Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Chip Chipperson]

Other countries are far more draconian in their approaches are they not as to how they are mitigating this are they not?

Other countries aren't the US.

Likewise we’re there not instances of international travelers getting fined if they broke quarantine prior to X Days? Continued to their hotel rooms? A round up and keep them in one place? Sure sounds like the implication that I orginally

Yes, there were instances of international travelers punished for breaking their quarantines - and for good reason. People who are contagious with a virus that has killed millions of people shouldn't just be out and about in another country. I don't recall anyone complaining about that during the first SARS outbreak or when people exposed to Ebola returned home and had to be quarantined. If you know that the country you're traveling to has a mandatory quarantine period and you break that rule then you have no reason not to expect to be held accountable for it. That would be like going to WDW and complaining about being kicked out of the park for refusing to wear a mask indoors.

Now we are getting somewhere! So here’s the pickle: say someone smoked for X number of years. Denial of care? After all they did this to themselves. IV drug use and unprotected sex and get an STD? Denial of care? My point is it’s a really slippery slope to start with “screw them” when it’s someone else

I'm not advocating for a "screw them" approach. I'm talking about a specific situation where resources (both in terms of staffing and available equipment/treatments) are stretched as thin as they can be. When was the last time hospitals were overrun with smokers or patients needing treatment for STDs to the point that they couldn't handle the volume? The slope isn't as slippery as you make it out to be (and by the way, slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies for a reason). When hospitals are at capacity, doctors are forced to decide who to treat and who not to treat. Generally, there are protocols established that prioritize those who can be saved over those who have no chance of survival - or, in an ER, they determine who requires immediate attention (heart attack) vs. who doesn't (broken arm). In this example, the broken arm is going to wait a little longer if staffing levels don't allow them to treat both patients immediately. I haven't seen any reports of hospitals turning away patients simply because they weren't vaccinated, so what exactly are you arguing against? Did someone here suggest that it is or should be happening? It sounds like a straw man argument (another logical fallacy, by the way).

The only ban travel ban/restrictions that would have worked was in the very beginning or had it never happened but there were plenty of fights on that one. No need to rehash.

Realistically, by the time we had the information necessary to realize that we needed to shut down international travel, it was too late to keep the virus out because it was already here. Unfortunately, we didn't know soon enough and even when we did know, the "shutdown" on travel wasn't really a full shutdown so it was marginally effective at best.

 

[DisneyCane]

Stop. This. Garbage point. You. Keep. Making.

How many times do we have to tell you -- with facts -- that there is a significant difference between the unvaccinated's spread of the disease and the vaccinated's spread of the disease.

At this point, it's clear. You're just Trolling.

The vaccine significantly curbs the ability to spread the disease.

If you were posting this on Twitter, you'd be banned already.

View attachment 612056

#1 I'm not trolling.
#2 The charts you posted (which I assume is a New York Times reproduction of the CDC data) go through 11/20 which is prior to Omicron getting a foothold and becoming the dominant strain. This is the screen shot from the CDC (note the date):

#3 There is no valid data to accurately compare infection rates (which are not the same as case rates) by vaccination status because somebody who is vaccinated is less likely to develop symptoms and therefore less likely to be tested.
#4 There is data out of Israel that there is drastic waning of prevention of infection even with a booster vs. Omicron where the effectiveness is under 50% after 10 weeks.
#5 You don't get to be the arbiter of what constitutes "significant" enough reduction of spread to justify restricting the unvaccinated.
#6 You don't have any data or studies on the spread of Omicron to cite in order to condescendingly refer to my point as "garbage."
#7 When all else fails I guess your go to is to silence any voice of disagreement. Disagreement is not "misinformation." Your right that Twitter would probably have banned me because they do not believe in open discussion. That's why I don't view Twitter. I don't support their operational philosophy for a supposed speech platform and therefore do not want to be a part of providing income to them in any way.

 

[mmascari]

I am confused about your comments and the chart that you provided to prove your point. You are talking about the spread of the disease being more so for unvaccinated. But your chart is about who is getting covid, and dying for covid. How that proves your point?
Does not show what rates of spreading covid

If you never catch COVID, you cannot spread it.

Plausible rough order of events for a person:

1. Exposed to an someone else who is infectious.
2. Unable to fight off the infection prior to developing a level you're able to spread it.
3. Develop enough virus to spread it.
4. Continue step 3 over time.
5. Fight off the infection and reduce your level of virus so you're unable to spread it.

Comparing an unvaccinated and vaccinate person:

• Unvaccinated person has higher chance of 2.
• Unvaccinated person has higher chance of 3.
• Unvaccinated person likely has a longer duration of 4, but let's say it's the same.
• Because of 2 and 3, for someone else interacting with them, the chance of 1 is higher when interacting with the unvaccinated.

So, even if step 4 is exactly the same, the unvaccinated will still spread it less because of step 2. The case lines in that chart represent everyone with a bad outcome at step 2.

This is a common denial attack, to try and only talk about step 4. To claim that step 4 is exactly the same between an unvaccinated and vaccinated person, and because of that claim that vaccines don't matter. But, it completely ignores steps 2 and 3. So, even if it's correct, and there is debate mostly around the duration differences, it wouldn't matter. Steps 2 and 3 being lower mean there's less occurrences of step 4 at all.

 

[mmascari]

And to add it seems like the options out of this are:
1. Vaccines only
2. Natural immunity.
3. Some combination of 1 and 2.
Edit: 4. Social distancing for a ~month until all infections are over. How would that be accomplished?
5. Something else? I’m all ears.

The sense I get here and IRL is that ONLY option 1 will work. I don’t see it that way, stranger things and all but doens’t seem likely.

It's 1. There probably is a role for 2, not some "Natural immunity" that's the dressed up description, let's call it what it means "Prior Infection". Of course, we have no way to validate or quality check the level of Prior Infection. We might be able to come up with one, but it would be harder and more expensive than just vaccinating someone to know they fall into the first category. Do people really want to get a blood draw (or multiple) instead of just getting a vaccine shot?

Everything else, 4 and onward, is a less robust and less sustainable solution.

So, it's good, we all agree, the only way we're getting out of this is vaccination. Which will either reduce the spread enough to a level that doesn't impact typical activities, or alternatively reduce the impact of continued spread to a level that doesn't impact typical activities.

Now that we've agreed that's the solution. All the rest is just about how to achieve it. Since, we're not getting there by just asking nicely and nothing else.

 

[maui2k7]

So, it's good, we all agree, the only way we're getting out of this is vaccination. Which will either reduce the spread enough to a level that doesn't impact typical activities, or alternatively reduce the impact of continued spread to a level that doesn't impact typical activities.

Now that we've agreed that's the solution. All the rest is just about how to achieve it. Since, we're not getting there by just asking nicely and nothing else.

We need new vaccines that prevent someone from contracting and spreading Omicron for vaccines to be the only way out. Latest info I read is that vaccinated people can catch and spread Omicron as efficiently as unvaccinated since the vaccine is not targeted specifically at Omicron. Vaccinated benefit from milder symptoms or none at all.

 

[Disorbust]

If the vaccine that is available doesn't significantly curb the ability of the vaccinated to spread the disease (which is the case with the current vaccines and Omicron) then what is the justification to allow the vaccinated to do things that the unvaccinated aren't allowed to do?

Because when when you are unvaccinated you end up more likely in the hospital wasting resources. Our hospitalize pts are 75% unvaccinated when our fully vaccination rate in the state is 60%. I know this isn't high level stats but the 40% are who are hospitalized and overwehlming the healthcare system.

So if vaccines do not decrease spread as you propose then fine I will get a cold and not a ventilator. Thats good enough arguement for me to get vac so I can go out in the world as a responcible member of society

If you chose to be unvaccinated then you need to mitigate more then the vaccinated, for your own sake. Unfortunately if you don't and become hospitalized it doesn't just effect you.

 

[sullyinMT]

We need new vaccines that prevent someone from contracting and spreading Omicron for vaccines to be the only way out. Latest info I read is that vaccinated people can catch and spread Omicron as efficiently as unvaccinated since the vaccine is not targeted specifically at Omicron. Vaccinated benefit from milder symptoms or none at all.

To eradicate the virus, yes, we need an updated vaccine. However, since the social benefit of fewer hospitalizations and deaths, as well as presumably less lost productivity from prolonged illness are all still a massive benefit, why not continue to vaccinate and boost those that have not yet done so?

 

[BrianLo]

If the vaccine that is available doesn't significantly curb the ability of the vaccinated to spread the disease (which is the case with the current vaccines and Omicron) then what is the justification to allow the vaccinated to do things that the unvaccinated aren't allowed to do?

If the vaccines were able to drastically slow or stop the spread (which is what we were told they would do despite people pretending that it wasn't what we were told or what the goal was), I could be convinced that there was a justification.

Even saying the unvaccinated are significantly more likely to overwhelm the health care system is not known to be true with Omicron. Even if the vaccines still significantly reduce the risk of ending up in the hospital with an infection of the Omicron variant, the baseline severity of disease caused by Omicron may be low enough that the health care system wouldn't be overwhelmed if nobody was vaccinated.

I'm not saying for sure that is the case but the early data from outbreaks which are vast majority Omicron certainly point to this being a plausible hypothesis.

I don’t understand your line of reasoning… people keep trying to minimize the vaccines. But if the pandemic is raging and the vaccine are losing efficacy that does not bring the unvaccinated ‘up’, it brings the vaccinated ‘down’.

So really, you are making a strong argument for the vaccinated to also be restricted. Which, maybe you are right? Maybe more restrictions do need to be placed on the vaccinated specific to omicron.

For the moment I’d argue the difference in treatment justifies encouraging the unvaccinated to be vaccinated. Because we still have strong evidence vaccination is the only thing that preventively decouples outcomes. But if this keeps going the way it is, stronger restrictions are coming for everyone.

 

[hopemax]

Studies have shown that with Delta vaccinated people clear in an average of 5.5 days, unvaccinated 7.5 days. Studies have shown that with Delta the household secondary attack rate for unvaccinated people is higher than for unvaccinated people (38% vs 25%). Omicron is unknown, and we have to decide what to do "before" and can't wait for "after the data comes in." Business, medicine, sports etc. works on the idea of several small improvements can make a impact worth pursuing because magic bullets are not too common. DisneyCane disagrees and has stated he is only motivated by individual things that result in 50% improvement.

Is differentiating between vaccinated and unvaccinated the "most effective" solution? No, but we want absolutely nothing to do with the most effective solution. So what we are left with is deciding between "maximum outcome" (the least effective solution) and one of the infinite number of scenarios that results in something less than maximum. Of course, infinite outcomes makes it very easy for those looking for "magic bullet or bust" to find something to chew on.

 

[Willmark]

Yes, there were instances of international travelers punished for breaking their quarantines - and for good reason. Pe The slope isn't as slippery as you make it out to be (and by the way, slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies for a reason).

Normally I’d agree, but disagree on slippery slope? (Reductive perhaps) but Slippery slope logical fallacies are only fallacies until they aren’t. And usually there is no entrance ramp sign or nearly delineated start to them, usually only apparent after the fact.

Did someone here suggest that it is or should be happening? It sounds like a straw man argument (another logical fallacy, by the way).

I’m fairly sure I asked a question denoted by a ? I try my level best to not assume what someone is thinking/saying despite ironically it be leveled earlier.

Realistically, by the time we had the information necessary to realize that we needed to shut down international travel, it was too late to keep the virus out because it was already here. Unfortunately, we didn't know soon enough and even when we did know, the "shutdown" on travel wasn't really a full shutdown so it was marginally effective at best.

I agree, the only way to stop it was for it to never start but that isn’t a discussion for here and was dismissed out of hand when it was allowed elsewhere on the site. So enough on that.

 

[maui2k7]

To eradicate the virus, yes, we need an updated vaccine. However, since the social benefit of fewer hospitalizations and deaths, as well as presumably less lost productivity from prolonged illness are all still a massive benefit, why not continue to vaccinate and boost those that have not yet done so?

Not saying that people should not get vaccinated/boosted, just that the virus will continue to spread whether vaccinated or not until it burns our naturally or we have new vaccines to eradicate it. To be quite honest, here in TX life has been back to normal for a long time and has not changed in any meaningful way with Omicron.

 

[Touchdown]

I know it’s not omicron yet but my state does such a great job dispelling the vaccine doesn’t decrease spread argument with a monthly report, here’s Dec 15 (and note, I had to scroll several times to reach the bottom:

 

[Lilofan]

Not saying that people should not get vaccinated/boosted, just that the virus will continue to spread whether vaccinated or not until it burns our naturally or we have new vaccines to eradicate it. To be quite honest, here in TX life has been back to normal for a long time and has not changed in any meaningful way with Omicron.

And your anti vaccine mandate TX governor is now asking for federal assistance to combat covid? I find that back to normal very hard to believe and I have friends who live and work in Houston that would agree.

 

[sullyinMT]

Not saying that people should not get vaccinated/boosted, just that the virus will continue to spread whether vaccinated or not until it burns our naturally or we have new vaccines to eradicate it. To be quite honest, here in TX life has been back to normal for a long time and has not changed in any meaningful way with Omicron.

If I misread your intent, then please accept my apologies. But the nature of that argument is often echoed by the “it’s over, let’s go” contingent. And it’s exactly the opposite of what society should be encouraging.

The facts in the argument are true. Us vaccinated folk can get and spread the virus. But look at Touchdown’s post above. I’m sure other states would be similar if they built a similar graphic. We do so at a far less significant rate. And for less time, with less social impact.

The message isn’t that we’re trying to eradicate COVID any longer. That ship sailed probably with the emergence of Delta and certainly with Omicron. But gosh darn it, society can’t be normal again until hospitals can stop balancing replacing Nana’s hip or Sophie’s scoliosis correction with the ongoing onslaught that the unvaccinated are imposing on the system.

 

[sullyinMT]

And your anti vaccine mandate TX governor is now asking for federal assistance to combat covid? I find that back to normal very hard to believe and I have friends who live and work in Houston that would agree.

This. Acting “normal” (2019), and the reality are two different things.

eta: Plenty of governors across the spectrum need, have needed, and will need help.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Normally I’d agree, but disagree on slippery slope? (Reductive perhaps) but Slippery slope logical fallacies are only fallacies until they aren’t. And usually there is no entrance ramp sign or nearly delineated start to them, usually only apparent after the fact.

In this case, the slippery slope is clearly a fallacy. When people discuss having to deny care due to hospitals being overwhelmed and your counterargument is:

So here’s the pickle: say someone smoked for X number of years. Denial of care? After all they did this to themselves. IV drug use and unprotected sex and get an STD? Denial of care? My point is it’s a really slippery slope to start with “screw them” when it’s someone else

Then it's clearly a false argument because the situations aren't remotely similar because the impetus for doctors having to choose who to treat or not treat is the finite amount of resources being maxed out. You know full well that such a situation isn't happening with the examples you used. In fact, you can go to various places throughout the country and find state and/or local governments giving out free Narcan to treat opioid overdoses.

I’m fairly sure I asked a question denoted by a ? I try my level best to not assume what someone is thinking/saying despite ironically it be leveled earlier.

You said:

So next step is denying care, right? It’s been mentioned here in this very thread before. After all, it’s only a pandemic of the unvaccinated? Surely it’s the right strategy? Person didn’t get the vaccine then they should be made to deal with the consequences of their choices? And if that’s the case we should apply the same standard to other diseases?

That sounds less like a question and more like an accusatory statement to me. In any event, it's not happening so no need to worry. Hospitals are treating the unvaccinated in droves. It would be nice if there weren't droves to treat, but here we are.

 

[Lilofan]

I live in Houston. When you go to the movies, theaters, malls, restaurants, stores, everything is open and busy.

As for comments regarding "your anti vaccine mandate TX governor", I am not going to justify that comment with a response as I am not interested in a political argument.

No one should be surprised why Texas Childrens Hospital in Houston is swamped with covid patients, 25% of them who are less than 5 years old as of this week.

 

[DisneyFan32]

US Army Creates Single Vaccine Against All COVID & SARS Variants, Researchers Say

Within weeks, Walter Reed researchers expect to announce that human trials show success against Omicron—and even future strains.

www.defenseone.com

Unless US Army can eradicate the virus is this super vaccine can stop COVID variants plus future pandemics as we know it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Not saying that people should not get vaccinated/boosted, just that the virus will continue to spread whether vaccinated or not until it burns our naturally or we have new vaccines to eradicate it. To be quite honest, here in TX life has been back to normal for a long time and has not changed in any meaningful way with Omicron.

It’s normal for you because others are carrying the burden.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

And your anti vaccine mandate TX governor is now asking for federal assistance to combat covid? I find that back to normal very hard to believe and I have friends who live and work in Houston that would agree.

Which means absolutely nothing.

New York has the highest cases per 100,000 in the country… despite having the most strict safeguards in place.

Does that mean it’s the Governors fault? Absolutely not.

I’m so tired of people trying to make this political so it’s “the other sides fault”. Covid doesn’t care! It doesn’t care if you are a Rep or Dem, it doesn’t care if you have mask mandates, it doesn’t care if you have vaccine passports, it doesn’t care if you have vaccine mandates… Covid doesn’t care what your governor says or thinks.

I wish it were as easy as politics but clearly it isn’t, we want to think we can control this but we can’t. We can have an impact but that’s a far cry from control. Get vaccinated (because it’s the best option we have) and live your life. Trying to find someone to blame for a natural phenomenon does nothing.

Edited to add… this isn’t directed at Lilofan, we have all been arguing about this for so long it was just the post that set me off.