probably over 80%, we'll see where it ends. The county dashboard also says 66.8% fully vaccinated and not the 75% shown on the NY Times. Hard to compare between them when they're different.

Also, the advisory committee basically said these are the recommendations for now and they will revisit. I'm not anti-booster if the studies show that they are required but mandating a vaccine that has to be constantly boosted is very different from one that is a two dose and done. IF boosters end up being required every 6-8 months to be considered fully vaccinated, the mandate would end up being for an ongoing medical treatment.

Risk vs function. They approved it for high risk. It seemed to be that time since vaccination had a lot to do with how fast your body was able to respond. Something that's more important for high risk people, or people that are exposed to lots of virus frequently. If we can reduce transmission, we'll reduce how often people are exposed and to how much virus they're exposed to. A rapid personal response will be less important then vs just having a response.

All kinds of things work different when there is lots of spread vs little spread. We need to get to little first.

 

[Cesar R M]

Speaking of parks.. They are not going to check if you're vaccinated or not at the parks?
I'm packing all my papers and I'm wondering if I should have some copies just in case.
As I've heard from a cousin living in San Antonio and other in Houston that some restaurants wont let you in unless you confirm vaccination.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Speaking of parks.. They are not going to check if you're vaccinated or not at the parks?
I'm packing all my papers and I'm wondering if I should have some copies just in case.
As I've heard from a cousin living in San Antonio and other in Houston that some restaurants wont let you in unless you confirm vaccination.

In Florida? Requiring proof of vaccination for anything is highly unlikely.

At most I could see vaccines required for indoor dining. That's something in place in different areas.

For entry to a theme park? Unlikely because, a) Florida and b) it seems impractical to verify vaccination status for such large groups of people.

I'd bring paperwork just in case. You never know what could change and better to be prepared just in case.

 

[mmascari]

It’s percentages. Did I make more on the stock that went up 50 dollars or the stock that went up 5 dollars?

It’s the same as saying South Dakota is doing better than California because SD only had 900 infections vs California’s 1300 (made up numbers). If you only look at raw numbers, then yes, SD is better than CA. That’s why percentage’s are used. It levels the playing field. There’s a reason they use xxx/100,000 ratio. 6% is 6%, the population size doesn’t matter at that point.

It's not a straight forward as that. It reduces everything to 100 possible buckets or 1,000 if you use an extra digit.

If you have a family of 2, and 1 of them get's sick, that's 50%. That's not comparable to 13,000,000 people in FL getting sick at the same time.

The 2 turned into 100 buckets doesn't compare well with 26,000,000 turned into 100 buckets. They're just to different.

The sick people in VT are not 50 times more sick than the ones in FL.

If you want to compare VT and NH, two things of relatively equal size, yet not equal, then it works great. Once the size difference it to large, it hides the true impact.

 

[danlb_2000]

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.

You keep posting the death numbers for children, but where are the numbers for other negative outcomes? You are confident that COVID is not a risk for children, so you must have also looked at those numbers. I would be interested in seeing them.

Also, as has been discussed many times, large numbers of unvaccinated people getting sick also impacts the vaccinated indirectly in many ways.

As for "Then what", the answer is, we don't know yet. There is no easy answer to getting out of the pandemic, we need to take it a step at a time, and keep adjusting our approach until we find answers.

 

[Heppenheimer]

What's going to happen when some percentage of essential workers for military contractors decide to quit because of it and put our military supply at risk? My friend said they were already having trouble filling open positions before the mandate due to the current situation where too many people have opted to remain out of the work force.

With COVID raging through the country , how well do you think we'd manage right now if a hypothetical war broke out? Something has to give, and if it takes mandates and finding new people to fill slots, so be it. We can't continue with a situation where a crucial part of our ability to deploy and support military personnel could suddenly shut down due to a largely preventable illness.

And just to provide some bona fides, I was an army active duty physician in my previous life. Got deployed three times, did thousands of pre-and-post deployment physicals for soldiers and civilians. So, you might say I know a little bit about keeping the fighting force healthy.

 

[JoeCamel]

It’s percentages. Did I make more on the stock that went up 50 dollars or the stock that went up 5 dollars?

It’s the same as saying South Dakota is doing better than California because SD only had 900 infections vs California’s 1300 (made up numbers). If you only look at raw numbers, then yes, SD is better than CA. That’s why percentage’s are used. It levels the playing field. There’s a reason they use xxx/100,000 ratio. 6% is 6%, the population size doesn’t matter at that point.

But population density does matter and total population is usually associated with more people interacting with each other. Nothing is comparable unless you consider all the factors and we just don't get enough information show that x is better than y if they are made up of different communities of size.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Remember when Florida's stats on cases, positivity, and hospitalization started to decline from this current wave and a bunch of people were like all "whew! let's focus on projections of when this nightmare ends!"? Even *before* those stats crested, people were pointing to the day it will be done with and all will be right.

Well... they were forgetting something.... the lagging death rate:

BTW, that still over 8,000 people in the hospital every day with severe illness or close-to-death suffering from COVID.

And that's just Florida.

So, maybe instead of being anxious about the positivity rate in Orange County so you don't have to wear a mask to watch PhilharMagic, we can keep some perspective that we're still in the middle of a world-wide pandemic.

 

[Heppenheimer]

You keep posting the death numbers for children, but where are the numbers for other negative outcomes? You are confident that COVID is not a risk for children, so you must have also looked at those numbers. I would be interested in seeing them.

Also, as has been discussed many times, large numbers of unvaccinated people getting sick also impacts the vaccinated indirectly in many ways.

As for "Then what", the answer is, we don't know yet. There is no easy answer to getting out of the pandemic, we need to take it a step at a time, and keep adjusting our approach until we find answers.

And we haven't even fully committed to the first step yet.