Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kevin_W

Well-Known Member

Not sure if this has been discussed yet.

Like the temporary pause California had with Moderna, it makes sense to assess these things. But as the press release says, when millions of shots are given out, some people who would have had a medical event anyway will not have that event after getting the shot. It doesn't meant the shot caused it.

As a side note, I find it interesting that a few months ago this was referred to the vast majority of the time as the Oxford vaccine and now it's almost always the AstraZenica vaccine.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Like the temporary pause California had with Moderna, it makes sense to assess these things. But as the press release says, when millions of shots are given out, some people who would have had a medical event anyway will not have that event after getting the shot. It doesn't meant the shot caused it.

As a side note, I find it interesting that a few months ago this was referred to the vast majority of the time as the Oxford vaccine and now it's almost always the AstraZenica vaccine.

Public perception is very much an issue. If such a side effect were to happen in the US...it would freeze the system...which is already patched together.

That means they do care (at least a little)

I honestly care zero about anyone with that attitude. We’ve had to suffer fools more in the last year than you typically do in 20. It’s time to accept it and move on.
 

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
Public perception is very much an issue. If such a side effect were to happen in the US...it would freeze the system...which is already patched together.



I honestly care zero about anyone with that attitude. We’ve had to suffer fools more in the last year than you typically do in 20. It’s time to accept it and move on.
Just quoting one of my favorite Weird Al Songs

 

correcaminos

Well-Known Member
Like the temporary pause California had with Moderna, it makes sense to assess these things. But as the press release says, when millions of shots are given out, some people who would have had a medical event anyway will not have that event after getting the shot. It doesn't meant the shot caused it.

As a side note, I find it interesting that a few months ago this was referred to the vast majority of the time as the Oxford vaccine and now it's almost always the AstraZenica vaccine.
I think it depends on affiliations. I give credit to both AstraZeneca and Oxford. Just like Pfizer and BioNTech.

I think the Oxford-AZ shot is a bigger deal. We're up to 11 countries as of 2 days ago
 

matt9112

Well-Known Member
Everyone on these boards understands that there is a wide range of jobs that can't work from home, and we all know that everyone who wants to will eventually get vaccinated. When you have a limited amount of vaccine, it makes sense to prioritize it's distribution for the best outcome. Not sure what part of that is hard to understand. Yes, the details of that can get a little messy, but's it better then not prioritizing at all. Imagine high risk people dying because vaccine dosses were quickly taken up by people young healthy people who are working from home.
I agree i think you misunderstood me possibly. Thats why high risk and age should be the factors. Not inherently occupation. (I mean except for actual hospital employees theres no real reason HEALTHY YOUNG people from job x y z should be ahead of a b c.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
Like the temporary pause California had with Moderna, it makes sense to assess these things. But as the press release says, when millions of shots are given out, some people who would have had a medical event anyway will not have that event after getting the shot. It doesn't meant the shot caused it.

As a side note, I find it interesting that a few months ago this was referred to the vast majority of the time as the Oxford vaccine and now it's almost always the AstraZenica vaccine.
There were about 30 cases of DVT reported in about 5 million people who received the AstraZenica vaccine, which would equal about 6 per million. I couldn't find the incidence of DVTs in the general population, but because this is a fairly common medical condition, 6 per million seems like a rate far below the baseline population incidence. Especially when you consider that the age of people who have so far received the vaccine skews older.

So, caution is probably warranted, but I have a feeling this will end up being a "nothing-to-see-here".

But unfortunately, it will probably give the antivaxxers just the ammunition they want.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
Just some random anecdotes....but it seems like a lot of Pa’s problem is distributing doses to counties equally without much regard to who’s more likely to take them.

A ridiculous, pa. concept. 63 counties but a lot of them are “flag” counties and they can’t seem to get enough takers. My brother went from a biped county to one still dragging knuckles to get his an hour away...they wouldn’t take it because they thought it was gonna keep the mine form reopening or something? 🙄
Still waiting on that anthracite-based revolution, are they?
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I agree i think you misunderstood me possibly. Thats why high risk and age should be the factors. Not inherently occupation. (I mean except for actual hospital employees theres no real reason HEALTHY YOUNG people from job x y z should be ahead of a b c.

The goal was always to stop the spread...which was not limited to “high risk and age”. Anyone can carry, spread it, and kill grandma.

Hence contact based plans.


This is just so redundant. If you want to repeat politically tinged Dogma...at least quote stuff that had basic understanding...not the stuff specifically designed to sell Wilfred Brimley diabetes supply ads.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
1615814889755.png
 

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
The illness has disproportionately affected certain groups. Also the vaccine avoidance seems to be politically driven. Yet again we have all posted articles refuting more than once.
Repeating old talking points, really. As much as you may want it to be NO there is NO political anything about vaccine avoidance. There are people that for a multitude of reasons (their own) do not want to take the vaccine. Hold on to your hat! politics is not one of the reasons. Vaccine avoiders have existed in large numbers well before the appearance of COVID19. Some people do not want to be vaccinated against any disease, period, sadly that translates to not allowing their children to receive vaccinations a serious health issue. Not new news! "The illness has disproportionately affected certain groups." is a broad statement NOT exclusive to COVID19 but applicable to a multitude of maladies. My impression from your commentary is YOU want this all to be political, well, sorry but illnesses / diseases are equal opportunity infectors and do not care who is what.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Oh, come on, you've never heard of optimism bias? As fate would have it, this article from November came across my timeline tonight.


This is 3 times you've referenced the CDC person and the 60%. How about Dr. Walensky's statement while answering questions, that because of the increased transmissible variants, they have had to revise their assumptions upwards from the 60%-70% of this summer to 70-85%? Does that hold any weight, or is it like all the other people who previously have latched onto best case scenarios, "Since we don't know what will be true, I'm going to choose to hitch my wagon to someone other than the CDC director?"



Of course, that's not being plastered everywhere, because as you say the messaging has gone out to sell vaccines through positivity. Despite the "tell us the truth," crowd, what actually works on people is to tell them what they expect to hear, otherwise they think manipulation and lies, and you're facing an uphill battle. So the truth about needing to get to 2022, is being back-burnered, and we're back to giving people milestones instead of the finish line. First, we'll get people to May 1 and then July 4th. Then I expect it will be: get people to Labor Day with the carrot of all schools reopening as normal, then Thanksgiving, and then 2022. "Talk about degrees of normalcy," which people happily extrapolate as normalcy. You heard "small gatherings with a lot of caveats," others obviously think the limitation of small gatherings is just as ridiculous as your thoughts about what Christmas will look like and they expect fireworks and family reunions. I personally, expect that the earlier messaging that got the, "Don't say that or people won't behave the way we need!" freak out, will bear itself out. They are sitting on the troublesome parts because we have proven we aren't capable of dealing with it. And now that we have the vaccines to focus on, it's not as imperative we understand it today. Right now, it's phase one: May 1, phase 2: July 4, let people focus on a summer which should be manageable, and we'll worry about the rest when it's more obvious there is more work to be done. I don't think they sped up the timeline at all, but are choosing to focus on the expectation of oscillating seasonality. Summer isn't an actual return to normal, but a false normal that will placate the masses, while experts continue to model and plan for fall/winter because they know we aren't there yet.

I find it ironic that you are accusing me of latching on to the best case while you consistently latch on to the worst case. As I said, we have no idea what level of people need to be vaccinated to drive cases low enough to cause us to start removing restrictions and ultimately reach herd immunity. I pointed out that many experts, including Fauci, have given higher estimates over time to ensure enough people get vaccinated. It could be that we need anywhere from 60-90% vaccinated so the range is quite large. The quote I referenced was from a CDC epidemiologist and was made during the JnJ approval process. The existence of variants was well known at the time so not excluded from that estimate. The reason I said I thought it was interesting is he did not say it was his opinion. He said his agency had a target vaccination rate of 60% to reach herd immunity. That’s different than a tweet or a sound bite from an interview where someone is giving their personal opinion. That’s also a percentage that‘s lower than average so I found it interesting. As I said, nobody really knows so any so called expert saying it will take X% is guessing.

We all heard the actual words from Biden. You are free to interpret that as no change to the time line. The ironic part is while you are saying it’s a fake return to normal and things won’t really change the people who oppose Biden are highly critical right now that the timeframe is too conservative. You can see that from the posts here too. The real changes will come from the CDC recommendations which are the basis for a lot of business’s rules including Disney parks. If they don’t change anything then not much will change. We are starting to see a move towards less restrictions for fully vaccinated people. Once we hit something like 70% of adults vaccinated do we start to see a shift to post vaccination rules becoming the normal? I think it’s at least partially linked to case numbers as well, but we have to reach a point where rules change based on the vast majority being immune.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
There were about 30 cases of DVT reported in about 5 million people who received the AstraZenica vaccine, which would equal about 6 per million. I couldn't find the incidence of DVTs in the general population, but because this is a fairly common medical condition, 6 per million seems like a rate far below the baseline population incidence. Especially when you consider that the age of people who have so far received the vaccine skews older.

So, caution is probably warranted, but I have a feeling this will end up being a "nothing-to-see-here".

But unfortunately, it will probably give the antivaxxers just the ammunition they want.

There was a video about this from a British doctor last week and he quote a incidence rate in the general public of 10 per month per 100,000. So out of 5 million people you would expect 600 cases of DVT per month.
 

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
There was a splash of news earlier that Disney properties would be used as vaccine distribution sites. That story seems to have dropped out of sight? Such a move would be a huge P.R. boost, at least I think so.
 

DisneyFan32

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
I find it ironic that you are accusing me of latching on to the best case while you consistently latch on to the worst case. As I said, we have no idea what level of people need to be vaccinated to drive cases low enough to cause us to start removing restrictions and ultimately reach herd immunity. I pointed out that many experts, including Fauci, have given higher estimates over time to ensure enough people get vaccinated. It could be that we need anywhere from 60-90% vaccinated so the range is quite large. The quote I referenced was from a CDC epidemiologist and was made during the JnJ approval process. The existence of variants was well known at the time so not excluded from that estimate. The reason I said I thought it was interesting is he did not say it was his opinion. He said his agency had a target vaccination rate of 60% to reach herd immunity. That’s different than a tweet or a sound bite from an interview where someone is giving their personal opinion. That’s also a percentage that‘s lower than average so I found it interesting. As I said, nobody really knows so any so called expert saying it will take X% is guessing.

We all heard the actual words from Biden. You are free to interpret that as no change to the time line. The ironic part is while you are saying it’s a fake return to normal and things won’t really change the people who oppose Biden are highly critical right now that the timeframe is too conservative. You can see that from the posts here too. The real changes will come from the CDC recommendations which are the basis for a lot of business’s rules including Disney parks. If they don’t change anything then not much will change. We are starting to see a move towards less restrictions for fully vaccinated people. Once we hit something like 70% of adults vaccinated do we start to see a shift to post vaccination rules becoming the normal? I think it’s at least partially linked to case numbers as well, but we have to reach a point where rules change based on the vast majority being immune.
That's means there will be real back to normal by summer or fall/winter with no more surges or spikes for good @GoofGoof
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom