Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[hopemax]

The world's vaccination rate is what it is. Unless places start mandating vaccines, that probably won't change too much.

We were talking about lying, and you pivot to the world's vaccination status? This has absolutely nothing to do with people's willingness to accept lies.

 

[Andrew C]

Then why are so many people clinging to a myriad of lies?

There are billions of people in this world?

 

[mmascari]

We definitely need to get more people vaccinated, and including the booster dose after 5 months.

In keeping with what I suggest for boosters. The last/youngest member of our house to get vaccinated hits 5 months after dose 2 on Thursday. They have a booster appointment for Friday evening.

Because, why not, getting it done is less effort than going to a soccer practice.
Even if their risk is milder, why would I want to subject them to that.
And since that risk is statistically, why would I want to risk being one of the bad statistics.

It's not like it costs us anything to get the booster. Certainly not anymore effort than all the other stuff we do for the kids. The ROI on it is huge. Certainly higher than playing soccer that they'll never get a scholarship for. We're counting on the WDW trips inspiring them to become an imagineer, what's the the average pay for that? Judging if we can call a deluxe a good "investment".

 

[Andrew C]

We were talking about lying, and you pivot to the world's vaccination status? This has absolutely nothing to do with people's willingness to accept lies.

I was responding to what you wrote. I guess I misinterpreted it?

 

[Andrew C]

In keeping with what I suggest for boosters. The last/youngest member of our house to get vaccinated hits 5 months after dose 2 on Thursday. They have a booster appointment for Friday evening.

Because, why not, getting it done is less effort than going to a soccer practice.
Even if their risk is milder, why would I want to subject them to that.
And since that risk is statistically, why would I want to risk being one of the bad statistics.

It's not like it costs us anything to get the booster. Certainly not anymore effort than all the other stuff we do for the kids. The ROI on it is huge. Certainly higher than playing soccer that they'll never get a scholarship for. We're counting on the WDW trips inspiring them to become an imagineer, what's the the average pay for that? Judging if we can call a deluxe a good "investment".

Is the booster gap down to 5 months now? I was still thinking it was 6. Behind!

 

[Lilofan]

So Fauci should face charges for lying about masks

Unfortunately in our highly charged society and death threats made against him, Dr Fauci and family now have law enforcement protection since 2020 directed by Dept of HHS.

 

[mmascari]

Is the booster gap down to 5 months now? I was still thinking it was 6. Behind!

COVID-19 Booster Shot

Learn who is eligible for a COVID-19 booster shot.

www.cdc.gov

For both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna:

When to get a booster:

At least 5 months after completing your primary COVID-19 vaccination series

It changed from 6 to 5 for Pfizer first, but then Moderna was updated down to 5 to match.

After J&J it's 2 months and recommended to get an mRNA for the booster if possible, but another J&J if there's a reason.


Edit: Also, for all those concerned about this meaning more shots every 5 months, we aren't seeing that at all. Someone who got a shot in January of 2021, then a booster in July is beyond 5 and 6 months since then now. I haven't seen anything indicating in the slightest that they need an additional booster. The doesn't mean we will not see any recommendations in the future, maybe after 12, 18, 24, or 60 months. We don't know yet. But we do know we're not seeing any for an additional booster 6 months after the first booster. At least not based on the vaccinated population that is this far along.

 

[Andrew C]

COVID-19 Booster Shot

Learn who is eligible for a COVID-19 booster shot.

www.cdc.gov

For both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna:


It changed from 6 to 5 for Pfizer first, but then Moderna was updated down to 5 to match.

After J&J it's 2 months and recommended to get an mRNA for the booster if possible, but another J&J if there's a reason.

Nothing recommended for my 8 year old yet then. I imagine this will change.

 

[Incomudro]

Not true. This has been repeated so many times by the anti-Fauci crowd that a lot of people believe it. What he said was far more nuanced, but people aren't good at nuance.

He said what he said, when he said it, because as a medical professional he knows that you don't reach for a mask that isn't n95 rated if your intent is to block viral particles.

 

[mmascari]

Nothing recommended for my 8 year old yet then. I imagine this will change.

That was approved on October 29, 2021 right?

3 weeks - November 19, 2021
1 - December 19, 2021
2 - January 19, 2022
3 - February 19, 2022
4 - March 19, 2022
5 - April 19, 2022

So, even if you they got it on the very first day, there's still 2+ months until they hit the 5 month point. I expect we'll start to see booster recommendations for 5-11 year old in early April. Plus however many extra days/weeks it took until each kid was able to schedule vaccination. My last turned 12 before 11 was approve and started the clock that way.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

The statement is March and the statement in June cannot both be true...just doesn't align. If June is 100% true then why did he say what he did in March? If March is 100% true then why did he say what he said in June? Messaging problem...misleading...or the 'noble lie' as Slate called it.

Since we were just learning about the virus in March, and knew a lot more in June, yes, both statements can be true. Your opinion is that he lied. He was simply basing what he said on different information. Not a lie.

 

[Andrew C]

That was approved on October 29, 2021 right?

3 weeks - November 19, 2021
1 - December 19, 2021
2 - January 19, 2022
3 - February 19, 2022
4 - March 19, 2022
5 - April 19, 2022

So, even if you they got it on the very first day, there's still 2+ months until they hit the 5 month point. I expect we'll start to see booster recommendations for 5-11 year old in early April. Plus however many extra days/weeks it took until each kid was able to schedule vaccination. My last turned 12 before 11 was approve and started the clock that way.

I was only saying that the CDC website you linked doesn’t mentioned boosters recommendations for the 5-11 year olds. But yeah, I guess that could be because none are yet eligible.

 

[Andrew C]

Since we were just learning about the virus in March, and knew a lot more in June, yes, both statements can be true. Your opinion is that he lied. He was simply basing what he said on different information. Not a lie.

They still can’t both be true even if i accepted your scenario.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

They still can’t both be true even if i accepted your scenario.

Well, that's your belief and no one is going to change your mind. Your choice.

 

[Andrew C]

Well, that's your belief and no one is going to change your mind. Your choice.

He was asked specifically why we weren’t wearing masks from the beginning. His response wasn’t that we learned much more since March, as you suggest was the reason. His response was that we were concerned about the public health community and supplies. Which doesn’t align with his answer in March where this wasn’t mentioned. There’s a gap there.

 

[hopemax]

In March he said...."there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face. "

In June, he said...
"Q: So, why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning?

"Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected.""

The statement is March and the statement in June cannot both be true...just doesn't align. If June is 100% true then why did he say what he did in March? If March is 100% true then why did he say what he said in June? Messaging problem...misleading...or the 'noble lie' as Slate called it.

There are usually multiple reasons people have for why they do or don't do something. They don't always list all the reasons. For example, if someone skips an event. They may, accurately, say they have other plans. But they usually keep the "but even if I didn't have these plans, I would still skip because I don't think I'd enjoy it, I don't have the money, it's too far away, etc." People tend to choose which reason out of the multiple based on what they think the response will be. "Other plans" is perceived as more effective at getting other people to drop it. The others tend to invite unsolicited attempts to change minds.

Both reasons can be true at the same time. The issue is if you believe there is only one possible answer. And not there were always multiple, but shared at different times. There were absolutely concerns about the benefits of imperfect protection. So obvious that there were/are concerns, that 2 years later in this thread *we are STILL arguing about the benefits of imperfect protection.* If the June statement were said in March, people would have peopled and supply shortages would have been exacerbated. It doesn't take too many hoarders and profiteers to disrupt things for everyone see: resellers shopping at WDW vs the population at WDW at a given time. The when you are able to make the June statement is dependent on the supply of PPE vs expectations of the extent of the hoarding behavior.

 

[Andrew C]

There are usually multiple reasons people have for why they do or don't do something. They don't always list all the reasons. For example, if someone skips an event. They may, accurately, say they have other plans. But they usually keep the "but even if I didn't have these plans, I would still skip because I don't think I'd enjoy it, I don't have the money, it's too far away, etc." People tend to choose which reason out of the multiple based on what they think the response will be. "Other plans" is perceived as more effective at getting other people to drop it. The others tend to invite unsolicited attempts to change minds.

Both reasons can be true at the same time. The issue is if you believe there is only one possible answer. And not there were always multiple, but shared at different times. There were absolutely concerns about the benefits of imperfect protection. So obvious that there were/are concerns, that 2 years later in this thread *we are STILL arguing about the benefits of imperfect protection.* If the June statement were said in March, people would have peopled and supply shortages would have been exacerbated. It doesn't take too many hoarders and profiteers to disrupt things for everyone see: resellers shopping at WDW vs the population at WDW at a given time. The when you are able to make the June statement is dependent on the supply of PPE vs expectations of the extent of the hoarding behavior.

The importance of choosing your words carefully when speaking to the American people. The reaction of wanting to make excuses for him is somewhat amusing. Particularly when we have another example as it relates to his words around his adjustment of herd immunity. And we can look back to some of his statements during the 80s with AIDS. A bit of a trend with him. Probably not the best person to be speaking on behalf of an administration.

 

[DisneyCane]

He said what he said, when he said it, because as a medical professional he knows that you don't reach for a mask that isn't n95 rated if your intent is to block viral particles.

Exactly. He didn't lie. He told the truth based on his knowledge of respiratory viruses and PPE. He changed his tune when it started to become a thing to "do something" to make people feel safer and to have something for people to use for virtue signaling but he didn't want people trying to purchase the N95 respirators that would actually work when worn properly.

Just go back early in this thread and see all of the posters patting themselves on the back for caring so much about everybody else that they make sure to wear a piece of t-shirt on their face and how those same posters shamed those of us who didn't want to.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Exactly. He didn't lie. He told the truth based on his knowledge of respiratory viruses and PPE. He changed his tune when it started to become a thing to "do something" to make people feel safer and to have something for people to use for virtue signaling but he didn't want people trying to purchase the N95 respirators that would actually work when worn properly.

Just go back early in this thread and see all of the posters patting themselves on the back for caring so much about everybody else that they make sure to wear a piece of t-shirt on their face and how those same posters shamed those of us who didn't want to.

Based on the recommendations at that time, I did pat anyone on the back that listened and try to make a difference with the science at the time. Others, like a lot here were still complaining about wearing anything back then. Because the science changed a bit doesn’t change the fact that some were trying to do the right thing with what we knew.

The easiest thing in the world to do is wait until there is a pandemic..a war..a recession..etc and go back to see what our leaders said. That’s called Monday morning quarterbacking and it’s bull. You never hear about when they got it right, only the wrong. If anyone here, or anywhere, actually believes that a well known health expert is lying to trick us into believing something, and putting lives on the line, then this country has more problems then I think it has.

 

[mmascari]

I get that we're not all Olympians. And, anecdotally based on news reports, hockey does seem to have an elevated risk.

PS: They won too, by a lot.

A dispute over virus testing suggests a lingering mistrust of Russia. (Published 2022)

Although Canadian officials avoided accusing their Russian counterparts of misconduct, they had reason for concern.

www.nytimes.com