And I’m giving you answers. You may not like them but welcome to 2021.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Did you? Ok. Moving on I guess.
hopemax
Well-Known Member
Except he's not, and they kind of are.
I'll accept that nobody is going around trying to infect others on purpose. Give or take a COVID party here and there. I never get invited.
But, there are definitely people going around not trying to "not infect" others. I'll also accept that these people aren't trying to kill others on purpose. They are mostly not monsters.
To the people on the other side, it's little comfort if they were infected by someone being negligent instead of on purpose.
The short order cook, under pressure to get meals out fast that skips washing their hands after using the bathroom to save time, isn't trying to make customers sick. They're trying to make them happy by getting their food done faster. They're also not trying to "not make customers sick". To the short term happy diner with the quick meal, they're not going to be happy long term if they're sick because of the skipped step. It wasn't malice, it was negligence. It's also not going to happen every time.
Nobody is recommending extreme measure. Nobody is looking for a booster every 6 months, for everyone to wear and N95, or for nobody to interact at all. That's the boogey man presented as the other side in arguments to do nothing. The ask is to do the things that will provide some level or reduction and not do the things that will increase spread. It's much easier to oppose someone if you change their ask from "help reduce" to "do this extreme thing it's the only thing that will work 100%".
Reckless endangerment is still reckless endangerment whether the person is speeding and weaving through traffic is just trying to get to work on time so they don’t get fired or because they think driving that way is fun. Depraved indifference is something drunk drivers are charged with. Involuntary manslaughter can be if a death is involved. These are terms available for comparison but no we get serial killers. There is real and substantial harm done to others by spreading Covid, and it deserves to be taken seriously. Belittling the concerns of those who recognize the extent of the harm that can be done by deciding it’s appropriate to use a hyperbolic comparison to serial killers and implying real harm only exists in conjunction with malicious intent ignores the realities of how bad things are often perpetuated.
We can pretty much guarantee that someone is going to show up at Thanksgiving dinner somewhere with a symptomatic COVID infection, and someone who can’t afford to get sick will. There will be all sorts of excuses, nothing could be done, etc. While Step 1 to avoiding it, is simply acknowledgement that your illness can lead to harm in someone else. And it’s not inevitable.
This:
Beyond that, the general impacts of measles feels closer to COVID than the flu does. COVID seems to be much more infectious than the flu even if not quite as much as measles. The impact also seems to be closer to measles than the flu. The mutation rate vs vaccine efficacy too. Nobody gets a measles vaccine every year, presumably because measles doesn't mutate every year. This is greatly helped by the significantly lower community spread.
In a hospital setting, a room with a confirmed measles case in it is going to function closer to the COVID room, than the COVID room does to the flu also.
The vaccine dose comparisons are more hopeful, since we don't know yet. But, if you're going to relate COVID to something else for comparison, measles is probably a better choice than the flu.
Might as well frame it that way to get the points across.
Bonus, almost everyone got the measles vaccine long ago. Almost, but not actually everyone. There's are measles cases in the US every year. We're not at "Measles 0" anymore than we need to get to "COVID 0".
Measles Cases and Outbreaks
Get the latest numbers of confirmed measles cases in the US.
www.cdc.gov
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
This doesn’t tell me anything. At least not about my question. But no worries. I think my question has been answered anyways.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
Except the MMR vaccine is two doses, administered to young children, and provides a lifetime of immunity. They want people to take a COVID booster every 8 months. Not going to happen.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
Some of them, sure. Many more people are just lazy and can't be bothered.
Nubs70
Well-Known Member
Idependent owner/operators are not allowed to operate in California per AB 5. This is an additional constraint on getting goods off the docks.
They do?
Every 8 months again and and again and again?
Do you have a source for that?
I get that they want want some people to take an additional dose. But, does taking one additional dose really mean every 8 months FOREVER? Has any study or medical analysis actually said that? I get that lots of reporting, especially click bait and political reporting, has theorized that. But, that's not the same as an actual study or evidence showing it.
Edit:
Is anyone from the original studies actually 16 months past the first dose?
Is anyone not in the original studies actually 16 months past the first dose?
Did any of them get a fourth dose to see?
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
I don't think that anyone has said "8 months" in particular, I just picked a number that was somewhere in between 2 months (J&J minimum wait), 6 months (Pfizer and Moderna minimum wait), and 12 months (how often most people get flu shots).
I agree that it's hard to cut through and find an article that doesn't have political spin on it, but yes, medical consensus seems to be that we'll need to get them "regularly."
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
I think the debate is more about who "needs" boosters. If the vaccine I took 7 months ago will still be extremely effective at preventing me from getting a severe case of COVID and the booster is only necessary to keep up effectiveness against infection and/or mild illness, then I don't "need" a booster. If the effectiveness against severe illness drops significantly, then I would feel differently for my own personal situation.
I'm not going to get boosters and deal with the side effects as part of an exercise in futility to try and eradicate COVID which is essentially impossible.
I'm curious about this and have no idea. I wonder how long it took after the MMR vaccine was first released that it got full acceptance and became a requirement at schools.
I find it maddening that more people aren't vaccinated given the havoc this thing has caused. But I also understand that everyone's risk/benefit analysis on things like this is different.
I find it maddening that more people aren't vaccinated given the havoc this thing has caused. But I also understand that everyone's risk/benefit analysis on things like this is different.
hopemax
Well-Known Member
Who knows what type of vaccination schedule would have been needed during the initial emergence of measles when it was still in its adaptation phase either. Had the vaccine been developed against the characteristics of Delta we don’t know what the recommended schedule would have looked like either. It could have been a higher initial dose like Moderna, a 3-shot regimen, longer than 30 days in between, etc. We are trying to match up what is needed for the circulating virus and not the old one that doesn’t exist anymore.
Expectation is that as the population reaches immunity, evolutionary pressure of mutations will be toward immunity escape. So I would expect at least one more round of re-evaluation. That doesn’t mean a lifetime of boosters. Just dropping the hubris that humans are capable of developing a vaccine that can protect against the future as well as the past on the first attempt. Or the defeatism that since we didn’t score 100% the first time we should just stop trying.
Kevin_W
Well-Known Member
There is certainly a judgement call to be name on "need" for the booster. It's reasonable to say that you don't want to deal with a booster if it's only going to protect you from getting a mild/moderate illness. It's also reasonable to say that mild/moderate illness also sucks, so if I can prevent that with a free shot then I will. (My wife and I both had minimal side effects from booster, especially compared with 2nd shot.)
There is also the part about getting even a mild version that makes me more likely to transmit to others.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
My monies on a yearly shot, like the flu shot, that idea will likely make some peoples head explode but for most people it won’t be a big deal, a minute spent at their target or grocery store pharmacy every fall.
I also think it’ll end up with numbers similar to the flu shot, probably 50% will get it every year and 50% won’t. (Assuming original vaccine protection against hospitalization remains high). Those who aren’t worried about getting the flu likely won’t be worried about getting mild COVID either.
I haven't seen anything that looks like this is the consensus at all. I've seen tons of speculation, by media and pundits. None by actual medical people.
This lines up with the current booster recommendations very well. People at more risk (for whatever reason) who will benefit more from an incremental reduction are currently advised to get the booster. People who don't have that elevated risk, are not.
Using CO as an example where they're recommending everyone get a booster. Their reasoning is that CO is a high-risk environment as a whole. This is consistent with an elevated risk benefiting from an incremental reduction.
As a personal example, I got a booster because I had the J&J and felt it probably should have been a 2 dose vaccine. My wife did NOT get a booster, even though she treats patients a few times a month. She didn't feel that it's enough of an elevated risk with the current protocols compared to her MRNA vaccination.
We'll know if the efficacy and need changes after more time when we get to more time.
Get the spread low enough, and even a 50% effective vaccine could be enough.
If this ends up that the original doses provide enough of an immune response for most protection and that the booster shot is really priming your system for some number of months to fight off infection faster but not really changing the base immune response, then this is certainly possible.
That would also line up with the above where the base was enough protection from a severe case and the booster was just for a quicker immune response.
That would be a different mechanism than the flu vaccines work on. Those are different each year and last years doesn't offer any protection. The flu is essentially a variant that breaks out from vaccine protection every year.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
And there it is with making up some extreme scenario and then declaring the goal impossible. The MMR vaccine isn’t the only two administered to children. The whole schedule of vaccines has high adoption.
hopemax
Well-Known Member
Anyway, speaking of Delta and future of mutation… I am sure most of equate the Delta mutation with Spring 2021, as that is when we saw how it ravaged India. But when did the first person’s infection result in the mutation that lead to the Delta variant line… October 2020. I don’t know about you, but I find it fascinating the timeline nature is working on vs what we think it is.
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
Who is "they", other than the strawman you just put together? I haven't seen this advocated anywhere in the medical literature.
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
For reasons we still don't completely understand, the measles vaccine stimulates a very enduring immune response that most other vaccine can't provoke. It even endures longer than the vaccines co-administered against mumps and rubella. This is why testing for rubella titers is part of routine prenatal care even with good documentation of a prior MMR vaccination, since maternal rubella infection can be castrophic for the baby. And also the reason why I had a short case of mumps as an adult.
- Status