Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kevin_W

Kevin_W

Well-Known Member
hopemax said:
They also removed the recommendation that asymptomatic individuals who have a known exposure get tested. Except if you are in a vulnerable group or following state recommendations
Click to expand...

That seems really odd. At first, when test capacity was low it made sense to reserve that for symptomatic and/or high risk people. But as we've ramped up 10fold, we should still be testing everybody that has been exposed to clamp down on spread before it occurs.
 
D

DVCakaCarlF

Well-Known Member
hopemax said:
According to EpiTwitter it makes the vaccine more vital. EpiTwitter sounds pleased at how this person's body reacted to the reinfection. The T-cells went into action, generated the appropriate antibody response and the person experienced no symptoms the second time. It worked exactly how immunity is supposed to work. The 2nd infection was found when the person returned to Hong Kong after traveling, during a routine COVID screening.

The big unknown is the ability to infect others. If the person was still contagious, it's bad news for natural herd immunity, as it would mean the virus is likely to keep being reintroduced into communities to continue to infect the people who haven't had it yet, by people who wouldn't even know they had been re-infected. A vaccine would give these people protection. The best vaccines can prevent people from being contagious, so there would be reason for people who have had COVID to also be vaccinated. Not just to protect the individual, but to stop transmission.

However, they also say that re-infection means the virus isn't likely to burn out and disappear on its own. The general impression is that this still falls into the "good news, it's acting like we think it should," category, although the media is probably going to freak people out again.
Click to expand...
I’m going to bet CNN excluded all that information in their article.
 
E

easyrowrdw

Well-Known Member
Kevin_W said:
That seems really odd. At first, when test capacity was low it made sense to reserve that for symptomatic and/or high risk people. But as we've ramped up 10fold, we should still be testing everybody that has been exposed to clamp down on spread before it occurs.
Click to expand...

I don't really get this one either. On the one hand, you should probably assume you have it and respond accordingly. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that people would do that. On the third(?) hand, if they did respond accordingly you'd have people quarantining themselves unnecessarily.
 
D

DVCakaCarlF

Well-Known Member
rowrbazzle said:
I don't really get this one either. On the one hand, you should probably assume you have it and respond accordingly. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that people would do that. On the third(?) hand, if they did respond accordingly you'd have people quarantining themselves unnecessarily.
Click to expand...
We all know the virus has infected everyone.
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
rowrbazzle said:
I don't really get this one either. On the one hand, you should probably assume you have it and respond accordingly. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that people would do that. On the third(?) hand, if they did respond accordingly you'd have people quarantining themselves unnecessarily.
Click to expand...
Again, if you overwhelmingly choose to sample the sick or those suspected of having it, you'll see higher %% numbers. I try not to be a conspiracy theorist but it seems like you're seeking an outcome if that is the case. It's like doing a presidential preference political poll and only asking people wearing red MAGA hats who they intend to vote for.
 
Andrew C

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
rowrbazzle said:
I don't really get this one either. On the one hand, you should probably assume you have it and respond accordingly. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that people would do that. On the third(?) hand, if they did respond accordingly you'd have people quarantining themselves unnecessarily.
Click to expand...
You have three hands?!?
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Andrew C said:
You have three hands?!?
Click to expand...

I don't understand the continued use of 14 days of quarantine when we have tests available.

The original 14 days was for when tests were hard to get and so you sat out the entire 14 day run of the virus in case you were infected.

Now, you can get a test. Wait 4-5 days and test again. If both are negative, you're good to go. Fourteen days is for the full run of being infected, not the full run of incubation wherein tests are negative even though you have been infected.
 
O

oceanbreeze77

Well-Known Member
hopemax said:
According to EpiTwitter it makes the vaccine more vital. EpiTwitter sounds pleased at how this person's body reacted to the reinfection. The T-cells went into action, generated the appropriate antibody response and the person experienced no symptoms the second time. It worked exactly how immunity is supposed to work. The 2nd infection was found when the person returned to Hong Kong after traveling, during a routine COVID screening.

The big unknown is the ability to infect others. If the person was still contagious, it's bad news for natural herd immunity, as it would mean the virus is likely to keep being reintroduced into communities to continue to infect the people who haven't had it yet, by people who wouldn't even know they had been re-infected. A vaccine would give these people protection. The best vaccines can prevent people from being contagious, so there would be reason for people who have had COVID to also be vaccinated. Not just to protect the individual, but to stop transmission.

However, they also say that re-infection means the virus isn't likely to burn out and disappear on its own. The general impression is that this still falls into the "good news, it's acting like we think it should," category, although the media is probably going to freak people out again.
Click to expand...
Hopefully the worse that comes out of this is needing a series of vaccines. Effective, but a pain the the butt.
 
JoeCamel

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
I don't understand the continued use of 14 days of quarantine when we have tests available.

The original 14 days was for when tests were hard to get and so you sat out the entire 14 day run of the virus in case you were infected.

Now, you can get a test. Wait 4-5 days and test again. If both are negative, you're good to go. Fourteen days is for the full run of being infected, not the full run of incubation wherein tests are negative even though you have been infected.
Click to expand...
I thought guidance came out a few weeks ago that 10 days was sufficient?
I don't know how that was determined but it made the rounds of "news".
 
hopemax

hopemax

Well-Known Member
EPCOT-O.G. said:
Again, if you overwhelmingly choose to sample the sick or those suspected of having it, you'll see higher %% numbers. I try not to be a conspiracy theorist but it seems like you're seeking an outcome if that is the case. It's like doing a presidential preference political poll and only asking people wearing red MAGA hats who they intend to vote for.
Click to expand...
I think you are thinking a step beyond what certain other people are thinking. My conspiracy theorist is that this is all about handling schools. Don't need to test all the kids or adults because of one case, if the recommendation is exposed, but asymptomatic don't need tests.. You and I know that the positivity will go up if you are only testing symptomatic people. Continuing with the conspiracy theory, I think the smart people in the CDC know it too. ie. you can't make this go away by not testing. It will rear it's ugly head one way or another. Instead of cases, it will be positivity.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
hopemax said:
I think you are thinking a step beyond what certain other people are thinking. My conspiracy theorist is that this is all about handling schools. Don't need to test all the kids or adults because of one case, if the recommendation is exposed, but asymptomatic don't need tests.. You and I know that the positivity will go up if you are only testing symptomatic people. Continuing with the conspiracy theory, I think the smart people in the CDC know it too. ie. you can't make this go away by not testing. It will rear it's ugly head one way or another. Instead of cases, it will be positivity.
Click to expand...
This makes a lot of sense. I’ve been saying from the beginning that the biggest problem with schools opening physically was going to be what to do if someone at the school tests positive and everyone has to quarantine and/or get tested to return to school. This opens the door to say nobody has to quarantine or get tested now except the sick person. Problem solved. Is that a good thing? I guess that depends on your perspective. If the goal is schools open no matter what then it helps the cause. Is it keeping people safe and helping slow the spread...not at all. It is following through on the desire to reduce testing and therefore reduce the number of positives you find.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom