Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[correcaminos]

Yep, nobody in the US has the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Pfizer vaccine still had a benefit even months later. Compelling evidence….but you keep digging

Bringing to reality. Unless I am messed up in what I thought, this could have implications on J&J vaccines. It is important to understand that all might not be great here. Plus as parts of trials even US citizens can be vaccinated with this. AZ/Oxford called me.... not to mention globally.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Yep, nobody in the US has the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Pfizer vaccine still had a benefit even months later. Compelling evidence….but you keep digging

Presumably the USA will at some point allow tourists who have AZ to return, so it could matter.

Regardless, either way, that was a screenshot of text. No link to a study or any evidence. It means nothing.

 

[Nubs70]

Presumably the USA will at some point allow tourists who have AZ to return, so it could matter.

Regardless, either way, that was a screenshot of text. No link to a study or any evidence. It means nothing.

Here is the source material.

Vaccinated people are less likely to spread Covid, new research finds

British scientists examined how the Pfizer-BioNTech and the AstraZeneca vaccines affected the spread of the virus if a person had a breakthrough infection.

www.yahoo.com

It's from the same article.

 

[Nubs70]

Bringing to reality. Unless I am messed up in what I thought, this could have implications on J&J vaccines. It is important to understand that all might not be great here. Plus as parts of trials even US citizens can be vaccinated with this. AZ/Oxford called me.... not to mention globally.

Careful, you may be discussing things. That is highly discouraged.

 

[correcaminos]

Careful, you may be discussing things. That is highly discouraged.

I can take it seriously I have tried to follow science from the start. Scientists had to learn because this was new. The study is great news as a whole though.

 

[Heelz2315]

New study shows that fully vaccinated people with breakthrough infections are less likely to spread covid than unvaccinated people. I know a few weeks back there was a debate here on this topic. This was a large study that showed a significant decrease in transmission. Further evidence that the plan to get a high number of people vaccinated is the right plan and pokes a major hole in the theory that vaccines are only effective at reducing serious infection.

Vaccinated people are less likely to spread Covid, new research finds

British scientists examined how the Pfizer-BioNTech and the AstraZeneca vaccines affected the spread of the virus if a person had a breakthrough infection.

www.yahoo.com

Vaccinated people spreading covid is what prompted the CDC to reverse it's mask guidance in July. At the time I thought they were really stretching connecting alot of dots to cover their butt. They had cases spiking like mad, alot of mayors and elected officials calling for masks to be brought back and they (I feel) jumped to conclusions that vaccinated people were spreading tons of new covid cases.

I don't think that's the case. Can vaxxed people spread it? Sure, but from what i have seen they have to be symptomatic AND they are only contagious for a brief time. At the time in they reversed their guidance they only had ONE instance of the place in RI over the 4th I believe that they tied it all to. That study was not peer reviewed at all before they made their move. IMO they really jeopardized their credibility somewhat (as if it could have eroded further) it did after that.

 

[Timmay]

Here is the source material.

Vaccinated people are less likely to spread Covid, new research finds

British scientists examined how the Pfizer-BioNTech and the AstraZeneca vaccines affected the spread of the virus if a person had a breakthrough infection.

www.yahoo.com

It's from the same article.

It was obvious it was from the same article. Not sure why you took flak for it.

 

[Epcotfan21]

Vaccinated people spreading covid is what prompted the CDC to reverse it's mask guidance in July. At the time I thought they were really stretching connecting alot of dots to cover their butt. They had cases spiking like mad, alot of mayors and elected officials calling for masks to be brought back and they (I feel) jumped to conclusions that vaccinated people were spreading tons of new covid cases.

I don't think that's the case. Can vaxxed people spread it? Sure, but from what i have seen they have to be symptomatic AND they are only contagious for a brief time. At the time in they reversed their guidance they only had ONE instance of the place in RI over the 4th I believe that they tied it all to. That study was not peer reviewed at all before they made their move. IMO they really jeopardized their credibility somewhat (as if it could have eroded further) it did after that.

And a big part of why the CDC reversed course for vaccinated individuals in July was based on the all male Cape Cod outbreak, which in reality wouldn't apply to the vast majority of Americans. Anyone that read about that outbreak and put 2+2 together would realize that the CDC was overreacting or stretching as you put it, in terms of vaccinated individuals being able to spread covid.

 

[correcaminos]

Vaccinated people spreading covid is what prompted the CDC to reverse it's mask guidance in July. At the time I thought they were really stretching connecting alot of dots to cover their butt. They had cases spiking like mad, alot of mayors and elected officials calling for masks to be brought back and they (I feel) jumped to conclusions that vaccinated people were spreading tons of new covid cases.

I don't think that's the case. Can vaxxed people spread it? Sure, but from what i have seen they have to be symptomatic AND they are only contagious for a brief time. At the time in they reversed their guidance they only had ONE instance of the place in RI over the 4th I believe that they tied it all to. That study was not peer reviewed at all before they made their move. IMO they really jeopardized their credibility somewhat (as if it could have eroded further) it did after that.

I think it's also a bit of darned if you do and darned if you don't. Erring on the side of caution is the safer of the two. Just like while cases drop in my area, I'm still masking to make sure we keep kids safe for the show next week. Majority of the cast are 6th graders and I do not know covid status for most (our percent of vaccinated population who can is like 80% so high there). It can be hard to pick the right move. Since so many are not vaccinated and never asked for proof I am not sure it was wrong entirely, but how it was used could have been better.

In other news https://www.10tv.com/article/news/l...d-19/530-350de523-7194-4650-817d-1e683001c91d

 

[Dreaming of Disney World]

I have a problem with the parents suggesting that their child died because of other parents that sent their sick kids to school. While that likely was the cause as to how she was infected, it's extremely difficult to be a parent with kids in any sort of school right now.

Fact of the matter is kids get sick...constantly. Also most kids with Delta have runny noses and coughs, basically the two most common symptoms of any virus. So the options are to test your child every time they have a runny nose and/or cough, which is probably the right thing to do in this environment, but also not ideal or realistic to most Americans.

We had a situation at my son's school during the height of Delta here in Florida, where a mom was not feeling well and dropped her kids off at school fully knowing that after she dropped them off, she was going to get a covid test. The mom tested positive, waited till after school was finished to pick up the kids and then took both of them to get tested too. Both kids also tested positive. In this situation, the parent acted selfishly and their behavior was extremely reckless. But if your child hasn't been around other sick friends/family members or wasn't knowingly exposed to someone that has tested positive for Covid, it's hard to blame parents that send their kid to school with a runny nose/cough and ultimately not knowing that the child may have Covid. JMHO.

I disagree. With coronavirus the responsible action is to test any time your child has symptoms. I did a few weeks ago when my son woke up with lots of mucous. He was fine otherwise, but this was unusual for him, so we didn't go to soccer, and I knew not to send both my kids to school until he got a negative pcr test.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I disagree. With coronavirus the responsible action is to test any time your child has symptoms. I did a few weeks ago when my son woke up with lots of mucous. He was fine otherwise, but this was unusual for him, so we didn't go to soccer, and I knew not to send both my kids to school until he got a negative pcr test.

Exactly. These aren't normal times. A cough might just be allergies, but why would you take the chance? Let's play out one possible excuse: "I can't call out of work to keep my kid home." So in that case, their kid has COVID-19 and they don't know it because they didn't get them tested yet, and now the kid is in school possibly spreading it to classmates and teachers while the parents are at work possibly infected themselves and spreading it to co-workers - all because they determined that it wasn't "serious enough" to bother addressing.

Even in normal times, sending your kid to school with a fever is just stupid and neglectful. Obviously, not every case of a kid with a fever in school means the kid had the fever before they left their home, but the odds are that not all of them developed fevers only after arriving at school.

 

[GoofGoof]

Vaccinated people spreading covid is what prompted the CDC to reverse it's mask guidance in July. At the time I thought they were really stretching connecting alot of dots to cover their butt. They had cases spiking like mad, alot of mayors and elected officials calling for masks to be brought back and they (I feel) jumped to conclusions that vaccinated people were spreading tons of new covid cases.

I don't think that's the case. Can vaxxed people spread it? Sure, but from what i have seen they have to be symptomatic AND they are only contagious for a brief time. At the time in they reversed their guidance they only had ONE instance of the place in RI over the 4th I believe that they tied it all to. That study was not peer reviewed at all before they made their move. IMO they really jeopardized their credibility somewhat (as if it could have eroded further) it did after that.

Keep in mind that it was never in dispute that fully vaccinated people can still spread covid. The narrative came up here that fully vaccinated people spread Covid just as much as unvaccinated people. It was in the context that if that statement is true than the vaccines do nothing to slow spread and only reduce your chances of severe illness and therefore nobody should be required to take a vaccine. At the time of the discussion that was completely debunked as not true. There are numerous studies which show that the vaccines are still highly effective at preventing even mild covid. Not 100% obviously but somehow people decided that because there are breakthrough infections the vaccines don’t work. It’s a clear misunderstanding of how vaccines work but people want to believe what the want to believe.

So it’s clear that someone who is fully vaccinated is less likely to get infected in the first place. This is undisputed unless you think the vaccine efficacy is zero now. You have to get infected first before you can spread covid so by default fully vaccinated people are less likely to spread covid. An article was posted a few weeks back about a small study that showed that fully vaccinated people were just as likely to spread Covid once infected as unvaccinated people. People misunderstood that and jumped to the false conclusion that it meant people who are fully vaccinated are just as likely to spread covid as an unvaccinated person which is clearly not true.

In the study from the article I posted last night they found that not only are you less likely to be infected, once you are infected you are also less likely to spread covid. That added protection was reduced over time but the reduction was more severe with AZ then with Pfizer. That may have some implications on vaccination policies in Canada or the UK where AZ was used but has no real bearing on US policy which is what we have been talking about all along with this thread. The fact that someone with the AZ vaccine is just as likely to spread covid as an unvaccinated person after 3 months has no bearing at all on US policy. Some may see it as some gotcha moment as proof the vaccines don’t work and as a knock against vaccine mandates, but that fails to recognize that the vaccines significantly reduce infection in the first place.

 

[danlb_2000]

The ridiculous contraptions that pass for "outdoor dining" in NYC are ludicrous. Fully enclosed structures with heating and cooling doors, locks, and obligatory graffiti build on the street outside the restaurant property. I mean, good on them that they got away with it, but proving nothing more than that "outdoor dining" is safe was theatre while Broadway was closed.

Last year NJ dealt with that pretty quickly. There was some abuse of the outdoor dining allowance so clarifications were made as to what is considered "outdoors".

 

[GoofGoof]

Bringing to reality. Unless I am messed up in what I thought, this could have implications on J&J vaccines. It is important to understand that all might not be great here. Plus as parts of trials even US citizens can be vaccinated with this. AZ/Oxford called me.... not to mention globally.

The study was done in the UK so I don’t think they have anyone with JnJ there. I would assume a similar study would be needed in the US for both JnJ and Moderna. I think what we all have to realize is even if the vaccines provided no benefit on transmission once a breakthrough infection occurs (not what the study showed) they still have high efficacy around getting infected in the first place so a fully vaccinated person is still much less likely to spread covid than an unvaccinated person.

 

[Heelz2315]

Keep in mind that it was never in dispute that fully vaccinated people can still spread covid. The narrative came up here that fully vaccinated people spread Covid just as much as unvaccinated people. It was in the context that if that statement is true than the vaccines do nothing to slow spread and only reduce your chances of severe illness and therefore nobody should be required to take a vaccine. At the time of the discussion that was completely debunked as not true. There are numerous studies which show that the vaccines are still highly effective at preventing even mild covid. Not 100% obviously but somehow people decided that because there are breakthrough infections the vaccines don’t work. It’s a clear misunderstanding of how vaccines work but people want to believe what the want to believe.

So it’s clear that someone who is fully vaccinated is less likely to get infected in the first place. This is undisputed unless you think the vaccine efficacy is zero now. You have to get infected first before you can spread covid so by default fully vaccinated people are less likely to spread covid. An article was posted a few weeks back about a small study that showed that fully vaccinated people were just as likely to spread Covid once infected as unvaccinated people. People misunderstood that and jumped to the false conclusion that it meant people who are fully vaccinated are just as likely to spread covid as an unvaccinated person which is clearly not true.

In the study from the article I posted last night they found that not only are you less likely to be infected, once you are infected you are also less likely to spread covid. That added protection was reduced over time but the reduction was more severe with AZ then with Pfizer. That may have some implications on vaccination policies in Canada or the UK where AZ was used but has no real bearing on US policy which is what we have been talking about all along with this thread. The fact that someone with the AZ vaccine is just as likely to spread covid as an unvaccinated person after 3 months has no bearing at all on US policy. Some may see it as some gotcha moment as proof the vaccines don’t work and as a knock against vaccine mandates, but that fails to recognize that the vaccines significantly reduce infection in the first place.

Totally agree. I just think the CDC should have held off and not acted on 7/27 reversing their decision on indoor masks for the vaccinated. They connected way too many dots to implicate the vaccinated I feel. They just further eroded what little trust the public had in them.

 

[GoofGoof]

Totally agree. I just think the CDC should have held off and not acted on 7/27 reversing their decision on indoor masks for the vaccinated. They connected way too many dots to implicate the vaccinated I feel. They just further eroded what little trust the public had in them.

It’s all about level of transmission.…it’s basically a math equation. Efficacy of the vaccines is not 100%. The higher community spread the better the chance of breakthrough infection. Even if a fully vaccinated person with a breakthrough infection is less likely to spread covid than an unvaccinated person it’s still “less likely” and not impossible. So as a result of all of that they decided that in areas where community spread is not low fully vaccinated people should return to wearing masks in public. Community spread drops and the masks are dropped.

I also think they may have been influenced somewhat by the practical implementation of their original guidance. Very few places actually followed the mask guidance where fully vaccinated people could stop wearing a mask in public but not unvaccinated people. Most businesses (including WDW) decided it was too difficult to manage that so just dropped masks for everyone. With delta’s ramp up we needed to go back to some form of mitigations or risk dangerous levels of spread (see delta wave in FL). It was easier to just say ramp up mitigations for everyone when spread increases and ramp down when spread drops.

 

[correcaminos]

The study was done in the UK so I don’t think they have anyone with JnJ there. I would assume a similar study would be needed in the US for both JnJ and Moderna. I think what we all have to realize is even if the vaccines provided no benefit on transmission once a breakthrough infection occurs (not what the study showed) they still have high efficacy around getting infected in the first place so a fully vaccinated person is still much less likely to spread covid than an unvaccinated person.

No, but J&J and AZ/Oxford are very similar in that they are both viral vector vaccines. Both use adenovirus as the viral vector. https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/blog/explaining-johnson-johnson-astrazeneca-vaccines

We would need a study on it here, but I think it is something we should caution against believing all vaccines do something.

Again I'm not all bad here, but there are some things to caution against until they know. I think the news is incredibly promising though.

 

[GoofGoof]

No, but J&J and AZ/Oxford are very similar in that they are both viral vector vaccines. Both use adenovirus as the viral vector. https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/blog/explaining-johnson-johnson-astrazeneca-vaccines

We would need a study on it here, but I think it is something we should caution against believing all vaccines do something.

Again I'm not all bad here, but there are some things to caution against until they know. I think the news is incredibly promising though.

To be clear….all vaccines do something. JnJ and AZ still have a high level of efficacy even against mild infection. Even on transmission the AZ vaccine showed a significant decrease in transmission but that decrease waned over time.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

To be clear….all vaccines do something. JnJ and AZ still have a high level of efficacy even against mild infection. Even on transmission the AZ vaccine showed a significant decrease in transmission but that decrease waned over time.

J&J is doing better than Pfizer over time isn’t it?

 

[correcaminos]

To be clear….all vaccines do something. JnJ and AZ still have a high level of efficacy even against mild infection. Even on transmission the AZ vaccine showed a significant decrease in transmission but that decrease waned over time.

Of course all vaccines do something. I think you're putting me in an unfair category simply because I stated the AZ/Oxford news wasn't as favorable since the diminishing transmission did fade over time. This is good news, but even though few here had the AZ/Oxford vaccine, we need to be cautioned with J&J until we can learn more.

Just because I am being cautious with this, doesn't mean I don't believe vaccines are not doing anything. Look at who is posting this... one of the bigger pro-vax people here.