• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Part of that is the absolute hatred and death threats from social media (even if not on it your friends/family/long lost friends of friends of friends) who will scrutinize your life and determine you did something "wrong" if you dared ever to step a foot outside your door unless it was literally an emergency. And not just aimed at you - but your family/kids etc. Why would anyone INVITE that? Our county will put out alerts for higher risk exposure areas (indoor restaurants, mall etc) but is no longer doing the lower risk exposure (mask use, less than 15 minutes inside etc).
It may just be a complete lack of understanding of what contact tracing is and how it works then. In no way does the department of health publicly list out people by name to be harassed on social media. That‘s just not how it works.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
"Abbott Laboratories said on Wednesday it won U.S. marketing authorization for a COVID-19 portable antigen test that can deliver results within 15 minutes and will sell for $5.

The portable test is about the size of a credit card, requires no additional equipment to operate, and can be conducted using a less invasive nasal swab than traditional lab tests, Abbott executives said on a call with reporters.

Abbott expects to ship tens of millions of tests in September, ramping to 50 million tests a month from the beginning of October."


Good news on that front. Could be a game changer for ramping up fast, affordable testing. It’s too bad the powers that be are pushing hard to reduce testing when we need just the opposite.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I’m sure there is. I believe an initial statement has been released already from Brett Giroir. I think he’s supposed to do a press conference today if it hasn’t happened already. I imagine he will be asked more about it. But I am sure many will not agree the with reasoning. Maybe I won’t either. Experts have disagreed all through the process. There have been plenty of times where the WHO, the CDC or any outside expert have said something and I thought “huh.” And there have been plenty of times when experts have disagreed with one another. It’s why when people say we should listen to the scientists, my response is “which ones?”

Also, since when do states follow CDC guidelines? :)
I’m not disputing that experts disagree on things. My comment stands. I cannot think of any way to explain how this new guidance makes any sense. You say you are sure there is an explanation but I haven’t heard it from anyone and I personally can’t think of what it could possibly be. I’m all ears to hear it, but I’m not holding my breath.

The CDC’s own pandemic planning scenario still states that their current best estimate is up to 50% of the spread occurs without symptoms. How does it make any sense to no longer recommend a test for anyone who came in contact with a known infected person but isn’t showing symptoms? Those 2 things combined make no sense. If the goal is to catch as many sick people as quickly as possible and isolate them then leaving half the infected people out makes no sense. We have no real lack of testing capability either like at the onset of the pandemic, so that can‘t be the explanation.

Why would anyone think this is a good idea? Why isn’t everyone questioning this move? Are politics really that important to people? Don’t we all just want to keep as many people as possible safe and get the economy going as best we can?
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
I’m not disputing that experts disagree on things. My comment stands. I cannot think of any way to explain how this new guidance makes any sense. You say you are sure there is an explanation but I haven’t heard it from anyone and I personally can’t think of what it could possibly be. I’m all ears to hear it, but I’m not holding my breath.

The CDC’s own pandemic planning scenario still states that their current best estimate is up to 50% of the spread occurs without symptoms. How does it make any sense to no longer recommend a test for anyone who came in contact with a known infected person but isn’t showing symptoms? Those 2 things combined make no sense. If the goal is to catch as many sick people as quickly as possible and isolate them then leaving half the infected people out makes no sense. We have no real lack of testing capability either like at the onset of the pandemic, so that can‘t be the explanation.

Why would anyone think this is a good idea? Why isn’t everyone questioning this move? Are politics really that important to people? Don’t we all just want to keep as many people as possible safe and get the economy going as best we can?
Some additional details in here. It’s not meant to change your mind. And I know it won’t. Just providing some quotes. Feel free to read through. I really don’t have a firm position on the matter.

 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Some additional details in here. It’s not meant to change your mind. And I know it won’t. Just providing some quotes. Feel free to read through. I really don’t have a firm position on the matter.

Again, I don’t see the science behind why this is a good recommendation. For example, if they said they now thought asymptomatic spread was not likely or wasn’t very common and that’s the reason for the change then it might make some sense. To change it without any actual reason given makes no sense. I could care less about the political BS. I don’t care who told who to do what. Too much focus on that instead of looking at the reason behind it. Saying you aren’t doing this to decrease the number of tests is just lip service when anyone with even passing knowledge of the situation could look at this and see that’s exactly what’s going to happen. Also, if local authorities follow this recommendation the percent positive is going to go way up since you will be back to only testing symptomatic people. I’m at a loss.
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Again, I don’t see the science behind why this is a good recommendation. For example, if they said they now thought asymptomatic spread was not likely or wasn’t very common and that’s the reason for the change then it might make some sense. To change it without any actual reason given makes no sense. I could care less about the political BS. I don’t care who told who to do what. Too much focus on that instead of looking at the reason behind it. Saying you aren’t doing this to decrease the number of tests is just lip service when anyone with even passing knowledge of the situation could look at this and see that’s exactly what’s going to happen. Also, if local authorities follow this recommendation the percent positive is going to go way up since you will be back to only testing symptomatic people. I’m at a loss.

I was just providing some information I found from the person in charge of testing. I don’t have a stance on this change one way or the other.
 

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
Just some context if you have a major exposure to Covid positive patient you need to quarantine for 10 days, if you remain asymptomatic you are then free to resume normal activities, this does not change if you have a positive or negative covid test, you still have to quarantine for 10 days (no more, no less.)

That changes the moment you develop symptoms, so this recommendation really doesn’t change guidelines.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Just some context if you have a major exposure to Covid positive patient you need to quarantine for 10 days, if you remain asymptomatic you are then free to resume normal activities, this does not change if you have a positive or negative covid test, you still have to quarantine for 10 days (no more, no less.)

That changes the moment you develop symptoms, so this recommendation really doesn’t change guidelines.
So the only change is an asymptomatic person doesn’t get an actual test now. They just assume they might be positive and quarantine...kinda like back in March and April when we didn’t have enough testing capacity. The end result is less positive tests overall and also higher percent positive. It really makes no sense to me still.
 

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
So the only change is an asymptomatic person doesn’t get an actual test now. They just assume they might be positive and quarantine...kinda like back in March and April when we didn’t have enough testing capacity. The end result is less positive tests overall and also higher percent positive. It really makes no sense to me still.

We still don’t have enough testing, like it or not. I was just pointing out the CDC is not recommending people with close contacts don’t need to do anything, that’s not true. I still question the timing of this change, and don’t think it’s ideal but the media has overblown this.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
"Abbott Laboratories said on Wednesday it won U.S. marketing authorization for a COVID-19 portable antigen test that can deliver results within 15 minutes and will sell for $5.

The portable test is about the size of a credit card, requires no additional equipment to operate, and can be conducted using a less invasive nasal swab than traditional lab tests, Abbott executives said on a call with reporters.

Abbott expects to ship tens of millions of tests in September, ramping to 50 million tests a month from the beginning of October."


I hate to be the wet blanket, but we were excited about Abbott's rapid test that came out several months ago. It ended up having a sensitivity that was too low to be useful. So, let's see what the data in this test shows before we celebrate.
 

Kevin_W

Well-Known Member
I hate to be the wet blanket, but we were excited about Abbott's rapid test that came out several months ago. It ended up having a sensitivity that was too low to be useful. So, let's see what the data in this test shows before we celebrate.

I disagree little bit - it's still quite useful, even if not the be all/end all of tests.

This one is far from perfect as well - not detecting 2.9% of positive cases and giving false positives 1.5% of the time, according to Abbot's data. so if using it (say for flights, school, football, whatever) you have to have a plan for what you are going to do for the false positives. Is it just another 15-minute test? Or is it a longer, more sensitive test?
 

rowrbazzle

Well-Known Member
We still don’t have enough testing, like it or not. I was just pointing out the CDC is not recommending people with close contacts don’t need to do anything, that’s not true. I still question the timing of this change, and don’t think it’s ideal but the media has overblown this.

I guess it depends where you are. Our health board said we're only testing about a third of our capacity on a daily basis. In Texas I think they said demand was dropping like crazy, which was resulting in lower numbers. Many people just aren't bothering to get tested.
 

LukeS7

Well-Known Member
I read about contact tracing 'success stories' like this around the world often. Unfortunately, the idea that we could have something like that happen in Florida is literally inconceivable right now. Looking past the challenges of public support & cooperation, there's no resources on the local, state, or federal level to even begin to make it happen. The state and county health departments here basically threw up their hands and gave up once we got a couple hundred cases into this, because they don't have the funding and manpower for their day-to-day operations let alone widespread pandemic contact tracing.

Honestly, the only shot we had at it was if a heavy economic hitter like Disney stood up and said "we need this", and threw their weight around politically until it happened.
I like how some of the people who have issues with technology-based contact tracing (such as Bluetooth handshakes that don't expose personal info) are probably the same people who go to Disney and go "Look how cool this Magic Band is! It's great, I can do everything with it". We should've just announced "Free Magic Bands for everyone!" and boom, large compliance 🙃
 

SamusAranX

Well-Known Member
I like how some of the people who have issues with technology-based contact tracing (such as Bluetooth handshakes that don't expose personal info) are probably the same people who go to Disney and go "Look how cool this Magic Band is! It's great, I can do everything with it". We should've just announced "Free Magic Bands for everyone!" and boom, large compliance 🙃

Magic Bands don't track your past movements outside of Disney World, or GPS track movements in progress 😉
 

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

Top Bottom