• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

G00fyDad

Well-Known Member
Or for some risk losing your job in companies that set policy , refuse shot, lose your job.
That's what they did at my wife's hospital. A lot of them thought the hospital wouldn't have the guts to fire them. They are all working elsewhere or looking for another job right now. I think it is a good thing too. If you don't care enough about others to get the vaccine then I don't want you taking care of me or my family.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
Except we were actually told by various health officials to use the rapid tests for just such pre-symptomatic suspicion prior to holiday gatherings. The thought being you could be one of the cases that has a sufficient viral load but no symptoms. (For the past 2 years we've talked about that scenario being a curse of Covid - lots of pre/asymptomatic spread.)

I'm agreed that with tests hard to find, these days saving them for symptoms is probably a better route. But I don't think that's been universally true.
That may have been like a "better than nothing" situation, but it isn't an ideal use of the rapid tests. You can definitely trust a positive test in those circumstances, but a negative test may not be enough for an adequate rule out, especially if the level of suspicion is high.
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Except we were actually told by various health officials to use the rapid tests for just such pre-symptomatic suspicion prior to holiday gatherings. The thought being you could be one of the cases that has a sufficient viral load but no symptoms. (For the past 2 years we've talked about that scenario being a curse of Covid - lots of pre/asymptomatic spread.)

I'm agreed that with tests hard to find, these days saving them for symptoms is probably a better route. But I don't think that's been universally true.
Also required to fly back into the US due to the test one day prior to arrival rule.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
That may have been like a "better than nothing" situation, but it isn't an ideal use of the rapid tests. You can definitely trust a positive test in those circumstances, but a negative test may not be enough for an adequate rule out, especially if the level of suspicion is high.
Presumably, if you take them often enough, over enough time, you'll get a better answer too. As you move through the virus replication timeline.

Plus, while a negative may not tell you you're still going to be negative in 6 hours (just not there yet), a positive certainly tells you you're positive RIGHT NOW, and shouldn't be near people.

Compared to getting a PCR test and not knowing the results for 48 to 72 hours or more. Unless the suspicions was high enough that you're isolating for all that time while waiting for the results. Which may be the correct course of action. But, if it takes that long, the at home now and another after 72 hours might be just as good. More so if you're not going to isolate in that time.

Neither the at home test that's to early to tell or the PCR test that can tell but you don't get the answer until to late is helpful enough. At least with the at home test, you can take it a bunch of iterations over time.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Also required to fly back into the US due to the test one day prior to arrival rule.
In that scenario, they really should do them at the gate while waiting to board the plane.

Since, taken a day before, if you're to early to tell, you've had a day to turn into replicating enough virus. The negative is less useful.
If it was taken immediately prior to boarding, and negative, that's only the duration of the flight to turn into replicating enough virus.

In either case, a positive would bump you.
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
In that scenario, they really should do them at the gate while waiting to board the plane.

Since, taken a day before, if you're to early to tell, you've had a day to turn into replicating enough virus. The negative is less useful.
If it was taken immediately prior to boarding, and negative, that's only the duration of the flight to turn into replicating enough virus.

In either case, a positive would bump you.
Maybe. But it’s just not how it works today.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Maybe. But it’s just not how it works today.
Right, they should do it that way, they don't. A shift to 1 day is at least better than 3 days prior.

There must have been a dozen posts here pointing out that a test done 3 days prior to flying is practically useless. Since you could be infected in between. At least 1 days makes that shorter. But, then using an at home test instead of a PCR test a day before opens that window up again. Since we know you can get a false negative if you test to early, by as close as a few (say 6) hours, which is still less than a day.

We've also seen a bunch of reporting that the closer to an interaction a test happens, the better the confidence is that someone is not infectious during the interaction.

Hence why I said, they "should" do the rapid test at the airport right before boarding. That way, even if it's off by a few hours, the interaction is already over by then. At least for a short enough flight. Those traveling between continents or hemispheres need a more robust confidence.


Over the holidays, we tested right before going to a family gathering. We figured that would be good enough for at least a few hours of knowledge. That we then stayed longer than that was an abuse of the test, as we could have had a false negative by as little as a few hours or a day and then been infectious. We understood that it was an abuse and not perfect, but still better than no test at all. And, had the test been positive, we would have cancelled, a better plan that just going with no test at all.
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
Right, they should do it that way, they don't. A shift to 1 day is at least better than 3 days prior.

There must have been a dozen posts here pointing out that a test done 3 days prior to flying is practically useless. Since you could be infected in between. At least 1 days makes that shorter. But, then using an at home test instead of a PCR test a day before opens that window up again. Since we know you can get a false negative if you test to early, by as close as a few (say 6) hours, which is still less than a day.

We've also seen a bunch of reporting that the closer to an interaction a test happens, the better the confidence is that someone is not infectious during the interaction.

Hence why I said, they "should" do the rapid test at the airport right before boarding. That way, even if it's off by a few hours, the interaction is already over by then. At least for a short enough flight. Those traveling between continents or hemispheres need a more robust confidence.


Over the holidays, we tested right before going to a family gathering. We figured that would be good enough for at least a few hours of knowledge. That we then stayed longer than that was an abuse of the test, as we could have had a false negative by as little as a few hours or a day and then been infectious. We understood that it was an abuse and not perfect, but still better than no test at all. And, had the test been positive, we would have cancelled, a better plan that just going with no test at all.

The problem with at gate tests is any positive people will already be exposing people in the terminal, at least with the 3 day tests the ones that do test positive will stay home and not expose anyone.

Switching to one day makes sense but only if tests are readily available and include at home tests. It’s already stressful enough with the 3 day period to get an appointment and get the results back in time.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
When some are brainwashed to hear and believe that the media is " the enemy of the people " this irresponsible and dangerous statement clouds some gullible minds. It is also no surprise that this pandemic of the unvaccinated has turned our country upside down.
Repeating over and over that it is a pandemic of the unvaccinated doesn't make it so. The "pandemic" is defined by viral spread, not severity of outcome. A large percentage of cases are in vaccinated people therefore it isn't a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Repeating over and over that it is a pandemic of the unvaccinated doesn't make it so. The "pandemic" is defined by viral spread, not severity of outcome. A large percentage of cases are in vaccinated people therefore it isn't a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
* For some definitions of "large" but not others.
 

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
Repeating over and over that it is a pandemic of the unvaccinated doesn't make it so. The "pandemic" is defined by viral spread, not severity of outcome. A large percentage of cases are in vaccinated people therefore it isn't a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
If everyone was vaccinated and had the hospitalization rate of a vaccinated person we wouldn’t call it a pandemic. We would call it “Covid season” and operate like normal. But we aren’t so it’s a pandemic, because of the unvaccinated; a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
If everyone was vaccinated and had the hospitalization rate of a vaccinated person we wouldn’t call it a pandemic. We would call it “Covid season” and operate like normal. But we aren’t so it’s a pandemic, because of the unvaccinated; a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
It is pandemic denial of the anti vax and some vaxxers who support their cause. When the anti vax think it is a threat against their freedoms, liberties, rights etc, they develop strategies to rally around and support their cause but meet with terrible consequences. Long term beliefs in their rationalism of being anti-vax can and have harmed themselves and others around them.
 
Last edited:

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Well looks like Europe is staring to wind down restrictions.

Looks like we will be getting our free masks just in time to not need them.

Typical government response.
I heard Spain is ready to go into endemic mode. No more treating it like an emergency.
 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
I am amazed that we are now pretending that these vaccines were not intended to prevent infection and were explained in that manner. Absolutely amazed.
I'm going back to this...

October 2020 - Transcript of interview with Dr. Fauci


ANTHONY FAUCI: And that's the primary endpoint of most of the virus. It's to prevent clinical disease, to prevent symptomatic disease, not necessarily to prevent infection. That's a secondary endpoint. But the primary thing you want to do is that if people get infected, prevent them from getting sick. And if you prevent them from getting sick, you will ultimately prevent them from getting seriously ill.

So that's what we want to do. The first point, which we call a primary endpoint, is that. If the vaccine also allows you to prevent initial infection, that would be great. But what I would settle for, and all of my colleagues would settle for, is the primary endpoint to prevent clinically recognizable disease. And that's what we hope happens. And if we do, that will go a long way to diffusing this very difficult crisis that we're in.

*****

June 2020 - Bloomberg

The First Covid Vaccines May Not Prevent Covid Infection [It's like the actual article title]

Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/coro...ccines-may-not-prevent-you-from-getting-covid

"Desperation for a way to keep economies from collapsing under the weight of covid-19 could mean settling for a vaccine that prevents people from getting really sick or dying but doesn’t stop them from catching the coronavirus.

Although a knock-out blow against the virus is the ultimate goal, early vaccines may come with limitations on what they can deliver, according to Robin Shattock, an Imperial College London professor leading development of an experimental shot.

“Is that protection against infection?” Shattock said. “Is it protection against illness? Is it protection against severe disease? It’s quite possible a vaccine that only protects against severe disease would be very useful.”"

later...

“Vaccines need to protect against disease, not necessarily infection,” said Dennis Burton, an immunologist and vaccine researcher at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California.

And also this prescient bit:

“My guess would be that the day after someone gets immunized, they’re going to think, ‘I can go back to normal. Everything will be fine,'” he said. “They’re not going to necessarily realize that they might still be susceptible to infection.”

***

When the vaccines were being rolled out, the "vaccines don't prevent infection" was being used as a talking point by anti-vaxers, to the point where FactCheck.org made a page about it in January 2021. In a December 2020 interview with CNN Dr. Fauci explained why mask wearing was still necessary.


"The clip begins with Cuomo asking Fauci why it will still be necessary to wear a face mask even after a person is vaccinated. Fauci explains this is because while the vaccine does an excellent job at protecting people from falling ill, it might not prevent infection — and initially there will still be a lot of virus circulating in the population.

“You could be prevented from getting clinical disease, and still have the virus that is in your nasopharynx because you could get infected,” he said. “We’re not sure, at this point, that the vaccine protects you against getting infected.”"

We do know that the original clinical trials, against wild type COVID resulted in high levels of symptomatic disease protection. Which did not hold up against the newer variants. But that is not the same as "intention to prevent infection entirely", which these examples clearly demonstrate was considered an unknown, a bonus. So if you are absolutely amazed, well, so am I.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom