• 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

DCBaker

Premium Member
Numbers are out -

Screen Shot 2020-09-24 at 10.53.10 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-09-24 at 10.53.21 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-09-24 at 10.53.29 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-09-24 at 10.53.36 AM.png
 

Dukeblue1227

Well-Known Member
Ok. Globally 100% - 3% = 97% resolved / recovered. In the U.S. 100% - 2.91% = 97.09% resolved / recovered. Thank you for reinforcing my point. As for after effects COVID19 holds no exclusive a host of infections leave serious life long issues. In no way shape or form is that dying but issues medical science continuously works on.
Your “point” was 99.6%. Which is very different from 97%.

If 100 million people get it, your point was “only” 600k will die (which is an unfathomable number of deaths...). But the fact is if 100 million people get it, it’s 3 million who will die. An even more unfathomable number.

The reason people don’t talk about the 97% that live is because 3% of people dying from something that can be minimized and somewhat contained with a United, selfless approach from everyone is simply not okay.

The reason people don’t talk about the 97% is because the less action taken, the larger the number of cases meaning the larger the number of deaths.

People are far too cavalier about accepting the number of deaths.
 

LukeS7

Well-Known Member
Ok. Globally 100% - 3% = 97% resolved / recovered. In the U.S. 100% - 2.91% = 97.09% resolved / recovered. Thank you for reinforcing my point. As for after effects COVID19 holds no exclusive a host of infections leave serious life long issues. In no way shape or form is that dying but issues medical science continuously works on.
Wasn't reinforcing your point, I was reinforcing that your % was wrong and downplayed the severity. Let's assume (without a vaccine) a 60% infection rate needed to reach herd immunity. 60% of the US population is 196.92 million people, going with your numbers, the result is 787,680 people dead. Going with the actual rate, that number becomes 5.9 million people.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Ok. Globally 100% - 3% = 97% resolved / recovered. In the U.S. 100% - 2.91% = 97.09% resolved / recovered. Thank you for reinforcing my point. As for after effects COVID19 holds no exclusive a host of infections leave serious life long issues. In no way shape or form is that dying but issues medical science continuously works on.
We have an understanding of the typical complications from known diseases. We know risk factors and steps that can be taken to help prevent them. We know which ones we don't really know enough about. That is not the case with COVID-19 and assumptions based on what we know about other respiratory diseases keep getting upended.
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
Where are the reports/studies of the chronic conditions from Covid?

I'm being serious with that question. I've read anecdotal reports on social media sites, seen various headlines on news-sites, but I've not seen an actual study.

I'd like to know the severity and types of the chronic conditions.

That is exactly my question, it's something we need to get a better understanding of. There is enough anecdotal evidence that this is probably a real thing, but I haven't seen any good numbers on how common it is.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
Your “point” was 99.6%. Which is very different from 97%.

If 100 million people get it, your point was “only” 600k will die (which is an unfathomable number of deaths...). But the fact is if 100 million people get it, it’s 3 million who will die. An even more unfathomable number.

The reason people don’t talk about the 97% that live is because 3% of people dying from something that can be minimized and somewhat contained with a United, selfless approach from everyone is simply not okay.

The reason people don’t talk about the 97% is because the less action taken, the larger the number of cases meaning the larger the number of deaths.

People are far too cavalier about accepting the number of deaths.
Let's compare to seasonal influenza in the US, which is usually the #1 killer amongst infectious diseases that we can positively identify (bacterial pneumonia may kill more in any given year, but a number of different bacteria can be the cause, it isn't always possible to identify the culprit organism, and most bacterial causes aren't nearly as contagious).

Since the 2010-2011 influenza season, in the US we have averaged as low as 12,000 deaths in 2011-12 to as high as 61,000 in 2017-2018. Last year's numbers, for comparison, were about typical at 34,157. The death rates for these years were 0.13%, 0.13% and 0.09%, respectively.

Now, in less than the time than we usually have for a typical influenza season, the US has recorded 6.96 million cases of COVID-19, with 202K deaths, for a death rate of 2.9%. Even ignoring all the non-lethal consequences of a COVID-19 infection, that would still make it 22.3% more lethal and 3.3 times more prevalent than our worst recent flu season, and in less time to boot. Now, add the fact that we don't have a vaccine or specific antiviral treatments for COVID-19 yet, and perhaps the reason why nobody is talking about a "97% recovery rate" might start to become a little more clear.

Source, CDC:

 
Last edited:

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
That is exactly my question, it's something we need to get a better understanding of. There is enough anecdotal evidence that this is probably a real thing, but I haven't seen any good numbers on how common it is.
See above. I couldn't find a comprehensive summary article, but there's plenty of information on individual conditions.
 

Jenny72

Well-Known Member
I think when people casually say that you have a 97% chance of recovering, the implication is that you're solely worried about whether you will survive or not, and you're a bit silly to worry because you have a high chance of survival. But while that's true, it is tone deaf about the cost of losing that many people in a community. It would be devastating to lose 3% of people that I know. My church would lose 15 people, probably more because it skews older. My kids' school would lose dozens of parents and grandparents. My workplace would lose many more, people who both have institutional knowledge but also close connections to coworkers. This isn't just about an individual's chance of surviving; it's about collective suffering and loss. In our fear and division, we've lost sight of the pain of losing that many people.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
That is exactly my question, it's something we need to get a better understanding of. There is enough anecdotal evidence that this is probably a real thing, but I haven't seen any good numbers on how common it is.
I agree. Not having studies and knowing for sure what the numbers are should make people more concerned not less. If I am hiking on a trail and I come across a snake but I have no idea if it’s poisonous or not I don’t just assume because I don’t know how dangerous the snake is and don’t have a peer reviewed study proving that it’s dangerous that it’s harmless. I have heard stories of snake bites being rather harmless and others that are very bad. I err on the side of caution and assume that the snake is poisonous (aka very bad bite) since I don’t know for sure whether it is or isn’t.
 

dreday3

Well-Known Member
I agree. Not having studies and knowing for sure what the numbers are should make people more concerned not less. If I am hiking on a trail and I come across a snake but I have no idea if it’s poisonous or not I don’t just assume because I don’t know how dangerous the snake is and don’t have a peer reviewed study proving that it’s dangerous that it’s harmless. I have heard stories of snake bites being rather harmless and others that are very bad. I err on the side of caution and assume that the snake is poisonous (aka very bad bite) since I don’t know for sure whether it is or isn’t.

It doesn't make me more or less concerned. Most of those studies say "while most people recover fully...."
Of course we need to learn about it, risks of who may or may not get it, what it is...

I, personally, don't think it's anything to panic over. I also don't think we will know for years the real long-lasting effects.
 

Dukeblue1227

Well-Known Member
I think when people casually say that you have a 97% chance of recovering, the implication is that you're solely worried about whether you will survive or not, and you're a bit silly to worry because you have a high chance of survival. But while that's true, it is tone deaf about the cost of losing that many people in a community. It would be devastating to lose 3% of people that I know. My church would lose 15 people, probably more because it skews older. My kids' school would lose dozens of parents and grandparents. My workplace would lose many more, people who both have institutional knowledge but also close connections to coworkers. This isn't just about an individual's chance of surviving; it's about collective suffering and loss. In our fear and division, we've lost sight of the pain of losing that many people.

Yes - this exactly.

The problem with so many peoples perspective on this is “it’s not impacting me” but as soon as you lose just 1 person it goes from “it’s no big deal” to completely devastating.

So far we’ve lost a million people globally. So that’s approximately a million family/friends/communities devastated by this. Tell them how exciting it is that their loved ones just unfortunately fell outside the great news of 97% recovering.

The other problem is too many people don’t understand that while they have a high chance of survival, if they’re irresponsible about it, you could directly lead to others getting it and their deaths. It doesn’t just end with you and your survival. What if you found out you infected 100 people and 3 of them die. Are you going to be excited you only caused 3 deaths while 97 other survived?
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
It doesn't make me more or less concerned. Most of those studies say "while most people recover fully...."
Of course we need to learn about it, risks of who may or may not get it, what it is...

I, personally, don't think it's anything to panic over. I also don't think we will know for years the real long-lasting effects.
I don’t see how we can determine if it’s anything to panic over or not. I hope it turns out to be a non-issue but we don’t know. We do know there are some people suffering from long lasting effects from the virus. Until someone can quantify that it’s rare or unlikely for me it’s a matter of concern. I don’t want to be cavalier about it now and find out years later that the long lasting effects hit me hard.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Let's compare to seasonal influenza in the US, which is usually the #1 killer amongst infectious diseases that we can positively identify (bacterial pneumonia may kill more in any given year, but a number of different bacteria can be the cause, it isn't always possible to identify the culprit organism, and most bacterial causes aren't nearly as contagious).

Since the 2010-2011 influenza season, in the US we have averaged as low as 12,000 deaths in 2011-12 to as high as 61,000 in 2017-2018. Last year's numbers, for comparison, were about typical at 34,157. The death rates for these years were 0.13%, 0.13% and 0.09%, respectively.

Now, in less than the time than we usually have for a typical influenza season, the US has recorded 6.96 million cases of COVID-19, with 202K deaths, for a death rate of 2.9%. Even ignoring all the non-lethal consequences of a COVID-19 infection, that would still make it 22.3% more lethal and 3.3 times more prevalent than our worst recent flu season, and in less time to boot. Now, add the fact that we don't have a vaccine or specific antiviral treatments for COVID-19 yet, and perhaps the reason why nobody is talking about a "97% recovery rate" might start to become a little more clear.

Source, CDC:


not too mention the flu numbers are just a mathematical equation, and not actual numbers.


“The 25,000 to 69,000 numbers that Trump cited do not represent counted flu deaths per year; they are estimates that the CDC produces by multiplying the number of flu death counts reported by various coefficients produced through complicated algorithms. These coefficients are based on assumptions of how many cases, hospitalizations, and deaths they believe went unreported. In the last six flu seasons, the CDC’s reported number of actual confirmed flu deaths—that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus—has ranged from 3,448 to 15,620, which far lower than the numbers commonly repeated by public officials and even public health experts.

There is some logic behind the CDC’s methods. There are, of course, some flu deaths that are missed, because not everyone who contracts the flu gets a flu test. But there are little data to support the CDC’s assumption that the number of people who die of flu each year is on average six times greater than the number of flu deaths that are actually confirmed. In fact, in the fine print, the CDC’s flu numbers also include pneumonia deaths.


...we have to compare counted deaths to counted deaths, not counted deaths to wildly inflated statistical estimates. If we compare, for instance, the number of people who died in the United States from COVID-19 in the second full week of April to the number of people who died from influenza during the worst week of the past seven flu seasons (as reported to the CDC), we find that the novel coronavirus killed between 9.5 and 44 times more people than seasonal flu. In other words, the coronavirus is not anything like the flu: It is much, much worse.”
 

dreday3

Well-Known Member
I don’t see how we can determine if it’s anything to panic over or not. I hope it turns out to be a non-issue but we don’t know. We do know there are some people suffering from long lasting effects from the virus. Until someone can quantify that it’s rare or unlikely for me it’s a matter of concern. I don’t want to be cavalier about it now and find out years later that the long lasting effects hit me hard.

That's why I said personally, I'm not going to panic over it. It won't be a non-issue, almost all viruses have people who end up with chronic conditions due to virus, it's just the percentage is quite low.

I will be following what happens, but I'm not overly concerned at the moment. :)
 

DCBaker

Premium Member
"United Airlines says it will roll out a new COVID-19 testing program for passengers beginning Oct. 15, the Chicago-based carrier announced Thursday.

At first, testing will only be available for passengers traveling to Hawaii from San Francisco International Airport. Why Hawaii? The airline, the first in the U.S. to offer rapid testing, has more flights to the state than any other U.S. carrier, and the Aloha State's new testing requirements begins the same day as United's.

Passengers will have the choice of taking a rapid test from Abbott Labs at the airport the day of their flight with results available in about 15 minutes or using a mail-in test at home prior to travel. Those opting for the at-home test are advised to request the test kit 10 days prior to travel and submit their sample within 72 hours of their flight.

Travelers will have to take the test within 72 hours before their flight arrives in the islands in order to bypass the state's strictly-enforced 14-day quarantine. Both tests will allow travelers to satisfy the 72-hour window required by Hawaii's new testing program.

If all goes well, United hopes to expand testing to other cities by year's end."

 

Kevin_W

Well-Known Member
"United Airlines says it will roll out a new COVID-19 testing program for passengers beginning Oct. 15, the Chicago-based carrier announced Thursday.

At first, testing will only be available for passengers traveling to Hawaii from San Francisco International Airport. Why Hawaii? The airline, the first in the U.S. to offer rapid testing, has more flights to the state than any other U.S. carrier, and the Aloha State's new testing requirements begins the same day as United's.

Passengers will have the choice of taking a rapid test from Abbott Labs at the airport the day of their flight with results available in about 15 minutes or using a mail-in test at home prior to travel. Those opting for the at-home test are advised to request the test kit 10 days prior to travel and submit their sample within 72 hours of their flight.

Travelers will have to take the test within 72 hours before their flight arrives in the islands in order to bypass the state's strictly-enforced 14-day quarantine. Both tests will allow travelers to satisfy the 72-hour window required by Hawaii's new testing program.

If all goes well, United hopes to expand testing to other cities by year's end."


I read that. I'm curious how it will handle false positives - I've seen those reported anywhere from 0.02% to 1.5% for the Abbot test. AT the upper end, that's a couple healthy people per plane that would be told to go home from the airport - a reasonable problem. I'd much rather take 72 hrs before flight so that any potential problems can get sorted out. (Also I'd probably try to not go through the airline - $250 is pricey).
 

dreday3

Well-Known Member
"United Airlines says it will roll out a new COVID-19 testing program for passengers beginning Oct. 15, the Chicago-based carrier announced Thursday.

At first, testing will only be available for passengers traveling to Hawaii from San Francisco International Airport. Why Hawaii? The airline, the first in the U.S. to offer rapid testing, has more flights to the state than any other U.S. carrier, and the Aloha State's new testing requirements begins the same day as United's.

Passengers will have the choice of taking a rapid test from Abbott Labs at the airport the day of their flight with results available in about 15 minutes or using a mail-in test at home prior to travel. Those opting for the at-home test are advised to request the test kit 10 days prior to travel and submit their sample within 72 hours of their flight.

Travelers will have to take the test within 72 hours before their flight arrives in the islands in order to bypass the state's strictly-enforced 14-day quarantine. Both tests will allow travelers to satisfy the 72-hour window required by Hawaii's new testing program.

If all goes well, United hopes to expand testing to other cities by year's end."


If this works, this could be a game-changer!
 

TJ Vazquez

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
I read that. I'm curious how it will handle false positives - I've seen those reported anywhere from 0.02% to 1.5% for the Abbot test. AT the upper end, that's a couple healthy people per plane that would be told to go home from the airport - a reasonable problem. I'd much rather take 72 hrs before flight so that any potential problems can get sorted out. (Also I'd probably try to not go through the airline - $250 is pricey).
Maybe they will allow one more re-test? If that is still positive then they can't go, if negative, then a 3rd test to insure a true negative? Not sure how this will all play out but hopefully it's successful.
 

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

Top Bottom