Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Disney Experience]

I don't think these requirements should be put into place until the vaccine is available to all who want it. The phase 3 study should be complete by then, correct?

I think that once it gains full approval in Late March or April they will unblind. Then they should crossover the placebo group. I do not think they will attempt to keep it blinded after April. Subjects can leave the study at anytime, and Pfizer will facilitate, if the subject desires, their vaccination at the front of the priority group they would nominally be in. Staying in the study until they finish is altruistic, and not in one's self interest (But in the interest of the many).

That is Pfizer timeline, and Moderna's timeline is a little after Pfizer's. J&J is months after that.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Not clear if this guy was actually fired or not. Either way it does bring up the question of whether a random person on the hospital staff should be Tweeting about a hospitals operational status.

Maybe he shouldn’t be tweeting but sometimes that’s the only way to bring attention to any situation. It’s working again in this case.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Not clear if this guy was actually fired or not. Either way it does bring up the question of whether a random person on the hospital staff should be Tweeting about a hospitals operational status.

He’s a Doctor, not a random person on staff.

 

[danlb_2000]

He’s a Doctor, not a random person on staff.

This hospital probably has 100's of doctors on staff. Just because they are a doctor doesn't mean they are in a position to speak publicly about the hospital's operational status. I am sure there are specific people on staff who are responsible for that.

 

[carolina_yankee]

I think 4 months is overly optimistic. Even if everything went right we are not likely to be able to have enough people vaccinated in 4 months to get back to normal, and you can be sure not everything will go right.

@rowrbazzle Sadly, our president-elect is betting otherwise with his 100-days from inauguration mask request.

Is that what he said? I'm unclear how "and I think we will see a significant reduction" = "back to normal."

“On the first day I'm inaugurated, I'm going to ask the public for 100 days to mask. Just 100 days to mask — not forever, just 100 days. And I think we'll see a significant reduction” in the virus, Biden said.

 

[GoofGoof]

Is that what he said? I'm unclear how "and I think we will see a significant reduction" = "back to normal."

Yeah, it’s not at all what he said. The 100 days of masks was never intended to mean no masks anywhere after 100 days and he certainly never said that we would go back to normal after that. It’s just a way to send a clear and consistent message from the start that masks are needed and expected from everyone. It’s not enforceable anyway, just a clear tone from the top. If cases warrant it there will be an extension beyond May 1. People like an expected end date on things rather than indefinite timelines, but if we have all learned anything from this pandemic it’s that the virus doesn’t follow our timeframe. The vaccine is the only way we get back to normal and that’s not going to be done by May 1 so it’s nothing more than wishful thinking to assume otherwise. I also haven’t seen any reputable news source saying that either. There’s no wishing or hoping our way out of this.

 

[oceanbreeze77]

This hospital probably has 100's of doctors on staff. Just because they are a doctor doesn't mean they are in a position to speak publicly about the hospital's operational status. I am sure there are specific people on staff who are responsible for that.

But when the public is purposely being misled, it is up to others to share information that will protect them. The whistleblower act came into play for this reason.

 

[carolina_yankee]

Yeah, it’s not at all what he said. The 100 days of masks was never intended to mean no masks anywhere after 100 days and he certainly never said that we would go back to normal after that. It’s just a way to send a clear and consistent message from the start that masks are needed and expected from everyone. It’s not enforceable anyway, just a clear tone from the top. If cases warrant it there will be an extension beyond May 1. People like an expected end date on things rather than indefinite timelines, but if we have all learned anything from this pandemic it’s that the virus doesn’t follow our timeframe. The vaccine is the only way we get back to normal and that’s not going to be done by May 1 so it’s nothing more than wishful thinking to assume otherwise. I also haven’t seen any reputable news source saying that either. There’s no wishing or hoping our way out of this.

Yep, it's a fine rally the country strategy so that we can achieve a common goal - not letting wave after wave of COVID eat away at our existence. The problem is some people are using it for "gotcha" politics by misquoting.

 

[GoofGoof]

Yep, it's a fine rally the country strategy so that we can achieve a common goal - not letting wave after wave of COVID eat away at our existence. The problem is some people are using it for "gotcha" politics by misquoting.

I honestly haven’t seen a lot of people interpreting the 100 day plan on masking that way. Just 1 person here who keeps repeating it, but even in the general politically biased media I haven’t seen that as a talking point. Mask rules are imposed at the state or local level anyway so it won’t be up to Biden to decide when those rules ultimately go away. Even if he says we don’t need masks anymore after May 1 it will be up to governors and mayors to decide. Since the start of the pandemic we have had a POTUS who was opposed to mask requirements and still many places have them.

 

[Disney Experience]

The US will have 40M doses of the COVID vaccine by the end of the year. How many people should get them?

Dr. Scott Gottlieb told the USA TODAY Editorial Board the first 40 million doses should be given to 40 million people, instead of 20 million.

www.usatoday.com

What do people here think about the choice?

1. US Distribution Plan:
Hold back half of the vaccine from first shot distribution in order to assure second shot in the correct time window for those getting the first shot. As the supply chain / logistics become proven then decrease the hold back.

2. Pfizer Board Member:
Give more people the first shot (Which provides some protection) and trust that Pfizer production and logistics will make enough doses in time for the second shot timeframe.

Personally I think their (Pfizer and commercial transports) logistics will likely work, but there is a chance in a new supply chain for there to be unexpected problems. Having some vaccine in reserve to be able to pivot to unexpected problems or needs has value. Then again more people vaccinated sooner, less deaths and covid, that has value too.

 

[Chi84]

Is that what he said? I'm unclear how "and I think we will see a significant reduction" = "back to normal."

He didn't say wear masks until everything is back to normal, nor did he say that things would be back to normal in 100 days. He did say that he was not asking people to wear masks forever, just until 100 days after his inauguration. Seems very clear to me.

 

[drizgirl]

He didn't say wear masks until everything is back to normal, nor did he say that things would be back to normal in 100 days. He did say that he was not asking people to wear masks forever, just until 100 days after his inauguration. Seems very clear to me.

At which time he could easily ask for longer. I'm sure the 100 days was merely something he thought he could sell.

 

[DCBaker]

Numbers are out - there were 71 new reported deaths, along with 1 Non-Florida Resident death.

 

[danlb_2000]

The US will have 40M doses of the COVID vaccine by the end of the year. How many people should get them?

Dr. Scott Gottlieb told the USA TODAY Editorial Board the first 40 million doses should be given to 40 million people, instead of 20 million.

www.usatoday.com

What do people here think about the choice?

1. US Distribution Plan:
Hold back half of the vaccine from first shot distribution in order to assure second shot in the correct time window for those getting the first shot. As the supply chain / logistics become proven then decrease the hold back.

2. Pfizer Board Member:
Give more people the first shot (Which provides some protection) and trust that Pfizer production and logistics will make enough doses in time for the second shot timeframe.

Personally I think their (Pfizer and commercial transports) logistics will likely work, but there is a chance in a new supply chain for there to be unexpected problems. Having some vaccine in reserve to be able to pivot to unexpected problems or needs has value. Then again more people vaccinated sooner, less deaths and covid, that has value too.

To make that choice I would like to know what exactly happens if you miss the second dose? Is there a window of time where a second dose would still be effective. Is there a point where the process would have to start over and you get two doses? I am sure Pfizer has provided guidance on this but I haven't seen it anywhere.

 

[GoofGoof]

The US will have 40M doses of the COVID vaccine by the end of the year. How many people should get them?

Dr. Scott Gottlieb told the USA TODAY Editorial Board the first 40 million doses should be given to 40 million people, instead of 20 million.

www.usatoday.com

What do people here think about the choice?

1. US Distribution Plan:
Hold back half of the vaccine from first shot distribution in order to assure second shot in the correct time window for those getting the first shot. As the supply chain / logistics become proven then decrease the hold back.

2. Pfizer Board Member:
Give more people the first shot (Which provides some protection) and trust that Pfizer production and logistics will make enough doses in time for the second shot timeframe.

Personally I think their (Pfizer and commercial transports) logistics will likely work, but there is a chance in a new supply chain for there to be unexpected problems. Having some vaccine in reserve to be able to pivot to unexpected problems or needs has value. Then again more people vaccinated sooner, less deaths and covid, that has value too.

I did read somewhere recently that the 21 days isn’t firm and that if the booster was given a few weeks later it has no impact on effectiveness so I’d be OK with going with doing 40 million people first and then relying on the supply chain for the second doses. There are 21M healthcare workers and 3M LT care residents so I say at least do those 24M people first then hold back 16M doses for their second shot and use the first 8 million received in Jan to finish them off. Then you have that first group done by 2nd or 3rd week in Jan.

 

[Disney Experience]

To make that choice I would like to know what exactly happens if you miss the second dose? Is there a window of time where a second dose would still be effective. Is there a point where the process would have to start over and you get two doses? I am sure Pfizer has provided guidance on this but I haven't seen it anywhere.

I agree. Just found this article concerning timing:

Second dose of COVID vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna is needed, but timing doesn't have to be exact, says government vaccine developer

Getting both shots of COVID vaccine designed as two doses is important but timing doesn't have to be exact, Operation Warp Speed's Moncef Slaoui says.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Disney Experience]

I did read somewhere recently that the 21 days isn’t firm and that if the booster was given a few weeks later it has no impact on effectiveness so I’d be OK with going with doing 40 million people first and then relying on the supply chain for the second doses. There are 21M healthcare workers and 3M LT care residents so I say at least do those 24M people first then hold back 16M doses for their second shot and use the first 8 million received in Jan to finish them off. Then you have that first group done by 2nd or 3rd week in Jan.

I think in the study timing was important to keep variables to the minimum. Looks like for deployment of the vaccine the need for keeping the second shot in a small time window is not needed. I am sure though there is some point that the efficacy may change from what was observed in the study if timing is changed too much.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think in the study timing was important to keep variables to the minimum. Looks like for deployment of the vaccine the need for keeping the second shot in a small time window is not needed. I am sure though there is some point that the efficacy may change from what was observed in the study if timing is changed too much.

That was the article I saw too. They do mention that it’s generally better to have more time between shots vs less but there’s no way to know when that turns to a negative again. The worse case scenario is someone gets Infected between doses and the first dose is only a little over 50% effective so they have a 50/50 shot of being Ok but will also be contagious and continue spreading if the vaccine didn’t work. Especially with healthcare workers and nursing home patients that’s a big deal. that’s why I think they want to do the 2nd dose as soon as possible.

 

[Chi84]

At which time he could easily ask for longer. I'm sure the 100 days was merely something he thought he could sell.

I guess it's possible he could have been lying - or maybe he just doesn't have access to the kind of information and analysis we get on this thread.

 

[SamusAranX]

I guess it's possible he could have been lying - or maybe he just doesn't have access to the kind of information and analysis we get on this thread.

A politician lying? Surely you jest