Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[MrHappy]

Here’s one for anyone, particularly @GoofGoof , wouldn’t it not be fair to compare phase 3 efficacies of Moderna, Pfizer vs JNJ since the timing was different? The SA strain wasn’t reported to be around when M and P reported 95%. Perhaps if JnJ was two months faster, they could be reporting 95% as well.
Thoughts?

 

[GoofGoof]

Here’s one for anyone, particularly @GoofGoof , wouldn’t it not be fair to compare phase 3 efficacies of Moderna, Pfizer vs JNJ since the timing was different? The SA strain wasn’t reported to be around when M and P reported 95%. Perhaps if JnJ was two months faster, they could be reporting 95% as well.
Thoughts?

I agree. Thats why I think at a minimum we should be comparing JnJ US trial at 72% to Pfizer and Moderna at 95%. Even within the US the new variants are around. Not prevelant but also not non-existent and that could factor into the numbers some. I think the other big factor is the single dose. Pfizer and Moderna were lower than 72% after one dose. We have to see what the other JnJ trial with 2 doses shows. One of the major benefits of JnJ was going to be the single dose but if a 2nd dose makes it much more effective it may be worth doing. 50M vs 100M people is a big deal though.

 

[MrHappy]

I agree. Thats why I think at a minimum we should be comparing JnJ US trial at 72% to Pfizer and Moderna at 95%. Even within the US the new variants are around. Not prevelant but also not non-existent and that could factor into the numbers some. I think the other big factor is the single dose. Pfizer and Moderna were lower than 72% after one dose. We have to see what the other JnJ trial with 2 doses shows. One of the major benefits of JnJ was going to be the single dose but if a 2nd dose makes it much more effective it may be worth doing. 50M vs 100M people is a big deal though.

I’d be interested to see the age breakdown and health status too. Maybe it’s much higher that 72 for healthy folks under 50 (or 43), just saying

 

[MaryJaneP]

What about the recent report of about 50% of Ohio nursing home workers who declined to be vaccinated.

Do we all drive on one side of the road? Are people killed when someone does not? Are we all supposed to file a tax return? Are people killed when someone does not? Is yelling "fire" in a (formerly) crowded movie theater an example of first amendment protected free speech? Are all heavy handed restrictions bad?

CM's at WDW, imho, are a similar group to teachers and the like. They interface with so many and provide what seems like very needed mental health benefits that their primary function becomes almost secondary to this needed service. Father time is not waiting and these kids are growing up.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

There’s a difference between heavy handed permanent restrictions and temporary ones. When it snows up here in the NE they reduce the speed limit on the interstates, sometimes down to 45 MPH. It’s probably disruptive to shipping companies and business but it’s a temporary solution to avoid accidents when conditions are bad. These discussions always go to the extremes of restrictions forever or no restrictions at all. What’s sensible is restrictions while they are necessary which is for the most part what we have. When the situation improves the restrictions are gone.

Interstate 75 between Chattanooga and Knoxville closes due to extreme fog. It happens often enough that they have permanent gates installed at some on-ramps.

That’s because if a present danger exists that could end up killing lots of people, they will close the interstate which means taking away people’s freedom! Oh my!

 

[flutas]

In other, unshocking news...

Disney: All parkgoers must wear masks, even if they’re vaccinated for COVID-19

More and more people are getting vaccinated in the fight against the coronavirus but that doesn’t mean Disney World is rolling back any of its COVID-19 safety requirements.

www.clickorlando.com

 

[Chip Chipperson]

No doubt!

My post was more geared to those who are more of the "save every possible life" camp during COVID. Will those same advocates be masking up, staying at home, working from home, avoiding Disney World, refusing to travel out of state, dining outdoors only, and staying six feet apart from their family in the flu seasons to come, knowing that if we did we could hypothetically reduce flu deaths and hospitalizations in the thousands? If not, it comes across as hypocrisy to some, and justifiably so. but it's not to me (or you), because again, at some point we make a social contract to "live with it". As callous as it sounds.

I can guarantee too they won't. At some point, they will want to "live their lives".

That's a false equivalency, though. A flu vaccine has been available for decades and supply rarely fails to meet demand, we generally have an idea of how effective it is (with some notable years that missed the mark), and the flu is generally spread by symptomatic people so you know if you're sick and should avoid interacting with others.

Now that there are vaccines available for COVID-19 you will see people start to accept easing restrictions once we get to the point of having enough vaccines for everyone. We're not at that point yet, though.

 

[jmp85]

Given that J&J is going to give 2 million doses initially and not have 100 million until June, that might not be a big problem in the US. Hopefully we've already covered most of the adult population by June.

My brother is in the "I'd rather have the J&J" camp, where I'd rather have mRNA. But beggars cannot be choosers and we'd either happily take whatever is offered.

Is this a recent development? One of the J&J board members said last week he thought 100M doses would be available for Americans by "around April or so."

Johnson & Johnson plans to have 100 million vaccines for Americans by spring, board member says

A J&J board member said “if the clinical trial works out,” the company could significantly increase the nation’s Covid vaccine supply availability.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't think anyone would disagree with the last part, but where the line is between those two things is where the most contentious opinions are.

Rampant suicides have NOT been a side effect of the last year. Elevated? Yes....bad? Yes.

But it’s a political red herring...it’s along the lines of flu comparisons, cancer comparisons, auto accident comparisons and the like.

So Clark county - “Vegas” to the rest of the world - Reported 12 student suicides from June to December...up from 6 normally...and every person doing the “ma freedom” routine has now demanded schools reopen like its 2018. “We can’t wait”

1 is too much...not saying “acceptable losses”...but that statistical assessment is not correct based on 4,400 students.


You know what a crisis is? Hundreds of thousands of opioid deaths in the backwaters for years. Because they have no money...and their “wing” couldn’t care less.
But how inconvenient is that?

Woefully underfunded mental health is inconvenient too.

I diverted there...but you get the point. Masks and limited restaurants/bars are not causing mass suicides. Just don’t go there.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Is this a recent development? One of the J&J board members said last week he thought 100M doses would be available for Americans by "around April or so."

Johnson & Johnson plans to have 100 million vaccines for Americans by spring, board member says

A J&J board member said “if the clinical trial works out,” the company could significantly increase the nation’s Covid vaccine supply availability.

www.cnbc.com

He may want to check with the lab guys first next time.

They lost whatever they gained on the street with that quip last week today...and then some

 

[SamusAranX]

That's a false equivalency, though. A flu vaccine has been available for decades and supply rarely fails to meet demand, we generally have an idea of how effective it is (with some notable years that missed the mark), and the flu is generally spread by symptomatic people so you know if you're sick and should avoid interacting with others.

Now that there are vaccines available for COVID-19 you will see people start to accept easing restrictions once we get to the point of having enough vaccines for everyone. We're not at that point yet, though.

It's not a false equivalency. Even with the vaccine, there are thousands of deaths each season. And this past year we have seen a drastic reduction in flu cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, and most experts agree it's because of the COVID precautions in place.

So I ask, genuinely; knowing these actions now could also reduce flu deaths; each flu season we will basically at some point say "10k deaths is 'ok' " if we don't do what we *know* can reduce those deaths. But who gets to make the call of how many deaths are ok? 2k? 5k? 20k? Whether we like it or not, we all make a line and tradeoff.

Edit: Per the CDC, flu can spread asymptomatically, just with a shorter incubation period: "Symptoms can begin about 2 days (but can range from 1 to 4 days) after the virus enters the body. That means that you may be able to pass on the flu to someone else before you know you are sick, as well as while you are sick."

Which again, makes sense in hindsight now why the flu season is virtually nonexistent in 2020-2021. because of COVID precautions. so if hypothetically i was an epidemiologist, and I stood up in a news conference in 2023 and said "we are projected to have 15k deaths annually from influenza season, but if we institute a stay at home order, stop to international travel, and mask mandate with fines each season for three months, we can reduce that to 7500 deaths annually"; would you be for or against that? Why or why not?

 

[MaryJaneP]

If a CM has the normal flu, do they usually overcome it by themselves? Do they overwhelm the local health system? Do they significantly increased the case/body count? Can the same be said if a CM gets COVID?

 

[SamusAranX]

If a CM has the normal flu, do they usually overcome it by themselves? Do they overwhelm the local health system? Do they significantly increased the case/body count? Can the same be said if a CM gets COVID?

In uncommon cases, yes flu season can overwhelm some hospitals for a time. And anytime a hospital is overrun it can mean more deaths. But nothing like COVID. That's a whole another animal.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

In uncommon cases, yes flu season can overwhelm some hospitals for a time. And anytime a hospital is overrun it can mean more deaths. But nothing like COVID. That's a whole another animal.

How about everywhere, all the time, for months?

 

[SamusAranX]

How about everywhere, all the time, for months?

I don't know the answer to that question.

I ask for your answer to the above scenario:

COVID precautions have been shown in 2020-2021's flu season to drastically reduce flu cases and deaths.

knowing this, would you be comfortable with stay at home orders, mask mandates, travel restrictions, social distancing, and so on, every year for 3+ months. why or why not? bear in mind the yearly estimate of flu deaths is 30k plus in the US; and we know that these will reduce deaths. How many deaths are acceptable to you for the tradeoff of living normally?

Edit: @Sirwalterraleigh apologies if sound antagonistic, I am not trying to be. just interested in the silly debate

 

[Chip Chipperson]

It's not a false equivalency. Even with the vaccine, there are thousands of deaths each season. And this past year we have seen a drastic reduction in flu cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, and most experts agree it's because of the COVID precautions in place.

So I ask, genuinely; knowing these actions now could also reduce flu deaths; each flu season we will basically at some point say "10k deaths is 'ok' " if we don't do what we *know* can reduce those deaths. But who gets to make the call of how many deaths are ok? 2k? 5k? 20k? Whether we like it or not, we all make a line and tradeoff.

Edit: Per the CDC, flu can spread asymptomatically, just with a shorter incubation period: "Symptoms can begin about 2 days (but can range from 1 to 4 days) after the virus enters the body. That means that you may be able to pass on the flu to someone else before you know you are sick, as well as while you are sick."

Which again, makes sense in hindsight now why the flu season is virtually nonexistent in 2020-2021. because of COVID precautions. so if hypothetically i was an epidemiologist, and I stood up in a news conference in 2023 and said "we are projected to have 15k deaths from influenza, but if we institute a stay at home order and mask mandate each season for three months, we can reduce that to 7500 deaths"; would you be for or against that? Why or why not?

But people have the option to get the flu vaccine because it is widely available every year and many choose not to get it. That hasn't been the case with COVID-19 to this point and it seems that more people are willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine compared to the flu vaccine if the polls others have posted here are accurate. At a certain point in the future (hopefully by the Fall), we'll have to leave it up to people to take that risk upon themselves knowing that the rest of us are protected.

I'm sure you will still see people wearing masks in public even after cases of this virus have virtually disappeared compared to where they are now. I don't think you'll see many people willing to have things like 25% restaurant capacity, mandatory mask requirements, etc. when this virus has been beaten down to a non-pandemic level. One change may be more employers sending employees home when they exhibit signs of illness and more people willing to stay home sick instead of feeling like they'll look bad to their employer or co-workers if they don't "tough it out."

 

[SamusAranX]

But people have the option to get the flu vaccine because it is widely available every year and many choose not to get it. That hasn't been the case with COVID-19 to this point and it seems that more people are willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine compared to the flu vaccine if the polls others have posted here are accurate. At a certain point in the future (hopefully by the Fall), we'll have to leave it up to people to take that risk upon themselves knowing that the rest of us are protected.

I'm sure you will still see people wearing masks in public even after cases of this virus have virtually disappeared compared to where they are now. I don't think you'll see many people willing to have things like 25% restaurant capacity, mandatory mask requirements, etc. when this virus has been beaten down to a non-pandemic level. One change may be more employers sending employees home when they exhibit signs of illness and more people willing to stay home sick instead of feeling like they'll look bad to their employer or co-workers if they don't "tough it out."

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the flu shot only about 40-50 percent effective?

Thanks for the added perspective. I am probably in the same camp as you. I think, or at least, hope masking will become more common It's cheap, effective, and painless and doesn't cause economical and quality of life disruptions. As far as dining restrictions, travel barriers, and stay at home lockdowns during flu season, yeah; that's the line that most people will draw. At that point they want to "live their life". Even though it means more deaths.

 

[Incomudro]

It's not a false equivalency. Even with the vaccine, there are thousands of deaths each season. And this past year we have seen a drastic reduction in flu cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, and most experts agree it's because of the COVID precautions in place.

So I ask, genuinely; knowing these actions now could also reduce flu deaths; each flu season we will basically at some point say "10k deaths is 'ok' " if we don't do what we *know* can reduce those deaths. But who gets to make the call of how many deaths are ok? 2k? 5k? 20k? Whether we like it or not, we all make a line and tradeoff.

Edit: Per the CDC, flu can spread asymptomatically, just with a shorter incubation period: "Symptoms can begin about 2 days (but can range from 1 to 4 days) after the virus enters the body. That means that you may be able to pass on the flu to someone else before you know you are sick, as well as while you are sick."

Which again, makes sense in hindsight now why the flu season is virtually nonexistent in 2020-2021. because of COVID precautions. so if hypothetically i was an epidemiologist, and I stood up in a news conference in 2023 and said "we are projected to have 15k deaths annually from influenza season, but if we institute a stay at home order, stop to international travel, and mask mandate with fines each season for three months, we can reduce that to 7500 deaths annually"; would you be for or against that? Why or why not?

I've been saying this since day one.

 

[MaryJaneP]

"Perfect Attendance" bonuses caused many co-workers to show up at work even when they were obviously sick. Is that likely to change? Does WDW offer any incentives to CMs that may be directly contrary to "stay at home if you are sick"? And what about asymptomatic spreaders?

 

[SamusAranX]

I've been saying this since day one.

That's nice and all, but we weren't taking all reasonable precautions from day one, at least some areas and groups weren't. See: anti-mask protests, live and let die Florida, large parties in LA, and so on.

We also didn't know until now that these same precautions would crush the flu season. We were actually worried about a twindemic, so if anything we dodged some bullets.