Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Chip Chipperson]

Then these holdouts should not be allowed into Disney, concerts, cruises and so on. And they can't cry "my rights" as these are private businesses and allowed to refuse service for public health

You would think the part I bolded would be true, but I've had conversations with several people who insist that private businesses like airlines, concerts, etc. requiring proof of vaccination from customers is exactly the same as the federal government requiring the vaccine even though they have other options for travel and entertainment. Unfortunately, there is a vocal segment of society that wants to act like spoiled children and demand that everyone acts like there is no pandemic so they can do what they want when they want with no regard for how it impacts anyone else.

 

[Chi84]

You would think the part I bolded would be true, but I've had conversations with several people who insist that private businesses like airlines, concerts, etc. requiring proof of vaccination from customers is exactly the same as the federal government requiring the vaccine even though they have other options for travel and entertainment. Unfortunately, there is a vocal segment of society that wants to act like spoiled children and demand that everyone acts like there is no pandemic so they can do what they want when they want with no regard for how it impacts anyone else.

They can insist all they want - doesn't make it true.

 

[Bill in Atlanta]

On the topic of restrictions vs. quality of life...

If one wanted to get to 0 deaths on the Interstate system, one would enact a speed limit of 20 mph, an age restriction, and a no-passenger policy.

We don't do those things because while a draconian Interstate driving policy would drastically lower Interstate deaths, it would severely damage our economy and way of life, which would indirectly cost us lives in other ways.

We all have our opinions of what those in power should do about the virus. I find it useful to see those decisions as a sliding scale:
Too few restrictions = too many virus cases, deaths, hospital overload
Too many restrictions = economic hardship, addiction, abuse, suicides

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You would think the part I bolded would be true, but I've had conversations with several people who insist that private businesses like airlines, concerts, etc. requiring proof of vaccination from customers is exactly the same as the federal government requiring the vaccine even though they have other options for travel and entertainment. Unfortunately, there is a vocal segment of society that wants to act like spoiled children and demand that everyone acts like there is no pandemic so they can do what they want when they want with no regard for how it impacts anyone else.

Those people need to be introduced to the “Darwin effect”

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

On the topic of restrictions vs. quality of life...

If one wanted to get to 0 deaths on the Interstate system, one would enact a speed limit of 20 mph, an age restriction, and a no-passenger policy.

We don't do those things because while a draconian Interstate driving policy would drastically lower Interstate deaths, it would severely damage our economy and way of life, which would indirectly cost us lives in other ways.

We all have our opinions of what those in power should do about the virus. I find it useful to see those decisions as a sliding scale:
Too few restrictions = too many virus cases, deaths, hospital overload
Too many restrictions = economic hardship, addiction, abuse, suicides

False anology

Restrictions are deployed to address specific issues...

“Quality is life” has nothing to latch onto. It’s amorphous.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

On the topic of restrictions vs. quality of life...

If one wanted to get to 0 deaths on the Interstate system, one would enact a speed limit of 20 mph, an age restriction, and a no-passenger policy.

We don't do those things because while a draconian Interstate driving policy would drastically lower Interstate deaths, it would severely damage our economy and way of life, which would indirectly cost us lives in other ways.

We all have our opinions of what those in power should do about the virus. I find it useful to see those decisions as a sliding scale:
Too few restrictions = too many virus cases, deaths, hospital overload
Too many restrictions = economic hardship, addiction, abuse, suicides

The thing is, people would still die on the interstate with a 20 mph law. Just a lot less. It wouldn’t be zero deaths. Anyway we look at it.. it’s bad for someone.

 

[Bill in Atlanta]

False anology

Restrictions are deployed to address specific issues...

“Quality is life” has nothing to latch onto. It’s amorphous.

At the end of the day, those "specific issues" point to one goal: saving lives.

Even if you don't buy the argument that life is just better being able to drive on the Interstate at 70mph than 20mph, the lives you'd save at 20mph would be offset by the economic disruption that would cause.

The idea that heavy-handed restrictions will always = net lives saved is an illusion.

 

[Kevin_W]

Agreed. The biggest struggle may be convincing people to take the JnJ vacccine and not wait around for the others.

Given that J&J is going to give 2 million doses initially and not have 100 million until June, that might not be a big problem in the US. Hopefully we've already covered most of the adult population by June.

My brother is in the "I'd rather have the J&J" camp, where I'd rather have mRNA. But beggars cannot be choosers and we'd either happily take whatever is offered.

 

[DisneyCane]

At the end of the day, those "specific issues" point to one goal: saving lives.

Even if you don't buy the argument that life is just better being able to drive on the Interstate at 70mph than 20mph, the lives you'd save at 20mph would be offset by the economic disruption that would cause.

The idea that heavy-handed restrictions will always = net lives saved is an illusion.

You could also have cars that lead to no deaths at 90 MPH if you designed them like NASCAR cars and had the passengers wearing five point harnesses. They'd cost 3 or 4 times as much and get 8 MPG because they're so heavy but if the only goal was saving lives you could.

Everything is a trade-off. With COVID the trade-off is how much self inflicted economic damage is appropriate to prevent X number of deaths.

Certain restrictions don't barely cause any economic damage like spacing people out in lines and things like that. At the other extreme closing all but "essential" businesses causes a ton of economic damage.

 

[SamusAranX]

The thing is, people would still die on the interstate with a 20 mph law. Just a lot less. It wouldn’t be zero deaths. Anyway we look at it.. it’s bad for someone.

Correct, but either way, you are literally, at a certain line drawn, saying that some deaths are acceptable and unavoidable, and make a moral call to be "ok" with that. It's a tradeoff. We all accept certain things that we do WILL involve death or life/limb and make a sort of social pact that even with precautions certain effects are inevitable and we live with it.

Who gets to draw that line?

I don't think we're at that point with Covid where the amount of death(s) is "acceptable". We have proven tools to reduce deaths, but at some point there will be a "line" where we make the "tradeoff". That line, in my moral outlook, is once the population is vaccinated. Your mileage may vary.

Let's put it another way...I hate to use it, but it will make my point:

The flu every year kills thousands in the USA despite the availability of a vaccine (somewhat effective). Yet this year, we've seen the effect masking, social distancing, stay at home, work from home, and cancellation of large gatherings has had on. A 98 percent drop in cases. So in the future, what's to stop us from doing lockdowns, mask mandates, closures, and so on during flu season? They clearly reduce flu cases and therefore deaths as proven by this flu season. So in 2023, if you are not calling for a stay at home order, judging people for traveling, berating people for not wearing masks at Publix, etc. then you are saying you're "ok" with 10 thousand deaths. Even though we could hypothetically reduce those deaths drastically every flu season by shutting down. Yet, in the past 80 years, we've never done these things. The moral tradeoff was made. That's why I don't judge every single person I see "living their life" right now. If I go about every flu season from here on out after getting the shot, without staying at home during flu season, cancelling my parties, etc. then I am clearly doing the same thing that "life your life"'ers are doing right now; making a tradeoff and accepting deaths to "live my life".

I am not rendering a verdict here, but the fact that these drastic measures all but killed influenza season this year opens up some moral dilemmas.

Edit: Bolded some parts so my words aren't twisted like before to make me a covid denier

 

[Bill in Atlanta]

Everything is a trade-off. With COVID the trade-off is how much self inflicted economic damage is appropriate to prevent X number of deaths.

Exactly right.

Too often the response to any pushback against restrictions is accusations of recklessness or disregard for life.

It's not that; it's just that restrictions come with costs as well. Sadly, that includes lives in some cases.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Exactly right.

Too often the response to any pushback against restrictions is accusations of recklessness or disregard for life.

It's not that; it's just that restrictions come with costs as well. Indirectly, lives in some cases.

The problem with some arguments that push back against any type of restrictions is that they falsely assume that removing any restrictions would prevent any negative economic impact even though we know that's not true.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Correct, but either way, you are literally, at a certain line drawn, saying that some deaths are acceptable and unavoidable, and make a moral call to be "ok" with that. It's a tradeoff. We all accept certain things that we do WILL involve death or life/limb and make a sort of social pact that even with precautions certain effects are inevitable and we live with it.

Who gets to draw that line?

I don't think we're at that point with Covid where the amount of death(s) is "acceptable". We have proven tools to reduce deaths, but at some point there will be a "line" where we make the "tradeoff". That line, in my moral outlook, is once the population is vaccinated. Your mileage may vary.

Let's put it another way...I hate to use it, but it will make my point:

The flu every year kills thousands in the USA despite the availability of a vaccine (somewhat effective). Yet this year, we've seen the effect masking, social distancing, stay at home, work from home, and cancellation of large gatherings has had on. A 98 percent drop in cases. So in the future, what's to stop us from doing lockdowns, mask mandates, closures, and so on during flu season? They clearly reduce flu cases and therefore deaths as proven by this flu season. So in 2023, if you are not calling for a stay at home order, judging people for traveling, berating people for not wearing masks at Publix, etc. then you are saying you're "ok" with 10 thousand deaths. Even though we could hypothetically reduce those deaths drastically every flu season by shutting down. Yet, in the past 80 years, we've never done these things. The moral tradeoff was made. That's why I don't judge every single person I see "living their life" right now. If I go about every flu season from here on out after getting the shot, without staying at home during flu season, cancelling my parties, etc. then I am clearly doing the same thing that "life your life"'ers are doing right now; making a tradeoff and accepting deaths to "live my life".

I am not rendering a verdict here, but the fact that these drastic measures all but killed influenza season this year opens up some moral dilemmas.

Edit: Bolded some parts so my words aren't twisted like before to make me a covid denier

We as individuals draw the line in what we think is right. Government can make laws or mandates or whatever people want to call them but we as individuals decide what’s best for us, our family or our neighbors. It’s why when a restriction comes down, some will say good we need that to save lives while others. Will protest it and say your hurting the restaurant or business or whatever.
We all live with decisions we make everyday. If your fine with travel, and it’s allowed then that’s your call. You know the possible risks and if your fine with it then your the one that makes the decision. I’m not saying I agree with it, I’m more on the other side. Not traveling, still limiting my trips out. Family members with low immune systems make me more cautious. The worry of possibly hurting some one, in anyway also keeps me grounded. But that’s what I want to live with in my head. Many here take the other approach. But this is my choice and I’m happy with it.
On the other hand I still support local businesses, even more now with take out.. delivery to the car and things like that. I think that’s very important.

 

[danlb_2000]

On the topic of restrictions vs. quality of life...

If one wanted to get to 0 deaths on the Interstate system, one would enact a speed limit of 20 mph, an age restriction, and a no-passenger policy.

We don't do those things because while a draconian Interstate driving policy would drastically lower Interstate deaths, it would severely damage our economy and way of life, which would indirectly cost us lives in other ways.

We all have our opinions of what those in power should do about the virus. I find it useful to see those decisions as a sliding scale:
Too few restrictions = too many virus cases, deaths, hospital overload
Too many restrictions = economic hardship, addiction, abuse, suicides

I don't think anyone would disagree with the last part, but where the line is between those two things is where the most contentious opinions are.

 

[DCBaker]

"Today, the state announced the launch of a statewide preregistration system to schedule COVID-19 vaccine appointments for individuals 65 and older and frontline health care workers. Individuals can pre-register for vaccine appointments and be notified when appointments are available in their area by visiting myvaccine.fl.gov.

This website will allow individuals who are eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine to be proactively contacted when vaccine appointments are available at state-supported vaccination sites. On the site, residents can select their county and submit their contact information. Once appointments are available, individuals will be contacted by phone call, text or email and will be assisted in scheduling an appointment."

Florida Launches Statewide Preregistration System for COVID-19 Vaccine Appointments

content.govdelivery.com

Here's the link to the new preregistration system -

MyVaccine

 

[GoofGoof]

Given that J&J is going to give 2 million doses initially and not have 100 million until June, that might not be a big problem in the US. Hopefully we've already covered most of the adult population by June.

My brother is in the "I'd rather have the J&J" camp, where I'd rather have mRNA. But beggars cannot be choosers and we'd either happily take whatever is offered.

Last I saw JnJ said they were on track to deliver the 100M doses to the US sooner than June. The article in the NYT about production delays was largely debunked. They are saying they will have the 100M doses by end of April or into May. Here‘s the quote from their board member:

Johnson & Johnson hopes to have enough COVID-19 vaccines for 100 million Americans by April as the feds ramp up nationwide inoculation efforts, a company official says.

The New Jersey-based drugmaker is “going all out with its production” while it awaits results from a large-scale clinical trial that could allow the shot to be approved for emergency use in the coming weeks, according to Dr. Mark McClellan, a J&J board member and former Food and Drug Administration commissioner.

“I do know that J&J is making a very large supply … with the goal of having perhaps enough vaccines for 100 million Americans by spring, by this April or so,” McClellan told CNBC Thursday evening. “That’s going to make a big difference in supply availability over the coming weeks and months if the trial does work out.”

In March and April when JnJ ramps up there definitely will still be a massive shortage of Pfizer and Moderna. By the end of June we will have enough Pfizer and Moderna for 200M people but that’s only 60% of the population and also assumes perfect manufacturing execution which is unlikely. There are 280M Americans 12 and over who will be eligible by June so even at 80% participation we won’t have enough shots of Pfizer and Moderna alone. It will spill into the summer and wrap up in August or September if that‘s the case. If we use the 100M JnJ doses we should be done by May/June for adults who want a vaccine.

Johnson & Johnson eyes 100M COVID-19 vaccines for US by April

Johnson & Johnson hopes to have enough COVID-19 vaccines for 100 million Americans by April as the feds ramp up nationwide inoculation efforts, a company official says.

nypost.com

 

[GoofGoof]

At the end of the day, those "specific issues" point to one goal: saving lives.

Even if you don't buy the argument that life is just better being able to drive on the Interstate at 70mph than 20mph, the lives you'd save at 20mph would be offset by the economic disruption that would cause.

The idea that heavy-handed restrictions will always = net lives saved is an illusion.

There’s a difference between heavy handed permanent restrictions and temporary ones. When it snows up here in the NE they reduce the speed limit on the interstates, sometimes down to 45 MPH. It’s probably disruptive to shipping companies and business but it’s a temporary solution to avoid accidents when conditions are bad. These discussions always go to the extremes of restrictions forever or no restrictions at all. What’s sensible is restrictions while they are necessary which is for the most part what we have. When the situation improves the restrictions are gone.

 

[SamusAranX]

We as individuals draw the line in what we think is right. Government can make laws or mandates or whatever people want to call them but we as individuals decide what’s best for us, our family or our neighbors. It’s why when a restriction comes down, some will say good we need that to save lives while others. Will protest it and say your hurting the restaurant or business or whatever.
We all live with decisions we make everyday. If your fine with travel, and it’s allowed then that’s your call. You know the possible risks and if your fine with it then your the one that makes the decision. I’m not saying I agree with it, I’m more on the other side. Not traveling, still limiting my trips out. Family members with low immune systems make me more cautious. The worry of possibly hurting some one, in anyway also keeps me grounded. But that’s what I want to live with in my head. Many here take the other approach. But this is my choice and I’m happy with it.
On the other hand I still support local businesses, even more now with take out.. delivery to the car and things like that. I think that’s very important.

No doubt!

My post was more geared to those who are more of the "save every possible life" camp during COVID. Will those same advocates be masking up, staying at home, working from home, avoiding Disney World, refusing to travel out of state, dining outdoors only, and staying six feet apart from their family in the flu seasons to come, knowing that if we did we could hypothetically reduce flu deaths and hospitalizations in the thousands? If not, it comes across as hypocrisy to some, and justifiably so. but it's not to me (or you), because again, at some point we make a social contract to "live with it". As callous as it sounds.

I can guarantee too they won't. At some point, they will want to "live their lives".

 

[Polkadotdress]

Busy this morning, so I didn't have time to red the details. Was J&J just tested on 18-yr-olds and up?

Also, the new shot lacks any testing data for those who are immune-suppressed, which may cause that % to drop lower.

 

[Jrb1979]

NewsTalk 610 CKTB | Niagara’s NewsTalk Leader - iHeartRadio

Listen to Niagara's News at Newstalk 610 CKTB! Stay connected with live radio, local & national news, podcasts, contests, weather updates & events.

www.iheartradio.ca

Canadians won't be traveling outside of country til most likely April. All flights to Caribbean countries have stopped starting Sunday. Anyone flying into Canada have to have to be tested and while waiting for results will have to stay a quarantine hotel at their expense. It will cost you $2000.