Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Communicora]

First time I’ve ever heard a news agency actually vets what they post.

 

[GoofGoof]

Like most of their content, the Forbes article is an opinion piece submitted by a contributor. It's not a news article. I'm not saying the writer's opinion is incorrect, but it isn't vetted the same way a news site would vet a news article.

Definitely true. I’m not a scientist so I can’t dispute anything he said and the guy could actually be correct in the long run, but it kinda reads like sour grapes. Sorta like he is attempting to poke holes in someone else’s research because they are getting too much attention. I know a lot of very smart, successful people in various fields who act this way.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Definitely true. I’m not a scientist so I can’t dispute anything he said and the guy could actually be correct in the long run, but it kinda reads like sour grapes. Sorta like he is attempting to poke holes in someone else’s research because they are getting too much attention. I know a lot of very smart, successful people in various fields who act this way.

Me too.

 

[GoofGoof]

This is part of a larger article published today at the Miami Herald, stating more then 100,000 cruise crew members are still stuck on ships. Here's the information they gave about DCL -

DCL has sent home 33% of their crew so far.

"Disney Cruise Line crew say they have not been paid since the end of March. A company spokesperson said Disney is reevaluating pay for non-working crew and will update them next week"

"At least two crew members on the Disney Wonder tested positive in early May, according to medical records and interviews with sick crew members. Disney Cruise Line is ordering crew members on the Disney Wonder who tested negative back to work, sparking fear about exposure to the virus after more than a month of cabin isolation."

Disney Cruise Line said crew who express concerns about working are not being scheduled.

“Our focus is on the health and well-being of our Crew and we have a team working tirelessly to repatriate them,” said Kim Prunty, a spokesperson for the company. “With constantly changing requirements around the world and numerous borders still closed, this has proven to be an extremely complex process. We are using our ships to repatriate Crew to Europe and the Caribbean and are continuing to try to arrange charter flights to other destinations.”

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article242565281.html

So these guys are basically stuck on the cruise ships for months now and they aren’t being paid. Am I reading that right? Is that even legal to do to someone? I can understand not paying them, but then don’t you have to get them off the ships and home?

 

[VaderTron]

I agree with this. I don‘t think the Oxford group performing these trials was saying the vaccine would be available for widespread use in the general public in September. They said potentially having 30M doses ready for emergency use in September.

My skepticism with the Forbes article posted earlier comes with phase 1. The author is claiming that the animal trials did not work. If that was true why go past phase 1? Also, why say they worked if it is so obvious they didn’t? I don’t claim to understand all the scientific details but that just doesn’t make any sense.

I believe the point the author was attempting to make is that there is no evidence this is successful as a vaccine. If it reduces the severity of the disease, that's a positive and should be explored. However, if the results presented are accurate, then it may not be a viable solution as a vaccine. There wasn't evidence it prevented the monkeys from getting the virus. Just that it lessened the severity of the disease. That's good. But with the fact that some humans already have less severe reactions to Covid-19 than others, does that really remove the danger from those at high-risk if it doesn't prevent them from getting the virus? Those are the type of questions that remain and are sufficient reason to keep measured expectations of a quick road to a successful vaccine that eradicates the threat.

 

[Miss Bella]

Oh I agree. I just think it's important to distinguish an opinion piece from a news piece.

Is there a difference anymore?

 

[Miss Bella]

So these guys are basically stuck on the cruise ships for months now and they aren’t being paid. Am I reading that right? Is that even legal to do to someone? I can understand not paying them, but then don’t you have to get them off the ships and home?

They get food and board. They are not US citizens so I have no idea what laws apply to them or what their contracts say. A lot of them get paid gratuities only.

 

[GoofGoof]

I believe the point the author was attempting to make is that there is no evidence this is successful as a vaccine. If it reduces the severity of the disease, that's a positive and should be explored. However, if the results presented are accurate, then it may not be a viable solution as a vaccine. There wasn't evidence it prevented the monkeys from getting the virus. Just that it lessened the severity of the disease. That's good. But with the fact that some humans already have less severe reactions to Covid-19 than others, does that really remove the danger from those at high-risk if it doesn't prevent them from getting the virus? Those are the type of questions that remain and are sufficient reason to keep measured expectations of a quick road to a successful vaccine that eradicates the threat.

I guess it’s just confusing as the scientists running the trial with the monkeys said it worked as a vaccine. Here’s a clip from the NYT article:
Scientists at the National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Laboratory in Montana last month inoculated six rhesus macaque monkeys with single doses of the Oxford vaccine. The animals were then exposed to heavy quantities of the virus that is causing the pandemic — exposure that had consistently sickened other monkeys in the lab. But more than 28 days later all six were healthy, said Vincent Munster, the researcher who conducted the test.

This is a scientist at an American lab (not the Oxford group developing the vaccine) saying the trial vaccine worked on all 6 monkeys. So if it didn’t work on the monkeys why would he say it did and more importantly why is it going forward in human trials? Seems very bizarre to me.

 

[wannabeBelle]

So these guys are basically stuck on the cruise ships for months now and they aren’t being paid. Am I reading that right? Is that even legal to do to someone? I can understand not paying them, but then don’t you have to get them off the ships and home?

Not sure of the legalities of that but many other lines are having the same problem, Royal Caribbean among them. Apparently part of the issue is that these crew members cannot use any form of a common carrier to get home. I am understanding this to mean that they cant use a commercial flight, public train or taxi to get home. The cruise line executives werent able to get these people home without signing a document swearing that crew wouldnt use common carriers, which if it wasnt followed could result in jail time for said executives. Recently Royal Caribbean did sign it and is in the process of getting as many people home as possible. The question that this brings up, is if the Cruise Lines do start up again soon (relative term), getting these crew members back could be very difficult. What then? Marie

 

[VaderTron]

Definitely true. I’m not a scientist so I can’t dispute anything he said and the guy could actually be correct in the long run, but it kinda reads like sour grapes. Sorta like he is attempting to poke holes in someone else’s research because they are getting too much attention. I know a lot of very smart, successful people in various fields who act this way.

That's a layman's definition of "science" anyway, isn't it?

 

[VaderTron]

I guess it’s just confusing as the scientists running the trial with the monkeys said it worked as a vaccine. Here’s a clip from the NYT article:
Scientists at the National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Laboratory in Montana last month inoculated six rhesus macaque monkeys with single doses of the Oxford vaccine. The animals were then exposed to heavy quantities of the virus that is causing the pandemic — exposure that had consistently sickened other monkeys in the lab. But more than 28 days later all six were healthy, said Vincent Munster, the researcher who conducted the test.

This is a scientist at an American lab (not the Oxford group developing the vaccine) saying the trial vaccine worked on all 6 monkeys. So if it didn’t work on the monkeys why would he say it did and more importantly why is it going forward in human trials? Seems very bizarre to me.

Humans are inherently imperfect. There could be dozens of reasons why. One already presented is the financial windfall that could be associated with a vaccine. The other could be the notoriety involved with developing it and the reputation as an industry leader it brings to the brands/companies involved in it's development. (I hear the "not ethical" argument. I want to believe all are taking the completely ethical highroad in the development of a vaccine, but I also have a realistic understanding of how the world operates with a long memory of pharmaceutical company's ideas of "ethics".)

The point has not changed. It may work, it may not. We need to wait and not jump to the conclusion that this is going to be a working solution and that it will be here before the end of the year.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

That's a layman's definition of "science" anyway, isn't it?

Sort of...but there's a difference between trying to disprove something in the name of science and trying to disprove something because you're a petty jerk.

 

[GoofGoof]

Humans are inherently imperfect. There could be dozens of reasons why. One already presented is the financial windfall that could be associated with a vaccine. The other could be the notoriety involved with developing it and the reputation as an industry leader it brings to the brands/companies involved in it's development. (I hear the "not ethical" argument. I want to believe all are taking the completely ethical highroad in the development of a vaccine, but I also have a realistic understanding of how the world operates with a long memory of pharmaceutical company's idea of "ethics".)

The point has not changed. It may work, it may not. We need to wait and not jump to the conclusion that this is going to be a working solution and that it will be here before the end of the year.

I agree. It may work and it may not. I don’t see being optimistic about something as jumping to the conclusion that it will work but to each their own.

I’m not saying you are doing this, but there’s a small group who are dead against any positive thinking about a vaccine because they feel it will delay opening things. They are pushing the narrative that there will never be a vaccine so we should open everything today.

 

[FutureCEO]

Wow. That’s low.

What's low? Disney shouldn't be held accountable if you get sick. Just like normal people wouldn't sue Disney if they come home with a cold.

 

[VaderTron]

Sort of...but there's a difference between trying to disprove something in the name of science and trying to disprove something because you're a petty jerk.

Here is a great example above. With little information about someone's character, motives, or understanding of a situation someone who is under pressure and stressed may jump to conclusions. Scientists come from the same gene pool as all of us. They just focused their studies differently than we did. But they still have the same imperfect tendencies and imperfect conclusions.

The point is the same. Let's see what happens. Neither side has proven anything yet. That's why it's still in the testing process and has a long way to go.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Here is a great example above. With little information about someone's character, motives, or understanding of a situation someone who is under pressure and stressed may jump to conclusions. Scientists come from the same gene pool as all of us. They just focused their studies differently than we did. But they still have the same imperfect tendencies and imperfect conclusions.

The point is the same. Let's see what happens. Neither side has proven anything yet. That's why it's still in the testing process and has a long way to go.

You know I wasn't referring to anyone here, right?

 

[Miss Bella]

Not sure of the legalities of that but many other lines are having the same problem, Royal Caribbean among them. Apparently part of the issue is that these crew members cannot use any form of a common carrier to get home. I am understanding this to mean that they cant use a commercial flight, public train or taxi to get home. The cruise line executives werent able to get these people home without signing a document swearing that crew wouldnt use common carriers, which if it wasnt followed could result in jail time for said executives. Recently Royal Caribbean did sign it and is in the process of getting as many people home as possible. The question that this brings up, is if the Cruise Lines do start up again soon (relative term), getting these crew members back could be very difficult. What then? Marie

I don’t think the cruiselines will start up again until borders are open and international travel is happening.

 

[VaderTron]

You know I wasn't referring to anyone here, right?

I thought you were referring to the scientist. My misunderstanding if it was just a directionless thought.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I thought you were referring to the scientist. My misunderstanding if it was just a directionless thought.

Just noting that there is a difference, that's all.

ETA: The title of the article does sort of make it seem like sour grapes though.

 

[VaderTron]

Just noting that there is a difference, that's all.

ETA: The title of the article does sort of make it seem like sour grapes though.

I believe that, in order to get attention in the glut of information available, the title helps draw to the surface that there is another possibility. To stand out in a vat of "we have something!" media articles it would need to be definitive and attention grabbing. Of course, the author could just as easily be swayed by the monetization of the article...


...who knows?