Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
People affected by the shutdown are also at increased risk. It is about balancing the scale with no easy answers. Hopefully the news that the virus is losing its potency turns out to be factual. It would explain the lower death rates per capita we seem to be experiencing. Hospitals also have a better understanding of how to treat this disease.
I agree...I’m tired like everyone else.

Though the “mass suicides and domestic murders from unemployment” haven’t materilized.

Apparently people don’t miss the Olive Garden that much 😉
 

robhedin

Well-Known Member
No matter what, the ideal scenario for any government looking to ease restrictions should include an overall decrease in the number of patients hospitalized.
I'm not sure I'd put it quite that way.

What I'd be looking at is the rate of hospitalizations and the rate of ICU usage, not so much the total hospitalized.

In other words, if 100 new people were admitted today, I'd want to see no more than 100 admitted tomorrow, and hopefully fewer, regardless of how many people were discharged.

I'd also be looking at the relative severity of the hospitalized cases-- how many people that need hospitalization also need ICU.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
"Doctors around the world!!!"

All four of them.

Always keep in mind that if a vaccine doesn't happen then herd immunity is the only way out.

People advocating for an overarching lockdown are not considering the unintended consequences. Big picture.

It is easy to criticize when you don't have the responsibility of threading the needle if you will.
 

crawale

Well-Known Member
You obviously didn't read what I said as I stated that is the death rate for reported cases.

More cases leads to more death. For every 1000 new cases in Florida at least 57 people are going to die. Likely many more without being diagnosed.

Any increase in numbers should be unacceptable. If we don't control those numbers they start to increase exponentially again.
Over the last 5 days we have had 5900 new cases and 52 deaths. This is from the Florida CovID 19 website so your numbers are incorrect. This is reported cases. Since we do not have any idea of the unreported cases we can assume the death rate is even lower.
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I'd put it quite that way.

What I'd be looking at is the rate of hospitalizations and the rate of ICU usage, not so much the total hospitalized.

In other words, if 100 new people were admitted today, I'd want to see no more than 100 admitted tomorrow, and hopefully fewer, regardless of how many people were discharged.

I'd also be looking at the relative severity of the hospitalized cases-- how many people that need hospitalization also need ICU.

You can't really dismiss the fact that hospitalizations are outpacing discharges, though. If the number of people hospitalized keeps increasing at a rate greater than the number of patients discharged then eventually hospitals run out of beds regardless of whether the patients are in the ICU or not. There's a finite number of beds and a finite number of people available to treat patients.

Now, Texas is a big state and the number of patients they have probably isn't putting a huge strain on their healthcare system statewide at the moment. I don't live there so I can't say if some areas are under greater strain than others, but it would make sense since that tends to be the case just about everywhere in the country. for example, northern NJ was pounded. Central NJ was hit hard, but not as bad as North Jersey. Southern NJ hasn't been impacted nearly as badly as the rest of the state so far. It also has a much lower population density. I'd expect similar scenarios in other states (not that there can't be outliers, of course). So the number of hospitalizations in Texas might not hit some areas as hard, but at a certain point there will be hospitals that are over-stressed if the number of patients doesn't eventually level off or decrease. If their governor is still planning on easing restrictions even further then he's almost certainly going to add to the burden that hospitals face in the more densely populated areas of the state.
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
We have given up. I’m not saying we shouldn’t open, so all you that have fingers ready on your keyboard just back off. I mean we went from closed to open. Phases are a joke. Give people a inch and they will take a yard as the saying goes. Phases need to be much slower or we will see what we are seeing now. We have states going from a 2 week first phase and immediately going into second. Not enough time to determine what’s going on.Tell people they are allowed to venture out but with masks and distancing and you will have many taking advantage. It’s a natural human response for people that really don’t care in the first place and think it’s all been a joke. Texas hospitals are getting crushed right now. Let’s hope the other 25 states that are going up don’t encounter the same thing. Was the reason for social distancing in the first place, not to overwhelm them.
Meanwhile in my area, NJ shores and beaches have opened and the parties have started.
All young college guys but they are now testing parents of them all and people they have been in contact with. Give a inch... let’s hope all the elderly that they have been in contact with are ok.

I think we have achieved what we set out to do. We flattened the curve so that our hospitals were not overloaded, we got our PPE, and ventilators manufacturer’s well under way and ready for the spike. It was never the intention to eradicate COVID.
 

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
I think we have achieved what we set out to do. We flattened the curve so that our hospitals were not overloaded, we got our PPE, and ventilators manufacturer’s well under way and ready for the spike. It was never the intention to eradicate COVID.
So you are saying "Mission Accomplished"?
miss.jpg
 

DisneyDebRob

Well-Known Member
I think we have achieved what we set out to do. We flattened the curve so that our hospitals were not overloaded, we got our PPE, and ventilators manufacturer’s well under way and ready for the spike. It was never the intention to eradicate COVID.
To eradicate it was never my point. Never mentioned it once. My point, again, was that if we are opening, as a lot of places are, we would hope that people would go about their business in a responsible way to not keep having big spikes. Unfortunately as I said, and we see it in a lot of places, open up and people act like everything is ok. It’s not and won’t be until we get a vaccine. Really, is it that hard?
 

robhedin

Well-Known Member
I think we have achieved what we set out to do. We flattened the curve so that our hospitals were not overloaded, we got our PPE, and ventilators manufacturer’s well under way and ready for the spike. It was never the intention to eradicate COVID.
Agreed; it appears that we've successfully got capacity in the hospitals now.

Now we're faced with the next question- while the healthcare system does not appear to be overloaded now, are we in a position that it will remain that way? Early indications from early opening states such as GA, TX, etc seem to indicate that it will, but we've got to keep an eye on things -- especially as places that were heavily impacted such as NYC begin to reopen.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
It only gets reported in this thread every other week...


But since the rationales you gave for why asymptomatic people don't spread the virus has shown to be false, and clearly contrary to experience, it's a moot point.

That NY times analysis is flawed in that it treats "expected deaths" as some kind of constant. The CDC does it the correct way where the expected deaths is an estimated range which is 98,102 - 132,335 for 2/1/20-5/23/20. If you take the low end, there are very few "missing" deaths. If you take the high end there are a lot.

I'm not sure what rationale I gave that has been "shown to be false" or "clearly contrary to experience." Asymptomatic spreaders have made no logical sense from the beginning. If it were happening on a large scale with a virus this contagious, far more people would have been infected before social distancing and masks became a thing.

I'm not saying that it is impossible for any presymptomatic person or even asymptomatic person to transmit the virus, but I do believe the studies that say it is very rare. I would bet a large sum of money that asymptomatic people are not transmitting the virus in short encounters in the aisle of a store.

Maybe somebody breathing in your face for 20 minutes giving a haircut would be plausible. All I know is that if there isn't a significant spike as a result of the recent protests that puts a lot of evidence on my side.

Like I said, both China and South Korea used temperature checks a key part of the strategy to control the virus. It wouldn't work if the people who are infectious don't at least have a low grade fever as a symptom.

As a side note, the NYT concludes that the argument that most of the fatalities would have died soon fails because of the excess deaths. That conclusion can't possibly be made until several months down the road. It is still possible that the actual deaths is below expected for several months starting 3 months from now. Nobody said the 80+ year olds in nursing homes would have died next week anyway, just that they didn't have a long expected life span. 35% of the deaths in Florida were aged 85+. Is the NYT saying that these people were likely to live another several years, especially the ones in nursing homes or with multiple health issues?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom