Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[GoofGoof]

I’ll phrase it this way:

When it comes to a financial analysis, I’ll take Moody’s over a bunch of UCLA economists who are paid by the State of California telling me how wonderful the government of the State of California is doing.

Always consider the source.

GDP is GDP. They aren’t really using a super complicated model. One is basing their conclusion almost purely on unemployment and the other is basing it on the overall GDP from each state. Both methodologies are flawed but both also show the strengths and weaknesses of the plans. It’s clear from the CNN report that in states where there were fewer restrictions and more businesses were open the unemployment rate was lower, which seems like a no brainer. It’s also clear from the UCLA report that the lower unemployment did not drive overall economic gains for the whole state economy. There are many other factors to consider related to GDP besides covid and the UCLA report didn’t adequately account for them, but the point stands that the economy of FL did not “boom” like some politicians and talking heads want to imply. The CNN report also failed to look at the actual real macro economic impact from less restrictions. Businesses being open does not automatically equate to economic profits.

 

[Horizons '83]

I’ll phrase it this way:

When it comes to a financial analysis, I’ll take Moody’s over a bunch of UCLA economists who are paid by the State of California telling me how wonderful the government of the State of California is doing.

Always consider the source.

I can tell you first hand, Moody's is used by most if not all major retailers in this country. I was temporarily assigned to run analytics on the housing market for a particularly large big box home improvement store a few years back, and that was the data they would use on earnings calls. GDP isn't as straightforward as you'd think either, or as I thought it was before digging into the data.

 

[DisneyCane]

Businesses being open does not automatically equate to economic profits.

This is definitely true. Additionally, open with capacity restrictions also doesn't equate to profit. Long ago (luckily not anymore) I was part owner of a small chain of movie theatres. I can tell you with 100% certainty that there is absolutely no way that we could have made a profit with capacity restricted to 50% or less. Same with a lot of restaurants in regards to dine in profit. In both cases, there are a few peak times during the week and you need to make your profit in those times. You can't just spread the business out over the course of the day to mitigate the revenue loss.

On the flip side, nobody knows if the customers would have been willing to take the risk and patronize the businesses to the point where they could make a profit. I have anecdotal examples of certain restaurants near my home that would hit the reduced capacity and have waits as soon as they were allowed to have dine in and were packed to the gills as soon as the capacity restriction was lifted. There are others which still don't draw the crowds they did prior to March 2020. I think it is highly dependent on the clientele for a particular business.

For WDW, I suspect that after the first few weeks, they would have easily exceeded the reduced capacity if they didn't have the limits in place and if that meant reduced social distancing.

At the end of the day there are a lot of metrics to consider. Some things to look at in hindsight will be things like the percentage of businesses that ceased operations in each category and then compare that State to State. GDP is certainly a factor but as agreed there are significant differences between States in what drives GDP so that doesn't necessarily indicate which pandemic response strategy was best for the economy.

At this point, we don't know if CA had followed FL's method if CA would be in the middle of an economic boom or vice versa. I will certainly agree with @ParentsOf4 that some skepticism is required when employees of a State come out with a study that shows how well their State did. It doesn't mean they are automatically wrong but it does mean that many more sources should be considered and analyzed.

For Disney and their employees, the micro economy was certainly better in the past 11 months at WDW than it was at DL.

 

[danlb_2000]

This is definitely true. Additionally, open with capacity restrictions also doesn't equate to profit. Long ago (luckily not anymore) I was part owner of a small chain of movie theatres. I can tell you with 100% certainty that there is absolutely no way that we could have made a profit with capacity restricted to 50% or less. Same with a lot of restaurants in regards to dine in profit. In both cases, there are a few peak times during the week and you need to make your profit in those times. You can't just spread the business out over the course of the day to mitigate the revenue loss.

On the flip side, nobody knows if the customers would have been willing to take the risk and patronize the businesses to the point where they could make a profit. I have anecdotal examples of certain restaurants near my home that would hit the reduced capacity and have waits as soon as they were allowed to have dine in and were packed to the gills as soon as the capacity restriction was lifted. There are others which still don't draw the crowds they did prior to March 2020. I think it is highly dependent on the clientele for a particular business.

I work with a local community theater and this is what we are wrestling with right now. We haven't done any indoor shows since the start of the pandemic and even when we were able to open, the 6 foot spacing would have made it hard to sell enough tickets to make it financially viable. Now that the restrictions have been lifted we need to figure out what our audiences will be comfortable with.

 

[Smooth]

This looks like good news...

Cleveland Clinic study: In vaccine shortages, previously uninfected should be prioritized

In places where vaccines are hard to come by, the study argues that doses should first go to people who haven’t contracted the virus in the past.

www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com

 

[GoofGoof]

At the end of the day there are a lot of metrics to consider. Some things to look at in hindsight will be things like the percentage of businesses that ceased operations in each category and then compare that State to State. GDP is certainly a factor but as agreed there are significant differences between States in what drives GDP so that doesn't necessarily indicate which pandemic response strategy was best for the economy.

At this point, we don't know if CA had followed FL's method if CA would be in the middle of an economic boom or vice versa. I will certainly agree with @ParentsOf4 that some skepticism is required when employees of a State come out with a study that shows how well their State did. It doesn't mean they are automatically wrong but it does mean that many more sources should be considered and analyzed.

For Disney and their employees, the micro economy was certainly better in the past 11 months at WDW than it was at DL.

The study was done by UCLA and I know we are in the “fake news era“ where anything that doesn’t agree with me is biased or flawed, but I do not believe that the data is manipulated or incorrect. It’s still a reputable University with standards. You can question the conclusions drawn, but dismissing the study as biased seems short sighted to me, but to each their own. It’s kinda ironic that the CNN paid for and sponsored study is being touted as unbiased and more reputable.

That being said, I agree that the differences between states makes it hard to compare. That’s also why different repossess were necessary and why I’ve always dismissed comparing 2 unrelated states head to head over a short period of time. Its actually possible that what FL did was the best plan for FL and what CA did was the best plan for CA even thought he plans were very different but people generally pick a one size fits all approach.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

"Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) said on Tuesday it will begin testing its COVID-19 vaccine in a larger group of children under age 12 after selecting a lower dose of the shot in an earlier stage of the trial.

The study will enroll up to 4,500 children at more than 90 clinical sites in the United States, Finland, Poland and Spain, the company said.

Based on safety, tolerability and the immune response generated by 144 children in a phase I study of the two-dose shot, Pfizer said it will test a dose of 10 micrograms in children between 5 and 11 years of age, and 3 micrograms for the age group of 6 months to 5.

A Pfizer spokesperson said the company expects data from 5- to 11-year-olds in September and would likely ask regulators for emergency use authorization later that month. Data for children 2 to 5 years old could arrive soon after that, he said.

Pfizer expects to have data from the 6-month to 2-year-old age group sometime in October or November."

Pfizer to test COVID-19 vaccine in larger group of children below 12

Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) said on Tuesday it will begin testing its COVID-19 vaccine in a larger group of children under age 12 after selecting a lower dose of the shot in an earlier stage of the trial.

www.reuters.com

Great news that we are moving forward towards a vaccine becoming available for everyone. However, considering that more than 75% of 12-18 year olds have neglected to get even a single dose of the vaccine, I would expect the rate of vaccination to be even lower in the younger cohorts.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

This looks like good news...

Cleveland Clinic study: In vaccine shortages, previously uninfected should be prioritized

In places where vaccines are hard to come by, the study argues that doses should first go to people who haven’t contracted the virus in the past.

www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com

Source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2
Conclusions: Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination.

As I have said in the past, and been heavily criticized for doing so, we are where we are right now because of vaccines, yes. However, we would not be here without the tens of millions of Americans with immunity from prior infection. It's important we recognize that 70% immune is the goal; not 70% vaccinated.

 

[Kevin_W]

Great news that we are moving forward towards a vaccine becoming available for everyone. However, considering that more than 75% of 12-18 year olds have neglected to get even a single dose of the vaccine, I would expect the rate of vaccination to be even lower in the younger cohorts.

I'd agree with that. Even my brother, who spend hours on the computer getting his vaccine in the first hours it was available to him, is hesitant about getting one for his 10-yr-old.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

I'd agree with that. Even my brother, who spend hours on the computer getting his vaccine in the first hours it was available to him, is hesitant about getting one for his 10-yr-old.

My view is that every medical intervention requires a risk to benefit analysis. That's how physicians operate. The risk COVID-19 poses to a very young and healthy child is quite nearly 0. No medical intervention is completely without risk. Is the risk of vaccination likely 0? Sure. But we are needlessly trying to compare which 0 is lower. Personally, I am not comfortable inoculating my child with a vaccine that hasn't had the opportunity for true long term studies; especially one developed under a new technology.

And by the way, their risk is almost 0 if they get COVID, which right now the risk of that alone is incredibly low.

I would love to have them participate in our goal towards herd immunity but I am their parent and my job is to protect them, not their neighbors. They don't have a say in this matter.

I apologize to those who disagree, but I am just not quite there to trust something so new so soon for someone who has developing organ systems. The same way that young children are extremely vulnerable to even low exposure to lead paint dust and older children and adults not nearly as much. I am vaccinated as are my older children. But I am just not ready to do so for my young kids.

The CDC actually updated their guidance on flu vs. COVID for young children today with:

For young children, especially children younger than 5 years old, the risk of serious complications is higher for flu compared with COVID-19.

 

[danlb_2000]

My view is that every medical intervention requires a risk to benefit analysis. That's how physicians operate. The risk COVID-19 poses to a very young and healthy child is quite nearly 0. No medical intervention is completely without risk. Is the risk of vaccination likely 0? Sure. But we are needlessly trying to compare which 0 is lower. Personally, I am not comfortable inoculating my child with a vaccine that hasn't had the opportunity for true long term studies; especially one developed under a new technology.

And by the way, their risk is almost 0 if they get COVID, which right now the risk of that alone is incredibly low.

I would love to have them participate in our goal towards herd immunity but I am their parent and my job is to protect them, not their neighbors. They don't have a say in this matter.

I apologize to those who disagree, but I am just not quite there to trust something so new so soon for someone who has developing organ systems. The same way that young children are extremely vulnerable to even low exposure to lead paint dust and older children and adults not nearly as much. I am vaccinated as are my older children. But I am just not ready to do so for my young kids.

The CDC actually updated their guidance on flu vs. COVID for young children today with:

For young children, especially children younger than 5 years old, the risk of serious complications is higher for flu compared with COVID-19.

If you are concerned about long term effects from the vaccine, wouldn't it also be logical to be concerned about long term effects of getting COVID?

 

[Disney Glimpses]

If you are concerned about long term effects from the vaccine, wouldn't it also be logical to be concerned about long term effects of getting COVID?

A few things regarding this:

1 - we have data to show millions of kids got COVID and are okay from over a year ago. vaccine trials are administered with far fewer people and for EUA far less time
2 - the risk of exposure to the vaccine is 100% if you get vaccinated. the risk of exposure to COVID, right now, is < 1%.
3 - regardless of the above, I do not agree with medical intervention that is necessary and there is nothing to suggest right now that kids under 5 necessarily need to be vaccinated for COVID-19; other than to stop the spread of the virus to vulnerable people. And again, I selfishly as a parent am putting my child above everyone else. That's my job and I will die on that hill.

 

[CarolinaSoprano]

My view is that every medical intervention requires a risk to benefit analysis. That's how physicians operate. The risk COVID-19 poses to a very young and healthy child is quite nearly 0. No medical intervention is completely without risk. Is the risk of vaccination likely 0? Sure. But we are needlessly trying to compare which 0 is lower. Personally, I am not comfortable inoculating my child with a vaccine that hasn't had the opportunity for true long term studies; especially one developed under a new technology.

And by the way, their risk is almost 0 if they get COVID, which right now the risk of that alone is incredibly low.

I would love to have them participate in our goal towards herd immunity but I am their parent and my job is to protect them, not their neighbors. They don't have a say in this matter.

I apologize to those who disagree, but I am just not quite there to trust something so new so soon for someone who has developing organ systems. The same way that young children are extremely vulnerable to even low exposure to lead paint dust and older children and adults not nearly as much. I am vaccinated as are my older children. But I am just not ready to do so for my young kids.

The CDC actually updated their guidance on flu vs. COVID for young children today with:

For young children, especially children younger than 5 years old, the risk of serious complications is higher for flu compared with COVID-19.

I agree with everything you said. I am a mom of 4. I haven't heard many parents at all with younger kids waiting on pins and needles for this vaccine for their 6 year old. A few maybe. But the majority? No way. The risk of the vaccine just is not there for a virtual zero risk of covid itself or complications if by chance the contract it. I'm wondering all of those screaming 'what about the children!' realize not many parents will be vaccinated them anyway.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Let's break the math out even simpler:

Scenario A (vaccinated risk for health young child):

100% (Risk of exposure to COVID vaccine) x < 1% (Risk of serious complications from vaccine)

Scenario B (unvaccinated risk for healthy young child):

<1% (Risk of COVID-19 Infection) x < 1% (Risk of serious illness from COVID-19 if infected)

It is impossible to prove that the risk of scenario A is less than scenario B. It is quite literally incalculable.

 

[lazyboy97o]

A few things regarding this:

1 - we have data to show millions of kids got COVID and are okay from over a year ago. vaccine trials are administered with far fewer people and for EUA far less time
2 - the risk of exposure to the vaccine is 100% if you get vaccinated. the risk of exposure to COVID, right now, is < 1%.
3 - regardless of the above, I do not agree with medical intervention that is necessary and there is nothing to suggest right now that kids under 5 necessarily need to be vaccinated for COVID-19; other than to stop the spread of the virus to vulnerable people. And again, I selfishly as a parent am putting my child above everyone else. That's my job and I will die on that hill.

Vaccines can’t just cause something to pop up years later. The vaccine is safer than COVID-19 by any measure.

 

[danlb_2000]

A few things regarding this:

1 - we have data to show millions of kids got COVID and are okay from over a year ago. vaccine trials are administered with far fewer people and for EUA far less time
2 - the risk of exposure to the vaccine is 100% if you get vaccinated. the risk of exposure to COVID, right now, is < 1%.
3 - regardless of the above, I do not agree with medical intervention that is necessary and there is nothing to suggest right now that kids under 5 necessarily need to be vaccinated for COVID-19; other than to stop the spread of the virus to vulnerable people. And again, I selfishly as a parent am putting my child above everyone else. That's my job and I will die on that hill.

But has there actually been a lot of studies on the long term impact to kids? The only one I am aware of does not paint a very good picture...

Children with long covid - PMC

Almost half of children who contract covid-19 may have lasting symptoms, which should factor into decisions on reopening schools, reports Helen Thomson

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Vaccines can’t just cause something to pop up years later. The vaccine is safer than COVID-19 by any measure.

How many long term studies have been done on mRNA vaccines?

 

[lazyboy97o]

How many long term studies have been done on mRNA vaccines?

They’ve been studied for years. By what mechanism would they cause a problem well after being administered? What other vaccine in general has ever cause an issue long after administration?

 

[Disney Glimpses]

But has there actually been a lot of studies on the long term impact to kids? The only one I am aware of does not paint a very good picture...

Children with long covid - PMC

Almost half of children who contract covid-19 may have lasting symptoms, which should factor into decisions on reopening schools, reports Helen Thomson

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I didn't say the risk were zero, but the risk is still lower than what we have deemed acceptable with the flu. The CDC supports that and again updated their guidance today.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

They’ve been studied for years. By what mechanism would they cause a problem well after being administered? What other vaccine in general has ever cause an issue long after administration?

Historical Safety Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC

Read more about past vaccine safety concerns, how they have been resolved, and what we have learned.

www.cdc.gov