Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[TrainsOfDisney]

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.

That was the point of payroll protection right? Keep people off unemployment and keep businesses from laying people off.

But this whole thing lasted longer than anyone thought and there was nobody to agree on what to do next.

 

[mmascari]

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.

Yes, looking at only the Death Rate completely ignores any other effects. But, that was kind of on purpose for this example. For the purpose of the natural herd immunity discussion, it's a binary question: When two people interact, what's the chance one of them will infect the other?

There's no sense trying to debate the spectrum of impacts from mild annoyance to permanent lung or heart damage with someone after they tell you they're totally fine with a million plus deaths as completely acceptable. Discussing the less severe impacts is kind of a waste at that point.

 

[sullyinMT]

That was the point of payroll protection right? Keep people off unemployment and keep businesses from laying people off.

But this whole thing lasted longer than anyone thought and there was nobody to agree on what to do next.

And a big failure was not extending it. This is where the timing of our political calendar and the pandemic were on a collision course from the start. My understanding is there still sits a fairly sizable chunk of undistributed PPP funds.
Extending a program like this would have been appropriate. And, specifically to TWDC might have saved SOME of the recently announced 28k cuts (I’m well aware there was a larger paradigm shift within the company, but theater show staff and imagineering in particular come to mind)

 

[ChrisRobin124]

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?

I am not saying any deaths are acceptable to me. My only point was that herd immunity is not some fictional concept. I mentioned in my post that it was a completely acceptable point of view to believe that herd immunity without a vaccine is not a desirable pursuit. Just don't phrase it as "there's no such thing as herd immunity." So I really don't see anything in your post that I have any issue with. Except the inference that I maybe feel that X number of people dying is an acceptable result.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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.

Just my opinion...but the soonest we start to”turn the corner” is next week

 

[sullyinMT]

Just my opinion...but the soonest we start to”turn the corner” is next week

I actually believe in the cynical recesses of my brain that Pfizer/BnT has the data sufficient to release for interim analysis, but don’t want a whiff of political BS and are waiting an extra week or two for submission intentionally. There are stories leaking now of Germany and the UK setting up distribution networks. It seems there’s a new couple states every day announcing their overall outline. Something’s afoot. Germany has gone as far as saying they’ll begin injections “within hours” of approval.
I’m no conspiracy theorist, but I believe there is concerted effort to quell the fringes in this beloved country we call home and deal with whatever happens for another couple weeks. And probably with good reason.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

That was the point of payroll protection right? Keep people off unemployment and keep businesses from laying people off.

But this whole thing lasted longer than anyone thought and there was nobody to agree on what to do next.

And a big failure was not extending it. This is where the timing of our political calendar and the pandemic were on a collision course from the start. My understanding is there still sits a fairly sizable chunk of undistributed PPP funds.
Extending a program like this would have been appropriate. And, specifically to TWDC might have saved SOME of the recently announced 28k cuts (I’m well aware there was a larger paradigm shift within the company, but theater show staff and imagineering in particular come to mind)

Payroll protection was a nice safeguard...definitely more upside than down.

But...but that is a political smoke screen too...

A poopton of donor money was given away within zero attention and ppp was used to mask it. That’s as political as it comes.

They’ll have to do more and sooner than they will admit 5 days before the biggest election in decades (if not centuries)...
So we’ll see exactly how it plays out.

I think that there’s some pretty good arguments on multiple angles of this boondagle.

 

[mmascari]

I am not saying any deaths are acceptable to me. My only point was that herd immunity is not some fictional concept. I mentioned in my post that it was a completely acceptable point of view to believe that herd immunity without a vaccine is not a desirable pursuit. Just don't phrase it as "there's no such thing as herd immunity." So I really don't see anything in your post that I have any issue with. Except the inference that I maybe feel that X number of people dying is an acceptable result.

You've been caught in a cross misunderstanding then, and I apologize if I implied that you specifically were fine with X number of deaths if that was not your intent.

That was the point of understanding the context of what people are describing. In this thread, in the news, in the discussion about COVID and a plan of herd immunity. In ALL of those cases, people are specifically saying they are fine with X number of people dying as an acceptable result and a plan for how the spread of COVID will be reduced.

NONE of them are debating the concept of herd immunity where there are enough people who cannot be infected that the spread of a disease is restricted.

Almost every response deflecting that herd immunity is a valid concept are trying to confuse the issue. They're purposefully deflecting that the plan achieves enough people who cannot be infected by infecting them with all of the repercussions that entails.

There is no herd immunity plan without a vaccine. A vaccine and it's wide use is what enables herd immunity to protect those that cannot be vaccinated for other health reasons.

 

[GoofGoof]

What I am advocating for is trying to protect those most at risk and allowing those that are willing to take the risk of getting the virus the option to take part in riskier behavior. What this doesn't mean is that if you are engaging in risky behavior that you if sick or knowingly exposed go and expose more people. But it does mean if you are healthy or if you have had it already and are currently immune (Yes, I realize that we don't know how long people will have immunity but we really haven't reached a point yet where multiple people are coming down with COVID again) that you have the choice to do riskier behaviors - go to a theme park, attend parties, visit friends, etc.

There is no practical way to protect the high risk without either forcing them to stay totally isolated or reducing the overall infection levels. Based on the fact that the high risk group includes anyone that is elderly or has one of a number of pre-existing conditions more than half the population would fall into that category. It’s not possible to isolate half the population and if we did it would be a tragedy for the economy. That leaves us with the other option which is to try to reduce cases to a low enough level that the high risk group can still function safely in society without isolating. People in the higher risk group are still recommended to try to avoid unnecessary exposure to strangers when possible so they probably should be avoiding indoor dining and places like theme parks, but they can still go to work or their doctor’s office or the grocery store with proper precautions taken.

 

[Touchdown]

Just my opinion...but the soonest we start to”turn the corner” is next week

No the earliest that happens 1/20/21 at noon.

 

[MisterPenguin]

 

[Heppenheimer]

Again my friend, this deserves reposting.Even after listening to the video.


There are several reasons why herd immunity isn’t the answer to stopping the spread of the new coronavirus:

1. There isn’t yet a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2. Vaccinations are the safest way to practice herd immunity in a population.
2. The research for antivirals and other medications to treat COVID-19 is ongoing.
3. Scientists don’t know if you can contract SARS-CoV-2 and develop COVID-19 more than once.
4. People who contract SARS-CoV-2 and develop COVID-19 can experience serious side effects. Severe cases can lead to death.
5. Doctors don’t yet know exactly why some people who contract SARS-CoV-2 develop severe COVID-19, while others do not.
6. Vulnerable members of society, such as older adults and people with some chronic health conditions, could get very sick if they’re exposed to this virus.
7. Otherwise healthy and younger people may become very ill with COVID-19.
8. Hospitals and healthcare systems may be overburdened if many people develop COVID-19 at the same time.
9. It isn’t the answer for this virus.

I watched the video, and she really doesn't address any of those points. Her main focus was following the example of other coronaviruses, but a little searching through Pubmed and UptoDate puts some serious dents in her claims. For one, there are 7 other known coronaviruses that infect humans. Four of these cause mostly mild cold-like illnesses. I could not find any published papers that tracked antibody prevalence (probably because nobody would bother for such minor diseases), so I don't know how she can claim that herd immunity for these exist. And the very fact that these viruses recur seasonally effectively means enduring human herd immunity doesn't exist.

For the other two non-COVID-19 coronaviruses known to infect humans, herd immunity almost certainly does not exist anywhere. SARS was never widespread enough. We don't know exactly why the disease is effectively extinct in humans, but the leading theories are because the limited population that was exposed was effectively quarantined and contact-traced, while virus itself quickly mutated into a far less virulent form. MERS, which has a much higher fatality rate at about 30%, fortunately requires more sustained close contact to catch. This made containing the outbreak much easier, especially once they realized that camels were the primary natural reservoir.

She then bizarrely claims that Zika was an example of a coronavirus to which we have achieved herd immunity. First of all, Zika belongs to the Flaviviridae family. Second, although Zika caused a scare a few years ago, it at most infected a little over 5,000 individuals in the US, almost all whom acquired it abroad. Plus, mosquitoes are the primary vector, with human-to-human transmission being mostly limited to congenital infections, and sexual contact. It remains endemic in various parts of the world, which strongly argues against human herd immunity.

She also equates criticism with ad hominem attacks, but when asked to provide peer-reviewed evidence to back up her claim, she provides only one paper that was about a technique for antibody detection, and a few papers that were rejected for publication. Gee, how convenient.

Finally, although I think it is better to carry on debate focusing on the merits of the arguments rather than speculating on possible financial motives, but holy crap, in this case, the source of the Great Barrington Declaration can not be ignored. The Declaration came not from a respected medical or scientific society, but the American Institute for Economic Research, which is primarily a libertarian, free-market think tank that usually deals with... well, economic policy, not public and preventative health. Some of the sponsors of the American Institute for Economic Research include respected fortune 500 companies... and it also includes some less than savory characters, like Philip-Morris and the Koch brothers.

 

[MisterPenguin]

 

[DisneyCane]

View attachment 509442

View attachment 509443

View attachment 509444

View attachment 509445

I think due to this great site that you turned me on to (thank you), I finally understand where the COVID tracking project is getting the very different new case positivity from. It seems to me that if somebody (for example a nursing home employee) gets tested every two weeks, they will only be a "new person tested" the first time. If they test positive after 10 tests and become a new case COVID tracking project counts them in the numerator but not the denominator. This is kind of stupid because even though technically it isn't a unique person that hasn't been tested before, for the purposes of surveillance it is a new test.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I think due to this great site that you turned me on to (thank you), I finally understand where the COVID tracking project is getting the very different new case positivity from. It seems to me that if somebody (for example a nursing home employee) gets tested every two weeks, they will only be a "new person tested" the first time. If they test positive after 10 tests and become a new case COVID tracking project counts them in the numerator but not the denominator. This is kind of stupid because even though technically it isn't a unique person that hasn't been tested before, for the purposes of surveillance it is a new test.

That's the problem with not having a Federal or even international standard of reporting (and a little arm twisting to make everyone comply with it). That there are so many sites tracking COVID because what we would expect for a central clearing house of data to be doing... isn't.

It's also the problem with cherry picking stats to bolster one's cause. All three metrics give a more complete view of what's happening. No need to pick just one.

 

[Tink242424]

There has been a lot of debate about aerosol transmission, and even though it seems pretty clear this is a possible method of transmission, I don't think there would be as much debate if it was a significant method. It's looking like droplets may be the primary mode of infection..

That is certainly possible but I haven't yet been convinced by the studies I have seen. Either way I don't think it is a bad idea. I don't think they need to be worn when outdoors and you can maintain social distancing.

 

[hopemax]

In case anyone hasn't read this yet

Analysis & updates | Test Positivity in the US Is a Mess

Interpreted correctly, test positivity can tell us so much that we need to know about COVID-19 outbreaks and testing in the United States. But we don’t publish test positivity calculations for US states and territories. Here’s why.

covidtracking.com

That's the problem with not having a Federal or even international standard of reporting (and a little arm twisting to make everyone comply with it). That there are so many sites tracking COVID because what we would expect for a central clearing house of data to be doing... isn't.

It's also the problem with cherry picking stats to bolster one's cause. All three metrics give a more complete view of what's happening. No need to pick just one.

Exactly. All states should be reporting data in the same way. If there are legitimate concerns about which calculation is better, then calculate each state by all 3 methods. We could maybe start thinking of things as upper bound, lower bounds, best guess, etc.

 

[Tink242424]

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.

Very much agree. Someone else posted that the messaging in Canada has been more about let's come together and we can defeat the disease. I wish we had more of that in the US. That was the messaging in WWI and WWII that forged greatness from everyone. All we do is fight over EVERYTHING. All of our leaders except for a rare handful have not messaged this well and have not given the US a consistent policy to get behind.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Very much agree. Someone else posted that the messaging in Canada has been more about let's come together and we can defeat the disease. I wish we had more of that in the US. That was the messaging in WWI and WWII that forged greatness from everyone. All we do is fight over EVERYTHING. All of our leaders except for a rare handful have not messaged this well and have not given the US a consistent policy to get behind.

I'm giving the CDC somewhat of a pass for first saying we didn't need masks...there was a reason for that, and it's a valid one (so first responders would have them). Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx have been consistent from the get-go. The biggest problem has been the administration itself. Downplaying, false information, false hopes, promoting unproven treatments...it's no wonder it's such a poop-show here.

 

[Tink242424]

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.

So they pay taxes on the free money and that somehow helps the government recoup the money they just spent?? Overall I'm not for government assistance without the person doing something for it. I'm fine with picking up garbage or a beautification program. And I understand help is necessary here to help slow the spread by allowing people to live while staying home. I just think these programs are not well thought out from the beginning and never end up overall helping people the way they are intended.