Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
You have repeatedly made references to the "deaths with COVID" nonsense, most recently by claiming deaths are "educated" guesses complete with the scare quote and alleged. That point you keep harping on can only be true of there is widespread fraud, a crime.

So if I question anything even remotely relating to COVID even while following the COVID mitigation commands given to me, I am spreading false propaganda? Got it.

I already comply with all the COVID mitigation procedures and now I must comply with the rules set by the thought police. Got it.

I am glad we finally cleared this up. You will do AND THINK as you are told...
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
So if I question anything even remotely relating to COVID even while following the COVID mitigation commands given to me, I am spreading false propaganda? Got it.

I already comply with all the COVID mitigation procedures and now I must comply with the rules set by the thought police. Got it.

I am glad we finally cleared this up. You will do AND THINK as you are told...
You have provided no evidence for your claims. Just because you can think up garbage does not mean it is deserving of validation.

Hey folks, @Disstevefan1 cheats on his taxes! I have no evidence of his crime but I thought it up so you must consider it as true.
 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
If all the kinks aren’t worked out on a few weeks, and people are blaming any and all hiccups on Alzheimer’s/dementia in the Oval Office, we’ll know the career types are in the drivers seat and doing their best.
But I’m with other voices of reason and of the same mentality of any of the pLaNdEmIc “theories” that coordinating that much of a retaliation effort would have caused voices from within to be way too loud. Hope I’m not wrong.
Not sure how plandemic plays into what I'm saying. Retaliatory coordination isn't required. Just somebody who needs to be reading a particular report, or signing an authorization, or having a conversation. And someone slightly subordinate who is counting down days, just trying to keep their head down and not taking the risk of asking if someone noticed the particular report, or that paperwork isn't moving, or if a conversation happened. Or someone believing this is important, so certainly the right people are reading the reports, doing the paperwork, having the phone calls so since they weren't asked to look into anything/take an early corrective action everything must be fine. Just some everyday bad assumptions, ambivalence, the amount of reactive vs proactive leadership and the other normal stuff that leads to slog when allowed to flourish.
 

sullyinMT

Well-Known Member
Not sure how plandemic plays into what I'm saying. Retaliatory coordination isn't required. Just somebody who needs to be reading a particular report, or signing an authorization, or having a conversation. And someone slightly subordinate who is counting down days, just trying to keep their head down and not taking the risk of asking if someone noticed the particular report, or that paperwork isn't moving, or if a conversation happened. Or someone believing this is important, so certainly the right people are reading the reports, doing the paperwork, having the phone calls so since they weren't asked to look into anything/take an early corrective action everything must be fine. Just some everyday bad assumptions, ambivalence, the amount of reactive vs proactive leadership and the other normal stuff that leads to slog when allowed to flourish.
Sorry for not being clear or concise. I'm not equating what you're saying to larger conspiracy theories or the alleged death BS, so forgive me for making it seem that way.

I'm only saying that, for now, I'll withhold judgement on the idea that there was some nefarious plot to withhold doses from "enemy" states. And I don't think that's what you're saying, either. There is plenty of room in something as large as government bureaucracy for errors to occur. And they should be vetted out and corrected, so I'm not even bothered by the reporting of such events. It's the jumping to nefarious conclusions that sometimes editorializes the reporting that bothers me because it feeds conspiracy theory and bad blood where there shouldn't be any.

Hope that clarifies.
 

oceanbreeze77

Well-Known Member
Its hard not to believe that this doesn't have much to do with the administration because for the last 5 years, The Cruelty Is the Point.
Whether it is the fault of the admin or not, we the people have been led to understand that, The Cruelty is the Point.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
It boggles me that some people believe this pandemic was planned. We can’t agree on very basic things, what makes you think a large conspiracy was proposed and world leaders were just like “Oh yeah, sounds good”?
I don't think that many people think the pandemic was planned. What is not outside of the realm of possibility is China seeing an advantage in it spreading to other countries and not working with the WHO and the rest of the world early on to try and stop it. I don't think they created it. Maybe it escaped from a lab or maybe it was just a natural jump from animal to human. We'll never know.

If it was on purpose, whoever created it would have created a cure for use on their own people before they unleashed it.
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
So if I question anything even remotely relating to COVID even while following the COVID mitigation commands given to me, I am spreading false propaganda? Got it.

I already comply with all the COVID mitigation procedures and now I must comply with the rules set by the thought police. Got it.

I am glad we finally cleared this up. You will do AND THINK as you are told...

Are you suggesting that the death count has been fudged for some reason and that the majority of the deaths are people who really died of other causes and would have died shortly anyway? If so, then yes, questioning the information IS spreading false propaganda. The reason is simple: it is very easy to look online and see the CDC's excess death figures and compare them to previous years. The table is very easy to read and shows just how many excess deaths there have been every week since late-March. This year is a complete outlier in this regard since it has been very rare in previous years for there to be excess deaths in any given week, let alone every week for 9 months.


In fact, the previous time there were consecutive weeks with excess deaths was late-December 2017 to early-January 2018 when the flu vaccine was not very effective against the H3N2 flu virus. And lasted all of 6 weeks. This has been 35 weeks and counting.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
I'm only saying that, for now, I'll withhold judgement on the idea that there was some nefarious plot to withhold doses from "enemy" states. And I don't think that's what you're saying, either. There is plenty of room in something as large as government bureaucracy for errors to occur. And they should be vetted out and corrected, so I'm not even bothered by the reporting of such events. It's the jumping to nefarious conclusions that sometimes editorializes the reporting that bothers me because it feeds conspiracy theory and bad blood where there shouldn't be any.
This is not a case of "jumping to conclusions." People are wondering if the President is withholding the vaccine from certain States because he said that he would.


If this isn't the reason, great! But nobody is conjuring this out of thin air.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Just for you I dug up one of the instances. April 10 press conference was one time:

In neither of those references did he "support" a herd immunity strategy.
...
I grabbed the transcript from April because I was able to find it quickly. He said similar several times.

And yet, the articles includes examples of an administration officials advocating it on July 24 and July 27.

So, now we have two different messages. One, directly from the president in public comments saying against it. One at a later date from an administration official in private to people tasked with taking actions in support of it.

We're back to the possible reasons for the disconnect.
  1. Official was out of sync with administration goals.
  2. Administration doesn't have a unified goal.
  3. Administration making public statements that are different from the actions being taken.

So, which do we think it is?

That the administration is incapable of having a unified goal and getting everyone in the administration on the same plan? Or, that they are trying to project one public message while implementing a different actual plan?

NONE of those are great look.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
This is not a case of "jumping to conclusions." People are wondering if the President is withholding the vaccine from certain States because he said that he would.


If this isn't the reason, great! But nobody is conjuring this out of thin air.

I am no fan of Trump, but in this case he had a reason. New York said they would not start administering the vaccine until they had done their own review of the data, so it made sense for the government to not send a vaccine to a state until they were ready to use it. In the end this must have gotten worked out because New York got vaccines same time as other states.
 

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
I am no fan of Trump, but in this case he had a reason. New York said they would not start administering the vaccine until they had done their own review of the data, so it made sense for the government to not send a vaccine to a state until they were ready to use it.
New York was reviewing the vaccine during the same timeframe. There was never going to be a delay unless there were serious and valid concerns. Trump invented the delay as a Political “I gotcha back”
 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
And yet, the articles includes examples of an administration officials advocating it on July 24 and July 27.

So, now we have two different messages. One, directly from the president in public comments saying against it. One at a later date from an administration official in private to people tasked with taking actions in support of it.

We're back to the possible reasons for the disconnect.
  1. Official was out of sync with administration goals.
  2. Administration doesn't have a unified goal.
  3. Administration making public statements that are different from the actions being taken.

So, which do we think it is?

That the administration is incapable of having a unified goal and getting everyone in the administration on the same plan? Or, that they are trying to project one public message while implementing a different actual plan?

NONE of those are great look.
4. The President is one of those people who goes "all in" on the most recent thing he was told. I can believe on April 10th he totally believed natural herd immunity was bad. Then someone different got in his ear, said things that sounded good and so in July he totally believed natural herd immunity was the way.
 

sullyinMT

Well-Known Member
I am no fan of Trump, but in this case he had a reason. New York said they would not start administering the vaccine until they had done their own review of the data, so it made sense for the government to not send a vaccine to a state until they were ready to use it. In the end this must have gotten worked out because New York got vaccines same time as other states.

New York was reviewing the vaccine during the same timeframe. There was never going to be a delay unless there were serious and valid concerns. Trump invented the delay as a Political “I gotcha back”
He shouldn't have said it, but add it to the long list. As it was pointed out, Florida also complained of shipping shortages. And if any state would have received double, or at least not been shorted, for being an ally ...
WaPo is tracking distribution, and it seems all states expect just under 5% of their population to have received one dose's worth of shipment by year's end assuming Moderna starts shipping next week. So, if PA, MI, etc, have only received 3% while FL and OH (just picked two battleground "red" states out of my rear) receive their full 5%, I'll add my voice to the fight.

It's unfortunate that there has been enough ammo added to the magazine up until this point to make these easy jumps. I'll admit it was my first reaction to the headline. But I'm really hopeful there isn't much "there" there.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
I am no fan of Trump, but in this case he had a reason. New York said they would not start administering the vaccine until they had done their own review of the data, so it made sense for the government to not send a vaccine to a state until they were ready to use it. In the end this must have gotten worked out because New York got vaccines same time as other states.
No, it did not make sense for the federal government to not send the vaccine to any state (let alone one of the most populated). NY wanted to review the data so they could assure the public of its safety. This was always meant to have been done prior the shipment of the vaccine in order to prevent any delay and assure even those who didn't trust the Administration. It should not have been politicized like it was by the President.

"We're all excited about the possibilities about a vaccine," Cuomo said, adding his state review panel would review the information on the vaccine at the same time as the Food and Drug Administration, and was designed to instill public confidence.

Other states are doing the same thing, he noted. "Ours is headed by a Nobel Prize Laureate who will review the FDA process so we could say to people it is safe, you should take the vaccine," Cuomo said.


 

sullyinMT

Well-Known Member
No, it did not make sense for the federal government to not send the vaccine to any state (let alone one of the most populated). NY wanted to review the data so they could assure the public of its safety. This was always meant to have been done prior the shipment of the vaccine in order to prevent any delay and assure even those who didn't trust the Administration. It should not have been politicized like it was by the President.

"We're all excited about the possibilities about a vaccine," Cuomo said, adding his state review panel would review the information on the vaccine at the same time as the Food and Drug Administration, and was designed to instill public confidence.

Other states are doing the same thing, he noted. "Ours is headed by a Nobel Prize Laureate who will review the FDA process so we could say to people it is safe, you should take the vaccine," Cuomo said.


That whole exchange, and the similar one headed by Newsom out West, was such an unnecessary political elevation of governors' actions or words. I guess the bigger governors were trying to quell fears and voices of rushed science, but it got real out of hand with the rhetoric real quick. And it also slipped from the news cycle pretty quickly until now. Had no SNAFU happened this week, most people would have moved past those quotes.
 

sullyinMT

Well-Known Member
sooo....do those vials on the shelf have a destination???....or...
At least where I am they do. Our updated expected shipment for next week looks like includes "makeup" deliveries, for lack of a better term. Like, one should have received two Amazon boxes today, but computers in Hebron, KY, caused one to be held back. After review of the warehouse, three boxes will come next week. Two weeks from now and other subsequent weeks, two boxes should arrive barring other issues.
Digging a little it seems like that is what happened. Time will tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom