Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[sullyinMT]

Dr. F was making the rounds talking about this...there wasn’t enough study on interaction early or during the vax trials...but now they’re catching up. He seemed to hint that the cdc revised guidelines may advocate “opening up” a lot more...at least for those with the vaccine. Some light maybe peaking through

ThErE hE GoEs AgAiN! He CaN't MaKe Up HiS mInD!

 

[havoc315]

Dr. F was making the rounds talking about this...there wasn’t enough study on interaction early or during the vax trials...but now they’re catching up. He seemed to hint that the cdc revised guidelines may advocate “opening up” a lot more...at least for those with the vaccine. Some light maybe peaking through

The big new guidance I'm expecting is that private gatherings among vaccinated individuals are safe. Also expecting changes to quarantine recommendations for vaccinated individuals. (No more 10 day quarantine if you have close contact with an infected individual).

 

[havoc315]

ThErE hE GoEs AgAiN! He CaN't MaKe Up HiS mInD!

He is following the science.

There has been a lot of animosity towards science... I suppose because people like certainty and absolute answers. Considering that scientists and experts need to honestly often say, "we don't know yet." And they also often have to say, "based on new data, our recommendations are changing.." Some people see that as evidence that "the scientists don't know anything."

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Worker “slack” is obviously a real issue (it always is)...

If we have to end laziness in every employee before we can move forward for the greater good we are in deep trouble!

 

[sullyinMT]

The big new guidance I'm expecting is that private gatherings among vaccinated individuals are safe. Also expecting changes to quarantine recommendations for vaccinated individuals. (No more 10 day quarantine if you have close contact with an infected individual).

Quarantine exemption already is in recent CDC language. I'd expect similar guidance on group gatherings, and maybe international flight testing requirement exemptions for US citizens first. Then, as the EU and others continue to expand their rollouts, some type of CLEAR/pre-Check system. Those in the UK may need both doses of AZ. I'd expect whatever vaccine(s) is/are approved in your country of origin to be sufficient if that comes to fruition.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The big new guidance I'm expecting is that private gatherings among vaccinated individuals are safe. Also expecting changes to quarantine recommendations for vaccinated individuals. (No more 10 day quarantine if you have close contact with an infected individual).

Yeah...but just as an aside from how the public mindset isn’t matching up with the medical pacing...

He was “reassuring”in one interview that soon “families will not have to wear masks around each other post vaccination”

...the audible laughing probably was quite frequent on the other side of the tv

 

[sullyinMT]

He is following the science.

There has been a lot of animosity towards science... I suppose because people like certainty and absolute answers. Considering that scientists and experts need to honestly often say, "we don't know yet." And they also often have to say, "based on new data, our recommendations are changing.." Some people see that as evidence that "the scientists don't know anything."

Agreed. It was sarcasm

 

[havoc315]

Quarantine exemption already is in recent CDC language. I'd expect similar guidance on group gatherings, and maybe international flight testing requirement exemptions for US citizens first. Then, as the EU and others continue to expand their rollouts, some type of CLEAR/pre-Check system. Those in the UK may need both doses of AZ. I'd expect whatever vaccine(s) is/are approved in your country of origin to be sufficient if that comes to fruition.

Yes... I think you're pretty close. Not sure travel recommendations will change yet, but I bet they change by late Spring.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

If we have to end laziness in every employee before we can move forward for the greater good we are in deep trouble!

...kinda why it’s silly to discuss

 

[havoc315]

Agreed. It was sarcasm

I know. But it's a real attitude we are hearing from lots of people.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

He is following the science.

There has been a lot of animosity towards science... I suppose because people like certainty and absolute answers. Considering that scientists and experts need to honestly often say, "we don't know yet." And they also often have to say, "based on new data, our recommendations are changing.." Some people see that as evidence that "the scientists don't know anything."

...there’s a term for those people

 

[DisneyCane]

He is following the science.

There has been a lot of animosity towards science... I suppose because people like certainty and absolute answers. Considering that scientists and experts need to honestly often say, "we don't know yet." And they also often have to say, "based on new data, our recommendations are changing.." Some people see that as evidence that "the scientists don't know anything."

My issue with him since the beginning is that he never said, "we don't know" or "we need more data." He always had an answer for everything before there was any science. In effect, he jumped in front of the science and then changed when the science was available.

I would have had much less of an issue with him if he had said that, "my best guess is xyz but we need more data. For now I'd recommend a and b."

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

My issue with him since the beginning is that he never said, "we don't know" or "we need more data." He always had an answer for everything before there was any science. In effect, he jumped in front of the science and then changed when the science was available.

I would have had much less of an issue with him if he had said that, "my best guess is xyz but we need more data. For now I'd recommend a and b."

Yeah...but if you didn’t just watch snippets, he disclaimed almost everything or marked it as “currently”

That’s part of the problem...people only invest in soundbites and those are cut down for profit motive.

Not actual news.

 

[Horizons '83]

My issue with him since the beginning is that he never said, "we don't know" or "we need more data." He always had an answer for everything before there was any science. In effect, he jumped in front of the science and then changed when the science was available.

I would have had much less of an issue with him if he had said that, "my best guess is xyz but we need more data. For now I'd recommend a and b."

I don't think he jumped anything, I think again as others have pointed out, studies are evolving each day, he spoke to what was out there at the time, not making things up.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't think he jumped anything, I think again as others have pointed out, studies are evolving each day, he spoke to what was out there at the time, not making things up.

Alot of people have a problem and wrote him off when he gave the ppe testimony last sunmer

“We told people not to wear ppe early because there would have been a black market rush on it”

Yeah...bingo...touchdown.

If people can’t respect the hard truth...why would anyone bother to try to convince them to give respect??

 

[Crunchie9]

CANNOT WAIT TO DDP MY WAY MASK FREE INTO DISNEY

 

[havoc315]

My issue with him since the beginning is that he never said, "we don't know" or "we need more data." He always had an answer for everything before there was any science. In effect, he jumped in front of the science and then changed when the science was available.

I would have had much less of an issue with him if he had said that, "my best guess is xyz but we need more data. For now I'd recommend a and b."

That's always what he said. He always admitted uncertainty. Others put words in his mouth. But he has been very consistent, as have been most experts.

 

[sullyinMT]

My issue with him since the beginning is that he never said, "we don't know" or "we need more data." He always had an answer for everything before there was any science. In effect, he jumped in front of the science and then changed when the science was available.

I would have had much less of an issue with him if he had said that, "my best guess is xyz but we need more data. For now I'd recommend a and b."

Yeah...but if you didn’t just watch snippets, he disclaimed almost everything or marked it as “currently”

That’s part of the problem...people only invest in soundbites and those are cut down for profit motive.

Not actual news.

His biggest "problem" is that he hasn't lived his life as a figure in front of a camera. His career wasn't made by shaking hands and smiling for photo ops. He tiptoes the line of understanding what people want or need to hear with mostly actual science, and he's not very polished doing it. The media would have slaughtered any attempts to have an NIH spokesman out there instead of a real, hands dirty epidemiologist. Most people can sift through what his "real" messages are, or what changes in those messages actually mean. Unfortunately, the world we're in now of instant meme creation and incessant social media headline garbage has attempted to hurt his credibility.

Imagine what the world would have done to him during the Reagan years and the early HIV days if Facebook and the like were around then. I was in middle school and couldn't keep up with how quickly we learned new things, but the experts figured it out relatively quickly and at least got ahead of the spread.

 

[havoc315]

Yeah...but if you didn’t just watch snippets, he disclaimed almost everything or marked it as “currently”

That’s part of the problem...people only invest in soundbites and those are cut down for profit motive.

Not actual news.

And people who actively distort for their own purposes.
There were some who liked to attack Fauci, claim he was "wrong about everything" -- And to prove he was wrong, they had to distort what he said, they had to leave out his qualifying statements.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

His biggest "problem" is that he hasn't lived his life as a figure in front of a camera. His career wasn't made by shaking hands and smiling for photo ops. He tiptoes the line of understanding what people want or need to hear with mostly actual science, and he's not very polished doing it. The media would have slaughtered any attempts to have an NIH spokesman out there instead of a real, hands dirty epidemiologist. Most people can sift through what his "real" messages are, or what changes in those messages actually mean. Unfortunately, the world we're in now of instant meme creation and incessant social media headline garbage has attempted to hurt his credibility.

Imagine what the world would have done to him during the Reagan years and the early HIV days if Facebook and the like were around then. I was in middle school and couldn't keep up with how quickly we learned new things, but the experts figured it out relatively quickly and at least got ahead of the spread.

He’s one of the biggest health experts in American history. His list of accomplishments and recognition stretches from coast to coast.

I’ll go ahead and call those that question him what they are: uninformed.

Read up on somebody...it helps.