Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[mmascari]

Your comments on people are better off getting a vaccine for a time is telling. If that's what you want to do, by all means enjoy.

For a time, because a single dose isn't the complete vaccination course. Even two doses isn't the full vaccination course. The tetanus vaccine provides protection for a time too. Does that mean people shouldn't take it or that they would be better off without it? Is that really the argument? That better isn't worth doing because it's not better forever?

It's not "telling" about anything. There's no secret conspiracy or wink and a nod going on here. It's the understanding that a vaccine isn't a perfect forcefield that works 100% of the time forever. No vaccine ever has been. Pretending that's the standard or it's a failure is disingenuous beyond understanding for sake of making something up.

No one person is trying to stop you. The reverse is. Hey I just threw out a few studies, there are many more. You may not like them or agree with them which is fine. People agree to disagree.

Not a single one of the studies you threw out there advocated to stated that not getting vaccinated was better than getting vaccinated in any scenario. Do you perhaps have another one somewhere that shows an advantage either personally or to reducing spread by not getting vaccinated?

Every one of those studies confirmed that getting vaccinated was the best alternative.

They showed that a single, or even two dose may not be enough. But, it was better than zero in all of them.

I'm against people taking actions to increase community spread. I'm against them taking actions that will cause that increase in spread to last longer.

I'm not sure why anyone would even be against that. It boggles that mind that many have taken the position that increased spread for longer duration is the best plan and doesn't matter. There is no long term anything (health, personal, society, economic, anything) that is better off in the long term with increased spread for longer duration.

 

[sullyinMT]

I'm actually surprised no company has filed anything in court yet. If it is so unlawful, why doesn't someone challenge it in court.

There’s a similar law in my state. It blows my mind that someone hasn’t challenged any such law somewhere. Ours even includes healthcare organizations (not sure on FL), and it clearly frustrates my employer but not enough to challenge Helena.

 

[sullyinMT]

Cool. My only comment is some people might not be ready for the booster yet (if their second dose was less than 6 months ago.) I presume there's an exception for that?

I’d agree and hope so. Some grace window for scheduling would be appropriate around that 6 month mark. Maybe 2 weeks?

 

[lazyboy97o]

There’s a similar law in my state. It blows my mind that someone hasn’t challenged any such law somewhere. Ours even includes healthcare organizations (not sure on FL), and it clearly frustrates my employer but not enough to challenge Helena.

Unless it’s announced or someone is checking all of the court filings we don’t really know if there are any challenges. It’s also possible that businesses are waiting to see how other challenges go. I believe Norwegian Cruise Line is still challenging the ban on cruise passengers even though the Bahamas helped moot the issue. The OSHA is also likely to be expedited so it might be better to wait and see if the government will make the decision for you.

 

[sullyinMT]

Unless it’s announced or someone is checking all of the court filings we don’t really know if there are any challenges. It’s also possible that businesses are waiting to see how other challenges go. I believe Norwegian Cruise Line is still challenging the ban on cruise passengers even though the Bahamas helped moot the issue. The OSHA is also likely to be expedited so it might be better to wait and see if the government will make the decision for you.

Fair point. Though I’d imagine if Disney or some other major employer in FL, or one of our many international oil refining companies or a group of hospitals joined together in MT, a filing that that would make national or state headlines.

I’d love to see one or more of the major players push back if that’s how they want to run their business. Even United Airlines in one of the states with this ridiculous ruling where they operate. But then there’s that pesky worker shortage already, I guess. It’s a tough body of waters to operate a business in these days.

 

[mkt]

At-will employment is when an employee can be dismissed for any cause at any moment.

Sounds like almost every employer in the state of Florida.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Fair point. Though I’d imagine if Disney or some other major employer in FL, or one of our many international oil refining companies or a group of hospitals joined together in MT, a filing that that would make national or state headlines.

I’d love to see one or more of the major players push back if that’s how they want to run their business. Even United Airlines in one of the states with this ridiculous ruling where they operate. But then there’s that pesky worker shortage already, I guess. It’s a tough body of waters to operate a business in these days.

I think a big part of it is simply waiting on the OSHA ruling. Why start a big, expensive process that might be for nothing? The arguments made in the challenges to the customer oriented laws also seem like they may apply to the employee ones. Part of the reason Florida adopted it’s employee “protection” was to protect the customer “protections” since the two issues are actually quite similar.

 

[DisneyCane]

There’s a similar law in my state. It blows my mind that someone hasn’t challenged any such law somewhere. Ours even includes healthcare organizations (not sure on FL), and it clearly frustrates my employer but not enough to challenge Helena.

What would the challenge be based on? It is not unconstitutional for a state to pass employment laws (either state or US Constitution). The only thing that can override the state laws is if the courts determine that OSHA has the authority to create and enforce the rules or if congress passes and the President signs a new law which takes precedence over the state laws prohibiting the mandates. Without veering off into politics, based on the statements made recently by a key Senator, the chances of a federal law being passed that either mandates employee vaccination or prevents states from prohibiting employer mandates is in the same range as the chances of me winning the Megamillions and Powerball on consecutive days.

 

[Joesixtoe]

What questions still remain after a year and a half of testing and over 4 BILLION people receiving the vaccines?

Whether they are 80 or 90% effective? Whether they’ll last 6 months or longer? Whether it’ll end up being a yearly shot? all irrelevant in the short term… What we know for an absolute fact is the hospitals and morgues are currently filled with the unvaccinated by a ten to one margin compared to the vaccinated.

I didn’t want to be a Guinea pig either but we are well beyond that stage. If there were going to be major side affects they’d have shown by now… while people are questioning the science another half million Americans have died, the VAST majority unvaccinated.

I asked this question months ago but it still applies, what questions remain that would cause someone to choose a 1/1,000 chance of death over a 1/1,000,000 chance of a side affect? The odds are clear, to go against them makes no sense.

And how do those odds effect you? Take the shot and take them again and then take them again and then take them again. Do your thing. Leave people alone. Plus your assessment on the situation and the potential harm I disagree with.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What would the challenge be based on? It is not unconstitutional for a state to pass employment laws (either state or US Constitution). The only thing that can override the state laws is if the courts determine that OSHA has the authority to create and enforce the rules or if congress passes and the President signs a new law which takes precedence over the state laws prohibiting the mandates. Without veering off into politics, based on the statements made recently by a key Senator, the chances of a federal law being passed that either mandates employee vaccination or prevents states from prohibiting employer mandates is in the same range as the chances of me winning the Megamillions and Powerball on consecutive days.

The same sort of arguments made to challenge the consumer “protections.” Businesses are private entities and get to determine with whom they engage. Protected classes are special circumstances because what is protected does not present a true burden and there are exceptions to things like disability protection based on the nature of the work. “Unvaccinated” are an entirely new “class” created for political gain that represents an unnecessary liability to an employer.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And how do those odds effect you? Take the shot and take them again and then take them again and then take them again. Do your thing. Leave people alone. Plus your assessment on the situation and the potential harm I disagree with.

Yes, yes YOU disagree and yet haven’t bothered to share your peer reviewed studies demonstrating how vaccines work the opposite.

 

[sullyinMT]

What would the challenge be based on? It is not unconstitutional for a state to pass employment laws (either state or US Constitution). The only thing that can override the state laws is if the courts determine that OSHA has the authority to create and enforce the rules or if congress passes and the President signs a new law which takes precedence over the state laws prohibiting the mandates. Without veering off into politics, based on the statements made recently by a key Senator, the chances of a federal law being passed that either mandates employee vaccination or prevents states from prohibiting employer mandates is in the same range as the chances of me winning the Megamillions and Powerball on consecutive days.

At least in MT, the law prohibits employers from operating their business as they see fit. It goes against the very idea of free market capitalism. In an at-will environment, a business should be allowed to set up employment criteria so long as it doesn’t interfere with a protected class, hence sincere religious exemptions.

Businesses, imo, should be allowed to sink or swim in regards to staffing based on their perceived or real work environment - including whether they choose to operate with a vaccine mandate. Like I said, it’s quite possible all of these employers who haven’t challenged the myriad of similar laws in other states perhaps says that they really don’t want the fight and are happy to operate as is in the current environment. So be it if that’s the case.

I am surprised healthcare employers haven’t made a bigger stink, at least in MT (not sure if FL has an exemption for healthcare employers). It goes against long established requirements specific to the healthcare setting for a multitude of other vaccines.

And, to be fair, I think the OSHA rule is weak at best. We’ll see what the courts ultimately decide. I’m more opposed to the government banning an employer from mandating should they choose to do so. It’s a political stunt, since flu vaccine mandates have not created the same stink and have been around for some time now.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

And how do those odds effect you? Take the shot and take them again and then take them again and then take them again. Do your thing. Leave people alone. Plus your assessment on the situation and the potential harm I disagree with.

Those odds affect us because we want things like supply chain issues to end and things like masks to disappear but we’re stuck with them thanks to people who refuse to be vaccinated.

What questions remain?

I’m honestly trying to understand the other side, there’s unlimited amounts of evidence that the vaccines work (unless you think this is a global conspiracy and somehow every nation on earth is secretly in collusion to deceive you), I’m genuinely curious what’s so questionable about the vaccines that someone would rather risk their life than get one.

 

[danv3]

Sounds like almost every employer in the state of Florida.

Every employer in every state in the United States, except Montana.

 

[DisneyCane]

At least in MT, the law prohibits employers from operating their business as they see fit. It goes against the very idea of free market capitalism. In an at-will environment, a business should be allowed to set up employment criteria so long as it doesn’t interfere with a protected class, hence sincere religious exemptions.

Businesses, imo, should be allowed to sink or swim in regards to staffing based on their perceived or real work environment - including whether they choose to operate with a vaccine mandate. Like I said, it’s quite possible all of these employers who haven’t challenged the myriad of similar laws in other states perhaps says that they really don’t want the fight and are happy to operate as is in the current environment. So be it if that’s the case.

I am surprised healthcare employers haven’t made a bigger stink, at least in MT (not sure if FL has an exemption for healthcare employers). It goes against long established requirements specific to the healthcare setting for a multitude of other vaccines.

And, to be fair, I think the OSHA rule is weak at best. We’ll see what the courts ultimately decide. I’m more opposed to the government banning an employer from mandating should they choose to do so. It’s a political stunt, since flu vaccine mandates have not created the same stink and have been around for some time now.

I don't know the details of the Montana law but the Florida law just makes it that any vaccination policy must include a regular testing option (at employer expense) and some exemptions. I think that an argument can be made that an unvaccinated person who is tested multiple times per week is less likely to be an asymptomatic spreader in the workplace than a vaccinated person who is never tested.

I think the main reason that these laws were passed was to give the states standing to sue over the OSHA requirement. Without a state law it would have to be individuals who filed suit (or a class in a class action). With the state laws in place, the OSHA requirement conflicts with state law and therefore the states can file suit to challenge the legality. I don't think these laws would have been passed if the executive order hadn't ordered OSHA to create employee vaccine mandates.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

I don't know the details of the Montana law but the Florida law just makes it that any vaccination policy must include a regular testing option (at employer expense) and some exemptions.

This is my biggest issue with the law. If a person refuses to get vaccinated and chooses the testing route, the employee should be paying for it, not the company.

 

[sullyinMT]

I don't know the details of the Montana law but the Florida law just makes it that any vaccination policy must include a regular testing option (at employer expense) and some exemptions. I think that an argument can be made that an unvaccinated person who is tested multiple times per week is less likely to be an asymptomatic spreader in the workplace than a vaccinated person who is never tested.

I think the main reason that these laws were passed was to give the states standing to sue over the OSHA requirement. Without a state law it would have to be individuals who filed suit (or a class in a class action). With the state laws in place, the OSHA requirement conflicts with state law and therefore the states can file suit to challenge the legality. I don't think these laws would have been passed if the executive order hadn't ordered OSHA to create employee vaccine mandates.

I don’t know when FL legislature passed the law there, but ours preceded OSHA by a number of months (it was one of this congress’s first agenda items, and required emergency amendments when the federal LTAC/nursing home ruling was upheld).

Montana is one of (the only?) state with specific wrongful termination rules that make us not purely “at-will,” but companies can and do set up all kinds of workplace standards. So long as they apply that rule top-down, and treat all equally in said standard (ie fire the GM of the store for coming in 20 minutes late every day just like the hourly cashier), then it’s still a “with cause” termination. In that vein, hospitals throughout the state have implemented rather strict annual flu vaccine requirements (and hiring standards for a much larger battery of shots). I think that’s my biggest beef. What has been allowed to stand for years as a condition of employment is suddenly illegal to expand to this one specific vaccine.

 

[mmascari]

And how do those odds effect you? Take the shot and take them again and then take them again and then take them again. Do your thing. Leave people alone. Plus your assessment on the situation and the potential harm I disagree with.

I'm totally fine with leaving people alone, however they will not leave the rest of us alone.

People who choose to to increase community spread and extend the duration of the pandemic making everything worse for everybody should stop being a part of everybody. They should leave the rest of us alone.

Want to not get vaccinated and continue to be a threat to others? OWN that decision. Stop interacting with with others. Leave people alone.

Want to not get vaccinated and continue to be a threat to others AND want to keep forcing others to interact with you? Stop imposing your dangerous beliefs on others.


It's like the person who refuses basic hygiene and stinks because they believe it's more natural. Nobody wants to be near that person in line at WDW. Sure, they can follow that path, that's their right. But, they can also be excluded and not interact with anyone else.

 

[DisneyCane]

I'm totally fine with leaving people alone, however they will not leave the rest of us alone.

People who choose to to increase community spread and extend the duration of the pandemic making everything worse for everybody should stop being a part of everybody. They should leave the rest of us alone.

Want to not get vaccinated and continue to be a threat to others? OWN that decision. Stop interacting with with others. Leave people alone.

Want to not get vaccinated and continue to be a threat to others AND want to keep forcing others to interact with you? GTFO. Stop imposing your dangerous beliefs on others.


It's like the person who refuses basic hygiene and stinks because they believe it's more natural. Nobody wants to be near that person in line at WDW. Sure, they can follow that path, that's their right. But, they can also be excluded and not interact with anyone else.

I agree with you to an extent. However, since the vaccines are not close to 100% effective in stopping transmission risk you can't say that a vaccinated person isn't a threat to some degree. It is a significantly lower degree than an unvaccinated person but it isn't near zero.

If everybody was vaccinated, community spread would be lower but it would still happen to a not insignificant degree. The vaccines are just not effective enough vs. infection for the herd immunity math to ever work out with Delta or Omicron transmissibility. Had 80% of the the entire world been vaccinated before Delta existed then maybe eradication was possible. However, that would have been logistically impossible to do as there wasn't nearly enough supply.

A fully vaccinated person who keeps up with boosters and is under 60 is going to have a 0.02% or lower chance of dying from COVID in a 12 month period and that risk will get lower the younger the person is. My estimate is likely high because I only used 80% effectivity vs. death and I used actual population mortality rates from FL. It is statistically insignificant compared to the chance of death by any cause. That's why I continue to say to protect yourself by getting vaccinated and keeping up with recommended boosters and stop worrying about the holdouts or trying to force them to be vaccinated. It isn't going to have a significant effect on the risk to a vaccinated person either way.

 

[sullyinMT]

I agree with you to an extent. However, since the vaccines are not close to 100% effective in stopping transmission risk you can't say that a vaccinated person isn't a threat to some degree. It is a significantly lower degree than an unvaccinated person but it isn't near zero.

If everybody was vaccinated, community spread would be lower but it would still happen to a not insignificant degree. The vaccines are just not effective enough vs. infection for the herd immunity math to ever work out with Delta or Omicron transmissibility. Had 80% of the the entire world been vaccinated before Delta existed then maybe eradication was possible. However, that would have been logistically impossible to do as there wasn't nearly enough supply.

For a fully vaccinated person who keeps up with boosters and is under 60 is going to have a 0.02% or lower chance of dying from COVID in a 12 month period and that risk will get lower the younger the person is. My estimate is likely high because I only used 80% effectivity vs. death and I used actual population mortality rates from FL. It is statistically insignificant compared to the chance of death by any cause. That's why I continue to say to protect yourself by getting vaccinated and keeping up with recommended boosters and stop worrying about the holdouts or trying to force them to be vaccinated. It isn't going to have a significant effect on the risk to a vaccinated person either way.

With Delta still the dominant strain here, hospitalization is a 12:1 ratio non-vaccinated:vaccinated. Spread and hospitalization would occur, like you said. But the burden to the healthcare system would be significantly lower with real, strict, mandates. Then we wouldn’t need to worry about the true medical exemptions and some very rare religious exemptions. Knowing that all of the major religions in the western world (not local preachers, but leaders at the top) have not declared a top-down religious decree in opposition, there should be a real burden of proof for anyone claiming religious disagreement with this vaccine. Then, we could “learn to live” with whatever disease burden remains.

This is all theoretical, because we don’t have the stones as a nation to pull it off.