Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Heppenheimer]

Why wouldn't you be confident to go skiing even without a vaccine? If you avoid riding in a gondola with someone from another household, I can't think of anything with a lower risk of catching COVID than skiing short of isolating at home.

By coincidence, the ski season took off much more slowly this year because we had some warm rain storms in December that made it difficult for the resorts to accumulate a good base. So, the small risk of being around others and the poor conditions early on kept me away. Pre-pandemic last year, it was also busier than normal at the resorts, and I didn't know exactly what to expect this year with crowds (answer, no crowds at all, as it turns out).

But since the day after Christmas, temperatures have remained below freezing, and it snows every few days. The conditions are much better AND I'm fully vaccinated.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Ok, so the South African variant is bad news...

AstraZeneca’s Vaccine Does Not Work Well Against Virus Variant in South Africa (Published 2021)

The vaccine, developed with Oxford, was found not to prevent the virus variant rampant in South Africa from causing mild or moderate disease. In the U.S., Super Bowl parties raise worries about new surges.

www.nytimes.com

South Africa halted use of the AstraZeneca-Oxford coronavirus vaccine on Sunday after evidence emerged that the vaccine did not protect clinical-trial participants from mild or moderate illness caused by the more contagious virus variant that was first seen there.​

​

Scientists in South Africa said on Sunday that a similar problem held among people who had been infected by earlier versions of the coronavirus: the immunity they acquired naturally did not appear to protect them from mild or moderate cases when reinfected by the variant, known as B.1.351....The B.1.351 variant has already spread to at least 32 countries, including the United States.​

​

It was not clear from the studies outlined by South African scientists on Sunday whether the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine protected against severe disease from the B.1.351 variant.​

​

The clinical trial participants who were evaluated were relatively young and unlikely to become severely ill, making it impossible for the scientists to determine if the variant interfered with the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine’s ability to protect against severe Covid-19, hospitalizations, or deaths.​

​

However, based on the immune responses detected in blood samples from people who were given the vaccine, the scientists said they believed that the vaccine could yet protect against more severe cases.​

​

If further studies show that it does, South African health officials said on Sunday that they would consider resuming use of the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine.​

A study bolsters the C.D.C.’s prediction that a more contagious variant will dominate U.S. cases by March.​

A more contagious variant of the coronavirus first found in Britain is spreading rapidly in the United States, doubling roughly every 10 days, according to a new study.​

​

Analyzing half a million coronavirus tests and hundreds of genomes, a team of researchers predicted that in a month this variant could become predominant in the United States, potentially bringing a surge of new cases and increased risk of death.​

​

The new research offers the first nationwide look at the history of the variant, known as B.1.1.7, since it arrived in the United States in late 2020. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that B.1.1.7 could become predominant by March if it behaved the way it did in Britain. The new study confirms that projected path.​

 

[correcaminos]

Ok, so the South African variant is bad news...

AstraZeneca’s Vaccine Does Not Work Well Against Virus Variant in South Africa (Published 2021)

The vaccine, developed with Oxford, was found not to prevent the virus variant rampant in South Africa from causing mild or moderate disease. In the U.S., Super Bowl parties raise worries about new surges.

www.nytimes.com

South Africa halted use of the AstraZeneca-Oxford coronavirus vaccine on Sunday after evidence emerged that the vaccine did not protect clinical-trial participants from mild or moderate illness caused by the more contagious virus variant that was first seen there.​

​

Scientists in South Africa said on Sunday that a similar problem held among people who had been infected by earlier versions of the coronavirus: the immunity they acquired naturally did not appear to protect them from mild or moderate cases when reinfected by the variant, known as B.1.351....The B.1.351 variant has already spread to at least 32 countries, including the United States.​

​

It was not clear from the studies outlined by South African scientists on Sunday whether the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine protected against severe disease from the B.1.351 variant.​

​

The clinical trial participants who were evaluated were relatively young and unlikely to become severely ill, making it impossible for the scientists to determine if the variant interfered with the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine’s ability to protect against severe Covid-19, hospitalizations, or deaths.​

​

However, based on the immune responses detected in blood samples from people who were given the vaccine, the scientists said they believed that the vaccine could yet protect against more severe cases.​

​

If further studies show that it does, South African health officials said on Sunday that they would consider resuming use of the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine.​

A study bolsters the C.D.C.’s prediction that a more contagious variant will dominate U.S. cases by March.​

A more contagious variant of the coronavirus first found in Britain is spreading rapidly in the United States, doubling roughly every 10 days, according to a new study.​

​

Analyzing half a million coronavirus tests and hundreds of genomes, a team of researchers predicted that in a month this variant could become predominant in the United States, potentially bringing a surge of new cases and increased risk of death.​

​

The new research offers the first nationwide look at the history of the variant, known as B.1.1.7, since it arrived in the United States in late 2020. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that B.1.1.7 could become predominant by March if it behaved the way it did in Britain. The new study confirms that projected path.​

However, based on the immune responses detected in blood samples from people who were given the vaccine, the scientists said they believed that the vaccine could yet protect against more severe cases.

It's not 100% bad. Not a vaccine I imagine we'll get soon anyway

 

[Kevin_W]

Ok, so the South African variant is bad news...

AstraZeneca’s Vaccine Does Not Work Well Against Virus Variant in South Africa (Published 2021)

The vaccine, developed with Oxford, was found not to prevent the virus variant rampant in South Africa from causing mild or moderate disease. In the U.S., Super Bowl parties raise worries about new surges.

www.nytimes.com

South Africa halted use of the AstraZeneca-Oxford coronavirus vaccine on Sunday after evidence emerged that the vaccine did not protect clinical-trial participants from mild or moderate illness caused by the more contagious virus variant that was first seen there.​

​

Scientists in South Africa said on Sunday that a similar problem held among people who had been infected by earlier versions of the coronavirus: the immunity they acquired naturally did not appear to protect them from mild or moderate cases when reinfected by the variant, known as B.1.351....The B.1.351 variant has already spread to at least 32 countries, including the United States.​

​

It was not clear from the studies outlined by South African scientists on Sunday whether the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine protected against severe disease from the B.1.351 variant.​

​

The clinical trial participants who were evaluated were relatively young and unlikely to become severely ill, making it impossible for the scientists to determine if the variant interfered with the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine’s ability to protect against severe Covid-19, hospitalizations, or deaths.​

​

However, based on the immune responses detected in blood samples from people who were given the vaccine, the scientists said they believed that the vaccine could yet protect against more severe cases.​

​

If further studies show that it does, South African health officials said on Sunday that they would consider resuming use of the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine.​

A study bolsters the C.D.C.’s prediction that a more contagious variant will dominate U.S. cases by March.​

A more contagious variant of the coronavirus first found in Britain is spreading rapidly in the United States, doubling roughly every 10 days, according to a new study.​

​

Analyzing half a million coronavirus tests and hundreds of genomes, a team of researchers predicted that in a month this variant could become predominant in the United States, potentially bringing a surge of new cases and increased risk of death.​

​

The new research offers the first nationwide look at the history of the variant, known as B.1.1.7, since it arrived in the United States in late 2020. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that B.1.1.7 could become predominant by March if it behaved the way it did in Britain. The new study confirms that projected path.​

Not great news, but as a reminder South AFrica's cases have declined by nearly 80% in the past month even without the vaccine! So while it's something scientists need to keep an eye on, the South African variant isn't some killer bougabbo that we should all freak out about.

(UK cases are down ~2/3)

 

[Polkadotdress]

Governor Desantis' order says that people deemed to be very high risk by hospitals are eligible. It doesn't say anything about only transplant recipients. You should go talk to a Dr. at another hospital if your condition puts you at very high risk.

Getting an appointment is another issue but you should qualify.

My immediate doctor says he has to abide by the state guidelines, which exclude me. Furthermore, his office has no vaccine doses. I am not currently a hospital patient (thank goodness) but when I called them, they shared that their 500 doses were all spoken for and were reserved for organ transplant and those undergoing chemo.

Frustratingly though, both my primary care and my specialist (the one who oversees my immunosuppressive infusions) tell me "Get that shot as soon as you can."

Sure.

At the rate FL is going, it'll be awhile. And I am staring anxiously down the road at those super-contagious strains that are heading our way, while wearing double masks AND a face shield at work.

Here in PA they have opened up to 65+ and 16-64 with high risk, but that really hasn’t helped many people. That group is so large that there’s no appointments available anywhere and the only people getting shots know someone with a connection to get them in. My county has a mass vaccination site but starting this past week it’s only open for 2nd doses so no new people getting the vaccine. They are sending a small number of doses to private pharmacies but that seems to be ripe with corruption as no appointments can be made but somehow people are still getting vaccinated. Right now out of 800K residents in my county there are about 140K on a waiting list but no doses allocated to those people right now so the list just sits. It’s all pretty frustrating for people but it has to get better soon as more doses become available.

So while it doesn’t help you in FL feel any better about your situation, even in places where you might qualify for the vaccine now it’s not much different since not many people are getting in anyway. I guess a slim shot is better than none, but still really frustrating.

This sums it up perfectly, as EVEN IF I were eligible, it still would be a "Hunger Games" competition to try and find an appointment somewhere. However, the fact that I'm not even allowed to compete is frustrating.

And, the Gov keeps touting that "Here is FL we are protecting the most vulnerable." Um...actually, you're not protecting ALL of them.

 

[JoeCamel]

My immediate doctor says he has to abide by the state guidelines, which exclude me. Furthermore, his office has no vaccine doses. I am not currently a hospital patient (thank goodness) but when I called them, they shared that their 500 doses were all spoken for and were reserved for organ transplant and those undergoing chemo.

Frustratingly though, both my primary care and my specialist (the one who oversees my immunosuppressive infusions) tell me "Get that shot as soon as you can."

Sure.

At the rate FL is going, it'll be awhile. And I am staring anxiously down the road at those super-contagious strains that are heading our way, while wearing double masks AND a face shield at work.

This sums it up perfectly, as EVEN IF I were eligible, it still would be a "Hunger Games" competition to try and find an appointment somewhere. However, the fact that I'm not even allowed to compete is frustrating.

And, the Gov keeps touting that "Here is FL we are protecting the most vulnerable." Um...actually, you're not protecting ALL of them.

I think most Fla residents know Dr Ron is protecting his voters first. Just happens they are elderly for the most part so it works for him.

 

[DisneyCane]

My immediate doctor says he has to abide by the state guidelines, which exclude me. Furthermore, his office has no vaccine doses. I am not currently a hospital patient (thank goodness) but when I called them, they shared that their 500 doses were all spoken for and were reserved for organ transplant and those undergoing chemo.

Frustratingly though, both my primary care and my specialist (the one who oversees my immunosuppressive infusions) tell me "Get that shot as soon as you can."

Sure.

At the rate FL is going, it'll be awhile. And I am staring anxiously down the road at those super-contagious strains that are heading our way, while wearing double masks AND a face shield at work.

This sums it up perfectly, as EVEN IF I were eligible, it still would be a "Hunger Games" competition to try and find an appointment somewhere. However, the fact that I'm not even allowed to compete is frustrating.

And, the Gov keeps touting that "Here is FL we are protecting the most vulnerable." Um...actually, you're not protecting ALL of them.

I don't know what guidelines your doctor is referring to. Desantis' executive order says "Hospital providers, however, also may vaccinate persons who they deem to be extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 ." I don't see any way you would be excluded from eligibility if you are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19. Getting a dose is another issue but it isn't "the rate FL is going." It is the rate doses are available. FL appears to (IMO smartly) be reserving the second dose so we don't end up with people not being able to get the second dose.

I think most Fla residents know Dr Ron is protecting his voters first. Just happens they are elderly for the most part so it works for him.

From a macro standpoint, the most vulnerable population consists of people age 65 and over. To date, 83% of COVID deaths in FL are people who were in that age group despite that age group only representing 15% of known cases. This clear pattern has been evident since the original outbreak in Italy which was the first place in the world to provide valid data.

If you went with a policy of trying to prioritize people purely based on individual vulnerability, you'd end up with a competition for who can find a Dr. to make up the best case.

I don't know how anybody can argue against giving the 65+ age group priority. If you could magically send the vaccine back in time and vaccinate everybody 65 and over in February 2020, you'd have eliminated 80% of the deaths that occurred, nobody would really care that COVID existed (it would have been equivalent to a very deadly flu season) and Donald Trump would be in his second term.

 

[Polkadotdress]

I don't know what guidelines your doctor is referring to. Desantis' executive order says "Hospital providers, however, also may vaccinate persons who they deem to be extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 ." I don't see any way you would be excluded from eligibility if you are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19. Getting a dose is another issue but it isn't "the rate FL is going." It is the rate doses are available. FL appears to (IMO smartly) be reserving the second dose so we don't end up with people not being able to get the second dose.

From a macro standpoint, the most vulnerable population consists of people age 65 and over. To date, 83% of COVID deaths in FL are people who were in that age group despite that age group only representing 15% of known cases. This clear pattern has been evident since the original outbreak in Italy which was the first place in the world to provide valid data.

If you went with a policy of trying to prioritize people purely based on individual vulnerability, you'd end up with a competition for who can find a Dr. to make up the best case.

I don't know how anybody can argue against giving the 65+ age group priority. If you could magically send the vaccine back in time and vaccinate everybody 65 and over in February 2020, you'd have eliminated 80% of the deaths that occurred, nobody would really care that COVID existed (it would have been equivalent to a very deadly flu season) and Donald Trump would be in his second term.

As someone who is “down in the trenches” trying to get the vaccine, I disagree with your “if you need it you can get it” as that’s simply not the case. FL even recently created a statewide vaccination registration portal, with a header that touts “high risk”, but it has also led to increased frustration because anyone who isn’t over 65, automatically gets booted from the system with a generic message of “thank you for your interest...you are currently not eligible”.

I agree that the 65+ should be prioritized, but there also others of us, who are still trying to work and live, that need to be prioritized as well.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

I don't know what guidelines your doctor is referring to. Desantis' executive order says "Hospital providers, however, also may vaccinate persons who they deem to be extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 ." I don't see any way you would be excluded from eligibility if you are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19. Getting a dose is another issue but it isn't "the rate FL is going." It is the rate doses are available. FL appears to (IMO smartly) be reserving the second dose so we don't end up with people not being able to get the second dose.

From a macro standpoint, the most vulnerable population consists of people age 65 and over. To date, 83% of COVID deaths in FL are people who were in that age group despite that age group only representing 15% of known cases. This clear pattern has been evident since the original outbreak in Italy which was the first place in the world to provide valid data.

If you went with a policy of trying to prioritize people purely based on individual vulnerability, you'd end up with a competition for who can find a Dr. to make up the best case.

I don't know how anybody can argue against giving the 65+ age group priority. If you could magically send the vaccine back in time and vaccinate everybody 65 and over in February 2020, you'd have eliminated 80% of the deaths that occurred, nobody would really care that COVID existed (it would have been equivalent to a very deadly flu season) and Donald Trump would be in his second term.

There is so much wrong with your last paragraph, I don’t even know where to start.
“If you could magically send the vaccine back in time”...you do realize when hypothetically speaking like this you can make a case for any disease.. war.. anything that’s happened since life started and “ magically “ change the outcome of anything. Really bad argument. The vaccine wasn’t there in February so we had to do things on the fly with what we knew. Which leads into the next sentence..” eliminated 80% of deaths that occurred, nobody would care Covid existed “. Well the leadership in this country took the wrong approach from the beginning. Whether your a trump guy or not, I think everyone can see that. Not listening to science COULD have saved many lives instead of the mask less parties and the constant putting down of scientists coming from the administration. Until there is a cure, there should have been more science based information coming out.. letting people know that masks and social distancing wasn’t a political thing but a saving lives thing. Please stop with the flu thing.. please.
As for the last sentence.. that trump would have been in his second term.. I’ll say what my dad would tell me when I was growing up..” If my aunt had ....., she would be my uncle”. Easy to look back on anything with ifs and buts.. follow the science is the best way.

 

[SamusAranX]

By coincidence, the ski season took off much more slowly this year because we had some warm rain storms in December that made it difficult for the resorts to accumulate a good base. So, the small risk of being around others and the poor conditions early on kept me away. Pre-pandemic last year, it was also busier than normal at the resorts, and I didn't know exactly what to expect this year with crowds (answer, no crowds at all, as it turns out).

But since the day after Christmas, temperatures have remained below freezing, and it snows every few days. The conditions are much better AND I'm fully vaccinated.

My experience was in Utah; they were requiring reservations ahead for lift tickets, requiring masks until you rode the lift chair, and limiting capacity. I felt very safe there. Your mileage may vary of course

 

[DisneyDebRob]

As someone who is “down in the trenches” trying to get the vaccine, I disagree with your “if you need it you can get it” as that’s simply not the case. FL even recently created a statewide vaccination registration portal, with a header that touts “high risk”, but it has also led to increased frustration because anyone who isn’t over 65, automatically gets booted from the system with a generic message of “thank you for your interest...you are currently not eligible”.

I agree that the 65+ should be prioritized, but there also others of us, who are still trying to work and live, that need to be prioritized as well.

I was actually watching a 10 minute report from someone that worked in a hospital, some administrator that said we should have been doing it the exact opposite way. Vaccinating 16 and up before the elderly because they are the spreaders. If we could stop them from giving the virus to everyone, it would work out better. I don’t agree but some of the points he was making were on target. I think the best way to do it is the way we are now. Just need more vaccine.

 

[Polkadotdress]

I was actually watching a 10 minute report from someone that worked in a hospital, some administrator that said we should have been doing it the exact opposite way. Vaccinating 16 and up before the elderly because they are the spreaders. If we could stop them from giving the virus to everyone, it would work out better. I don’t agree but some of the points he was making were on target. I think the best way to do it is the way we are now. Just need more vaccine.

I read a similar article, suggesting that 16-50 should be vaccinated. And that would be the story of my life, since I'm 52.

 

[DisneyCane]

As someone who is “down in the trenches” trying to get the vaccine, I disagree with your “if you need it you can get it” as that’s simply not the case. FL even recently created a statewide vaccination registration portal, with a header that touts “high risk”, but it has also led to increased frustration because anyone who isn’t over 65, automatically gets booted from the system with a generic message of “thank you for your interest...you are currently not eligible”.

I agree that the 65+ should be prioritized, but there also others of us, who are still trying to work and live, that need to be prioritized as well.

I never suggested "if you need it you CAN get it," only that you were eligible based upon the executive order. With only enough doses shipped to FL to vaccinate (both doses) 1.9 million people, it is not surprising that it is somewhat difficult to get it even if you are eligible.

There is so much wrong with your last paragraph, I don’t even know where to start.
“If you could magically send the vaccine back in time”...you do realize when hypothetically speaking like this you can make a case for any disease.. war.. anything that’s happened since life started and “ magically “ change the outcome of anything. Really bad argument. The vaccine wasn’t there in February so we had to do things on the fly with what we knew. Which leads into the next sentence..” eliminated 80% of deaths that occurred, nobody would care Covid existed “. Well the leadership in this country took the wrong approach from the beginning. Whether your a trump guy or not, I think everyone can see that. Not listening to science COULD have saved many lives instead of the mask less parties and the constant putting down of scientists coming from the administration. Until there is a cure, there should have been more science based information coming out.. letting people know that masks and social distancing wasn’t a political thing but a saving lives thing. Please stop with the flu thing.. please.
As for the last sentence.. that trump would have been in his second term.. I’ll say what my dad would tell me when I was growing up..” If my aunt had ....., she would be my uncle”. Easy to look back on anything with ifs and buts.. follow the science is the best way.

You totally missed the point of my "argument." I was using an unrealistic hypothetical to make the point that prioritizing the 65 and ove population for vaccination is absolutely the right way to go. If the over 65 population had never been able to contract serious cases of COVID, there wouldn't have been much of a health crisis to deal with. Moderate social distancing and improved hygiene practices would have been all that was necessary.

I was actually watching a 10 minute report from someone that worked in a hospital, some administrator that said we should have been doing it the exact opposite way. Vaccinating 16 and up before the elderly because they are the spreaders. If we could stop them from giving the virus to everyone, it would work out better. I don’t agree but some of the points he was making were on target. I think the best way to do it is the way we are now. Just need more vaccine.

Whatever administrator argued that is an idiot. So far, enough doses have been delivered to vaccinate just under 30 million people. There are over 210 million people in the US between 16 and 64 years old vs a little over 54 million 65 and over. If you need 80% vaccinated for herd immunity (I think that was Fauci's latest number), you'd need to vaccinate 168 million people between 16 and 64 which requires 5.6 times the doses delivered so far. Vaccinating the entire 65 and over population requires less than double what has been delivered so far, although a decent percentage were used on frontline healthcare workers.

Point being that you can eliminate over 80% of the deaths in less than 1/3 of the time that it would take to vaccinate the "spreaders."

 

[Polkadotdress]

I never suggested "if you need it you CAN get it," only that you were eligible based upon the executive order. With only enough doses shipped to FL to vaccinate (both doses) 1.9 million people, it is not surprising that it is somewhat difficult to get it even if you are eligible.

I. AM. NOT. ELIGIBLE.

*despite being high risk

 

[Heppenheimer]

My experience was in Utah; they were requiring reservations ahead for lift tickets, requiring masks until you rode the lift chair, and limiting capacity. I felt very safe there. Your mileage may vary of course

Officially, you need a reservation to visit a resort in Vermont this year...

...unofficially at the Vermont resorts I've visited this year (I can't hop over the border to NH due to the travel quarantine for non-essential purposes), since the number of skiers is so low, you can get your "reservation" at the ticket window that day. They probably set a lower capacity limit, but of the resorts I regularly visit, the amount of people I've seen on the slopes is so low that they probably aren't anywhere near hitting those numbers.

Otherwise, its the same here. Masks are required unless you're on the chair lift or actively skiing down the mountain, you need to change in your car if you bring your own skis, bags are not allowed in the lodges and you have a time limit for staying inside (not sure who is enforcing this, but the insides seem as empty as the outsides anyway), and the restaurants have reduced seating capacity.

Other than one day when a large group of young people were drinking on the slopes, I've felt pretty safe this year.

 

[Heppenheimer]

I don't know what guidelines your doctor is referring to. Desantis' executive order says "Hospital providers, however, also may vaccinate persons who they deem to be extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 ." I don't see any way you would be excluded from eligibility if you are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19. Getting a dose is another issue but it isn't "the rate FL is going." It is the rate doses are available. FL appears to (IMO smartly) be reserving the second dose so we don't end up with people not being able to get the second dose.

If that is a direct quote from the executive order, that would mean to me the recipient of the vaccine would need to be actively hospitalized, otherwise there is no need to specify the word "hospital" in front of "providers". So, somebody who has compelling risk factors, but is neither currently hospitalized nor in the qualifying age group is still not eligible. I read that line as the governor giving hospitalists some discretion in who to vaccinate, but that doesn't translate to all medical providers.

I know at least up where I practice, no physicians' offices have access to the vaccines or say in who can receive them right now. Only the hospitals and the state pop-up clinics have access currently, soon to be followed by retail pharmacies.

 

[Polkadotdress]

If that is a direct quote from the executive order, that would mean to me the recipient of the vaccine would need to be actively hospitalized, otherwise there is no need to specify the word "hospital" in front of "providers". So, somebody who has compelling risk factors, but is neither currently hospitalized nor in the qualifying age group is still not eligible. I read that line as the governor giving hospitalists some discretion in who to vaccinate, but that doesn't translate to all medical providers.

I know at least up where I practice, no physicians' offices have access to the vaccines or say in who can receive them right now. Only the hospitals and the state pop-up clinics have access currently, soon to be followed by retail pharmacies.

Yes, this. Exactly what my experience has been in trying to source a shot.

 

[GoofGoof]

The polling with respect to Trump was never accurate (in 2015, 2016, 2019 or 2020) because there was a large percentage of his base that wouldn't answer polls or would lie. I believe that the COVID lockdowns are a large part of what led to the unrest over the summer which is what really damaged Trump. Based on "the butterfly effect" I believe that had COVID not happened, George Floyd wouldn't have happened as there would have been different cops responding because normal activity would have been going on. Also, COVID led to the drastic expansion of mail in voting.

In my opinion, Trump lost the election because the racial unrest provided a launching point to rile people up about it being his fault for promoting racism and the mail in voting made it easy to "turn out" anti-Trump voters without them having to leave home to show him that they hate him. COVID certainly didn't help him.

If COVID hadn't happened and the economy had continued to stay strong through 2020 (I don't know if it would have or not but IF it had), Trump would have been reelected. What would Biden's pitch have been if that was the case? Trump is mean and rants on twitter so we need to get rid of him even though everything in your life is better than it was when I was VP? Also, Biden would have had to have been out on the campaign trail with an exhaustive schedule without COVID and I don't believe he would have held up well in comparison to Trump.

We can agree to disagree. Trump had a very low approval rating prior to Covid and consistently low. I think it’s an easy excuse to blame Covid for his loss but he mostly lost because his Presidency was a bit of a train wreck (and yes, that continued through Covid). I’m not sure Biden needed any kind of platform or plan. I believe Trump would have probably lost to a tuna fish sandwich. Anyway, no way to prove either way.

 

[DisneyCane]

We can agree to disagree. Trump had a very low approval rating prior to Covid and consistently low. I think it’s an easy excuse to blame Covid for his loss but he mostly lost because his Presidency was a bit of a train wreck (and yes, that continued through Covid). I’m not sure Biden needed any kind of platform or plan. I believe Trump would have probably lost to a tuna fish sandwich. Anyway, no way to prove either way.

True that there is no way to prove it either way. It is just very rare (if it ever happened) for an incumbent President to not be re-elected if the economy is doing OK.

I think we can all agree that it would have been nice to know what would have happened without the existence of COVID!

 

[DisneyCane]

I calculated the weekly numbers for the past two weeks in FL using a spreadsheet to figure out weekly new tests and new case positivity.

For the week of 1/24-1/30, there were 70,800 new cases, 846,155 new tests and 8.37% new case positivity for the week.

For the week of 1/31-2/6, there were 55,170 new cases, 766,606 new tests and 7.2% new case positivity for the week.

Week over week there was a 22% decrease in new cases on 9.4% fewer tests with a 13.99% decrease in new case positivity. Hopefully this trend will continue as vaccinations increase. I don't think the vaccinations have anything to do with this decrease as not even 10% of the population has received a first dose and barely over 3% have had both doses.