Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[GimpYancIent]

Maybe if people stayed away from the political comments and stayed on topic. Instead we get talk about the " zombie apocalypse" and people complaining about restrictions in place. If we could just get over it. The restrictions are what they are. Let's move on to how to live with Covid and how Disney can live with it.

Agree about the political commentary. However, for the record zombie's are not political!

 

[Disstevefan1]

We have graphs and data galore. Now if we only had some truth...

 

[DisneyCane]

You can relax it's just another chart. There are many.

The post I replied to concluded that the positivity was going up based on the chart. That conclusion can't be drawn because of the way the average was arrived at so you can relax.

 

[DisneyCane]

We have graphs and data galore. Now if we only had some truth...

We have plenty of "truth." What "truth" do we not have?

 

[hopemax]

And a problem is that we have our own perspectives and interpretations. Many like to point to the survival rate as a reason why people need to calm down. But my educational background is aero/astro engineering. Do you know what would happen if we accepted if air/space craft designers said 99% survival or 99.4% survival rates are acceptable? Look what happened to Boeing's MAX over 2 crashes. 2! So for as good as this rate is (because it could be worse), for some people their world is dealing with stuff where 99% is not good enough, way too big. Or many people would be happy to find out that their cancer has a survival rate like this does. However, I would rather people avoid getting cancer at all. Even survivable ones. Same here. There are reasonable precautions people can take (no, not lockdowns unless things get very out of control) to get to a time when we have theraputics widely available, and vaccines. It's not forever, but months, a year.

 

[GimpYancIent]

And a problem is that we have our own perspectives and interpretations. Many like to point to the survival rate as a reason why people need to calm down. But my educational background is aero/astro engineering. Do you know what would happen if we accepted if air/space craft designers said 99% survival or 99.4% survival rates are acceptable? Look what happened to Boeing's MAX over 2 crashes. 2! So for as good as this rate is (because it could be worse), for some people their world is dealing with stuff where 99% is not good enough, way too big. Or many people would be happy to find out that their cancer has a survival rate like this does. However, I would rather people avoid getting cancer at all. Even survivable ones. Same here. There are reasonable precautions people can take (no, not lockdowns unless things get very out of control) to get to a time when we have theraputics widely available, and vaccines. It's not forever, but months, a year.

At least you did not put up another chart. That's something.

 

[GoofGoof]

The way they calculated the average for that chart does not provide any useful information about trends. They just did an average of the percent for each of the last seven days. It isn't "percent positive for all tests in the last seven days." Therefore, 10/9 and 10/10 include the outlier of over 7% (on very few tests) from 10/9 in the average. It's a bad graphic.

In my original post I did the math of positives divided by total cases. The percent positive average week over week was about tje same at 4%. Positive cases were up 10% but percent positive was flat.

 

[GoofGoof]

We have plenty of "truth." What "truth" do we not have?

The truth that supports whatever people want to believe. This is a product of the “fake news” mentality that exists in the country today. If some of the facts and data don’t support your narrative then just attack the facts and say they aren’t legit. That way you can carve out any data that supports your position and ignore the rest. It’s been happening since the beginning of the pandemic and will likely continue long after it’s over as people look back at the actions taken and debate whether decisions made were good or not.

 

[danlb_2000]

At least you did not put up another chart. That's something.

 

[Miss Bella]

The truth that supports whatever people want to believe. This is a product of the “fake news” mentality that exists in the country today. If some of the facts and data don’t support your narrative then just attack the facts and say they aren’t legit. That way you can carve out any data that supports your position and ignore the rest. It’s been happening since the beginning of the pandemic and will likely continue long after it’s over as people look back at the actions taken and debate whether decisions made were good or not.

The news varies depending on the source. There is no such thing as unbiased media.

 

[ABQ]

View attachment 504754

I like this one, as it fits the season.

 

[DCBaker]

Numbers are out - there were 48 new deaths reported.

 

[GoofGoof]

The news varies depending on the source. There is no such thing as unbiased media.

I don’t disagree, but in this case it’s data published by the Florida Department of Health so there’s no media bias.

 

[Miss Bella]

I don’t disagree, but in this case it’s data published by the Florida Department of Health so there’s no media bias.

True, but it can be interpreted differently.

 

[Miss Bella]

Is there anything you can't be contrarian about that doesn't fit your preconceived agenda?

I don’t think there is anything contraction about people having different interpretations. Basically I agree with Goof Goof.

 

[DisneyCane]

And a problem is that we have our own perspectives and interpretations. Many like to point to the survival rate as a reason why people need to calm down. But my educational background is aero/astro engineering. Do you know what would happen if we accepted if air/space craft designers said 99% survival or 99.4% survival rates are acceptable? Look what happened to Boeing's MAX over 2 crashes. 2! So for as good as this rate is (because it could be worse), for some people their world is dealing with stuff where 99% is not good enough, way too big. Or many people would be happy to find out that their cancer has a survival rate like this does. However, I would rather people avoid getting cancer at all. Even survivable ones. Same here. There are reasonable precautions people can take (no, not lockdowns unless things get very out of control) to get to a time when we have theraputics widely available, and vaccines. It's not forever, but months, a year.

The difference in aerospace engineering is that every aircraft is used for over 10,000 flights and each flight is an independent event as far as failure probabilities go. Therefore, if an aircraft only has a 1% failure rate, it is essentially guaranteed to fail during its service life. If you were a pilot or cabin crew member on an aircraft like that you'd be almost guaranteed to be in a crash.

The 737MAX had a far lower than 1% failure rate (I think it was around 0.002%) before they grounded it to fix the issue.

With a disease, each person will hopefully only get the disease one time. Therefore, 99.4% (or whatever the number is) survival means something far different in the context of a disease.

 

[Lilofan]

True, but it can be interpreted differently.

Interpreted by many including ones with blinders eyes and what group they are affiliated with.

 

[Miss Bella]

Interpreted by many including ones with blinders eyes and what group they are affiliated with.

This thread wouldn’t be over 2000 pages long if we all saw things the same way.

 

[SamusAranX]

The difference in aerospace engineering is that every aircraft is used for over 10,000 flights and each flight is an independent event as far as failure probabilities go. Therefore, if an aircraft only has a 1% failure rate, it is essentially guaranteed to fail during its service life. If you were a pilot or cabin crew member on an aircraft like that you'd be almost guaranteed to be in a crash.

The 737MAX had a far lower than 1% failure rate (I think it was around 0.002%) before they grounded it to fix the issue.

With a disease, each person will hopefully only get the disease one time. Therefore, 99.4% (or whatever the number is) survival means something far different in the context of a disease.

Jury is still out on "only one time" theory as white cell immunity is being studied.

If anything, we should hope for resistance build-up; i.e. once you have it, your body knows how to fight it even though you may get it again, sort of like the common cold yearly (at least for me; I have the worst chances it seems; as I get two-three colds every year)

 

[DisneyCane]

Jury is still out on "only one time" theory as white cell immunity is being studied.

If anything, we should hope for resistance build-up; i.e. once you have it, your body knows how to fight it even though you may get it again, sort of like the common cold yearly (at least for me; I have the worst chances it seems; as I get two-three colds every year)

That's why I said "hopefully."