Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[ParentsOf4]

I think it’s pretty promising that almost 85% of all subjects studied often or always wear masks. Good job on that people

I could always wear a mask when required (even the right way) but if I frequently eat in restaurants (without a mask) or go to bars (where they are open) with no mask I’m still at higher risk of Covid. I could also have been infected by my wife or kids or someone else I live with. People who always wear a mask when required don‘t wear one at home with a family member. 2/3 of the Covid positive people In the study who had close contact with another positive person said they were a family memeber or close friend. What the study doesn‘t address is how many of the people who always wore masks either got infected at home from a family member or close friend or got infected at a bar/restaurant with no masks required.

One other point, the mask stops you from infecting others. A stat we will never know is how many more people would have been infected if the 130 Covid positive people who often or always wore masks didn’t wear them.

Two items to mention. As I recall:

1. Data from New York suggested that a lot (majority?) contracted COVID-19 at home. The idea being that one family member contracted COVID-19 and then infected other family members at home where, presumably, masks were not being worn.
2. Widely used masks (i.e. ones available to non-medical professionals) work best to prevent the wearer from infecting others, not prevent the wearer from getting infected. I can wear a mask properly all day long but if I'm around others not wearing masks, I'm still at an elevated risk of getting COVID-19.

Based on the above, I conclude that it's vital that those around me wear masks. Therefore, the report is a bit of a red herring since it only asks if the subject wears a mask.

Am I missing something?

The short of it is that people at Disney World need to wear masks so they don't infect others.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Raises more questions then answers. We see so many of these articles questioning masks and if they have any benefit to helping prevent catching the virus. They are always small little studies. I hate to call this one a study at all with about 150 people in it. They don’t make any reference to whether they were wearing the mask correctly. We know if it’s not worn right, there’s a much bigger chance of it not working.
At the top of the chart it says..
View attachment 505403
“people who received positive and negative results”. What does that even mean? That the small study becomes even smaller because not all of them were positive?
I’ll stick with the multitude of health organizations and reputable studies that have done numerous peer reviewed studies.

My understanding is that all 154 tested positive but all 160 of the "control group" tested negative. Just based on that, more than 50% of the people who claimed to always wear a mask tested negative. And since all of the questions were answered by the same people, the math means that at least some of the people with COVID-19 who "always" wore their mask were among those who had dined out at a restaurant in the 2 weeks prior to testing positive and therefore could not possibly have "always" worn a mask when in public.

By the way, this is the same study released in September that said people who dined out were twice as likely to catch COVID-19 as those who didn't dine out, but many of the people (i don't mean anyone here, by the way) latching on to this false spin of the data were the same ones calling the study BS when the restaurant data was reported last month.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

My understanding is that all 154 tested positive bit all 160 of the "control group" tested negative. Just based on that, more than 50% of the people who claimed to always wear a mask tested negative. And since all of the questions were answered by the same people, the math means that at least some of the people with COVID-19 who "always" wore their mask were among those who had dined out at a restaurant in the 2 weeks prior to testing positive and therefore could not possibly have "always" worn a mask when in public.

By the way, this is the same study released in September that said people who dined out were twice as likely to catch COVID-19 as those who didn't dine out, but many of the people (i don't mean anyone here, by the way) latching on to this false spin of the data were the same ones calling the study BS when the restaurant data was reported last month.

That explains it very well. Doesn’t take much to confuse me sometimes so thanks for the clarification.

 

[DisneyCane]

Its not fake, it’s just someone taking existing statistics and interpreting them a different way. If you do a search it appears on several places online.

Heres basically the same story:

CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks

Over 70 percent of the case-patients who were contaminated with the virus fell ill despite "always" wearing a mask.

thefederalist.com

I think this just seems to show what has been assumed even by "mask proponents." Wearing a mask does either nothing or very little to protect the wearer from getting infected.

I'm not convinced that they (cloth face coverings) prevent spread from infected people in any significant way but this study doesn't seem to make the case one way or the other on that.

Let's not argue about masks. I don't believe in them being effective but I still wear one (properly) when required and don't plan to start a revolution over the policies. I'm just commenting on what I think this study does and does not say.

 

[MisterPenguin]

 

[techgeek]

Let's not argue about masks.

Yet, in the same message:

think this just seems to show what has been assumed even by "mask proponents." Wearing a mask does either nothing or very little to protect the wearer from getting infected.

I don't believe in them being effective but I still wear one (properly) when required and don't plan to start a revolution over the policies.

 

[DisneyCane]

Yet, in the same message:

I'm not arguing anything. Just stating what the study seems to say that the "mask proponents" say over and over. That you are wearing a piece of fabric on your face to protect others, not yourself.

I then stated my personal belief that I'm not convinced they protect others either but I'm not arguing about requirements to wear them. There's no reason to argue if not over requirements/mandates. I'm free to believe what I want based on research and data analysis just as you are. As long as I follow the rules, what difference does it make what I believe?

 

[GoofGoof]

I think this just seems to show what has been assumed even by "mask proponents." Wearing a mask does either nothing or very little to protect the wearer from getting infected.

I'm not convinced that they (cloth face coverings) prevent spread from infected people in any significant way but this study doesn't seem to make the case one way or the other on that.

Let's not argue about masks. I don't believe in them being effective but I still wear one (properly) when required and don't plan to start a revolution over the policies. I'm just commenting on what I think this study does and does not say.

Masks are intended to prevent you from infecting others. That hasn’t changed.

That being said, nothing in that actual study proves that anyone was infected while wearing a mask. A number of respondents who said they always where a mask tested positive but “always wear a mask” doesn’t mean 24/7 round the clock. It means they wore a mask when required. Again, if they ate in a restaurant they obviously didn’t have a mask on while eating. At home with their families they didn’t have a mask on. With the study data provided there’s no way to draw a conclusion on whether masks protect the wearer from getting infected even though that’s not the primary reason to wear one. IMHO it’s a flawed conclusion drawn from several authors (parroting each other) with a flashy, clickbait headline. It’s a direct attempt to counter the CDC’s own synopsis of the conclusions drawn from the study results that painted dining out in an a negative light.

I always wear a mask too when required. Everyone should.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Masks are intended to prevent you from infecting others. That hasn’t changed.

That being said, nothing in that actual study proves that anyone was infected while wearing a mask. A number of respondents who said they always where a mask tested positive but “always wear a mask” doesn’t mean 24/7 round the clock. It means they wore a mask when required. Again, if they ate in a restaurant they obviously didn’t have a mask on while eating. At home with their families they didn’t have a mask on. With the study data provided there’s no way to draw a conclusion on whether masks protect the wearer from getting infected even though that’s not the primary reason to wear one. IMHO it’s a flawed conclusion drawn from several authors (parroting each other) with a flashy, clickbait headline. It’s a direct attempt to counter the CDC’s own synopsis of the conclusions drawn from the study results that painted dining out in an a negative light.

I always wear a mask too when required. Everyone should.

The recommended masks for general wear because of COVID19 are intended to be a barrier for the wearer from the virus in the air having ready access to the nose and mouth, thus limiting possible avenues of access into the body. Vice / Versa the wearer that may or may not be aware of being infected by the virus has a barrier on that helps prevent spewing out virus into the air. A reasonable multi / mutual thing that every one can do to reduce the potential spread of the illness. NO it is not 100%, but, if enough people do it there are results realized. If a person is at a location where the nearest adjacent person is half a football field way NO wearing a mask makes no sense but if at a store, in a meeting or any location where adjacent people are in close proximity (i.e. approximately 6ft or so) or even a comfortable distance WEAR A Mask. Not impressing anyone by not putting some cloth over your mouth and nose in defense of yourself and consideration of others.

 

[danlb_2000]

Masks are intended to prevent you from infecting others. That hasn’t changed.

That being said, nothing in that actual study proves that anyone was infected while wearing a mask. A number of respondents who said they always where a mask tested positive but “always wear a mask” doesn’t mean 24/7 round the clock. It means they wore a mask when required. Again, if they ate in a restaurant they obviously didn’t have a mask on while eating. At home with their families they didn’t have a mask on. With the study data provided there’s no way to draw a conclusion on whether masks protect the wearer from getting infected even though that’s not the primary reason to wear one. IMHO it’s a flawed conclusion drawn from several authors (parroting each other) with a flashy, clickbait headline. It’s a direct attempt to counter the CDC’s own synopsis of the conclusions drawn from the study results that painted dining out in an a negative light.

I always wear a mask too when required. Everyone should.

The data also said that 50% of the people where exposed to a family member who had covid. Were they always wearing a mask around their family?

 

[DCBaker]

Numbers are out - there were 141 new reported deaths.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Hey! Does the rum in the Dole Whip Rum Float at MK counteract any possible virus exposure when the mask is removed to suck down the tasty refreshment?

 

[Chi84]

Hey! Does the rum in the Dole Whip Rum Float at MK counteract any possible virus exposure when the mask is removed to suck down the tasty refreshment?

No, but it makes you care less.

 

[techgeek]

I'm not arguing anything. Just stating what the study seems to say that the "mask proponents" say over and over. That you are wearing a piece of fabric on your face to protect others, not yourself.

I then stated my personal belief that I'm not convinced they protect others either but I'm not arguing about requirements to wear them. There's no reason to argue if not over requirements/mandates. I'm free to believe what I want based on research and data analysis just as you are. As long as I follow the rules, what difference does it make what I believe?

If you’re not explicitly arguing, you’re constantly trying to have it both ways. Every single time mask usage comes up in any tangential fashion, you’re the first to make sure we all understand exactly what your beliefs are as to the interpretation of the data, and your personal feelings about wearing a mask.

It’s a constant and tiring agenda, and I’m not sure to what end it is and to whom your audience is intended, as it does not advance this discussion. We have repeatedly attempted to move beyond debate about masks. We know your feelings.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Hey! Does the rum in the Dole Whip Rum Float at MK counteract any possible virus exposure when the mask is removed to suck down the tasty refreshment?

Only if you buy a bootleg Dole Whip in the parking lot. Those are made with rubbing alcohol.

 

[Chi84]

If you’re not explicitly arguing, you’re constantly trying to have it both ways. Every single time mask usage comes up in any tangential fashion, you’re the first to make sure we all understand exactly what your beliefs are as to the interpretation of the data, and your personal feelings about wearing a mask.

It’s a constant and tiring agenda, and I’m not sure to what end it is and to whom your audience is intended, as it does not advance this discussion. We have repeatedly attempted to move beyond debate about masks. We know your feelings.

There are plenty of people on all sides of the issue repeatedly expressing their beliefs, and I’m sure those who don’t agree find it tiresome. If you don’t like what someone says, why not just move on without engaging? Calling out one poster for having an agenda seems unfair.

 

[oceanbreeze77]

Florida puts a positive spin on COVID-19 data, misleading the public on pandemic

Florida has obscured the true extent of its COVID-19 pandemic by using a misleading measure of positive cases to justify reopening schools and businesses, state data indicates. While Florida has pu…

www.sun-sentinel.com

 

[Disney Analyst]

Florida puts a positive spin on COVID-19 data, misleading the public on pandemic

Florida has obscured the true extent of its COVID-19 pandemic by using a misleading measure of positive cases to justify reopening schools and businesses, state data indicates. While Florida has pu…

www.sun-sentinel.com

Welp. Enjoy another year of way less tourists Florida.

I’m certainly not coming.

 

[DCBaker]

 

[SamusAranX]

I don't see what is wrong with not counting positive tests twice over in the the daily count. For example, if I test positive Monday, and then go get tested Friday, the other methods would count me as a positive case twice. If anything, that inflates numbers in a way to me. I am not two separate people who contracted the virus.