Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Tink242424]

I can’t disagree there. I think a consistent message would help a lot and I do believe most people want to do what’s right. It’s not like people are looking to go out and infect other people. There is a lot of conflicting info out there and the politicians peddling conspiracy theories and outright lies doesn‘t help either.

For example, what is the guideline for Thanksgiving get togethers? I have a friend that I talked to about the topic and they said they were still doing Thanksgiving with their whole family and didn’t think it was a big deal because the total number of people would be under 25 so they were within the guidelines for a group gathering. I don’t think it’s any less risk if 24 family members get together indoor with no masks vs 25 and I’ve heard some “experts” suggest not to get together at all but there hasn’t been a consistent message. I don’t believe everyone would follow all the recommendations but it would be a step in the right direction to at least make them and let people decide.

Yes! I was just speaking with my Mother about Christmas Eve (our Thanksgiving is always small just immediate family so we don't have an issue there) and if we should get together with our extended family. We are going to wait and see how everyone feels and what the current state of the pandemic is in our area. My Mom is 76 with multiple co-morbidities and so we do what we need to in order to protect her. On the other hand she has made it clear that she will not be locked in a bubble and if she gets COVID and dies she is ok with that. So we work with her to determine what is the right path and where to have her get out and still live.

 

[GoofGoof]

Are those really guidelines though?

That up to 25 people can gather indoors with no social distancing and no masks?

Or, are the guidelines more layered than that. Something like up to 25 people can gather, with controls around droplet and aerosol transmission between independent contamination groups?

So, sure, have 25 over for Thanksgiving, but do it in a way to minimize cross contamination. Maybe outside, or with increased fresh air ventilation, or wear source control for droplets and aerosols, or combinations of these.

Lots of activities are largely OK, but have little issues. We're planning an outdoor gathering if the weather is good. With tables set 6-10 feet apart for air control. But, there's still bathrooms, cooking, and other indoor parts. For those parts, we'll need to use different controls.

Just like WDW, people that are spread out while walking outdoors probably don't really need masks. There's low risk while those things are true. It's when they're not spread out, or no longer outside. Those things change frequently at WDW. They could have a rule to put a mask on whenever they occur, but it's easier to just have one rule.

I don't wear a mask when I walk the dog. If we pass someone, we move aside and give a large space for a short interaction. When we walk the trails around the lake, we bring a mask and put it on whenever we pass someone or there's a crowd. There's less space on the lake path and more people. I can see where WDW is more like walking a park trail than walking the dog in the neighborhood.

I don’t believe that anywhere official there is a guideline that says it’s OK to have a dinner party at your house with 23 other people where everyone is indoor without masks or distancing. The group gathering limits are for things like weddings or sporting events where distancing and masks occur. I just don’t think it’s real clearly laid out and people hear 25 person limit and just think they are OK. There should be an infectious disease expert spelling out exactly what the recommendation is. Since the top guy is tainted by politics now it should be Pence as the leader of the task force. He’s obviously not going to do that on the eve of Election Day, but that’s the problem with all of this. It should have never been politicized.

 

[mmascari]

No, for a lockdown to work EVERYTHING essential or non-essential needs to close. You don't leave to go to the hospital, you don't leave for food, you don't leave for exercise. You leave for nothing for like 2-3 months. That is what would work but it isn't feasible at all. Your idea of closing all non-essential does nothing. Spread will still occur. Maybe not at the same rate but it will still occur.

A lockdown is a blunt untargeted instrument. It's not and never was designed to be a complete solution. The only goal of a lockdown is to allow testing and identification to ramp up. This way the location and spread of infections can be understood and targeted specifically. The percent positivity is a good measure for how well community spread is understood.

There's no point in arguing that a lockdown only works to contain all spread if it's for a very long time and includes everything possible. That's not what it's designed or targeted to do, so of course it doesn't work to do it.

 

[baymenxpac]

Let's give a conservative estimate of the fatality rate from COVID-19 (not even considering the extensive morbidity associated with the condition) at 1-3%.

this is not the estimated fatality rate. this was an early guess by fauci et al at a CASE rate in march. from extensive testing, we have discovered this is not true at all, as we know there is a very large number of asymptomatic and very mild cases.

estimate INFECTION fatality rate has ranged from 0.26% to 0.6% by the CDC. further seroprevalence studies have found the original 0.26% is likely the high range, with some estimates use data out of various locales (california was the earlier one, conducted by john ionnidas, a significant later one based on sero studies in india) getting as low as 0.1% or lower. but a broad-based IFR is really only half the equation because of the risk gradient based on age posed by COVID. CDC's current best age-based risk is this:

0-to-19: .003%
20-to-49: .02%
50-to-69: .5%
70+: 5%

source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

for comparison, that is reflects either far less risk (0-to-19) or equal risk (20-to-69) as seasonal influenza. COVID is only greatly more serious for those 70+ (5% for COVID vs 0.83% for those 65+ for flu).

And now lets consider a situation in which we did nothing to prevent the spread of the disease, it became endemic, and affects virtually the entire population of the US (as chicken pox, measles, mumps and rubella did before vaccination). In this situation, with the US population of 331 million, anywhere from 3.31 to almost 10 million people would die in this country alone. That's 3-10 million EXCESS deaths, at a minimum, and there would probably be many more indirect deaths because this sheer number of sick individuals would cause the health care system to collapse. Even if only 10% of the population catches the disease, this would still result in an excess of 331,000 to 1 million deaths. We're well on our way to hitting the lower estimate already.

this is profoundly untrue, as it assumes two things that have already been proven with real-world observation and peer-reviewed studies of clinical data: 1) exponential growth, and 2) inherent immune response in the population.

For comparison, the two most deadly wars for the US were WWII and the Civil War, with 291K and 218K combat deaths, respectively. And because people keep mentioning the flu, the most deadly year for influenza in recent years in the US killed about 16,000. For COVID-19 deaths, in less than a year, at 231K, we've long surpassed the Civil War body count, but we're closing in on our total in 3+ years of fighting in WWII.

comparing deaths from infectious diseases to wars might be an exercise CNN anchors have indulged in, but it couldn't be further from the truth. it's like comparing apples to luxury yachts.

also, flu deaths are counted fundamentally differently than COVID deaths. the CDC's estimate (because that's just one of the ways we count flu deaths that are different from COVID deaths) was actually 61,000 (not 16,000) in 2017-18.

source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burde...-,Conclusion,severe seasonal influenza can be

 

[DisneyTransport]

Yes! I was just speaking with my Mother about Christmas Eve (our Thanksgiving is always small just immediate family so we don't have an issue there) and if we should get together with our extended family. We are going to wait and see how everyone feels and what the current state of the pandemic is in our area. My Mom is 76 with multiple co-morbidities and so we do what we need to in order to protect her. On the other hand she has made it clear that she will not be locked in a bubble and if she gets COVID and dies she is ok with that. So we work with her to determine what is the right path and where to have her get out and still live.

I understand you from this angle. I've had so many morbid conversations with my elderly family members about this. Some say they want to remain safe and protected from COVID as much as possible, while others want to live their lives to the fullest in the few years they got left. Heck, even I had a deep conversation with myself during the shutdown... one of my friends who was a hospital worker died in a car crash on their way to their essential job. There is a balance between being smart and safe, and living your life as we never know which day will be our last.... I'm not stating an opinion here, just saying I believe there is balance to be achieved here between covid measures and quality of life with the risks inherent in it.

 

[Tink242424]

Then what is too much?

I don't have an actual number to give you but it isn't 0. People die everyday. Some could have been prevented some not. But this has nothing to do with the original post. If 700 people get COVID but none have serious outcomes why do we care?

 

[marni1971]

Comments like yours are why this world is such a mess. A lockdown is never going to work to stop the disease. And the commenter's idea to return to the spring - for what? We don't need to close non-essential businesses. They aren't the primary source of spread. The vast majority have implemented safety modifications.

It’s a family site so I won’t say what I think of you.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't have an actual number to give you but it isn't 0. People die everyday. Some could have been prevented some not. But this has nothing to do with the original post. If 700 people get COVID but none have serious outcomes why do we care?

They can easily spread it to others? We don't know enough to yet declare that there are not serious outcomes?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

If one side wins nothing changes by the end of this week and if the other wins they still don’t have power until Jan so not sure anything can be done now. Fauci may be fired either way by the end of the week so it won’t likely come from him in any official capacity. Maybe the CDC will issue guidelines themselves.

Whoever wins will have the platform/media coverage...the other fades.

If the loser is still the focus - time to change your cable package

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It’s a family site so I won’t say what I think of you.

Please...fire away

 

[marni1971]

Please...fire away
View attachment 510043

I don’t want to give Steve more work than he already has.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don’t want to give Steve more work than he already has.

..:you’re not gonna be touched. I guarantee it. I’ll offer to serve the ban for you.

DOOOOOO IIIITTTTT!!!

 

[MisterPenguin]

..:you’re not gonna be touched. I guarantee it. I’ll offer to serve the ban for you.

DOOOOOO IIIITTTTT!!!

No one hasn't had posts removed.

Some just more than others.

 

[danlb_2000]

True we should be working on making ourselves healthier I don't deny that and I am very much in agreement. Still it does nothing to say that 700 people got COVID and so we should be upset. I don't care if the whole world gets COVID. What I care about is how many of them have serious outcomes and how many die.

The more people who get COVID, the more people will die from it. In the US we already have around 230,000 dead from the virus, a large portion of which would probably be alive today if they had not caught it.

 

[LittleBuford]

@The Mom and @wdwmagic, is it not possible to impose the same rule here as you have in the politics forum? When used to deride a post, the laughing emoji is nothing more than trolling, which is banned across all the forums.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The more people who get COVID, the more people will die from it. In the US we already have around 230,000 dead from the virus, a large portion of which would probably be alive today if they had not caught it.

You just take your “reality” and get out of here, Mister

Don’t you know it’s the first ever “national fiction week” in the US??

 

[mmascari]

0-to-19: .003%
20-to-49: .02%
50-to-69: .5%
70+: 5%

Large numbers, like population figures, and small percentages still create huge impacts when the impact for a single event is so significant.

I looked up population numbers. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

The categories aren't exactly the same, but close, and ten years old. I've also assumed only 60% of the total population in each category is infected.

				Max Infected
Group	Risk	Group	Population	60%	Risk Total
0-19	0.003%	Under 18	72,293,812	43,376,287	1,301
20-49	0.02%	18-44	112,183,705	67,310,223	13,462
50-69	0.50%	56-64	61,952,636	37,171,582	185,858
70+	5%	65+	34,991,753	20,995,052	1,049,753

Population * 60% * Risk% = Risk Total. That's 1,250,374 deaths including a million plus seniors. The 0.50% doesn't feel so good once the numbers are very large.

It's not to bad in the Under 18 group at a society level, but still devastating for over a thousand. Again, if Space Mountain had a 0.003% risk of death for each rider, nobody would ride it.

 

[Chi84]

@The Mom and @wdwmagic, is it not possible to impose the same rule here as you have in the politics forum? When used to deride a post, the laughing emoji is nothing more than trolling, which is banned across all the forums.

And while you’re at it, remove that goofy “deer-in-the-headlights” emoji people use every time someone posts bad news about the virus.

 

[mattpeto]

I don't agree with @Tink242424 and believe me she's laughed at plenty of my posts in another forum. Even though her Mom is at peace with dying from Covid, as her child I wouldn't be okay with that position.

That being said, I think there is a middle ground somewhere. The numbers suck, we have to do something to limit them. Masks, social distancing and forcing companies to work remotely where possible is what we can do in the short-term. Lockdown again? Maybe, maybe not?

The only way we are getting out of this mess is with a vaccine. Even a vaccine won't solve it overnight, but over a couple of years, it will.

In a twisted way, if we all felt certain about a vaccine being released early in 2021, I'd almost encourage another lockdown. It buys us time to vaccinate one another.

But in another strange perverse way, what if we never get a vaccine? What if EOY 2020 turns into Spring turns into Summer, turns into Fall turns in 2022? We have to ponder that scenario. We lockdown until the curve flattens. Soften our grip (like we did) it's just going to rear it's ugly head again and again. I'm certainly not advocating pushing forward in that scenario, but we just can't lockdown forever.

I don't have a solution, it's just all of it sucks. I can kind of respect all viewpoints with it, as long as they are being considerate of others.

 

[LittleBuford]

And while you’re at it, remove that goofy “deer-in-the-headlights” emoji people use every time someone posts bad news about the virus.

Sorry, couldn't resist.