Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Lilofan]

I judged by my age, (58) and the fact that I'll be in a higher risk area - WDW - in March.
As for my sons? They're twenty, and just completed two shots.
I don't think I'll suggest they get booster unless some new and much more deadly strain arises.

I go with the mindset, if the booster is available for me and my family, we will take it prior to going to the crazy house - WDW. March at WDW, during Spring Break is very busy. A few hours drive West and South is MLB Spring Training games where one can watch America's favorite pastime in a small intimate setting but that may not happen with players having issues with money matters.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Here's one set of data from teh CDC. With current Omicron data, 4x reduction in hospitalization with booster vs non-booster.

View attachment 618209

Thanks for the charts. I love seeing data like this as it helps to inform my thoughts and decisions.

The difference is more than dramatic enough that the booster should be required.

I disagree. The difference in vaccinated and unvaccinated is dramatic. The difference between vaccinated and boosted is a difference, but not dramatic.

 

[mmascari]

I judged by my age, (58) and the fact that I'll be in a higher risk area - WDW - in March.
As for my sons? They're twenty, and just completed two shots.
I don't think I'll suggest they get booster unless some new and much more deadly strain arises.

Are your sons not planning on getting to age 58?

Maybe they're going to live isolated off the grid and never interact with others as they get older?

Otherwise, we're all on our way to the older and higher risk groups and all likely to have riskier interactions in the future. Why wait till then?

Assuming becoming a hermit isn't the plan, there's only one alternative to not aging into the higher risk category and it's not a pleasant one.

 

[correcaminos]

I judged by my age, (58) and the fact that I'll be in a higher risk area - WDW - in March.
As for my sons? They're twenty, and just completed two shots.
I don't think I'll suggest they get booster unless some new and much more deadly strain arises.

I had a choice I guess, but really doing trial work was far more important to me. Based on my age and health - 45 on Friday with no comorbidities at all which I realize now is not average for my age - I wouldn't "need" it. Though looking at my reactions to the shots, I would have done it anyway. Less chance is still less chance and since I reacted similarly to tetanus shots, it's not a big deal. If I were 20, I'd still decide to do it based on my reactions. Like my now 14yo did great with first 2 shots (13 for the first 2). Anything to help keep him in school was enough for him and me to do it. But he's 8th grade taking 3 HS courses so missing school is something he'd rather avoid. We do flu shots too though so that's where my mind is.

For your kids who knows what will be like by the time they were eligible anyway. I will say at least they were vaccinated. Many that age wouldn't and whether we want to say it or not, helping reduce spread for others is important.

I'd love as many to boost as they can to help themselves and a bit with spread but I'm a realist. I get that some were stopped at 1 or 2 shots for legit reasons. Though a cancer patient I know with a crazy conspiracy believer kid thought they caught covid and were coughing after shot 3 because of it. I kinda roll my eyes at them. But someone I know who had palpitations and always reacts to vaccines poorly I am compassionate towards.

Mostly I thank all who have vaccinated at all for doing so. It helps. It even shows that now with how cases are going. These vaccines did great considering the crazy level of mutations. I'm super grateful that they held as well as they did.

 

[mmascari]

I disagree. The difference in vaccinated and unvaccinated is dramatic. The difference between vaccinated and boosted is a difference, but not dramatic.

You're anchoring and still comparing to the unvaccinated as the metric. Try to ignore that.

Vaccinated Hospitalizations per 100K - 35.4
Booster Hospitalizations per 100K -8.2

35.4 / 8.2 = 4.3 times more likely to need hospitalization if only vaccinated vs boosted. 430% more likely to need hospitalization. A difference of 27.2/100K hospitalizations.

That sounds rather dramatic to me.

If I said "Not doing X means you're four times less likely to get on ROTR", everyone on this board would do X.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Are your sons not planning on getting to age 58?

Maybe they're going to live isolated off the grid and never interact with others as they get older?

Otherwise, we're all on our way to the older and higher risk groups and all likely to have riskier interactions in the future. Why wait till then?

Assuming becoming a hermit isn't the plan, there's only one alternative to not aging into the higher risk category and it's not a pleasant one.

Passing on the booster just makes no sense. There is no benefit to holding off. There is no harm in getting it.

 

[Incomudro]

Are your sons not planning on getting to age 58?

Maybe they're going to live isolated off the grid and never interact with others as they get older?

Otherwise, we're all on our way to the older and higher risk groups and all likely to have riskier interactions in the future. Why wait till then?

Assuming becoming a hermit isn't the plan, there's only one alternative to not aging into the higher risk category and it's not a pleasant one.

What???
They just completed their second dose about a week ago.
They're way too early for a third dose right now anyway.
The need for healthy 20 year old's to receive a third dose with Omicron around is minimal.
If a higher risk arises, they'll get another shot.

 

[mmascari]

Passing on the booster just makes no sense. There is no benefit to holding off. There is no harm in getting it.

I suppose if you're pro-COVID and want the pandemic to continue longer?

Maybe you're a mask manufacturer?

Contractor doing plexiglass installs and you want larger retro fit up to code projects instead of just removing the temporary ones?

 

[lazyboy97o]

What???
They just completed there second dose about a week ago.
They're way too early for a third dose right now anyway.
The need for healthy 20 year old's to receive a third dose with Omicron around is minimal.
If a higher risk arises, they'll get another shot.

What downside is there to a third dose?

 

[mmascari]

What???
They just completed there second dose about a week ago.
They're way too early for a third dose right now anyway.

You said:

I don't think I'll suggest they get booster unless some new and much more deadly strain arises.

Which I read as "not going to suggest they get one even when the time is correct" not just "they're to early to get it", since being "to early to get it" isn't someone deciding if they should get a booster or not yet it's not even time to make that decision.

The need for healthy 20 year old's to receive a third dose with Omicron around is minimal.
If a higher risk arises, they'll get another shot.

That's the point. A higher risk is guaranteed to arise. They are 100% going to get older and age into a riskier group. There's only one other option to getting older and it's not any fun.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Yeah. If they cannot put out their data that proves a 3 shot plan will be beneficial, it makes me a bit hesitant to get my 3 year old started with the first two doses. I will look to our pediatrician for advice as we have a strong relationship with her.

I think my posting record will reflect that I'm as pro-vaccine as it gets, but even I'm confused by what's going on here. Especially because the FDA apparently requested Pfizer to submit their data early, not the other way around. I'm sure there is some rational explanation, but none of the press releases have adequately explained the decision making process.

So, in lieu of any better information, I'm going to offer the best speculation I can, based on nothing other than what seems like the most plausible scenario. The preliminary results from Pfizer's 3rd dose may look very promising, but perhaps they simply haven't logged enough data yet to reach statistical significance. Barring some huge aberration in the remaining blood samples they need to analyze, Pfizer might have very good confidence that 3 doses will do the trick, but they just need more data points to finalize the math. Perhaps they let the FDA know this, and the FDA decided that they can start the process of EUA before the statistical tests are completed.

If Pfizer had initiated the request, I would also suspect that maybe they got word that Moderna was ready to submit their data, but this apparently isn't the case.

I'm really not worried about the safety of injecting my kid, but I would like a little more reassurance on efficacy.

 

[correcaminos]

You said:

Which I read as "not going to suggest they get one even when the time is correct" not just "they're to early to get it", since being "to early to get it" isn't someone deciding if they should get a booster or not yet it's not even time to make that decision.



That's the point. A higher risk is guaranteed to arise. They are 100% going to get older and age into a riskier group. There's only one other option to getting older and it's not any fun.

So I get both sides of this. Right now it really is too early to know what recently vaccinated but too early for boosted will need to do. It really is. If cases are super low and remain with a variant that isn't as easy to fight with current vaccines, it might be a third dose won't be warranted. I think jumping for not boosting is a losing battle. Fatigue is real and the kids did get vaccinated so maybe it's time to call it a win and wait and see.

 

[Incomudro]

Passing on the booster just makes no sense. There is no benefit to holding off. There is no harm in getting it.

There's barely any need for a healthy person to get a booster at 20 years old - especially now, and it's too soon anyway.
Look up the stats.
If things change for the worse, they can get it.

 

[Andrew C]

I think my posting record will reflect that I'm as pro-vaccine as it gets, but even I'm confused by what's going on here. Especially because the FDA apparently requested Pfizer to submit their data early, not the other way around. I'm sure there is some rational explanation, but none of the press releases have adequately explained the decision making process.

So, in lieu of any better information, I'm going to offer the best speculation I can, based on nothing other than what seems like the most plausible scenario. The preliminary results from Pfizer's 3rd dose may look very promising, but perhaps they simply haven't logged enough data yet to reach statistical significance. Barring some huge aberration in the remaining blood samples they need to analyze, Pfizer might have very good confidence that 3 doses will do the trick, but they just need more data points to finalize the math. Perhaps they let the FDA know this, and the FDA decided that they can start the process of EUA before the statistical tests are completed.

If Pfizer had initiated the request, I would also suspect that maybe they got word that Moderna was ready to submit their data, but this apparently isn't the case.

I'm really not worried about the safety of injecting my kid, but I would like a little more reassurance on efficacy.

Thanks for the post!

 

[Kevin_W]

What downside is there to a third dose?

I had minimal side effects and my wife was just tired for a day, but my daughter missed 2 days of school. We can't just say that there is no downside at all - that was pretty significant to her.

We made the calculation that the benefit outweighed the consequence (particularly since we didn't know ahead of time and there was a god chance she'd have no side effect). But I can see people coming to a different conclusion, especially for kids who have pretty low risk already with 2 shots.

 

[correcaminos]

There's barely any need for a healthy person to get a booster at 20 years old - especially now, and it's too soon anyway.
Look up the stats.
If things change for the worse, they can get it.

The biggest reason is not personal IMO. Yes small chances but reducing spread is something to really think about in the future. That's the biggest reason to boost at that age. Same reason why my teen is in conjunction with attempting to stay in school. So it's months away but if things are still going it might be a reason to do it. Again I get your thoughts and I absolutely get the need for boosting too. Remember not all things vaccinated related are for personal reasons.

 

[mmascari]

There's barely any need for a healthy person to get a booster at 20 years old - especially now, and it's too soon anyway.
Look up the stats.
If things change for the worse, they can get it.

Remember to create that calendar entry for 20 years from now to remind those 20 year olds to get the booster then, when they're 40 year olds instead and need it.

Never do today what you can do tomorrow after all.

It's going to be endemic, we'll never get enough people vaccinated, certainly not enough boosted to actually contain spread. We'll get waves and waves of outbreaks on some pattern. That's what everyone keeps saying is the plan. Clearly that is the goal of some too by waiting to get the booster.

 

[DisneyFan32]

Remember to create that calendar entry for 20 years from now to remind those 20 year olds to get the booster then, when they're 40 year olds instead and need it.

Never do today what you can do tomorrow after all.

It's going to be endemic, we'll never get enough people vaccinated, certainly not enough boosted to actually contain spread. We'll get waves and waves of outbreaks on some pattern. That's what everyone keeps saying is the plan. Clearly that is the goal of some too by waiting to get the booster.

I'm scared of this now. Even pandemic will get worse. I have to wear mask forever NOOOOOOO even trains too NOOOO!!

 

[danlb_2000]

Because people put off making appointments when they experienced symptoms. Thinking that it wasn’t serious enough.

That said, in the UK the biggest cause was the cessation of screening programs as medics were diverted to treating Covid patients.

Again, neither of those has anything to do with lockdowns.

 

[matt9112]

They graphs are deceiving because they also include unvaccinated in them. If you remove the unvaccinated that's skewing the scale, it would be more obvious.

I'm sure I've read that you're something like 3 or 5 times more likely to get sick and have worse outcomes without the booster. Is that 300% to 500% worse outcomes without the booster?

The metric reporting is throwing off the perception. Especially when compare to unvaccinated with is like 15 to 30 times worse or something like that.


See above and the graphs @Kevin_W posted while I was typing. Cover up the unvaccinated line and look at just the other two comparisons. The difference is more than dramatic enough that the booster should be required.

The CDC language is squishy. "Fully vaccinated, however is not the same as optimally protected. To be optimally protected, a person needs to get a booster shot when and if eligible."

The opinion articles from medical people I've seen think the CDC should just change the definition. That the current messaging is confusing. The stats all say you really need the booster and that its a significant improvement.

Im not debating if the outcome is worse without the booster...im sure you get more sick? But i would say so? If my life is no longer at risk and i get sick for a couple days? Thats just you know life? The chart i saw in this thread did have unvaxed on it. They were by far the highest group going to the hospital but like i said the differential between 2 shots and 3 was so minor it seems laughable.