Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[ImperfectPixie]

I think this the crux of why some are not sure that masks work for COVID. I don't doubt that masks are effective at stopping the spread of droplets. What I doubt is that COVID is only spread by droplets. I think it has a much larger aerosol component and I'm not sure how much masks help with stopping the spread of aerosols.

I honestly do hope that I'm wrong and for the most part wearing masks is not that hard and is fine when not in high heat and humidity. I also see many people complying with this request in my area. I'm not convinced that people not wearing masks is causing the problem.

The bigger problem is people coming together, inside, for visits/parties/get togethers. I don't think this is an easy thing to fix as you can't keep humans away from each other for long periods of time without an end in sight.

Masks do help stop the spread of aerosols...but it's not 100%. The trick is to reduce them as much as possible by everyone wearing masks...it's a moot effort if 10 people are together in a room and one person is maskless.

Your last paragraph is why when people question masks and the restrictions or say they follow them when they "have to", and when people promote "personal choice", other people freak the hell out. There are way too many using "personal choice" as an excuse to not be careful at all, and it's those people who are most likely to be driving the majority of spread. We should be following the recommendations ALWAYS - yep, even in our own homes - in order for them to be most effective, and for life to return to as close to normal as possible. This needs to be a team effort.

 

[danlb_2000]

Let ALL businesses be open (with smart modifications to help slow the spread and be as safe as possible). Allow the American ingenuity to take place. Provide everyone with a consistent message and encourage people to do the right thing. Don't be so dictatorial in the messaging. Again you get more flies with honey than vinegar.

Unfortunately this is where your idea breaks down when talking about the US. The virus has been heavily politicized so there it no consistent message, and even if there starts to be one, it may never take hold. The best path out of this is for everyone to work together, but it doesn't look like that will happen so we are stuck with the long and painful path out.

 

[sullyinMT]

@Tink242424 what's so funny about the Canadian government giving out $2000 a month to people affected by Covid and helping businesses affected with giving money to will payroll? I don't get it. If you don't feel the government should put in restrictions or give aid to people who need it. Why have any government?

I speak only for myself, but the biggest turnoff to these types of programs is eventually the bill comes due. When does the $2k/mo end? The only way government creates revenue, meaningfully anyway, is through taxation (I know there are national parks and museums, but they are subsidized and don’t even support themselves on admission and concessions alone).
I don’t disagree that in times of crisis, the government’s role should be larger. The biggest problem with the US federal government is that it was already overly bloated with relatively little ROI. That’s why, for better or worse, we elected a businessman to run things for a bit. I’d argue there were better options that would have produced far less collateral damage, but that’s the bed we made.
So, we’re tired of debt as a nation. Introduce a massive assistance plan like you (rightfully, imo) suggest, but without and end date or end metric, and Americans largely see a credit card statement that never improves. We don’t trust our leaders to finalize such a program when the time comes, only to blow their brand of hot air into whatever camera will increase their profile. There’s a reason Dave Ramsey has amassed a huge cult following here.

 

[sullyinMT]

Unfortunately this is where your idea breaks down when talking about the US. The virus has been heavily politicized so there it no consistent message, and even if there starts to be one, it may never take hold. The best path out of this is for everyone to work together, but it doesn't look like that will happen so we are stuck with the long and painful path out.

It doesn’t help that this broke out just as general election season was warming up. Push it back 12 months in either direction and we’d be much better off.

 

[DCBaker]

Numbers are out - there were 72 new reported deaths.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Actually for number 3, we do know that people can get it twice, there have been confirmed cases of this. Fortunately, at the moment, the number is small. We don't yet know how long immunity last for the majority.

Yes, this sort of things did happen, but they have also identified cases of re-infection where there were genetic differences between the initial infection and the re-infection which would indicate a true re-infection.

What is not known is if this is a general situation that impacts everyone or something particular to these individuals that their body did not develop a memory of the virus.

 

[NickMaio]

To achieve that kinda “herd immunity” you’d have to accept millions of infections, hundreds of thousands of fatalities (if not millions), long term economic damage and suffering/side effects...

And it may not work.

If that’s a stance: own it. I can accept the stance.

But I still feel like the majority proposing it is because they’ll be back on the path to riches (which was unlikely to begin with...of course) and to go buy crap...Walmart...car dealers...wdw...

Crap.

It's the hospitals that wont be able to keep up with a herd immunity protocol.
Which is why we started with a global lockdown in the first place.
Countries who have had success have had 95% population compliance with government mandates.
Anti makers and non conformist ideology is starting to show its effects.
Its quite sad really.

 

[Jrb1979]

I speak only for myself, but the biggest turnoff to these types of programs is eventually the bill comes due. When does the $2k/mo end? The only way government creates revenue, meaningfully anyway, is through taxation (I know there are national parks and museums, but they are subsidized and don’t even support themselves on admission and concessions alone).
I don’t disagree that in times of crisis, the government’s role should be larger. The biggest problem with the US federal government is that it was already overly bloated with relatively little ROI. That’s why, for better or worse, we elected a businessman to run things for a bit. I’d argue there were better options that would have produced far less collateral damage, but that’s the bed we made.
So, we’re tired of debt as a nation. Introduce a massive assistance plan like you (rightfully, imo) suggest, but without and end date or end metric, and Americans largely see a credit card statement that never improves. We don’t trust our leaders to finalize such a program when the time comes, only to blow their brand of hot air into whatever camera will increase their profile. There’s a reason Dave Ramsey has amassed a huge cult following here.

I agree with what you are saying. BTW that $2000 is not tax free. Since last month they have switched those that are still affected to a form of unemployment. At this point it pretty much has ended.

 

[sullyinMT]

I agree with what you are saying. BTW that $2000 is not tax free. Since last month they have switched those that are still affected to a form of unemployment. At this point it pretty much has ended.

Also, most are too lazy or preoccupied to read past the headlines and are otherwise told what to think by their preferred talk show host or podcast. It makes getting down to details like this next to impossible.

 

[NickMaio]

I agree with what you are saying. BTW that $2000 is not tax free. Since last month they have switched those that are still affected to a form of unemployment. At this point it pretty much has ended.

It was always taxable income, from the start.

 

[sullyinMT]

It's the hospitals that wont be able to keep up with a herd immunity protocol.
Which is why we started with a global lockdown in the first place.
Countries who have had success have had 95% population compliance with government mandates.
Anti makers and non conformist ideology is starting to show its effects.
Its quite sad really.

It is also to buy time for these brilliant minds to develop therapeutics and vaccines. Had we had an attention span just a few months longer, we could absolutely let ‘et rip.
Now, we’ll be trying to squash another western world wave while administering vaccines.
Some businesses have done well with the hand they’re dealt (WDW included). At least to keep their heads above water. But our large barbecues and church potlucks and weddings haven’t helped.

 

[hopemax]

So the state of the states. NPR article about a report the government generates, but not a lot of people actually read and isn't publicly available, concerning hospital facilities.

"NPR has reviewed several of these reports generated in the past month. They present trends in hospital use, including increases in ventilator usage, along with a growing number of inpatient and ICU beds being occupied by COVID-19 patients. The Oct. 27 report showed that all three measures have increased by 14%-16% in the past month.

About 24% of U.S. hospitals are using more than 80% of their ICU capacity, based on reporting from nearly 5,000 "priority facilities," and more hospitals have joined their ranks in recent weeks."

Internal Documents Reveal COVID-19 Hospitalization Data The Government Keeps Hidden

Where are hospitals reaching capacity? Which metro areas are running out of beds? NPR has learned federal agencies collect and analyze this information in detail but don't share it with the public.

www.npr.org

I saw on Twitter, the Governor of Utah is warning about hospital usage rates. Reading the comments, several people don't believe him. Other places with outbreaks, didn't ACTUALLY run out of room/staff, so they won't either. So that takes us back to a point someone made here earlier, that during the NYC/NJ wave and during the FL/TX/AZ wave the rest of the country could send people to help the afflicted area. With so many areas reaching their highest levels all at the same time, places aren't going to be able to count of someone coming to help.

I am also wondering now... Since death rates have improved, what did that do to hospitalizations? Are beds being turned over slower, since we've been more successful at keeping people alive? Or has that metric improved as well? Slow bed turn over, and increased bed usage might be more of an issue than March.

 

[sullyinMT]

So the state of the states. NPR article about a report the government generates, but not a lot of people actually read and isn't publicly available, concerning hospital facilities.

"NPR has reviewed several of these reports generated in the past month. They present trends in hospital use, including increases in ventilator usage, along with a growing number of inpatient and ICU beds being occupied by COVID-19 patients. The Oct. 27 report showed that all three measures have increased by 14%-16% in the past month.

About 24% of U.S. hospitals are using more than 80% of their ICU capacity, based on reporting from nearly 5,000 "priority facilities," and more hospitals have joined their ranks in recent weeks."

Internal Documents Reveal COVID-19 Hospitalization Data The Government Keeps Hidden

Where are hospitals reaching capacity? Which metro areas are running out of beds? NPR has learned federal agencies collect and analyze this information in detail but don't share it with the public.

www.npr.org

I saw on Twitter, the Governor of Utah is warning about hospital usage rates. Reading the comments, several people don't believe him. Other places with outbreaks, didn't ACTUALLY run out of room/staff, so they won't either. So that takes us back to a point someone made here earlier, that during the NYC/NJ wave and during the FL/TX/AZ wave the rest of the country could send people to help the afflicted area. With so many areas reaching their highest levels all at the same time, places aren't going to be able to count of someone coming to help.

I am also wondering now... Since death rates have improved, what did that do to hospitalizations? Are beds being turned over slower, since we've been more successful at keeping people alive? Or has that metric improved as well? Slow bed turn over, and increased bed usage might be more of an issue than March.

I can only speak to my facility, and the one three blocks away where we coordinate care together. Our ICU turnover is pretty good (4-5 days on average). The problem is we’re both using makeshift isolation units that could theoretically be deemed ICU/step down combination units. Those stay full much longer, and are beginning to create a backlog. For the few who need care after no longer requiring isolation, there lies the most room. But, those type beds are also needed for chest pain observation or for the population who needs a couple days’ physical therapy for their new hip or whatever and home is too far away. Even there, it’s a logistical problem to free up space at times.

 

[sullyinMT]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...ve-20m-covid-19-vaccines-ready-this-year/amp/

If approved, that’s the start of 10M inoculated by year’s end. Some good stuff about their storage and shipping requirements, too. We didn’t already turn the corner, but God I hope these pan out.

 

[sullyinMT]

Herd immunity is a theory but we really won’t know if it’s achievable without trying it and if it didn’t work the outcome would obviously be a train wreck. The biggest problem is the time it would take. As discussed already in great detail the concept of protecting the high risk group indefinitely while we wait for everyone else to be infected is inherently flawed because the high risk group is too large and it would take way too long.

I do have a radical idea that could work if enough people agreed to it. Instead of locking away the high risk group for months or even years to wait for enough people to be infected with Covid to reach natural herd immunity why not just ask for volunteers and purposely infect them with Covid. Since the virus is no big deal for anyone not in the high risk group I assume people would gladly sign up. Then we reach herd immunity and the virus is gone. The high risk group just has to get locked away for several weeks while the rest are infected. Problem solved. I’m only being partially serious here because I think you’d get less than 10% of the population to sign up at most. It’s easy to say I don’t care if I get infected or it’s no big deal but few people would put their money where their mouth is.

The truth is people want to do what they want and they think it won’t infect them because it hasn’t so far. Very few people are actually perfectly fine with being infected yet that’s the proposal with natural herd immunity.

Can I just throw out there that if I were a vaccine study candidate, I probably would take my chances “for the greater good,” and go all in on being a “maskhole”? If it didn’t work, or I received placebo, I am pretty healthy. Also, I know the risks and have decent life insurance. My wife and kids are cute, she’d remarry quick .
Some of this is said in jest, but ...

 

[hopemax]

I speak only for myself, but the biggest turnoff to these types of programs is eventually the bill comes due. When does the $2k/mo end? The only way government creates revenue, meaningfully anyway, is through taxation (I know there are national parks and museums, but they are subsidized and don’t even support themselves on admission and concessions alone).
I don’t disagree that in times of crisis, the government’s role should be larger. The biggest problem with the US federal government is that it was already overly bloated with relatively little ROI. That’s why, for better or worse, we elected a businessman to run things for a bit. I’d argue there were better options that would have produced far less collateral damage, but that’s the bed we made.
So, we’re tired of debt as a nation. Introduce a massive assistance plan like you (rightfully, imo) suggest, but without and end date or end metric, and Americans largely see a credit card statement that never improves. We don’t trust our leaders to finalize such a program when the time comes, only to blow their brand of hot air into whatever camera will increase their profile. There’s a reason Dave Ramsey has amassed a huge cult following here.

Do you remember during the financial crisis, how there was so much hang wringing over debt and hyperinflation from stimulus? Legitimate economists were very concerned. Do you hear that now? Nope, because the financial crisis generated A LOT of data which legitimate economists were able to evaluate and alleviate their concerns, and adjust their preconceptions. Legitimate economists of all schools, are concerned about the lack of support in the US during COVID. I imagine at some point in the future the schools will deviate on when to start cutting back / what to do after, but for now, there is alignment for turning the spigots on.

However, there are those on the fringe that are still banging their drums. Nation debt is not household debt so whatever anxiety that these numbers would generate in a household are irrelevant at a national level. This is another example of failure to believe experts. People will cling to how they think things work, especially if they feel their political ideology is being threatened, and latching onto anyone who justifies their pre-existing beliefs, no matter how fringy or self-aggrandizing the source. Unfortunately, there is a downside of 40 years of scarring people with bogeymen. At some point, you might have to switch tracks because of an unanticipated crisis and you've created a world in which people psychologically can't.

I don't really want to take the thread, down economic paths, but I wanted to bring up that the same psychological and philosophical roadblocks that are impeding COVID containment are working to impede the economics as well. In both cases, people have to start recognizing that they might have been sold a bill of goods for the advancement of other people's careers, and that we need to get down to business or we are all screwed.

 

[mmascari]

Really All? Please stop posting that herd immunity does not exist. It is a scientific fact. I think what you are arguing is the you don't believe herd immunity can be achieved without a vaccine. But exposure to the virus and a vaccine is what creates herd immunity and causes the virus to dissipate.

Nobody is disputing that herd immunity is a concept. It's based on reducing the number of interactions between infected people and people that are able to be infected.

Here's a good visualization

In the context of COVID, and hence assumed in this thread, the discussion has been if the number of people that cannot be infected can be achieved through natural infection instead of with a vaccine. Along with some details on how large that number needs to be, probably more than flu but less than measles. Combined with questions on how many are already infected, assuming the reported number is orders of magnitude to low. Plus mixing in a little bit of if being infected actually turns someone into "cannot be infected" and for how long.

In the visualization, if all the green dots already had COVID and recovered instead of getting a vaccine.

But exposure to the virus and a vaccine is what creates herd immunity and causes the virus to dissipate.

When someone says, and this is what's assumed in this thread, that the plan to deal with COVID is "natural herd immunity" it's being interpreted as "enough people are infected with COVID that then become no longer able to be infected again as a percentage of the population that transmission to new cases is reduced to a low number.

That's the scenario that people are saying is not possible.

Or, rather, the death toll to get there is unacceptable. Combined with that it's not a final state. As the population turns over, the "no longer able to be infected" percentage will drop and new cases will rise until it's lowered again. A repetitive cycle of deaths, mostly in kids.

A vaccine solves this problem in two ways. First, it lets us create a huge number of "no longer able to be infected". Second it does this with a very low risk. All those decimal points in the safety percentage are important when the doses given is such a huge number.

The math isn't hard:
Population * Immune % = Number Immune to achieve Required herd immunity.

Getting there naturally through infection instead of vaccine means:
Population * Immune % = Number Infected to get natural herd immunity.

Now do the death toll.
Number Infected * COVID Death% = Deaths.

Combined it's:
Population * Immune % * COVID Death% = Deaths to achieve natural herd immunity.

We can debate the different scenarios:
328,239,523 * 60% * 2.59% = 5,102,205 deaths.
328,239,523 * 20% * 0.26% = 170,685 deaths.


So, for everyone that's all about how natural herd immunity will get us there, what's your guess at two percentages and how many deaths are acceptable to you?

 

[Heppenheimer]

Nobody is disputing that herd immunity is a concept. It's based on reducing the number of interactions between infected people and people that are able to be infected.

Here's a good visualization

In the context of COVID, and hence assumed in this thread, the discussion has been if the number of people that cannot be infected can be achieved through natural infection instead of with a vaccine. Along with some details on how large that number needs to be, probably more than flu but less than measles. Combined with questions on how many are already infected, assuming the reported number is orders of magnitude to low. Plus mixing in a little bit of if being infected actually turns someone into "cannot be infected" and for how long.

In the visualization, if all the green dots already had COVID and recovered instead of getting a vaccine.


When someone says, and this is what's assumed in this thread, that the plan to deal with COVID is "natural herd immunity" it's being interpreted as "enough people are infected with COVID that then become no longer able to be infected again as a percentage of the population that transmission to new cases is reduced to a low number.

That's the scenario that people are saying is not possible.

Or, rather, the death toll to get there is unacceptable. Combined with that it's not a final state. As the population turns over, the "no longer able to be infected" percentage will drop and new cases will rise until it's lowered again. A repetitive cycle of deaths, mostly in kids.

A vaccine solves this problem in two ways. First, it lets us create a huge number of "no longer able to be infected". Second it does this with a very low risk. All those decimal points in the safety percentage are important when the doses given is such a huge number.

The math isn't hard:
Population * Immune % = Number Immune to achieve Required herd immunity.

Getting there naturally through infection instead of vaccine means:
Population * Immune % = Number Infected to get natural herd immunity.

Now do the death toll.
Number Infected * COVID Death% = Deaths.

Combined it's:
Population * Immune % * COVID Death% = Deaths to achieve natural herd immunity.

We can debate the different scenarios:
328,239,523 * 60% * 2.59% = 5,102,205 deaths.
328,239,523 * 20% * 0.26% = 170,685 deaths.


So, for everyone that's all about how natural herd immunity will get us there, what's your guess at two percentages and how many deaths are acceptable to you?

And it should be mentioned again. We have never achieved wide-spread, sustained herd immunity for any infectious disease in humans previously through natural exposure. The closest examples would be localized, temporary herd immunity for measles and rubella before vaccination and smallpox prior to eradication. But the morbidity and mortality associated with these diseases would be unacceptable today following that approach.

 

[sullyinMT]

Do you remember during the financial crisis, how there was so much hang wringing over debt and hyperinflation from stimulus? Legitimate economists were very concerned. Do you hear that now? Nope, because the financial crisis generated A LOT of data which legitimate economists were able to evaluate and alleviate their concerns, and adjust their preconceptions. Legitimate economists of all schools, are concerned about the lack of support in the US during COVID. I imagine at some point in the future the schools will deviate on when to start cutting back / what to do after, but for now, there is alignment for turning the spigots on.

However, there are those on the fringe that are still banging their drums. Nation debt is not household debt so whatever anxiety that these numbers would generate in a household are irrelevant at a national level. This is another example of failure to believe experts. People will cling to how they think things work, especially if they feel their political ideology is being threatened, and latching onto anyone who justifies their pre-existing beliefs, no matter how fringy or self-aggrandizing the source. Unfortunately, there is a downside of 40 years of scarring people with bogeymen. At some point, you might have to switch tracks because of an unanticipated crisis and you've created a world in which people psychologically can't.

I don't really want to take the thread, down economic paths, but I wanted to bring up that the same psychological and philosophical roadblocks that are impeding COVID containment are working to impede the economics as well. In both cases, people have to start recognizing that they might have been sold a bill of goods for the advancement of other people's careers, and that we need to get down to business or we are all screwed.

I absolutely believe this is the time to pay businesses to stay closed so long as they don't reduce payroll to reinvest the money into capital expenditure (or subsidize their lost % capacity as the case may be). There should be real penalties for the cases where small business owners have taken funds to buy Lambos and whatnot.
Or meaningfully increase unemployment benefits. If people are incentivized to stay home, or know that they’ll have a business to return to, a lot of panic and worry can subside. More importantly, the economy can actually get moving again when the time is right. We’re probably well past that point now, but it doesn’t mean we couldn’t try.

 

[danlb_2000]

Nobody is disputing that herd immunity is a concept. It's based on reducing the number of interactions between infected people and people that are able to be infected.

Here's a good visualization

In the context of COVID, and hence assumed in this thread, the discussion has been if the number of people that cannot be infected can be achieved through natural infection instead of with a vaccine. Along with some details on how large that number needs to be, probably more than flu but less than measles. Combined with questions on how many are already infected, assuming the reported number is orders of magnitude to low. Plus mixing in a little bit of if being infected actually turns someone into "cannot be infected" and for how long.

In the visualization, if all the green dots already had COVID and recovered instead of getting a vaccine.


When someone says, and this is what's assumed in this thread, that the plan to deal with COVID is "natural herd immunity" it's being interpreted as "enough people are infected with COVID that then become no longer able to be infected again as a percentage of the population that transmission to new cases is reduced to a low number.

That's the scenario that people are saying is not possible.

Or, rather, the death toll to get there is unacceptable. Combined with that it's not a final state. As the population turns over, the "no longer able to be infected" percentage will drop and new cases will rise until it's lowered again. A repetitive cycle of deaths, mostly in kids.

A vaccine solves this problem in two ways. First, it lets us create a huge number of "no longer able to be infected". Second it does this with a very low risk. All those decimal points in the safety percentage are important when the doses given is such a huge number.

The math isn't hard:
Population * Immune % = Number Immune to achieve Required herd immunity.

Getting there naturally through infection instead of vaccine means:
Population * Immune % = Number Infected to get natural herd immunity.

Now do the death toll.
Number Infected * COVID Death% = Deaths.

Combined it's:
Population * Immune % * COVID Death% = Deaths to achieve natural herd immunity.

We can debate the different scenarios:
328,239,523 * 60% * 2.59% = 5,102,205 deaths.
328,239,523 * 20% * 0.26% = 170,685 deaths.


So, for everyone that's all about how natural herd immunity will get us there, what's your guess at two percentages and how many deaths are acceptable to you?

You also need to keep in mind is that this over simplifies things because it only looks at a binary outcome of infections, live or die. In reality there is a large spectrum in between those two that also needs to be considered.