Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[DisneyDebRob]

I'm scheduled for my first shot on March 31. Yay!

Just got the call.. wife and I in next Tuesday for Pfizer. I can see a bit of light..

 

[GoofGoof]

Is it amazingly sad that people need to be offered a carrot to take a vaccine against a worldwide deadly pandemic? Live free or Die as they say.

Well yeah, but if there’s anything I’ve learned over the past year in this pandemic it’s that some people‘s behavior is amazingly sad in general. You should want the vaccine for your own health...even if you don’t care about your health you should get one anyway for the greater good, for the health of the economy, just so you don’t have to hear people like me lecture you on why you should get the vaccine . If all else fails, offer a carrot of not having to wear a mask

 

[HarperRose]

An interesting article from CNN. It's significant for this thread as it gets to the heart of why Walt Disney World has been open for 8 months while Disneyland is still more than a month away from opening.

A year into the pandemic, Florida is booming and Republican Gov. DeSantis is taking credit​

By Jeff Zeleny, Chief National Affairs Correspondent
Updated 11:19 AM ET, Wed March 17, 2021

St. Petersburg, Florida (CNN) After a year of criticism by health experts, mockery from comedians and blistering critiques from political rivals, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is standing unabashedly tall among the nation's governors on the front lines of the coronavirus fight.

"Everyone told me I was wrong," DeSantis, a Republican, said in a fundraising appeal on Tuesday, drawing attention to his defiance against the pandemic. "I faced continued pressure from radical Democrats and the liberal media, but I refused to back down. It's clear: Florida got it right."

As many parts of the country embark on an uneasy march toward normalcy, Florida is not only back in business -- it's been in business for the better part of the past year. DeSantis' gamble to take a laissez faire approach appears to be paying off -- at least politically, at least for now, as other governors capturing attention in the opening phase of the pandemic now face steeper challenges.

Despite far fewer rules and restrictions, Florida lands nearly in the middle of all states on a variety of coronavirus metrics. The state has had about 3% more Covid-19 cases per capita than the US overall, but about 8% fewer deaths per capita. More than 32,000 Floridians have died of Covid-19, and the state's per capita death rate ranks 24th in the nation.

"Those lockdowns have not worked. They've done great damage to our country," DeSantis said Tuesday at a news conference in Tallahassee. "We can never let something like this happen again. Florida took a different path. We've had more success as a result."
DeSantis -- who, at 42, is the nation's youngest governor -- is standing out among his peers and seizing upon what he and his supporters believe is a vindication for their policies.

Lockdowns and school openings are suddenly a new measure for voters to hold governors and other elected officials accountable, a sign that the politics of the pandemic could open an uncertain chapter for many holding public office. He will be among the governors putting his record to the test when he runs for re-election next year.

"We still have millions of kids across this country who are denied access to in-person education," DeSantis said at the news conference. "We still have businesses closed in many parts of this country. We have millions and millions of lives destroyed."

With spring on the horizon, DeSantis suddenly appears to be in a position of strength compared to some of his fellow governors, including many of whom took far more restrictive approaches to the fight against coronavirus that caused a trickle-down effect on the economy.

He is not facing a potential recall like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, under investigation like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo or being second-guessed for lifting a statewide mask mandate like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

DeSantis refused to implement a mask mandate in the first place, making him an outlier a year ago. At the time, he was hewing closely to President Donald Trump's playbook, which he argued at the time was good for business.

The unemployment rate in Florida is 4.8 %, according to the latest figures from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, compared to 6.8% in Texas, 8.8% in New York and 9% in California.

"If you look at what's happening in South Florida right now, I mean this place is booming. It would not be booming if it was shut down," DeSantis said last month as a crush of tourists began arriving. "Los Angeles isn't booming. New York City's not booming. It's booming here because you can live like a human being."

Florida has recorded about 9,204 cases per 100,000 people and about 150 deaths per 100,000 people, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. Across the country overall, there have been about 8,969 cases per 100,000 people and 163 deaths per 100,000 people.

Despite far more stringent restrictions, California only ranks one spot better than Florida in both measures. Its death rate is about 5% lower than Florida's, which means about 1,500 lives could have been saved in Florida if the state's death rate matched that of California.

[Side note: The 5% difference in death rate might be explained by the age gap. As of 2018, the median age in Florida was 42.2 years, 5th oldest in the United States. The median age in California was 36.8, 44th oldest. Perhaps the single biggest factor in COVID deaths is age.]

Still, comparing one state to another is complicated and often counterproductive, said Jason Salemi, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of South Florida College of Public Health who maintains his own Covid dashboard. For example, he said, the humidity of Florida and the density of New York City offer entirely different scenarios for fighting coronavirus.

"What I'd love to ask about Florida is, if we had done things differently in Florida, what would it have looked like?" Salemi told CNN. "If you use those metrics of where Florida is relative to a lot of other states, we're looking middle of the pack. So no, it hasn't been a disaster in that we're leading in mortality per capita in cases per capita."

He added: "It's not always about doing well relative to your peers. It's how can we prevent as much morbidity and mortality from the virus while keeping an eye on what's happening with our economy."

He said Florida has also benefitted from local ordinances requiring masks and restricting the sizes of gatherings. DeSantis has prohibited cities and counties from fining people for refusing to wear masks and is stirring outrage among local officials by pushing to strip their authority to put such rules in place at all.

[Side note: As I've posted elsewhere, mask enforcement is largely handled in the private sector in the United States. Most large chains and businesses, including Walt Disney World, require masks. As a result, local ordinances have only a limited impact on overall numbers. The infection and mortality rates almost certainly would have been much worse if large chains and businesses were not requiring masks.]

Throughout the pandemic, it's that defiant and often combative DeSantis who has increasingly become the darling of Republicans. He declines most interview requests, including from CNN, even as he frequently appears on Fox News and other propaganda platforms. He has been locked in one fight after another with the state's media over transparency on Covid statistics and other issues.

Yet his policies have boosted his standing inside his party, all but certainly closing the door to any Republican challenges. Potential Democratic contenders are already circling.

Rep. Charlie Crist -- who served as Republican governor of the state from 2007 to 2011 and switched parties in 2012 -- is among the Democrats thinking about challenging DeSantis for re-election next year. He said he intended to make up his mind before summer.
Asked how he thought Florida had withstood the pandemic, Crist said: "It's a mixed bag, to be candid."

"We have a light at the end of the tunnel feeling and that really is a godsend," Crist told CNN in an interview in his office here. "On the other hand, there's about 33,000 of my fellow Floridians that are dead now. And that's incredibly sad, tragic and beyond unfortunate. So how are we doing? Well, we're slugging through it like the rest of the country is and just doing the best we can."

Crist and other Florida Democrats are calling for a US Justice Department investigation into whether DeSantis gave preference to donors after invitation-only vaccines clinics were set up in at least two upscale communities. The exclusive Covid-19 clinics allowed about 6,000 people to jump ahead of tens of thousands of seniors on waitlists in Manatee and Charlotte counties, where the drives happened.

"Was there preference given to certain Caucasian wealthy, Republican communities?" Crist said. "Because it certainly looks like it."
A spokeswoman for the governor has dismissed the accusation, saying: "The insinuation that politics play into vaccine distribution in Florida is baseless and ridiculous."

Here in Florida, where beaches along the Atlantic Ocean and on Gulf of Mexico are crowded this week in ways not seen for more than a year, the complete story of the pandemic has yet to be written, as President Joe Biden inherits the challenge and has accelerated vaccines here and across the country. Yet health experts and local officials worry that a parade of spring break vacationers could contribute to a spike in Covid-19 cases.

Tom Golden, who owns a restaurant and bar along the busy stretch of Central Avenue in downtown St. Petersburg, said he didn't have much of an opinion on DeSantis a year ago. But with his business not only surviving, but thriving, he offers a measure of credit to the governor.

"When he went into office, I wasn't sure what to expect," Golden said in an interview just before lunch on a sunny morning this week. "But he didn't do anything to hurt me as a business owner or me as a Floridian. So fine with me."

After businesses were allowed to open after being shuttered for several weeks late last spring, Golden said he recalls having mixed feelings about the balancing act of keeping the economy alive and protecting the public's health.

"Well, of course, as a business owner I supported it, but as a human being, I kept thinking that it's a horrible position to be in," Golden said. "It's a hard one to measure. I think he made a good decision."

Conversations with more than a dozen Floridians offered a wide assessment of views about DeSantis' handling of the coronavirus crisis. Several people suggested they were not initially supportive him, but in hindsight found themselves approving of his decision to reopen the economy and schools.

A woman strolling down the St. Petersburg Pier spoke about her grandchildren in California, who have attended school virtually for the last year. She said she believes the Florida approach was better, given the temperate weather and ability to be outside. She declined to be identified by name, but praised DeSantis' decisions that have allowed the orchestra to resume playing here and the economy to thrive.

Molly Minton, who works as a laboratory supervisor, said she recalls being dispirited as she drove home from work and saw crowded bars and restaurants. Looking back, she said, she is glad many small businesses were able to stay open and believes Florida was simply lucky in many respects.

"I think he took a gamble and it worked out," Minton said of the governor.

In a sprawling state of more than 21 million people, where some estimates say about 1,000 new residents arrive every day, many people said they had no opinion of DeSantis at all and didn't know much about him.

He was born in Jacksonville and raised on the Gulf Coast just north of here in Dunedin, and he had a love for baseball that sent his team to the Little League World Series. Later, he played outfield while studying at Yale. He graduated from Harvard Law School and worked as a Naval prosecutor, including a stint in Iraq as a Navy JAG lawyer advising a SEAL team.

In 2012, he won a seat in Congress and was elected governor in 2018 two months after he turned 40. He was largely unknown during the primary campaign until he won the endorsement of Trump, who became aware of him through frequent appearances on Fox News.
Now, DeSantis is seen by many grassroots conservatives as a potential 2024 presidential candidate. That path depends on his gubernatorial reelection next year.

His long-range future, of course, also depends on the outcome of the rest of the pandemic. Yet it's clear he hopes to make that his new calling card, which he telegraphed in a fundraising appeal for Republican governors that he sent to supporters on Tuesday.
"Right now," DeSantis wrote, "my state of Florida is one of the only states that said no to oppressive lockdowns and has become an oasis of freedom for Americans."

Complete and utter hogwash.

 

[DCBaker]

Numbers are out - there were 55 new reported deaths, along with 4 Non-Florida Resident deaths.

 

[SamusAranX]

Complete and utter hogwash.

Florida is middle of the pack. Politics aside, they’re not the worst of states. But not the best either.

 

[mmascari]

There has to be some correlation. If the vaccines work and if enough people take them its not likely that cases and deaths will not also drop. As I said before, if that turns out to be the case and the vaccines fail for whatever reason then we have to pivot the plan, but I’m confident the vaccines will work.

Correlation but not cause between vaccination and mitigations.

Vaccination in sufficient numbers should cause cases and spread to drop significantly.
Cases and spread to dropping significantly will cause mitigations to not be needed.

That doesn't mean vaccination in sufficient numbers causes mitigations to not be needed. It definitely doesn't mean vaccination of an individual causes mitigations to not be needed for the individual.

The CDC has already altered mask and distancing guidance for fully vaccinated people only for private residence gathering and also for quarantine requirements and are looking at overall travel recommendation so there is some precedent for relaxing certain restrictions based solely on vaccination status.

The gathering one makes lots of sense. It changes the circumstances. Vaccinate everyone interacting is an awesome mitigation, way better than all the others. The quarantine one needs to include the nuance.

• Refrain from quarantine and testing following a known exposure if asymptomatic

Presumably, the assumption is the person is protected, they're highly unlikely to be able to spread, and because they're asymptomatic they didn't catch a mutant the vaccine doesn't protect against. Since if they did they would have symptoms.

At this point, they've already had an exposure. But, this doesn't mean the guidelines say they can just not care about being exposed. All the rest of the guidelines say they should be taking steps to minimize exposures just like everyone else.

I agree that once we hit some date in May or June where we have vaccinated most of the population that there is no light switch to remove all public covid restrictions. Cases will factor in as well.

Cases and spread aren't just a factor, they're the entire game. Number of people vaccinated is just a factor to reduce that number. A factor that we don't know yet how large it needs to be for the cases and spread to come down. Let's hope it's low enough that hold outs don't prevent us from reaching it.

I do think it’s possible to further relax mask and distancing requirements at least in non-public facing workplaces once the vaccine has been offered to all workers. So if for example a factory runs a JnJ vaccine clinic for the workers they would make a policy that any employee who is fully vaccinated doesn‘t need a mask anymore. Those with no vaccine still need to wear a mask until the time that masks are no longer needed in the general public. Would be a great incentive for everyone to take the jab.

I understand that you really want reductions in mitigations to be a carrot to getting a vaccine. But, it just doesn't work that way. In this example, after the clinic, all the people who took the vaccine could be put on the same shift. Create a fully vaccinated group so they can act just like the CDC guideline for a group of all vaccinated people. For the people who aren't vaccinated, they need to be isolated from people who aren't using any mitigations. It doesn't matter if that's vaccinated or not people.

The vaccine is not a direct mitigation reduction item. It's dependent on who the interactions are with. In the general public where you have no idea, it's not a substitute for other mitigations, it's a backup after the fact in case those other mitigations fail. As a public health matter, we want vaccinated people to have as little virus exposure as we want everyone else to have too.

 

[DCBaker]

Current Florida vaccine report -

 

[MaryJaneP]

Presumably, the assumption is the person is protected, they're highly unlikely to be able to spread,

Didn't CDC and WHO specifically address the likelihood of spread by "asymptomatic" persons? Seems like a major factor of the pandemic spread included asymptomatic spread.

 

[ABQ]

Didn't CDC and WHO specifically address the likelihood of spread by "asymptomatic" persons? Seems like a major factor of the pandemic spread included asymptomatic spread.

Are you speaking of prior to vaccination or after vaccination? The WHO and CDC have both stated that studies of asymptomatic spread from fully vaccinated people are still in their infancy and that clinical trials of the vaccines didn't look at that as it just requires more and more time to confirm. Many studies currently underway, but still too soon for publishing, are showing that vaccinated people are unlikely to spread the virus. Again, too early to tell though. I know a few of those studies were linked in earlier pages, but they are hard to find.

 

[GoofGoof]

Correlation but not cause between vaccination and mitigations.

Vaccination in sufficient numbers should cause cases and spread to drop significantly.
Cases and spread to dropping significantly will cause mitigations to not be needed.

That doesn't mean vaccination in sufficient numbers causes mitigations to not be needed. It definitely doesn't mean vaccination of an individual causes mitigations to not be needed for the individual.


The gathering one makes lots of sense. It changes the circumstances. Vaccinate everyone interacting is an awesome mitigation, way better than all the others. The quarantine one needs to include the nuance.

• Refrain from quarantine and testing following a known exposure if asymptomatic

Presumably, the assumption is the person is protected, they're highly unlikely to be able to spread, and because they're asymptomatic they didn't catch a mutant the vaccine doesn't protect against. Since if they did they would have symptoms.

At this point, they've already had an exposure. But, this doesn't mean the guidelines say they can just not care about being exposed. All the rest of the guidelines say they should be taking steps to minimize exposures just like everyone else.


Cases and spread aren't just a factor, they're the entire game. Number of people vaccinated is just a factor to reduce that number. A factor that we don't know yet how large it needs to be for the cases and spread to come down. Let's hope it's low enough that hold outs don't prevent us from reaching it.


I understand that you really want reductions in mitigations to be a carrot to getting a vaccine. But, it just doesn't work that way. In this example, after the clinic, all the people who took the vaccine could be put on the same shift. Create a fully vaccinated group so they can act just like the CDC guideline for a group of all vaccinated people. For the people who aren't vaccinated, they need to be isolated from people who aren't using any mitigations. It doesn't matter if that's vaccinated or not people.

The vaccine is not a direct mitigation reduction item. It's dependent on who the interactions are with. In the general public where you have no idea, it's not a substitute for other mitigations, it's a backup after the fact in case those other mitigations fail. As a public health matter, we want vaccinated people to have as little virus exposure as we want everyone else to have too.

We can agree to disagree. You say case movement is the only factor in removing mitigations, I disagree. If cases dropped even further right now I still wouldn’t be in favor of removing all restrictions until the majority of people have been vaccinated. It’s a combo of both vaccinations and case numbers. When we had a lull in cases last summer and percent positive was around 2% where I lived I was still heavily in favor of keeping the mask mandate and distancing and keeping bars closed. The change now is if we get most people vaccinated and return to that level of spread or below then it’s less likely to cause an outbreak and spike in new cases if we remove Covid safety protocols.

The CDC changes are absolutely based solely on vaccination status. Old rule: If I come in contact with someone who is Covid positive I need to quarantine because I may be infected but asymptomatic. New rule: If I come in contact with someone who is Covid positive and I am fully vaccinated I no longer need to quarantine. The only factor that changed is that I’m vaccinated now so the likelihood that I’m infected and will pass the virus to someone else is very small. In the factory example there is no reason to split people into vaccinated vs non-vaccinated shifts. The vaccinated people don’t need to wear a mask for the same reason they don’t need to quarantine or wear a mask in a private home when interacting with others because they pose a very low risk of getting infected and/or spreading Covid. The unvaccinated people still wear masks so they are taking steps to keep themselves from infecting their fellow co-workers.

 

[GoofGoof]

Are you speaking of prior to vaccination or after vaccination? The WHO and CDC have both stated that studies of asymptomatic spread from fully vaccinated people are still in their infancy and that clinical trials of the vaccines didn't look at that as it just requires more and more time to confirm. Many studies currently underway, but still too soon for publishing, are showing that vaccinated people are unlikely to spread the virus. Again, too early to tell though. I know a few of those studies were linked in earlier pages, but they are hard to find.

There were 2 studies, 1 in the Uk and 1 in Israel that showed the vaccines were highly effective at preventing asymptomatic cases. I don’t know if they were fully reviewed and published but they both found similar results in a real world setting.

 

[GoofGoof]

Florida is middle of the pack. Politics aside, they’re not the worst of states. But not the best either.

The key statement from that article that probably gets overlooked is the statement that comparing states Is comparing apples and oranges. The only true comparison is what would that same state look like if you acted differently. FL may have less deaths per capita than NY but that doesn‘t mean they couldn’t have had half as many deaths as they did if they had more restrictions. Nobody can ever know that for sure one way or the other, but it’s safe to say more restrictions would have saved some lives and saved a lot of sickness.

Politicians will of course try to spin that their way is the best. It is what it is. IMHO it’s entirely too soon to be running around taking a victory lap on how great you did vs Covid while a resident of your state is still dying every 15 mins. Hopefully with the vaccine rollout we won’t see those numbers much longer. Hopefully the Governor doesn‘t regret painting a picture that Covid is over and he won. If enough people resist the vaccine because they think it’s over he still has time to catch up to those other states

 

[danlb_2000]

The key statement from that article that probably gets overlooked is the statement that comparing states Is comparing apples and oranges. The only true comparison is what would that same state look like if you acted differently. FL may have less deaths per capita than NY but that doesn‘t mean they couldn’t have had half as many deaths as they did if they had more restrictions. Nobody can ever know that for sure one way or the other, but it’s safe to say more restrictions would have saved some lives and saved a lot of sickness.

Politicians will of course try to spin that their way is the best. It is what it is. IMHO it’s entirely too soon to be running around taking a victory lap on how great you did vs Covid while a resident of your state is still dying every 15 mins. Hopefully with the vaccine rollout we won’t see those numbers much longer. Hopefully the Governor doesn‘t regret painting a picture that Covid is over and he won. If enough people resist the vaccine because they think it’s over he still has time to catch up to those other states

And it's not a good idea to say that any specific mitigation effort "worked" or not. Every mitigation effort does some good and some bad. It's a question of the balance between the two.

 

[DCBaker]

"If you are hunting for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in Florida, you will be disappointed.

At a news conference in Palm Harbor, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said the state will not get a new shipment of the single-shot vaccine for several weeks.

“As we get more allocated for Johnson & Johnson we will let everyone know,” DeSantis said Wednesday. “If you’ve been waiting and you have an opportunity to get Pfizer or Moderna I’d recommend getting it because I can’t guarantee you J&J is going to be available in the next week or the week after. We are looking two or three weeks into the future where we don’t have J&J allocation.”

DeSantis said if you do get a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, you likely could get your second shot by the time the state’s next allocation of Johnson & Johnson arrives. He said it was unclear why the shipments are not arriving.

The state continues to receive Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but Florida’s allotment has not increased. “We’ve been very flat for the last couple of weeks and it looks like the next couple of weeks in future is going to be flat as well,” DeSantis said.

The governor held out hope that more vaccine could arrive and the scenario could change.

“If we get the J&J to start flowing, a little bit more on Pfizer and Moderna, once that happens you’d be able to open it up to everyone,” he said."

Johnson & Johnson vaccine shipments halted in Florida for several weeks, DeSantis says

If you are hunting for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in Florida, you will be disappointed. At a news conference Wednesday in Palm Harbor, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said the state will not get a…

www.sun-sentinel.com

 

[mmascari]

We can agree to disagree. You say case movement is the only factor in removing mitigations, I disagree. If cases dropped even further right now I still wouldn’t be in favor of removing all restrictions until the majority of people have been vaccinated. It’s a combo of both vaccinations and case numbers. When we had a lull in cases last summer and percent positive was around 2% where I lived I was still heavily in favor of keeping the mask mandate and distancing and keeping bars closed. The change now is if we get most people vaccinated and return to that level of spread or below then it’s less likely to cause an outbreak and spike in new cases if we remove Covid safety protocols.

Our perceptions are so messed up by the numbers. Getting to 2% sounds great, but that's only because 5% or 10%+ is so bad by comparison. I'm not sure 2% is the real floor we should be aiming for. If we got the positivity under 1%, or better yet, under 0.5% and applied things besides vaccination to keep it there and keep cases low. Presumably at that level, some combination of surveillance testing to find missed cases an aggressive contact tracing could keep the level that low. I would completely support removing other mitigations then, even without vaccination available.

The CDC changes are absolutely based solely on vaccination status. Old rule: If I come in contact with someone who is Covid positive I need to quarantine because I may be infected but asymptomatic. New rule: If I come in contact with someone who is Covid positive and I am fully vaccinated I no longer need to quarantine. The only factor that changed is that I’m vaccinated now so the likelihood that I’m infected and will pass the virus to someone else is very small. In the factory example there is no reason to split people into vaccinated vs non-vaccinated shifts. The vaccinated people don’t need to wear a mask for the same reason they don’t need to quarantine or wear a mask in a private home when interacting with others because they pose a very low risk of getting infected and/or spreading Covid. The unvaccinated people still wear masks so they are taking steps to keep themselves from infecting their fellow co-workers.

I think this is misreading and cherry picking the guideline. It's not how I read it at all.

COVID-19 Vaccination

COVID-19 vaccines protect against COVID-19. Get safety info and more.

www.cdc.gov

Fully vaccinated people can:

• Visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
• Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
• Refrain from quarantine and testing following a known exposure if asymptomatic

For now, fully vaccinated people should continue to:

• Take precautions in public like wearing a well-fitted mask and physical distancing
• Wear masks, practice physical distancing, and adhere to other prevention measures when visiting with unvaccinated people who are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease or who have an unvaccinated household member who is at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease
• Wear masks, maintain physical distance, and practice other prevention measures when visiting with unvaccinated people from multiple households
• Avoid medium- and large-sized in-person gatherings
• Get tested if experiencing COVID-19 symptoms
• Follow guidance issued by individual employers
• Follow CDC and health department travel requirements and recommendations

You need all those parts. If the factory example is equivalent to "Visit with other fully vaccinated people" then the first set of guidelines make sense. But, if the factory example is equivalent to "in public" because everyone isn't vaccinated, then those parts of the guideline apply. That section doesn't say anything about a vaccinated person interacting with unvaccinated not needed to use mitigation efforts. They say the exact reverse, that whenever a vaccinated person is interacting with a group where everyone isn't vaccinated and includes more than one possible infectious source, they should continue to use mitigation efforts, including masks.


From a public health perspective. I'm not generally worried about a vaccinated person getting sick from any of the current variants. I'm not worried about them still being able to infect others, I think this is highly unlikely. I'm worried about exposing variations of virus in huge numbers rapidly to vaccine. Creating a perfect natural selection model to select for a variant that's vaccine resistant. Exactly the same as antibiotic resistant bacteria. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are likely to show up when we overuse antibiotics. The solution there is to not use them as often. To start with weaker ones that don't always work and save others. This avoids extra exposures between bacteria and the antibiotic. It's a different scenario for a vaccine, we're not going to use less of it, we need it to protect people. But, we still need to reduce the virus to vaccine exposures. To make that natural selection process as slow as possible. That means trying to prevent vaccinated people from having interactions with the virus, just like we try to prevent unvaccinated people from having virus interactions. All of the CDC guideline are consistent with this. The messaging that this is a reason is lacking and poor. The reporting that this is a reason is even worse. But, every interview with Fauci and Walensky has been consistent that vaccinated mixing with unvaccinated need to continue mitigation steps while spread is high.

 

[Chi84]

From a public health perspective. I'm not generally worried about a vaccinated person getting sick from any of the current variants. I'm not worried about them still being able to infect others, I think this is highly unlikely. I'm worried about exposing variations of virus in huge numbers rapidly to vaccine. Creating a perfect natural selection model to select for a variant that's vaccine resistant. Exactly the same as antibiotic resistant bacteria. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are likely to show up when we overuse antibiotics. The solution there is to not use them as often. To start with weaker ones that don't always work and save others. This avoids extra exposures between bacteria and the antibiotic. It's a different scenario for a vaccine, we're not going to use less of it, we need it to protect people. But, we still need to reduce the virus to vaccine exposures. To make that natural selection process as slow as possible. That means trying to prevent vaccinated people from having interactions with the virus, just like we try to prevent unvaccinated people from having virus interactions. All of the CDC guideline are consistent with this. The messaging that this is a reason is lacking and poor. The reporting that this is a reason is even worse. But, every interview with Fauci and Walensky has been consistent that vaccinated mixing with unvaccinated need to continue mitigation steps while spread is high.

I'm not doubting any of this, and the comparison between bacteria/antibiotic to virus/vaccine seems persuasive, but I haven't heard any experts advance this as a reason for vaccinated people to continue mitigation as usual. Likely because I just haven't been following as closely as you. Can you direct me to any articles, interviews or other sources that support this? People are familiar with the concept of overusing antibiotics, so it would make a persuasive argument if there was enough support for it. Thanks.

 

[Patcheslee]

"If you are hunting for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in Florida, you will be disappointed.

At a news conference in Palm Harbor, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said the state will not get a new shipment of the single-shot vaccine for several weeks.

“As we get more allocated for Johnson & Johnson we will let everyone know,” DeSantis said Wednesday. “If you’ve been waiting and you have an opportunity to get Pfizer or Moderna I’d recommend getting it because I can’t guarantee you J&J is going to be available in the next week or the week after. We are looking two or three weeks into the future where we don’t have J&J allocation.”

DeSantis said if you do get a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, you likely could get your second shot by the time the state’s next allocation of Johnson & Johnson arrives. He said it was unclear why the shipments are not arriving.

The state continues to receive Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but Florida’s allotment has not increased. “We’ve been very flat for the last couple of weeks and it looks like the next couple of weeks in future is going to be flat as well,” DeSantis said.

The governor held out hope that more vaccine could arrive and the scenario could change.

“If we get the J&J to start flowing, a little bit more on Pfizer and Moderna, once that happens you’d be able to open it up to everyone,” he said."

Johnson & Johnson vaccine shipments halted in Florida for several weeks, DeSantis says

If you are hunting for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in Florida, you will be disappointed. At a news conference Wednesday in Palm Harbor, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said the state will not get a…

www.sun-sentinel.com

Yeah Moderna hasn't increased weekly allotments since mid February. Pfizer allocations have increased but not much lately. It's the same across multiple states unfortunately.

 

[GoofGoof]

Our perceptions are so messed up by the numbers. Getting to 2% sounds great, but that's only because 5% or 10%+ is so bad by comparison. I'm not sure 2% is the real floor we should be aiming for. If we got the positivity under 1%, or better yet, under 0.5% and applied things besides vaccination to keep it there and keep cases low. Presumably at that level, some combination of surveillance testing to find missed cases an aggressive contact tracing could keep the level that low. I would completely support removing other mitigations then, even without vaccination available.


I think this is misreading and cherry picking the guideline. It's not how I read it at all.

COVID-19 Vaccination

COVID-19 vaccines protect against COVID-19. Get safety info and more.

www.cdc.gov

You need all those parts. If the factory example is equivalent to "Visit with other fully vaccinated people" then the first set of guidelines make sense. But, if the factory example is equivalent to "in public" because everyone isn't vaccinated, then those parts of the guideline apply. That section doesn't say anything about a vaccinated person interacting with unvaccinated not needed to use mitigation efforts. They say the exact reverse, that whenever a vaccinated person is interacting with a group where everyone isn't vaccinated and includes more than one possible infectious source, they should continue to use mitigation efforts, including masks.


From a public health perspective. I'm not generally worried about a vaccinated person getting sick from any of the current variants. I'm not worried about them still being able to infect others, I think this is highly unlikely. I'm worried about exposing variations of virus in huge numbers rapidly to vaccine. Creating a perfect natural selection model to select for a variant that's vaccine resistant. Exactly the same as antibiotic resistant bacteria. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are likely to show up when we overuse antibiotics. The solution there is to not use them as often. To start with weaker ones that don't always work and save others. This avoids extra exposures between bacteria and the antibiotic. It's a different scenario for a vaccine, we're not going to use less of it, we need it to protect people. But, we still need to reduce the virus to vaccine exposures. To make that natural selection process as slow as possible. That means trying to prevent vaccinated people from having interactions with the virus, just like we try to prevent unvaccinated people from having virus interactions. All of the CDC guideline are consistent with this. The messaging that this is a reason is lacking and poor. The reporting that this is a reason is even worse. But, every interview with Fauci and Walensky has been consistent that vaccinated mixing with unvaccinated need to continue mitigation steps while spread is high.

• Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing

This is the equivalent in the guidance. Vaccinated people don’t need to wear a mask even if they are indoor and around people who are not vaccinated. It would be easy to expand that to include workplaces as opposed to private homes. The science of infection doesn’t say that grandma and grand kid is safe but co-workers aren’t. Virus doesn‘t care.

 

[mmascari]

I'm not doubting any of this, and the comparison between bacteria/antibiotic to virus/vaccine seems persuasive, but I haven't heard any experts advance this as a reason for vaccinated people to continue mitigation as usual. Likely because I just haven't been following as closely as you. Can you direct me to any articles, interviews or other sources that support this? People are familiar with the concept of overusing antibiotics, so it would make a persuasive argument if there was enough support for it. Thanks.

I haven't seen this presented as the reason in an official presentation. Just from my infectious disease doctor wife. Says random internet guy.

But, all of the official statements have been very consistent "while spread is high, mitigations are necessary even for vaccinated people".

They really need to add some direct statements of "why" not just "because the guidance says that". The reporting is even worse, just once I want an interviewer to ask a follow-up question "why?".

From the CDC link:

Other personal or social activities outside the home​

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during public social activities such as dining indoors at a restaurant or going to the gym is lower for fully vaccinated people. However, precautions should still be taken as transmission risk in these settings is higher and likely increases with the number of unvaccinated people present. Thus, fully vaccinated people engaging in social activities in public settings should continue to follow all guidance for these settings including wearing a well-fitted mask, maintaining physical distance (at least 6 feet), avoiding crowds, avoiding poorly ventilated spaces, covering coughs and sneezes, and washing hands frequently.

It's three fourths down the page. The details behind the top line bullet. I can see where someone reading this far gets this and thinks "didn't you just spend half the page telling me how great the vaccine is, what's the reason for this", and there's nothing there explaining why. For that matter, the first sentence could be read as "you're vaccinated you're totally fine" and then immediately they say "but when there's lots of not fine people around you need to use other mitigations too".

It's definitely a mixed message. It's been consistently presented that way, so there's clearly a reason. Combine that with the "concern", read as "we don't know, but we're looking at it" for how variants and the vaccine interact. Then this seems like a likely reason.

I'm sure our doctor posters here can comment on why they think it's been this message and how it parallels antibiotic comparison.

PS: You can totally doubt it. And, if someone finally asks the why or has another guess, I'm open to hearing it.

 

[mmascari]

• Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing

This is the equivalent in the guidance. Vaccinated people don’t need to wear a mask even if they are indoor and around people who are not vaccinated. It would be easy to expand that to include workplaces as opposed to private homes. The science of infection doesn’t say that grandma and grand kid is safe but co-workers aren’t. Virus doesn‘t care.

I'm assuming the factory example isn't a single household, which wouldn't make this the comparison. If everyone get's the vaccine except for Joe. Let's say Joe has a condition and cannot be vaccinated, he's in cancer treatments and needs to wait a month. Let's add Jane, his wife too. She's an anti-vaxer though, nobody likes Jane. Then, sure, that's just one household. Now the factory matches.

But, if it's a third of the factory that skips the vaccine. That's a third of the people from many different households, it's more like a public setting. The other guidelines apply.

In the grandma example, even the kids aren't wearing masks. Or the middle generation that's not vaccinated either.

For example, fully vaccinated grandparents can visit indoors with their unvaccinated healthy daughter and her healthy children without wearing masks or physical distancing, provided none of the unvaccinated family members are at risk of severe COVID-19.

None of them are wearing masks. It's not just the vaccinated person that's exempt.

Presumably, since the CDC didn't give any "why", the reason has to do with how much and how different viruses the vaccinated person will be exposed to. The single household is likely just one exposure risk. While a larger public exposure could be many different exposures.


They really should put out more information about the reasoning behind the guidelines. It's easy to see where they appear to be contradictory to each other, and contradictory to the message that the vaccine is super protective (which I think it is).