Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[DisneyCane]

Accurate enough would be good enough. You make up for it with volume.

Walmart sells them for $7 a test. A $14 two pack BinaxNOW. CVS sells the same thing for $25. So, either Walmart is loss leading or selling at cost or pennies above cost, or CVS is has a more expensive operations cost and needs the higher price.

I wonder how much of the $7 is actual test costs vs mark up to cover prior development cost. If it's all materials, hard to drive it down. But, if half the cost is to cover the initial development and initial factory spread out over the expected production run, then someone ordering 1.5 billion tests should be able to drive that price down, spreading that overhead across the huge volume. Not to mention, the profit margin can be a lot smaller on that volume and still turn out hugely profitable.

At $7 for 1.5 billion tests to hit 300 million people 5 days a week for 1 year is $546 billion dollars.

It's only $273B at $3.50 a test if they can drive the price down.

Compared to the economic damage the pandemic is going to cost and the other relief costs, it doesn't sound that bad. I mean, it's not great, but it's not like its out of the realm of possibility.

The assumption that we didn't need to keep pushing testing and could count on just the vaccine was a bad policy.

The BinaxNOW box specifically says that it is not for detecting asymptomatic infections so that's an issue with accuracy.

 

[mmascari]

The BinaxNOW box specifically says that it is not for detecting asymptomatic infections so that's an issue with accuracy.

True.

One of the reports I saw on Omicron was that most had symptoms at the time they were infectious. Which would be a nice if that holds up. And just depressing if it's not really true.

That BinaxNOW test directions actually say to take both tests, a day apart. So, if you have symptoms and then the next day too. Presumably if you're not far enough along to get a positive on the first day.

So, if you've got some symptoms and want to know if it's just allergies or a common cold vs COVID, it should do it. If you've got a Delta case simmering and with no symptoms yet but are infectious, it's not going to help. At least not for the people you're about to see. Taking another one a few days later may let you tell the people you saw after the fact that there was an issue.

A better test would be nice.

 

[Heppenheimer]

A word on testing... sensitivity is usually not an issue when the person is symptomatic, either for the PCR or take-home antigen tests. There's usually more than enough viral particles circulating to meet the tests' threshold for detecting a positive. So, people who use the take-home tests after developing symptoms shouldn't worry about a false negative.

The take home tests might be more problematic for post-exposure, pre-symptomatic testing, unless the person tests themselves multiple times.

PS- "Accuracy" is not a term we use in medicine to describe a test's precision. Sensitivity and specificity are the two most important parameters. A sensitive test will have very few false negatives and a specific test will have very few false positives. The ideal test would combine both, but this is not always possible.

 

[mmascari]

Even then, is it really going to be enough?

Yup, this falls under why we cannot have nice things. Even if we had it, not enough would likely do it.

Yet I know people who are living in the same household as others who currently have the virus and their excuse for not getting tested is, "I probably already have it, so why bother getting tested?"

If they're not showing any symptoms and not having any issues, just assuming they have it and acting accordingly is probably good enough. That would mean isolating the same way, and getting vaccinated later if not already anyway.

Had it not been for that, these people would have all refused to get tested and would be wandering through stores and their workplaces spreading COVID-19 to who knows how many other people.

This where it all breaks down. As even though they're assuming they're infected, sounds like they're not doing the stuff that should mean. It would surprise me if even after getting tested and being positive they did the right things when not required. So, no visiting the friend that required the negative test result sure, but anything that didn't check, sounds like a positive result wouldn't matter.

It's frustrating and infuriating, but that's what the rest of society is up against right now. The ones who refuse to play a part in making things better and complain about any mitigations (which have been very few in NJ for quite a while now aside from masks in schools, public transportation, and government buildings) are the ones helping to drag this on and make things worse - and worse yet, they refuse to acknowledge that their actions impact anyone else.

Yup. Group projects and there's to many in the group not helping.

Saw this tweet the other day:


That's the worst part here. The longer this goes on, it's wearing down our collective empathy for others.

 

[Incomudro]

Just counting bodies, COVID-19 has had greater impact on the US than the Civil War, Vietnam (times 15), and 9/11/2001 (times 250). The business world… the stone-cold heart of America… and,thus, 21st-century Disney… counts dollars and votes, not lives.

What YOU count is up to YOU. Have a good day, and don’t patronize any of this until it dies and something good rises from the ashes. That’s how it works. If you don’t shovel money at it, it dies, just like 800,000 people have died. Let it die.

Young bodies have a different impact than old bodies.
Young bodies taken through war are different than old bodies lost through disease.

 

[jlhwdw]

Just counting bodies, COVID-19 has had greater impact on the US than the Civil War, Vietnam (times 15), and 9/11/2001 (times 250). The business world… the stone-cold heart of America… and,thus, 21st-century Disney… counts dollars and votes, not lives.

What YOU count is up to YOU. Have a good day, and don’t patronize any of this until it dies and something good rises from the ashes. That’s how it works. If you don’t shovel money at it, it dies, just like 800,000 people have died. Let it die.

What does TWDC have anything to do with past war and current COVID body counts?

 

[correcaminos]

Yup, this falls under why we cannot have nice things. Even if we had it, not enough would likely do it.


If they're not showing any symptoms and not having any issues, just assuming they have it and acting accordingly is probably good enough. That would mean isolating the same way, and getting vaccinated later if not already anyway.


This where it all breaks down. As even though they're assuming they're infected, sounds like they're not doing the stuff that should mean. It would surprise me if even after getting tested and being positive they did the right things when not required. So, no visiting the friend that required the negative test result sure, but anything that didn't check, sounds like a positive result wouldn't matter.


Yup. Group projects and there's to many in the group not helping.

Saw this tweet the other day:


That's the worst part here. The longer this goes on, it's wearing down our collective empathy for others.

I have very loving friends who really firmly believe we should have by choice unvaccinated covid wards. When those fill up, too bad so sad. I'm not there, but ever day I swear I get closer to agreeing to federal mandates for all and making life difficult for those who do refuse.

Young bodies have a different impact than old bodies.
Young bodies taken through war are different than old bodies lost through disease.

Pssst young people die of covid too... not just unhealthy ones as well. Not at as high of a rate but pretending old people are more expendable than young is not okay with me either.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Nice summary of the current situation from the CMO of a Vermont hospital different from the one where I work:

R0

The U.S. media is not giving enough attention to the situation in Europe, particularly the U.K. and Italy

I imagine this is due to pandemic fatigue, a bit of denial, and perhaps a sense that “It is what it is”

The R0 of omicron is proving to be quite high, estimated at 3 to 5, or higher, in the U.K., meaning

A doubling time of 2 to 3 days, and that

Each individual with omicron is transmitting the virus to at least 3 to 5 others, on average

It is easy to see Europe as far away, with different populations and habits, but we would be foolish to think the same situation will not occur here

Indeed, as you have read, the rate of positive tests – almost assuredly due to omicron – accelerated over just the past few days in New York City and other cities in the U.S.

I have written about the epidemiology of transmissivity previously, and you likely are either already knowledgeable on the subject or have reviewed material at some point during the pandemic

Transmissivity can be expressed as the reproduction number, R0, a mathematical description

R0 < 1 means each person with the diseased infects less than 1 other individual, on average, and thus the disease will decline in prevalence

R0 > 1 means each person with the diseased infects more than 1 other individual, on average, and thus the disease will increase in prevalence

Many factors that vary from one population to the next will affect the R0 value, particularly the “contact rate” of the population, meaning how often people interact within the parameters allowing disease spread, or put in another way, urban versus rural existence

Note that

What occurs in NYC does not translate precisely to rural Vermont

What occurs when people exercise few mitigation measures – masking, distancing, and limiting gathering – does not translate precisely to situations in which mitigation measures are reliably practiced

The situations is now clear, however, that

Omicron has a transmissivity of at least twice delta, which had a transmissivity of at least twice the original viral strain

Vaccines are less efficacious at preventing positive tests and mild to moderate disease, although certain vaccines do offer good protection from severe disease, i.e., those that would require hospitalization

Boosters raise protection from omicron to near the level that the primary vaccine series provided against other variants

We will see more infections over the next few months that will disrupt life, including

Staffing shortages at work

Frequent classroom dismissals

Cancelation of sports events

Negative economic impact to businesses

Self-imposed limitations on gatherings

Further impact on capacity of health systems and the quality of the care provided

So what can we do?

Everyone should get a booster when eligible – everyone – as those that do not get vaccinated and boosted are putting others at risk, both directly from spread and indirectly by missing work

Know that you are boosted and in good shape

Know that if when you get sick, your symptoms will likely be short-lived, similar or less than what you have experienced with the flu

Plan with your family what you will do if when one or more in the household turn positive so that it is not a mad scramble to figure out next steps

Recognize that we will get through the situation, despite a rough few months, and the viral prevalence will drop

 

[LittleBuford]

Nice summary of the current situation from the CMO of a Vermont hospital different from the one where I work:

R0

The U.S. media is not giving enough attention to the situation in Europe, particularly the U.K. and Italy

I imagine this is due to pandemic fatigue, a bit of denial, and perhaps a sense that “It is what it is”

The R0 of omicron is proving to be quite high, estimated at 3 to 5, or higher, in the U.K., meaning

A doubling time of 2 to 3 days, and that

Each individual with omicron is transmitting the virus to at least 3 to 5 others, on average

It is easy to see Europe as far away, with different populations and habits, but we would be foolish to think the same situation will not occur here

Indeed, as you have read, the rate of positive tests – almost assuredly due to omicron – accelerated over just the past few days in New York City and other cities in the U.S.

I have written about the epidemiology of transmissivity previously, and you likely are either already knowledgeable on the subject or have reviewed material at some point during the pandemic

Transmissivity can be expressed as the reproduction number, R0, a mathematical description

R0 < 1 means each person with the diseased infects less than 1 other individual, on average, and thus the disease will decline in prevalence

R0 > 1 means each person with the diseased infects more than 1 other individual, on average, and thus the disease will increase in prevalence

Many factors that vary from one population to the next will affect the R0 value, particularly the “contact rate” of the population, meaning how often people interact within the parameters allowing disease spread, or put in another way, urban versus rural existence

Note that

What occurs in NYC does not translate precisely to rural Vermont

What occurs when people exercise few mitigation measures – masking, distancing, and limiting gathering – does not translate precisely to situations in which mitigation measures are reliably practiced

The situations is now clear, however, that

Omicron has a transmissivity of at least twice delta, which had a transmissivity of at least twice the original viral strain

Vaccines are less efficacious at preventing positive tests and mild to moderate disease, although certain vaccines do offer good protection from severe disease, i.e., those that would require hospitalization

Boosters raise protection from omicron to near the level that the primary vaccine series provided against other variants

We will see more infections over the next few months that will disrupt life, including

Staffing shortages at work

Frequent classroom dismissals

Cancelation of sports events

Negative economic impact to businesses

Self-imposed limitations on gatherings

Further impact on capacity of health systems and the quality of the care provided

So what can we do?

Everyone should get a booster when eligible – everyone – as those that do not get vaccinated and boosted are putting others at risk, both directly from spread and indirectly by missing work

Know that you are boosted and in good shape

Know that if when you get sick, your symptoms will likely be short-lived, similar or less than what you have experienced with the flu

Plan with your family what you will do if when one or more in the household turn positive so that it is not a mad scramble to figure out next steps

Recognize that we will get through the situation, despite a rough few months, and the viral prevalence will drop

Thank you for sharing this summary, which seems to confirm something I’ve read elsewhere too: that it’s now an inevitability that all of us, vaccinated or not, will contract the virus at some point. It’s a disconcerting prospect, but at least I can rest assured that the vaccine should shield me from the worst of it.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Anyone flush with cash and it’s a buyers market in stocks. Wall Street is predicting a steep decline in the markets today. At times when that happens investors get nervous and limit their spending to support the economy.

There's been a pretty steep downturn in stock prices since November. Anyone whose annual capital gains were paid and re-invested in December should see a huge spike in their portfolio value once the market recovers again.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

True.

One of the reports I saw on Omicron was that most had symptoms at the time they were infectious. Which would be a nice if that holds up. And just depressing if it's not really true.

That BinaxNOW test directions actually say to take both tests, a day apart. So, if you have symptoms and then the next day too. Presumably if you're not far enough along to get a positive on the first day.

So, if you've got some symptoms and want to know if it's just allergies or a common cold vs COVID, it should do it. If you've got a Delta case simmering and with no symptoms yet but are infectious, it's not going to help. At least not for the people you're about to see. Taking another one a few days later may let you tell the people you saw after the fact that there was an issue.

A better test would be nice.

It's actually 3 days apart with a minimum of 36 hours between tests, so that should eliminate at least some of the chances of testing before symptoms appear if exposed to someone with the virus. Presumably, you wouldn't take the first test until a few days after the exposure, so the 2nd test would cover the remaining gap between exposure and symptoms for many (if not most) people.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Yup, this falls under why we cannot have nice things. Even if we had it, not enough would likely do it.


If they're not showing any symptoms and not having any issues, just assuming they have it and acting accordingly is probably good enough. That would mean isolating the same way, and getting vaccinated later if not already anyway.


This where it all breaks down. As even though they're assuming they're infected, sounds like they're not doing the stuff that should mean. It would surprise me if even after getting tested and being positive they did the right things when not required. So, no visiting the friend that required the negative test result sure, but anything that didn't check, sounds like a positive result wouldn't matter.


Yup. Group projects and there's to many in the group not helping.

Saw this tweet the other day:


That's the worst part here. The longer this goes on, it's wearing down our collective empathy for others.

The whole household in question is isolating, thankfully - but there was a gap between when they suspected they may have been exposed, confirmed that they were indeed exposed, and finally agreed to test during which time they were out shopping for Christmas presents, going to work, etc. The issue with the people refusing to test is that others in the home who had tested negative later tested positive several days later, so the untested are counting their quarantine time as beginning with the first positive test of a household member rather than the first new positive test of the most recently infected person (which occurred 3 days later). Rather than just assuming they already have it, they should be testing to verify whether they have it or not so they can narrow down when they caught it if they do end up testing positive - and quarantine based on that timeline.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Thank you for sharing this summary, which seems to confirm something I’ve read elsewhere too: that it’s now an inevitability that all of us, vaccinated or not, will contract the virus at some point. It’s a disconcerting prospect, but at least I can rest assured that the vaccine should shield me from the worst of it.

I’d love to see antibody testing in this country, it would be interesting to know how many people have had it but never realized it because they had an asymptomatic or mild case. My guess is the reported cases are a fraction of the true cases.

 

[correcaminos]

I’d love to see antibody testing in this country, it would be interesting to know how many people have had it but never realized it because they had an asymptomatic or mild case. My guess is the reported cases are a fraction of the true cases.

Pre vaccines I know some people who had it but didn't know it. They tested due to spread in a sport and found out they indeed had antibodies. They vaccinated anyway of course. I know quite a few houses where an unvaccinated kid caused a breakthrough cases. Some who tested had little to no symptoms. Some vaccinated never tested positive too. I wonder truly if that let's scare with when idea that when for some will never be known. True of vaccinated and not.

 

[JoeCamel]

I’d love to see antibody testing in this country, it would be interesting to know how many people have had it but never realized it because they had an asymptomatic or mild case. My guess is the reported cases are a fraction of the true cases.

My guess is that everyone that had a cold thought it was covid and they are now immune...
Glass not very full today

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Somewhere that has a chance of succeeding would be helpful.

We have safe and effective vaccines that people still refuse.

We have the best possible solution already in place and we are fortunate how quickly it was able to happen.

In what universe is there an alternate, more effective means of dealing with COVID?

The imbeciles refusing to get vaccinated aren’t going to respond to anything else.

It needs to be mandated, end of story.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

My guess is that everyone that had a cold thought it was covid and they are now immune...
Glass not very full today

I’m basing this on what’s happening in pro sports right now, they are suffering tons of cases, almost all asymptomatic … but due to frequent testing they are being caught.

The earlier posts about testing made me chuckle because organizations like the NFL are stopping testing of vaccinated players because it’s catching so many asymptomatic cases they’re afraid they won’t be able to finish out the year.

 

[Lilofan]

We have safe and effective vaccines that people still refuse.

We have the best possible solution already in place and we are fortunate how quickly it was able to happen.

In what universe is there an alternate, more effective means of dealing with COVID?

The imbeciles refusing to get vaccinated aren’t going to respond to anything else.

It needs to be mandated, end of story.

Ones can thank the Senate for not supporting Biden business vaccine mandate recently but federal appeals court sided who had the last word sided w/ Biden.

 

[correcaminos]

My guess is that everyone that had a cold thought it was covid and they are now immune...
Glass not very full today

We've had that for 2 years now. Heck I know someone who had it twice before December last year (rolling eyes)

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I’m basing this on what’s happening in pro sports right now, they are suffering tons of cases, almost all asymptomatic … but due to frequent testing they are being caught.

The earlier posts about testing made me chuckle because organizations like the NFL are stopping testing of vaccinated players because it’s catching so many asymptomatic cases they’re afraid they won’t be able to finish out the year.

It's purely anecdotal, but the handful of people I know who have had the virus all seem to consider themselves as not having any symptoms - and just somehow coincidentally caught COVID-19 when they had a cold (even going as far as to suggest that the "cold" left them exposed to catching COVID-19). Even those who were vaccinated keep saying that and it's amazing to me how people will try to convince themselves that they're not really sick despite all evidence to the contrary - literally coughing and sniffing during a phone call and saying, "I just don't understand how I could test positive when I don't have any symptoms." I do wonder how much of that is going on in pro sports. When I see people arguing that asymptomatic cases should be allowed to continue to practice and play, I wonder what the ultimate goal of their protocols really is, because an athlete wild mild symptoms that feels good enough to play might very well just lie and say, "I don't have any symptoms," and as long as they don't have a fever or a cough there's a good chance that they'll be allowed to play even if they have the worst headache they've ever had and can't smell or taste anything.