Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Wendy Pleakley]

There is currently some talk that Canada will drop that requirement for the land border, I certainly hope so... or no little weekend trips to Seattle for me.

That rule has nothing to do with detecting COVID, and is only in place to discourage travel without outright banning it.

You can take a test on Friday, spend all day in the USA Saturday, and return home with that same negative test.

It reveals absolutely nothing about catching COVID south of the border. Heck, even if they did testing upon return it would be virtually useless since COVID takes several days to show up as a positive.

I understand why travel has been restricted, but I do question why it has to continue much longer. With Canada approaching 90% vaccinated numbers, at what point does this end? COVID is not going to disappear completely.

At this point, give vaccinated people the option and continue to restrict what the unvaccinated minority can do.

 

[Nubs70]

There are a lot of studies going on for it, so there must be some reason to believe it could possibly be helpful.

May play out like Bactrim during AIDS, maybe not.

Bactrim was clinically shown to have promising affect is combating AIDS. These promising outcomes were declared anecdotal, unproven, not confirmed by RCT, and possibly even dangerous.

Today, Bactrim is a common component of AIDS medication.

If Ivermectin does show promise as a result of RCT, it will be multi dimensional irony.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

At this point the biggest barrier for people travelling to places like WDW is the cost of getting tested.

For example, if you're driving down to Florida from Canada, you don't have to get tested going to the States, but coming back into Canada you do. A test is around $200 USD per person (more if you want the results sooner). That's hard to justify for a family of 4 or 5.

Anecdotally, there's also the perception here that anyone who goes to Florida is very likely to get sick (even if the risk is overstated).

The risk factor is definitely big too, regardless of how much reality and perception meet.

A lot of people could absorb the testing fees, especially after more than a year of reduced travel spending.

However, catching COVID while travelling means one can't fly home. Has to get more tests. Has to find accommodation. Could miss work. And so on and so on. It's especially risky if one is going to a typically busy tourist destination like WDW.

Suddenly, it's not just $800 for a family of four to get tested, it's all of those added costs.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

That rule has nothing to do with detecting COVID, and is only in place to discourage travel without outright banning it.

You can take a test on Friday, spend all day in the USA Saturday, and return home with that same negative test.

It reveals absolutely nothing about catching COVID south of the border. Heck, even if they did testing upon return it would be virtually useless since COVID takes several days to show up as a positive.

At $200 a test, I'm sure some find it very lucrative and would like it to continue.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

At $200 a test, I'm sure some find it very lucrative and would like it to continue.

I hope that's not a factor.

I also wonder if some are quite happy to keep Canadian dollars in Canada. My $100+ bi-monthly Trader Joe's runs are sorely missed.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

The risk factor is definitely big too, regardless of how much reality and perception meet.

A lot of people could absorb the testing fees, especially after more than a year of reduced travel spending.

However, catching COVID while travelling means one can't fly home. Has to get more tests. Has to find accommodation. Could miss work. And so on and so on. It's especially risky if one is going to a typically busy tourist destination like WDW.

Suddenly, it's not just $800 for a family of four to get tested, it's all of those added costs.

Indeed, but to some extent this was always true when travelling to the States. It why travel medical insurance was strongly encouraged and I always bought it before going to the USA. Any kind of surgery/hospitalization for travellers can cost big $.

 

[DisneyCane]

View attachment 593697Orange County has now been officially downgraded to substantial (orange) level. The next down grade (moderate, yellow) will be when current CDC guidance will switch to masks only for unvaccinated.

It takes a big jump down to get to moderate in cases per 100k per 7 days. It's a 50% decline from the top of the substantial range to the top of the moderate range.

I know somebody will jump all over me for this but it is somewhat interesting that the highest vaccinated county (93% eligible with at least one shot), Miami-Dade, is the only county south of Lake Okeechobee that hasn't dropped to substantial yet.

 

[Touchdown]

May play out like Bactrim during AIDS, maybe not.

Bactrim was clinically shown to have promising affect is combating AIDS. These promising outcomes were declared anecdotal, unproven, not confirmed by RCT, and possibly even dangerous.

Today, Bactrim is a common component of AIDS medication.

If Ivermectin does show promise as a result of RCT, it will be multi dimensional irony.

Bactrim in AIDS is used to prevent and treat Pneumocystis Pneumonia. A bacteria that in immunocompetent people does not cause disease (the bacteria grows too slow our bodies destroy it before it grows big enough to cause symptoms) but does cause life threatening infections in immunocompromised people particularly those with AIDS. Bactrim, which is an antibiotic (ie a drug designed to treat a wide array of bacterial infections) treats pneumocystis (a bacteria.). It’s highly logical, and again does nothing to treat AIDS, it just prevents a complication infection from happening. To treat HIV (a virus) you take antiviral medications.

Ivermectin is an antiparisitic, it was initially designed to treat infections caused by parasites (eukaryotic single protozoan or multicelled animal infections.). It also may have some anti inflammatory effects but that is not nearly as well documented as it’s fellow antiparistic drug, hydroxychorolquine. It remains highly unlikely this will treat a viral infection well. We have far more safe and effective treatments out there (the vaccine, monoclonal antibodies, this new drug from Merck, etc.). Your analogy is a poor one.

 

[Nubs70]

Bactrim in AIDS is used to prevent and treat Pneumocystis Pneumonia. A bacteria that in immunocompetent people does not cause disease (the bacteria grows too slow our bodies destroy it before it grows big enough to cause symptoms) but does cause life threatening infections in immunocompromised people particularly those with AIDS. Bactrim, which is an antibiotic (ie a drug designed to treat a wide array of bacterial infections) treats pneumocystis (a bacteria.). It’s highly logical, and again does nothing to treat AIDS, it just prevents a complication infection from happening. To treat HIV (a virus) you take antiviral medications.

Ivermectin is an antiparisitic, it was initially designed to treat infections caused by parasites (eukaryotic single protozoan or multicelled animal infections.). It also may have some anti inflammatory effects but that is not nearly as well documented as it’s fellow antiparistic drug, hydroxychorolquine. It remains highly unlikely this will treat a viral infection well. We have far more safe and effective treatments out there (the vaccine, monoclonal antibodies, this new drug from Merck, etc.). Your analogy is a poor one.

Bactrim.... won't stop you from contracting AIDS, but greatly reduces the chances of hospitalization and mortality.

 

[BrianLo]

There are a lot of studies going on for it, so there must be some reason to believe it could possibly be helpful.

Are there a dozen institutions studying pixie dust and its use in COVID-19 infections?

Unfortunately, sometimes many studies are borne out of an initial false claim. Particularly when there is political will and funding to access because of public interest. This reeks of one of those cases. There is not a solid biological proposal why this would be an effective treatment.

Ivermectin, more dangerously, has been turned into a silly distraction from the actual most efficacious intervention we have.

 

[Kman]

There is currently some talk that Canada will drop that requirement for the land border, I certainly hope so... or no little weekend trips to Seattle for me.

as long as we don't drop the requirement that folks have to provide proof of vaccination at the border...I don't understand why the US doesn't require this for people crossing from Canada. You only have to provide it if you get pulled into secondary inspection.

 

[Andrew C]

as long as we don't drop the requirement that folks have to provide proof of vaccination at the border...I don't understand why the US doesn't require this for people crossing from Canada. You only have to provide it if you get pulled into secondary inspection.

Canadians don’t lie and are so nice all the time. Perfect people.

 

[Kman]

Canadians don’t lie and are so nice all the time. Perfect people.
View attachment 593746

haha! We are accused of being nice people but I still think you guys should be confirming. We have our share of folks here who don't fit the typical Canadian stereotype

 

[DC0703]

For what it's worth (regarding Ivermectin), everything we have used to treat COVID-19 has at once point not been approved to treat COVID-19. It is a novel virus.

And furthermore, using Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 based on a small set of promising RCTs is frankly no different than the widespread off label use of medication in this country for the same reason; studies.

So yes, saying he took horse dewormer is a flat out lie. Especially since there are over a dozen legitimate studies under legitimate centers/institutions underway right now looking at the use of Ivermectin in COVID-19. Are you suggesting those are horse dewormer studies?

Regardless of your opinions on Joe Rogan, this is truthfully no different than me accusing you of eating cat food for lunch when you ate a tuna fish sandwich. Cats eat tuna, so technically it is true.

While I would agree that we should always be open minded about new treatments for COVID-19, so far Ivermectin is nothing more than the latest COVID snake oil. The studies being touted showing its effectiveness have largely been debunked as fraudulent. The legit studies to date have shown no benefit at doses safe for human consumption. More research is underway, though its not clear if the reason for that research is because they believe the drug has some hidden potential or if they simply want to set the record straight on a drug that has become a social media phenomenon.

Saying Joe Rogan took horse dewormer would be potentially misleading, since he did take a doctor-prescribed version (though that may be ethically questionable on the part of the doctor considering that it is not FDA approved for COVID). Beyond Rogan, many others are raiding livestock supply stores for a stash of ivermectin, so the "horse dewormer" moniker is valid in many cases.

All that aside, it is mind-boggling how many of the same people who will not take the vaccine due to "safety concerns" have no trouble popping veterinary-grade ivermectin based on dosages they found on facebook with no concern for consequences.

 

[Touchdown]

Bactrim.... won't stop you from contracting AIDS, but greatly reduces the chances of hospitalization and mortality.

From Pneumocystis.

Doesn’t prevent dying from other horrible AIDS defining diseases like Karposi Sarcoma, other bacterial infections, or fungal infections.

 

[Disney Analyst]

I hope that's not a factor.

I also wonder if some are quite happy to keep Canadian dollars in Canada. My $100+ bi-monthly Trader Joe's runs are sorely missed.

Ive never been to trader joes, and was hoping to do so once border opened…

Would love to do a a weekend trip to Seattle, we got a car during the pandemic so this sort of thing is new for us, being able to go places so easily… but I will not do so if I need to pay 200 for a test, even if I can get that test in Canada.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

PLEASE READ THE article. It is 100% clear you either didn't completely read the article or you are intentionally misrepresenting the study.

The recommendation apply to to older people who DON'T HAVE HEART ISSUES and aren't currently taking low dose aspirin. YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS

The article I linked does not say that it only applies to people who don't have heart issues. I don't know why you're being so aggressive about it when it's a minor part of the larger point I was making about anti-vaxxers grasping at every unproven cure to justify not getting their shots, but here's a quote from the article:

The task force said people ages 40 to 59 who are at higher risk for cardiovascular disease should decide with their clinician whether to start taking aspirin. Once they turn 60, they should not start taking it because the risk of bleeding cancels the benefits of preventing heart disease.

"Higher risk for cardiovascular disease." These are people who would have been recommended to take aspirin in the past who are now being advised instead to think twice before starting and are being advised against it completely after turning 60. For some reason, certain COVID deniers have decided this is a conspiracy.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Ive never been to trader joes, and was hoping to do so once border opened…

Would love to do a a weekend trip to Seattle, we got a car during the pandemic so this sort of thing is new for us, being able to go places so easily… but I will not do so if I need to pay 200 for a test, even if I can get that test in Canada.

If it looks like the testing requirement will be long term, I'd consider paying that for a day trip.

If nothing else, I find some of the deals I get at the Seattle Outlet Mall would probably offset that $200. Plus, there's more than a few food items I really want that just aren't accessible in Canada.

No one will understand the pain of going all summer without my blended coffee powder mix of choice.

 

[Heppenheimer]

May play out like Bactrim during AIDS, maybe not.

Bactrim was clinically shown to have promising affect is combating AIDS. These promising outcomes were declared anecdotal, unproven, not confirmed by RCT, and possibly even dangerous.

Today, Bactrim is a common component of AIDS medication.

If Ivermectin does show promise as a result of RCT, it will be multi dimensional irony.

That was a dispute about if bactrim should be used as prophylaxis against two specific illnesses that affect AIDS patients. Nobody doubted it was a useful treatment for Pneumocystis pneumoniae and Toxoplasmosis, the debate was if and when bactrim should be given as a prophylactic.

The current guidelines only recommend bactrim prophylaxis for AIDS patients in areas with high Pneumocystis transmission rates... which effectively is nowhere in the US, because Pneumicystis pneumonia occurs almost exclusively in people with compromised T cell immunity (AIDS and a few other causes), and fulminant AIDS has become rare in the US.

And old debates about the proper use of one medication for a specific disease have zero bearing on ivermectin's use in COVID-19. You could go back to the 40s and read similar debates about the use of penicillin.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Ivermectin is an antiparisitic, it was initially designed to treat infections caused by parasites (eukaryotic single protozoan or multicelled animal infections.). It also may have some anti inflammatory effects but that is not nearly as well documented as it’s fellow antiparistic drug, hydroxychorolquine. It remains highly unlikely this will treat a viral infection well. We have far more safe and effective treatments out there (the vaccine, monoclonal antibodies, this new drug from Merck, etc.). Your analogy is a poor one.

I understand there was an element of just trying anything and everything, but I just don‘t understand why someone would think an antiparasitic Would be the key to treating a viral infection. And not just once, but twice now. Is there something about them or these two specifically that would make them seem like good candidates?