Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[correcaminos]

Yeah, district is still not requiring it regardless of the fed mandate. That's why I'm not gonna argue with DD12 walking instead of being crowded on a bus . The bus would pick her up with elementary kids, drop off the elementary kids, then drop her off at the middle school. Personally think the district is being too lax by dropping everything.

Crazy! I'd worry about the districts getting in trouble, but I'm not a superintendent either. Really good luck to you! Fortunately our buses aren't too crowded but we're still not sure we'll bus in the mornings. We might just bus afternoon on the days he comes home early. He's 1st stop.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

And, for your safety — you should avoid any indoor public places until you get vaccinated.

Thank you for the unsolicited advice. I shall not leave my home ever again.

 

[havoc315]

Thank you for the unsolicited advice. I shall not leave my home ever again.

Didn’t say you shouldn’t leave your home. Didn’t say ever again.
Said if you won’t get vaccinated, then you should be banned from certain high risk indoor settings for your safety and the safety of others.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

Didn’t say you shouldn’t leave your home. Didn’t say ever again.
Said if you won’t get vaccinated, then you should be banned from certain high risk indoor settings for your safety and the safety of others.

There are ways around it. There's testing, mask wearing, etc. All of which I'm perfectly willing to do.

Please keep your advice about what I should or should not be doing to yourself. I've already consulted with my doctor about how to handle things given that I'm not vaccinated.

 

[correcaminos]

And, for your safety — you should avoid any indoor public places until you get vaccinated.

Again, it has nothing to do with whether it’s easy or hard. Or whether you have a good excuse.

If you can’t wear a seatbelt, you don’t ride in a car. If you can’t get a vaccine, don’t go into indoor public places.

A bit harsh? It's easy to judge when you are not the one who cannot do something.

Whether you realize or not, there are often exemptions by state for those who cannot wear a seatbelt. Ask me how I know.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

A bit harsh? It's easy to judge when you are not the one who cannot do something.

And also, and I can't say this enough, people who medically can't get the vaccine are not the problem. We're the ones who've still been wearing our masks wherever we go to not spread it or catch it ourselves, and we usually have underlying health conditions so we don't want the virus. We've encouraged those around us to get the vaccine because we know heard immunity protects us.

Focus on the people who refuse to get the vaccine rather than those that can't.

 

[havoc315]

A bit harsh? It's easy to judge when you are not the one who cannot do something.

Whether you realize or not, there are often exemptions by state for those who cannot wear a seatbelt. Ask me how I know.

And I’m all for reasonable accommodations. Prove a negative test, wear a mask, etc.

But if you can’t get vaccinated, and refuse the “inconvenience” of providing negative test, masking, etc.. then yes, harsh is called for.

 

[havoc315]

There are ways around it. There's testing, mask wearing, etc. All of which I'm perfectly willing to do.

Please keep your advice about what I should or should not be doing to yourself. I've already consulted with my doctor about how to handle things given that I'm not vaccinated.

And if you’re willing to do the testing, masking, etc, then no problem. The NYC mandates allow such exceptions. If someone isn’t willing to do the masking, testing.. then yes, stay out of the high risk indoor public settings.

 

[sullyinMT]

I know, the district next to us is requiring it. Not here though. Maybe it's a stubborn Indiana thing.

No, it’s a stubborn rural-ish thing. Busses are private here, but mask optional next year.

 

[correcaminos]

And also, and I can't say this enough, people who medically can't get the vaccine are not the problem. We're the ones who've still been wearing our masks wherever we go to not spread it or catch it ourselves, and we usually have underlying health conditions so we don't want the virus. We've encouraged those around us to get the vaccine because we know heard immunity protects us.

Focus on the people who refuse to get the vaccine rather than those that can't.

Absolutely. I always acknowledge there are legit reasons to medically not vaccinated. Just like kids right now. Not mad at them. So I want all who can to vaccinate in order to protect those who cannot. It's the right thing to do. I really wish for your sake that you could, but I get it! I am sorry that your life is harder because those who won't try to help all.

And I’m all for reasonable accommodations. Prove a negative test, wear a mask, etc.

But if you can’t get vaccinated, and refuse the “inconvenience” of providing negative test, masking, etc.. then yes, harsh is called for.

Did you read their posts? It came across as an attack on them to me. Totally uncalled for given the situation.



Now you want to be harsh to the anti-vaxxers, feel free, but judgment to those who cannot vaccinate is really uncool.

 

[DonniePeverley]

Case numbers are awful !

 

[Willmark]

So if I read it right, there are posters here who are for denying health services to people who didn’t get vaccinated? (BTW, several posters stated this and is freely searchable).

The question then becomes is that advocacy then just for “Covid deniers? How about denying health services to, say smokers who get cancer? After all they chose that fate, no? That’s just the tip of the iceberg that could be used for comparison.

 

[Willmark]

A good article for those who may be interested and those incorrectly using the “fire in a crowded theater” phrase, a phrase that BTW had nothing to do with the case that was uttered in (i.e it was dictum) and was ultimately overturned in 1969.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

This is pointed out as to the notion of what speech may or may not be protected as it relates to Covid.

 

[Lilofan]

So if I read it right, there are posters here who are for denying health services to people who didn’t get vaccinated? (BTW, several posters stated this and is freely searchable).

The question then becomes is that advocacy then just for “Covid deniers? How about denying health services to, say smokers who get cancer? After all they chose that fate, no? That’s just the tip of the iceberg that could be used for comparison.

I don't agree to deny but what do insurance companies do to punish dangerous and irresponsible drivers - raise their insurance premuims. For the anti-vaxers -make it more difficult for them to enjoy a night out etc, more fees tacked on as opposed to vaccinated crowd, and some are already doing so ( ie cruise lines extra fees , NYC requiring proof of vaccination to enjoy restaurants, gyms, etc ). Also to mention get the shot and or else lose your job as some companies are going down that road.

 

[Epcotfan21]

Any chance the Covid numbers will drop off like in the UK so I can go on my Disney World trip next week with my unvaxxed little one? 1/2 kidding

They’re going to drop just like the UK and India, but it won’t be next week. You’ll be going to Disney during a time when Florida has yet to reach its peak.

Best thing you can do is assess the situation and risk and determine if it’s still worth going.

 

[havoc315]

Absolutely. I always acknowledge there are legit reasons to medically not vaccinated. Just like kids right now. Not mad at them. So I want all who can to vaccinate in order to protect those who cannot. It's the right thing to do. I really wish for your sake that you could, but I get it! I am sorry that your life is harder because those who won't try to help all.


Did you read their posts? It came across as an attack on them to me. Totally uncalled for given the situation.



Now you want to be harsh to the anti-vaxxers, feel free, but judgment to those who cannot vaccinate is really uncool.

I’m not judging those who truly can’t vaccinate. We need to protect them by vaccinating everyone we can.

But there are extremely few adults who truly can’t vaccinate. Less than 1 in 1,000. Meanwhile, you have tons of people falsely claiming they can’t vaccinate, falsely claiming medical or religious reasons. Just as you’ve had lots of people falsely claiming they couldn’t wear masks.

Additionally, and I say this after consulting with 2 infectious disease physicians, any unvaccinated adult should pretty much be in lockdown right now. The disease is too prevalent for an unvaccinated adult to be dining indoors at restaurants or other high risk scenarios. One of the ID physicians I spoke with also felt children under 12 should avoid such scenarios though the other physician felt the risk was still low enough in young children.

Saying “unvaccinated adults” should avoid high risk situations isn’t a punishment.
The NYC mandates aren’t about punishing unvaccinated people. They are about public safety. The virus doesn’t care WHY you’re unvaccinated.

Yes, the virus is indeed harsh. The virus won’t leave a person alone simply because they have a good reason to go unvaccinated.

I’m not judging anyone. The virus doesn’t judge. In the eyes of the virus, all unvaccinated people are alike. Regardless of their intent.

Oh boy... please stop using minorities, marginalized is preferred. As one with family in this category I get the issues, but nah, we can overcome the issues marginalized face.

 

[LaughingGravy]

So if I read it right, there are posters here who are for denying health services to people who didn’t get vaccinated? (BTW, several posters stated this and is freely searchable).

The question then becomes is that advocacy then just for “Covid deniers? How about denying health services to, say smokers who get cancer? After all they chose that fate, no? That’s just the tip of the iceberg that could be used for comparison.

The slippery slope argument doesn't apply here. This is a global pandemic with variants that can kill people in a week or two, including young and previously healthy in large numbers who are also providers and caretakers of family members. The question then doesn't become anything. Covid-19 and now its variants have made the situation worse and will continue to do so without real mitigation measures which are easily available.

 

[ABQ]

The drop in the UK is bending even further downward:

 

[Heelz2315]

Extensive study shows fully vaxxed folks had LOWER viral load in their nasal cavity than partially or no vaxxed people supporting decreased potential for spreading Delta. First crack in the CDC's argument.

 

[DisneyCane]

First of all, to even be considered to for the speech to be restricted, it has to be "false" to begin with. I'm not up to speed with what talking heads may be saying because I don't watch political TV or any news. However, if they are saying that there are nanobots in the vaccine, that would be false. If they are saying the vaccines aren't fully approved or some number of people died after being vaccinated they aren't making false statements.

Second, to be allowed to be restricted, the Supreme Court has relied on both the "bad tendency test" and the "clear and present danger" test. Nothing about vaccines could fail the "bad tendency test" because there is no illegal activity for the speech to incite or cause.

On "clear and present danger" I doubt that a case could be made that by making statements which are "anti-vaccine" the statements will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. You'd have a hard time making a case that involuntary catching and unknowingly spreading an infectious disease constitutes a "substantive evil."