Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Turtlekrawl]

The latest polling is 71% have already or will take the vaccine. Another 8-9% want to wait to see if it’s safe and effective which it is so I’m counting them as well. There’s around 20% who say no vaccine no matter what. That 20% has stayed pretty constant since the Fall. The biggest changes are that more people are moving from the wait and see group to the yes group. I don’t know if we end up at 80% or something lower, but 71% are saying yes these days and that’s pretty good. That 20% is still 60M+ people so quite a large group. You are not alone in your anti-Covid vaxx position. We don’t need everyone to be vaccinated, but if we don’t get enough then a return to normal will be delayed. I doubt the vaccine will be mandated except for specific jobs and eventually maybe schools and colleges. It will likely also be required for International travel and maybe cruises with stops out of country.

I do need the vaccine to feel safe. That’s not something I am ashamed of or embarrassed by. 500,000+ Americans have died and we have 3 effective vaccines that can crush this pandemic. It‘s time to celebrate the scientific achievement and move towards a return to normal.

Two-Thirds of Americans Not Satisfied With Vaccine Rollout

In the U.S., 66% of adults are dissatisfied with how the vaccination process is going.

news.gallup.com

Agree. And as you and others have pointed out, at least some (probably a significant number) of that 60M+ anti-vax group have gotten the disease and have some natural immunity. So with current trajectory, we should get to well over 80% immunity in the next 6 months in the US, one way or another.

Worldwide immunity will take longer, however.

 

[havoc315]

You will need to define "low enough" and stick to your definition, then the public will at least have a goal. Trouble is, as happened in my state, the number was achieved and then the governor made up a new number.

But that's not how science works. We don't know what "low enough" is.

If the public needs a number, stick to 0. When a given community has 0 cases, it can definitely normalize with testing in place to identify any new outbreak.

Now, we can likely normalize a bit before we get to 0, but we don't know what number that is yet.

 

[ABQ]

But that's not how science works. We don't know what "low enough" is.

If the public needs a number, stick to 0. When a given community has 0 cases, it can definitely normalize with testing in place to identify any new outbreak.

Now, we can likely normalize a bit before we get to 0, but we don't know what number that is yet.

I guess I then have to ask are you trying to achieve zero cases or zero deaths. But beware you are opening a Pandora's box by looking to reach zero in either case. Because what happens when Covid-19 has gone to zero but the annual influenza kills even just 1 person the following year. Will we go to masks, lockdowns, distancing for every contagion? At what point will you reach a diminishing return as fewer humans interact with each other and then you find more getting ill and dying from things like the common cold?
Be aware, when I say "you" I'm speaking in general, not speaking of you specifically. This is not a personal question, just hypothetical.

 

[havoc315]

I guess I then have to ask are you trying to achieve zero cases or zero deaths. But beware you are opening a Pandora's box by looking to reach zero in either case. Because what happens when Covid-19 has gone to zero but the annual influenza kills even just 1 person the following year. Will we go to masks, lockdowns, distancing for every contagion? At what point will you reach a diminishing return as fewer humans interact with each other and then you find more getting ill and dying from things like the common cold?
Be aware, when I say "you" I'm speaking in general, not speaking of you specifically. This is not a personal question, just hypothetical.

As I said... the "low enough" number is probably something higher than 0. But we don't know what that number is yet. So if you insist on knowing the outside most extreme number -- it's 0. 0 cases per day.

But you also are not understanding what zero means: There are many days in any given town where there are 0 cases of flu. Thus, when cases do pop up, they are manageable. Not to mention, flu is significantly less dangerous Covid.

The more accurate comparison is measles or mumps. On any given day, most communities are at 0 cases of measles and mumps. When there is an outbreak, there is a response.

We don't shut down the entire country for 6 months when there is 1 case of measles. But when there is 1 case of measles, there is vigorous contract tracing. Sources of the outbreak may be shut down temporarily (close the school, for example).

So yes.. the goal is to get down to zero cases in most communities. And then deal with outbreaks as they occur.
Now, as I said above -- we will likely normalize before we hit zero in most communities -- but when we are "low enough" that it appears the numbers will head down to zero, even without masks.
We don't know what that number will be. Maybe it's a level of 4-5 daily cases per 100,000 people, maybe it's 1-2 cases per 100,000 people, maybe it's 1-2 cases per 1 million people.
Australia is a good example -- pretty open and normal right now, but they lock down the locality whenever there is a surge. Currently, their rolling average of cases is 0.25 cases per million people, per day.

 

[havoc315]

In January the CDC warning was the UK variant could become the dominant strain in the US by March.

CDC warns UK coronavirus mutation might be the dominant strain in the US by March

That prediction has not come true. As recent as 4 days ago the UK variant only accounts for 10% of Covid cases. It’s up from the level it was at, but nowhere near the dominant strain.

UK coronavirus variant now accounts for 10% of US cases, CDC director says

The coronavirus variant first detected in the U.K. late last year now accounts for up to 10% of COVID-19 cases in the U.S., officials said Friday.

www.foxnews.com

There‘s no guarantee it won’t increase still or that another variant could emerge and become dominant, but this highlights that the warnings about possible scenarios aren’t a guarantee they come true. Same goes for the need of a booster shot for variants. That could very well happen as well but it could also be a warning that doesn‘t come true either.

Agreed... but these things aren't “predictions”. Each time, they are things that might realistically happen.

 

[Andrew M]

By early summer is masks and social distancing will go away if all cases are low enough?

I honestly hope they don't. I'm glad we're making progress with the vaccine, and I really hope by the fall we've made some serious progress towards immunity/impacts of variants.

But I know my wife and I would not feel comfortable going to WDW without a mask mandate in place. There's just too many unknowns with the effectiveness of the vaccine and the new variants to take chances and let our guard down now IMO. We've been wearing masks here in NY for 11 months, and I honestly don't know how anyone is so opposed to them. I forget I'm wearing one most of the time and it's a very small price to pay for being able to enjoy life again. I was able to go an NHL game last night for the first time in 14 months and had a blast.

I hope Disney keeps them in place until we have made enough progress globally to where they are no longer recommended by the CDC.

 

[JAKECOTCenter]

Florida's vaccine supply next week will be almost 500k (!!) DOSES

Florida vaccine supply to jump to nearly 500k 1st doses next week of Moderna, Pfizer on top of new Johnson & Johnson option

Continued increases in the federal supply of the Pfizer vaccine for COVID-19 combined with a continued supply of Moderna vaccines means Florida will receive more than 470,000 initial doses between …

www.orlandosentinel.com

 

[DisneyCane]

As I said... the "low enough" number is probably something higher than 0. But we don't know what that number is yet. So if you insist on knowing the outside most extreme number -- it's 0. 0 cases per day.

But you also are not understanding what zero means: There are many days in any given town where there are 0 cases of flu. Thus, when cases do pop up, they are manageable. Not to mention, flu is significantly less dangerous Covid.

The more accurate comparison is measles or mumps. On any given day, most communities are at 0 cases of measles and mumps. When there is an outbreak, there is a response.

We don't shut down the entire country for 6 months when there is 1 case of measles. But when there is 1 case of measles, there is vigorous contract tracing. Sources of the outbreak may be shut down temporarily (close the school, for example).

So yes.. the goal is to get down to zero cases in most communities. And then deal with outbreaks as they occur.
Now, as I said above -- we will likely normalize before we hit zero in most communities -- but when we are "low enough" that it appears the numbers will head down to zero, even without masks.
We don't know what that number will be. Maybe it's a level of 4-5 daily cases per 100,000 people, maybe it's 1-2 cases per 100,000 people, maybe it's 1-2 cases per 1 million people.
Australia is a good example -- pretty open and normal right now, but they lock down the locality whenever there is a surge. Currently, their rolling average of cases is 0.25 cases per million people, per day.

The nature of COVID and the number of mild cases makes it impossible to contact trace like you describe for measles or mumps. Very few people are going to get a COVID test every time they have a mild cough or a case of the sniffles.

As for what is low enough, I don't think it has anything to do with infection rate. It has everything to do with hospitalization rate and mortality rate. Once we get to the point where everybody who wants to be vaccinated has been, if everything can go back to pre-COVID normal and the number of hospitalizations for COVID is lower than it was in let's say June 2020, what's the problem?

All of the mitigation policies were done (supposedly) to "flatten the curve" and prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed. If the curve is flattened and the health care system is not overwhelmed while going back to normal then what is the justification to maintain mitigation?

 

[DCBaker]

If you are under 65 and deemed medically vulnerable in Florida, here is the form you need your doctor to fill out -

http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_partners/covid19_report_archive/covid-physician-form/EO-21-47-Form.pdf

According to the below tweet, with that form, you can get a vaccine at a Federally-supported site -

 

[havoc315]

The nature of COVID and the number of mild cases makes it impossible to contact trace like you describe for measles or mumps. Very few people are going to get a COVID test every time they have a mild cough or a case of the sniffles.

As for what is low enough, I don't think it has anything to do with infection rate. It has everything to do with hospitalization rate and mortality rate. Once we get to the point where everybody who wants to be vaccinated has been, if everything can go back to pre-COVID normal and the number of hospitalizations for COVID is lower than it was in let's say June 2020, what's the problem?

All of the mitigation policies were done (supposedly) to "flatten the curve" and prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed. If the curve is flattened and the health care system is not overwhelmed while going back to normal then what is the justification to maintain mitigation?

Of course it’s possible to contact trace Covid.
You might not identify the first case in a community.. but you’d identify the 3rd or 4th case, still giving a chance to clamp down before it spreads across the nation.

It requires aggressive testing and tracing. That includes randomized testing of the public — you don’t wait for someone to get sick.

Again, you maintain mitigation so that Covid becomes like measles, mumps, polio. You eliminate the threat.

 

[DisneyCane]

If you are under 65 and deemed medically vulnerable in Florida, here is the form you need your doctor to fill out (also, as of now, you will only be able to get a vaccine administered by a physician, advanced practice registered nurse or licensed pharmacist) -

http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_partners/covid19_report_archive/covid-physician-form/EO-21-47-Form.pdf

There was also a tweet from the FL Division of emergency management that the Federal vaccination sites can vaccinate you if your Dr. has filled out this form.

 

[DCBaker]

There was also a tweet from the FL Division of emergency management that the Federal vaccination sites can vaccinate you if your Dr. has filled out this form.

Just caught that and edited the post!

 

[DisneyCane]

Of course it’s possible to contact trace Covid.
You might not identify the first case in a community.. but you’d identify the 3rd or 4th case, still giving a chance to clamp down before it spreads across the nation.

It requires aggressive testing and tracing. That includes randomized testing of the public — you don’t wait for someone to get sick.

Again, you maintain mitigation so that Covid becomes like measles, mumps, polio. You eliminate the threat.

Good luck with being able to get large enough numbers of people to be randomly tested for COVID after they've been vaccinated.

As for the last statement, COVID doesn't need to become like measles, mumps or polio. In statistical terms, the threat isn't really that high without vaccines. The threat to somebody who is vaccinated will be statistically irrelevant given the extremely high effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing severe illness. I don't care what the threat is to somebody who elects not to be vaccinated. Their kookiness is not my problem.

 

[Figgy1]

Good luck with being able to get large enough numbers of people to be randomly tested for COVID after they've been vaccinated.

As for the last statement, COVID doesn't need to become like measles, mumps or polio. In statistical terms, the threat isn't really that high without vaccines. The threat to somebody who is vaccinated will be statistically irrelevant given the extremely high effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing severe illness. I don't care what the threat is to somebody who elects not to be vaccinated. Their kookiness is not my problem.

Honest question. Do you care about people that can't be vaccinated due to medical conditions?

 

[havoc315]

Good luck with being able to get large enough numbers of people to be randomly tested for COVID after they've been vaccinated.

As for the last statement, COVID doesn't need to become like measles, mumps or polio. In statistical terms, the threat isn't really that high without vaccines. The threat to somebody who is vaccinated will be statistically irrelevant given the extremely high effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing severe illness. I don't care what the threat is to somebody who elects not to be vaccinated. Their kookiness is not my problem.

In statistical terms, the threat is indeed quite high. And the threat after we start vaccinating is truly unknown and dependent on multiple variables.

Random testing for Covid after vaccination is easy: All hospitals and doctors add Covid test to the routine orders for every patient. Rapid testing at airports for passengers. Rapid testing randomized through schools, just like so many schools do lice checks.

Pretty easy to implement large scale random testing, that will insure you're constantly testing a given percentage of the population. The need for such surveillance will depend on levels of vaccination, the evolution of the virus, etc.

 

[GoofGoof]

Agreed... but these things aren't “predictions”. Each time, they are things that might realistically happen.

Who says a prediction can’t realistically happen? I can take a series of financial data and run a model and predict the stock market will drop 20% this year. If the data I have is extensive and shows that trends point that way I could believe it might realistically happen. That doesn’t mean it will. Anytime you are dealing with models and projecting something that is in reality unpredictable there are going to be many, many possible outcomes. None of these experts are saying it’s certain these variants become dominant or that if they do they defeat the vaccines. In each case they are saying it might happen. The media and the public read those headlines and conclude it‘s certain to happen.

 

[havoc315]

Who says a prediction can’t realistically happen? I can take a series of financial data and run a model and predict the stock market will drop 20% this year. If the data I have is extensive and shows that trends point that way I could believe it might realistically happen. That doesn’t mean it will. Anytime you are dealing with models and projecting something that is in reality unpredictable there are going to be many, many possible outcomes. None of these experts are saying it’s certain these variants become dominant or that if they do they defeat the vaccines. In each case they are saying it might happen. The media and the public read those headlines and conclude it‘s certain to happen.

Of course a prediction can realistically happen.
But I'm pointing out the huge difference between, "it might rain next week" compared to "it will rain next week."
A prediction is saying something is certain, or at least more likely than not.

If a weatherman says "there is a 90% chance of rain tomorrow" -- You can't fairly say that's a prediction of rain.
If the weatherman says, "10% chance of rain tomorrow" -- That's not a prediction that it will rain.

Saying something is possible is very different than predicting it will happen.

The Mets might win the World Series this year. But it's not a prediction.

It's not a prediction to say, "the stock market might drop 20% this year... or it might go up."
It is a prediction to say, "I believe the stock market WILL drop 20% this year."

 

[DisneyCane]

Honest question. Do you care about people that can't be vaccinated due to medical conditions?

In the sense that I care and wish they didn't have the medical condition that prevents vaccination, yes, I care. However, people with these conditions can't be vaccinated against other diseases either which can be just as dangerous if they become ill with one of those diseases. There are also many viruses for which vaccines don't exist which could potentially cause a bad outcome. Somebody who can't be vaccinated will have to either take their own precautions (wear an N95 respirator, avoid crowds, socially distance themselves) or accept the risk based upon whatever the level of community spread is in the future.

We can't protect everybody from every thing. I care a lot about kids who get cancer. Unfortunately, there are a small percentage who do and we can't do anything about it. We can't have a functional society if mitigation against COVID continues in perpetuity to provide additional protection to a tiny percentage of people who, unfortunately, cannot be vaccinated.

In statistical terms, the threat is indeed quite high. And the threat after we start vaccinating is truly unknown and dependent on multiple variables.

Random testing for Covid after vaccination is easy: All hospitals and doctors add Covid test to the routine orders for every patient. Rapid testing at airports for passengers. Rapid testing randomized through schools, just like so many schools do lice checks.

Pretty easy to implement large scale random testing, that will insure you're constantly testing a given percentage of the population. The need for such surveillance will depend on levels of vaccination, the evolution of the virus, etc.

There you go again, downplaying the vaccines. The threat to somebody who has been vaccinated is not unknown. In fact, I made a post a few days ago where I actually calculated the risk of dying from COVID, assuming the current level community spread, is statistically irrelevant once somebody has been vaccinated compared to the risk of that person dying from any cause in the following 12 months.

 

[havoc315]

There you go again, downplaying the vaccines. The threat to somebody who has been vaccinated is not unknown. In fact, I made a post a few days ago where I actually calculated the risk of dying from COVID, assuming the current level community spread, is statistically irrelevant once somebody has been vaccinated compared to the risk of that person dying from any cause in the following 12 months.

Not downplaying vaccines at all. You claim it's known?
Ok, if you get a Pfizer vaccine in March of 2021, how effective will it be in 18 months, in September 2022 against new variants that haven't even been detected yet?
Ok, by what percentage does the JNJ vaccine reduce transmission of the SA variant?

Come on, if these things are known, tell us!

How long do the antibodies from the vaccine last in the blood stream?
How long is that level maintained? How does that level change 6 months after vaccine? 1 year after?

What is the response to the vaccine in those under 12?

At what level do we reach herd immunity? Is it 50%? 70%? You said it's known, so tell us!

What is the exact portion of the population that will get vaccinated in the next 6 months... You said it's known, so tell us? (yes, it impacts the threat to someone who is vaccinated. As the threat to a vaccinated person is much lower from another vaccinated person).

You said it's all known -- So tell us?

 

[DisneyFan32]

I hope Texas changed their minds and bring mask mandate back until a few months.