Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[DisneyCane]

That can be pretty tricky. Reading through state statutes, like quoting constitutional provisions, is ordinarily just a starting point for understanding the laws of a state. So much of the law is developed through judicial decisions interpreting it and rules and regulations adopted by the agencies charged with applying it. Apologies if you're already aware of this.

That is a good point, especially on the constitutional side. State laws are written far more detailed and specific so there is less interpretation required by the courts. Also, state laws tend to be written in modern English instead of the sometimes vague 1700s language in the constitution.

 

[Disney Experience]

Typically that’s the rule anyways during take-off and landing.

The first day when flights were once again allowed after 9-11 I was flying first class from Minneapolis to Austin. The doors to the cockpit were not yet reinforced. I noticed most of us in first were male and not tiny, thought nothing of it. The pilot came on board, turned to look at us in First class, and said, "You know what to do, right?". He then turned and entered the cockpit and closed the cockpit door.

Before 9-11 I would have stayed in my seat if someone attempted to hijack, allowing the expert negotiators to deal with the hijack once we were on ground, since that normally was the least risky for the fellow passengers and myself. After 9-11, I would have, and I assume the rest of those in first class in those early days, try to jump the hijackers before they made it up to the cockpit.

 

[Chi84]

That is a good point, especially on the constitutional side. State laws are written far more detailed and specific so there is less interpretation required by the courts. Also, state laws tend to be written in modern English instead of the sometimes vague 1700s language in the constitution.

What you say makes sense, although much of the judicial interpretation involves application of the law and legislative intent rather than the meaning of the specific language. Also, state statutes, while written in modern English, are seldom models of clarity - often because of changes to effect compromises or careless editing. But if you've been reading through the Florida statutes, you probably already know that

 

[Disney Experience]

In todays briefing Pfizer mentioned its intention to apply for non-EUA by April.

 

[Lilofan]

The first day when flights were once again allowed after 9-11 I was flying first class from Minneapolis to Austin. The doors to the cockpit were not yet reinforced. I noticed most of us in first were male and not tiny, thought nothing of it. The pilot came on board, turned to look at us in First class, and said, "You know what to do, right?". He then turned and entered the cockpit and closed the cockpit door.

Before 9-11 I would have stayed in my seat if someone attempted to hijack, allowing the expert negotiators to deal with the hijack once we were on ground, since that normally was the least risky for the fellow passengers and myself. After 9-11, I would have, and I assume the rest of those in first class in those early days, try to jump the hijackers before they made it up to the cockpit.

The UCF football team was leaving the Orlando airport shortly after 9/11 to play an away game. When one of the players was interviewed by the media asking about feeling safe flying, the football player said if anyone attempted something on the plane, that the bad guy would be making a big mistake.

 

[Disney Experience]

The live stream (Though they are at voting stage now, so mostly over)

 

[matt9112]

No college degree 61%, college degree 68% so not as big a discrepancy as I would have thought. It may be that many people without a college degree are working in retail type jobs right now and have experienced a disproportionate number of Covid infections and/or they are unemployed due to business closures and are more willing to get vaccinated due to a desire to get back to work. I would think more educated would mean more trust in science but it seems political pull is a bigger factor.

Or maybe a piece of paper dosen't inherently make you smarter.

 

[mmascari]

That’s about the most obvious dog and pony show ever.

There is a 0.0000% chance approval is not given based on events overseas and enormous public pressure.

You always trust the science...but it could never win this battle.

We all hope it doesn’t matter in this case.

I don’t disagree with you...however my assessment is still 100% correct in this instance

There's an entire staff of FDA career employees that would disagree with you.

It's true that in this instance all the steps and submitted material is better than in others, because of the high profile. So it's more likely to simply pass. But while we've seen the HHS director and the FDA commissioner dragged into the Whitehouse, it appears that any effort to get them to rush the process hasn't worked. If we had seen a fast rushed skipping steps process, I would have worried then.

There's a long standing process that anyone who works on the review can contribute a dissenting analysis even when something is approved. This is included in the public record then along with the final outcome. You can bet if they find something in there, it'll show up someplace.

Part of the quick approvals form others is probably counting on the FDA being more thorough and that if something was found they could pull back.

There is no solution. It is an airborne virus. The only way to stop the spread of it without a vaccine is by keeping people isolated from each other. Aside from the illegality and unconstitutional aspects of doing that, it is not practical to do for the length of time it would take. If it was 30 days and problem solved I could get behind it.

The only practical thing to do is try and protect the most vulnerable.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it's wrong. That is not the only solution.

It may be the thing we've publicly tried the most. But, it's not the only solution.

It's a single tool on the spectrum of tools available for use. It's one that works best when community spread is high to reduce spread, but then once spread has been reduced to a low enough level, it's no longer effective to reduce it further. As a country, we've failed in transitioning to the next set of tools.

If we really want to stop transmission, find all the people who are contagious and isolate them. There's way less of them than any other group, and bonus there's no question they're a danger to others while contagious which justifies isolating them until they are no longer contagious.

 

[Disney Experience]

The final Vote for Pfizer approval in subcommittee (FDA then makes final decision): Recommend Approval for Age 16 and Above?
17 Yes
4 No
1 Abstain

the nos mostly were concerned with the low number of 16 and 17 years old in the Phase 3 study, low probability that they would be at risk, and the likely short time between EUA being voted on and the full approval(April or sooner) of the vaccine for the general population vs risk benefit of EUA vaccine access by 16 and 17 year-olds.

 

[jmp85]

What I find interesting is that a group of people who were screaming "people just need to follow the rules" earlier in the summer about different matters are now...not following the rules.

Funny how that works.

I've seen this first hand too here in Florida. Same people will make a FB post about everyone needing to follow the rules and then a week later make a post about a bar hop they're attending.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There's an entire staff of FDA career employees that would disagree with you.

It's true that in this instance all the steps and submitted material is better than in others, because of the high profile. So it's more likely to simply pass. But while we've seen the HHS director and the FDA commissioner dragged into the Whitehouse, it appears that any effort to get them to rush the process hasn't worked. If we had seen a fast rushed skipping steps process, I would have worried then.

There's a long standing process that anyone who works on the review can contribute a dissenting analysis even when something is approved. This is included in the public record then along with the final outcome. You can bet if they find something in there, it'll show up someplace.

Part of the quick approvals form others is probably counting on the FDA being more thorough and that if something was found they could pull back.


No matter how many times you repeat this, it's wrong. That is not the only solution.

It may be the thing we've publicly tried the most. But, it's not the only solution.

Just to be clear: I’m not questioning anyone’s knowledge, dedication, or integrity...

It’s just this sure seems like an “Immovable object” scenario

The final Vote for Pfizer approval in subcommittee (FDA then makes final decision): Recommend Approval for Age 16 and Above?
17 Yes
4 No
1 Abstain

the nos mostly were concerned with the low number of 16 and 17 years old in the Phase 3 study, low probability that they would be at risk, and the likely short time between EUA being voted on and the full approval of the vaccine for the general population(In or before April)

It’s actually not as unanimous as one would like

 

[JoeCamel]

Or maybe a piece of paper dosen't inherently make you smarter.

No but the life experience it took to earn that piece of paper broadens your world view.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

No but the life experience it took to earn that piece of paper broadens your world view.

Debatable.

 

[GoofGoof]

Or maybe a piece of paper dosen't inherently make you smarter.

Not sure where I said it did. 61% vs 68% shows there really isn’t a big difference in vaccine acceptance based on level of education.

 

[GoofGoof]

It’s actually not as unanimous as one would like

The no votes were specifically over 16 and 17 year olds in the group approved for emergency use. Those 4 doctors felt that they should just go with 18+ since there were limited kids in the study. I think it’s a relatively insignificant point since the first phases of vaccinations will go to essential workers, elderly people and those with pre-existing conditions that put them at moderate or high risk for serious Covid. Not many 16 and 17 year olds will qualify in those groups. Maybe kids with medical issues like asthma, but the vast majority of 16 and 17 year olds won’t qualify.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Or maybe a piece of paper dosen't inherently make you smarter.

The process of getting a piece teaches you discipline, cognitive reasoning and exposes you to differences in ideas and biology.

The piece is worthless...the process is invaluable.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

The process of getting a piece teaches you discipline, cognitive reasoning and exposes you to differences in ideas and biology.

The piece is worthless...the process is invaluable.

It’s possible to have the outcome you describe. But many of the most narrow-minded people I know have college degrees. Many choose colleges that reaffirm their existing views.

 

[Chi84]

It’s possible to have the outcome you describe. But many of the most narrow-minded people I know have college degrees. Many choose colleges that reaffirm their existing views.

I had the benefit of not having any existing views before college. I’m probably not the only one.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It’s possible to have the outcome you describe. But many of the most narrow-minded people I know have college degrees. Many choose colleges that reaffirm their existing views.

I had the benefit of not having any existing views before college. I’m probably not the only one.

To be clear: i’m Not a blanket defender of colleges and degrees. This isn’t the 80s...or the 90s...the world has changed.

I am a huge fan of a well informed, continually learning citizenry. Not debatable. College does usually help that goal. Not always

 

[DCBaker]