Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Patcheslee]

So I‘m not entirely up to speed on the vaccination conversation, but are Pfizer’s claims about their vaccine anything more than just their claims? I know they’re claiming 90% effectiveness (and now 1 year of immunity), but has this been verified by anyone else?

How can they know one year if we haven't even been dealing with covid for a year yet? Is there some scientific equation used to calculate how long or something?

 

[Heppenheimer]

How can they know one year if we haven't even been dealing with covid for a year yet? Is there some scientific equation used to calculate how long or something?

Sort of, although I don't know the specifics for the Pfizer vaccine. Some immune markers are known to decline in levels consistent with 1st order kinematics (meaning, that the proportion of the effect declines at a constant rate, as opposed to the absolute level declining by a constant rate). So perhaps measuring these levels, they can extrapolate that the efficacy should be around for at least a year. But that's just a guess.

 

[MisterPenguin]

How can they know one year if we haven't even been dealing with covid for a year yet? Is there some scientific equation used to calculate how long or something?

One year is a safe bet based on how long antibodies are present a few months after the vaccine. Most scientists are theorizing it would last a lot longer based on other parts of the immune system having longer term 'memory' than the amount of antigens suggest (based on those who caught the virus). So, 'for one year' sounds like a safe hedge. It's likely to be more, but, you'd need longer periods of testing to determine that to make that claim ("that's how science works" -me ).

The 90% effective is simple math based on how many fewer people in the vaccine group didn't get the virus compared to the number in the placebo group that did.

The FDA's task force that will go over the data is due to do so before Thanksgiving. We presume Pfizer will publish their data for transparency. We should also presume there are European scientist eyes on the data since Pfizer did get some money from there.

If emergency use is granted, the trial group plus many more who will start getting the vaccine will continue to be tracked.

 

[Heppenheimer]

So I‘m not entirely up to speed on the vaccination conversation, but are Pfizer’s claims about their vaccine anything more than just their claims? I know they’re claiming 90% effectiveness (and now 1 year of immunity), but has this been verified by anyone else?

We'll see once they submit their analysis to the FDA. Unless they really want to see their reputation destroyed, I would assume they are confident of their numbers and this isn't all just a stock-manipulation ruse.

 

[GoofGoof]

So I‘m not entirely up to speed on the vaccination conversation, but are Pfizer’s claims about their vaccine anything more than just their claims? I know they’re claiming 90% effectiveness (and now 1 year of immunity), but has this been verified by anyone else?

The 90% is not Pfizer at all. They are blinded and have no idea whether people in the trial that got infected got the vaccine or the placebo. Once they hit the threshold number of positives (threshold was 53 but they actually had 94) then an independent board reviews the results of the trial and when they are done they let Pfizer know what the results were. The Pfizer CEO said he was called on Sunday and told the results which were released publicly on Monday. Moderna has said publicly that they have also reached the threshold of infections and that the independent board is reviewing their results so there’s a good chance we hear something any day now on the results. The 1 year estimate came from the CEO and founder of BioNTech who is Pfizer’s partner. He said in an interview that he thinks the vaccine will protect patients for a significant period of time and he personally believes it may be a year or longer. That’s an educated guess from someone who has more access than we do to the data, but it’s no lock to be true.

The next step is Pfizer needs to have 50% of their trial participants hit 2 months since their second injection before they can apply for emergency use authorization. That will happen next week. Once they apply it’s expected that the FDA will take several weeks to review before approval. Pfizer has said that they will be ready to start injecting people the day after they receive approval so assuming the safety data is all good (so far so good) that means the first patients stuck ore the end of 2020.

 

[Kevin_W]

So I‘m not entirely up to speed on the vaccination conversation, but are Pfizer’s claims about their vaccine anything more than just their claims? I know they’re claiming 90% effectiveness (and now 1 year of immunity), but has this been verified by anyone else?

Also, the 90% number wasn't from Pfizer, it was from an independent board that reviews the data. It's the same reason Moderna hasn't released numbers even though they have reached the statistical # of cases where they could - the data is reviewed by independent outsiders.


Edit: as Goof said in much more detail as I was typing!

 

[GoofGoof]

Also, the 90% number wasn't from Pfizer, it was from an independent board that reviews the data. It's the same reason Moderna hasn't released numbers even though they have reached the statistical # of cases where they could - the data is reviewed by independent outsiders.


Edit: as Goof said in much more detail as I was typing!

As a 76ers fan I’m going to borrow their catch phrase...Trust the Process. This whole thing is probably the most transparent any pharmaceutical company has ever been with a clinical trial. It is critical that the public trusts that the vaccine is safe and effective. I heard the FDA said it would possibly take until Christmas to approve for emergency use. They aren’t just rubber stamping this thing. It’s fast compared to normal, but nothing is normal right now.

 

[Heppenheimer]

The next fight on this board... what if Disney requires proof of vaccination before allowing guests to enter the parks or stay at their resorts? How would they assure compliance? Would this change anyone's plans?

 

[DisneyDebRob]

It would never be possible to require only curbside or delivery. There are far too many people (older or due to economic reasons) that do not have internet and would be unable to place their orders ahead of time.

I have tried to use Instacart on multiple occasions and been frustrated every time to the point that I do not place the order. I've found that items I KNOW a store carries are not listed and I hate that I can't use coupons. More than a few of my friends have been repeatedly frustrated by their "shopper" not substituting appropriate items (almond coffee creamer vs another flavor of the same type, or items containing sugar when they ordered sugar-free).
Some Target stores do not have the capacity to store cold/frozen items and therefore will not allow ordering ahead.
The Aldi near me has not yet offered pickup service, nor do either of the Ruler foods (Kroger's version of Aldi).
I have found both Sam's Club and Walmart online ordering to be easy to use. Most of what I buy is house brand and I appreciate that when Walmart is out of an item, they'll sub the name-brand item at no extra charge.

I would LOVE to have more options for grocery order/pickup/delivery, but the system is limited, not just by staffing issues, but also technology and space constraints.

What you found convenient about the Walmart pick up, I found annoying. We had placed a total of 5 orders over a month period and not once did they have half of what we ordered in stock yet they don’t tell you that. You just get a email saying available for pickup. One time they substituted regular tea when my wife likes the sugar free stuff. We ended up not ever ordering again from them and returning most of the orders. But I can understand some liking substitutes.

 

[Heppenheimer]

As a 76ers fan I’m going to borrow their catch phrase...Trust the Process. This whole thing is probably the most transparent any pharmaceutical company has ever been with a clinical trial. It is critical that the public trusts that the vaccine is safe and effective. I heard the FDA said it would possibly take until Christmas to approve for emergency use. They aren’t just rubber stamping this thing. It’s fast compared to normal, but nothing is normal right now.

As we've seen with the election, though, transparency isn't enough to convince some people if their mind is already made up...

 

[GoofGoof]

As we've seen with the election, though, transparency isn't enough to convince some people if their mind is already made up...

We just need about 2/3 on board. Can’t please everyone and mental illness is a tricky thing to cure

 

[GoofGoof]

The next fight on this board... what if Disney requires proof of vaccination before allowing guests to enter the parks or stay at their resorts? How would they assure compliance? Would this change anyone's plans?

Yes, I brought that concept up here and in another thread since it’s directly related to WDW. So far got a handful of the little angry faces but no actual responses. I am kinda curious what people think.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

The next fight on this board... what if Disney requires proof of vaccination before allowing guests to enter the parks or stay at their resorts? How would they assure compliance? Would this change anyone's plans?

I'll say right away that it wouldn't impact my plans. Once I've been vaccinated and the waiting period for immunity is up (I think I saw that it's about a month after the 2nd injection), then I'm fine going. Knowing that everyone else there had to be vaccinated just makes me feel that much safer. I would just hope that the process of proving you received the vaccine isn't too complicated (or easily faked since that would defeat the purpose).

 

[Chi84]

The next fight on this board... what if Disney requires proof of vaccination before allowing guests to enter the parks or stay at their resorts? How would they assure compliance? Would this change anyone's plans?

IMHO, these fights based on "what if . . ." never produce anything worthwhile because people necessarily make up their own scenarios and then fight over the imaginary details as though they were facts.

 

[_caleb]

Thanks for all the help in understanding the Pfizer thing. Since all the reporting I'd seen about the news was, "Pfizer CEO claims 90% effectiveness." But now I see that an independent data monitoring committee were the ones who tested the vaccine and found these results.

 

[_caleb]

I'll say right away that it wouldn't impact my plans. Once I've been vaccinated and the waiting period for immunity is up (I think I saw that it's about a month after the 2nd injection), then I'm fine going. Knowing that everyone else there had to be vaccinated just makes me feel that much safer. I would just hope that the process of proving you received the vaccine isn't too complicated (or easily faked since that would defeat the purpose).

It seems to me that public health officials might be in favor of this approach, both to keep people safe AND to assist the campaign to change people's minds about the vaccine. When you scroll through your social media and see that vaccinated people get to have all the fun (restaurants, movie theaters, WDW, etc.), more and more people might be willing to get vaccinated.

 

[DisneyCane]

As we've seen with the election, though, transparency isn't enough to convince some people if their mind is already made up...

Bad analogy. The lack of transparency is causing people not to be convinced. If there was full transparency then there wouldn't be any reason for a rational person to question if the results are legitimate.

 

[techgeek]

The next fight on this board... what if Disney requires proof of vaccination before allowing guests to enter the parks or stay at their resorts? How would they assure compliance? Would this change anyone's plans?

Yes, I brought that concept up here and in another thread since it’s directly related to WDW. So far got a handful of the little angry faces but no actual responses. I am kinda curious what people think.

I think it's an interesting idea, but an academic one and not very practical. I'm pretty hung up on the "how do you assure compliance?" question. For instance, if the current requirement was for proof of an annual flu shot, how would that work? I've got my receipt from Publix, but it would be a trivial thing to fake something like that... and how many people don't save their receipts for any meaningful length of time? In reality, you'd be back to linking it to a health app of some sort like China has done with their QR codes, which as we've seen won't fly here.

 

[danlb_2000]

Yeah, there’s a lot of people who prefer recommendations over requirements. So far I haven’t seen that work in this country. Many people want masks to just be a recommendation and not a requirement at a place like WDW. That isn‘t going to help it’s just going to lead to more people not doing what they need to do. In many cases even when stuff is required and not optional it’s still hard to get people to comply.

If precautions only protected you then recommendations would be reasonable, but when your choices impact others you really need to make them requirements.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The next fight on this board... what if Disney requires proof of vaccination before allowing guests to enter the parks or stay at their resorts? How would they assure compliance? Would this change anyone's plans?

There's something about being asked if your vaccinated everywhere you go that just feels icky to me. I'm well aware that's its already done for certain activities like school or travel to certain places, but having to carry and show your medical papers is a different level.

Sine the unions were involved in Disney's self-imposed restrictions I do wonder what role they would play in supporting mandatory vaccination for employees.