Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[DisneyDebRob]

Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down statewide mask mandate

Wisconsin's Supreme Court is striking down Gov. Tony Evers' statewide face mask mandate.

www.wisn.com

Politics at its finest. Don’t need to go to Wisconsin to see this being played out. Where ever the majority is they will turn against the other side. Whether we think it’s a good idea or not, it’s all politics. Local school boards.. countywide.. the house and senate.. up to the Supreme Court. Will we ever think past 2 parties and start doing what’s right for the people and not who’s giving them money?
This is meant in general terms, not to this specific case no matter what side your on.

 

[Tom P.]

I don't have a number. It's not up for me to decide nor should it be. That's all I've been trying to say.

But who should it be up to?

 

[havoc315]

And while I clearly understand that (well, assuming, since I don't actually know you) that you're coming from a good place and really do believe it's best for society, I just can't agree as it goes against my principles and I find it hypocritical.

I don't like the government (or the majority) deciding what is best for the individual. The rights of the individual should always supersede the convenience of the collective. Otherwise, freedom is a farce.

I get that it can come off as "absurd", but say what you want, I at least am consistent. Hell, I agree life would be easier if we had a altruistic government that set things straight and implemented rules that I personally believed in, but I would never want that because the power isn't always (or maybe ever) in my hands and I don't want my "enemy" to have that same power.

I can respect that position, even if I disagree with it. I'd ask you to refrain from comparisons to Nazi Germany until a much greater threshold is crossed.

 

[DCBaker]

 

[DisneyCane]

Didn't the Republican Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Alan Simpson, once say "Hatred corrodes the container it is carried in"?

Hard to imagine JVP aligning with the anti-vax and anti-mask hordes, especially in a stadium that holds over 100,000 people. If the 95% (or RL 90%) numbers are right, even if all ticket-holders were vaccinated, there would still be 5,000 or so people not protected. And one of them goes to visit their grandparents in the same place others are staying. Problem?

Who/what is JVP? It also doesn't work that way. Without the vaccines, at the worst peaks there were less than 2% of the population infected and contagious. If you assume the 90% prevention of infections and all 100,000 were vaccinated and community spread was the same as it was at the peak (which it can't be as high if vaccinations continue at the current rate) then you could expect less than 0.2% of the 100,000 (maximum 200 but likely far fewer) to be infected and contagious. To even have a chance to spread it, those 200 people would have to be in prolonged, close contact with somebody in the 10% that is still vulnerable to infection.

In reality, early evidence is that the vaccinated who become infected are less contagious than an unvaccinated person who is infected. Community spread is currently far lower than it was at any of the peaks and will continue to get lower as a high enough percentage of the population is vaccinated. The scenario you came up with would be unlikely to end up with very many people visiting their grandparents after becoming infected at the stadium. On top of that, if the grandparents are vaccinated they would be unlikely to get infected and highly unlikely to have any severe illness.

So, no, it isn't a problem.

 

[DisneyCane]

Politics at its finest. Don’t need to go to Wisconsin to see this being played out. Where ever the majority is they will turn against the other side. Whether we think it’s a good idea or not, it’s all politics. Local school boards.. countywide.. the house and senate.. up to the Supreme Court. Will we ever think past 2 parties and start doing what’s right for the people and not who’s giving them money?
This is meant in general terms, not to this specific case no later what side your on.

Maybe if we could use the Carousel of Progress to go back in time to 1991 there's a chance. That may have been the last year there was real compromise on anything.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Maybe if we could use the Carousel of Progress to go back in time to 1991 there's a chance. That may have been the last year there was real compromise on anything.

Was thinking the same thing. Wow, 2 in one day.
There has been many from both sides willing to cross the aisle as they say, unfortunately big money talks and has been talking before 1991 and since.

 

[DisneyNittany]

But who should it be up to?

The individual. Always the individual.

I should have zero say in you and your family's business. Just as you shouldn't have a say in mine.

As I stated earlier, I essentially lived under a year lockdown, not because Gov. Wolf shut down businesses and events that I usually patron, but because my one grandma was going through chemo and my wife was pregnant. I made that decision, despite the fact that I could have easily (if they were open) gone to bars and sporting events and most likely been fine. I made that decision, and would have made that decision, regardless of what the government did or what the majority demanded. Same reason I got the vaccine, despite the fact that there's <1% chance that I would contract COVID and die. Sometimes doing what is right for you and others requires sacrifice, which isn't easy. The easier thing to do would be to demand that others live how I want them to to best protect my loved ones.

 

[GoofGoof]

....and here in the US we are worried about having to still wear a mask in Costco. I bet if the vaccine was available to anyone who wanted it in France in the next 6 weeks they would have very limited resistance. I just hope enough people realize that this could be us if enough people choose to not get vaccinated ASAP, and before you answer that it won’t happen in America and we won’t go on lock downs again ever....look at the past year+ now and look how many people said that continuously and yet it still happened.

 

[MaryJaneP]

Will we reach herd immunity if most of the world gets vaccinated or does it require those in our country to meet a certain herd immunity number?

 

[Tom P.]

The individual. Always the individual.

I should have zero say in you and your family's business. Just as you shouldn't have a say in mine.

As I stated earlier, I essentially lived under a year lockdown, not because Gov. Wolf shut down businesses and events that I usually patron, but because my one grandma was going through chemo and my wife was pregnant. I made that decision, despite the fact that I could have easily (if they were open) gone to bars and sporting events and most likely been fine. I made that decision, and would have made that decision, regardless of what the government did or what the majority demanded. Same reason I got the vaccine, despite the fact that there's <1% chance that I would contract COVID and die. Sometimes doing what is right for you and others requires sacrifice, which isn't easy. The easier thing to do would be to demand that others live how I want them to to best protect my loved ones.

I am a limited government conservative. I tend to identify as a Republican, although the last few years have put that on shaky ground. One thing I am most definitely not, however, is a libertarian. And neither were our founders. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, or any of our other key founding and historical documents will you find the concept of "always the individual." If it was always to be left to the good judgement of the individual, there would be no need for a government at all. And, yet, our founders created multiple levels of government for various purposes.

Look, I think your instincts are generally correct and if we sat down and had a cup of coffee and talked politics, I bet we'd agree 95% of the time. And there is no doubt in my mind that many of the steps that have been taken over the past year, particularly those that have been taken unilaterally by governors without legislative involvement, have been beyond the bounds of the authority that they do (or should) have. But there are also times when the government does need to be involved to protect people from each other. To argue that any governmental involvement is wrong and that everything should be left up the individual is contrary to the way our constitutional republic was designed.

 

[_caleb]

The individual. Always the individual.

I should have zero say in you and your family's business. Just as you shouldn't have a say in mine.

As I stated earlier, I essentially lived under a year lockdown, not because Gov. Wolf shut down businesses and events that I usually patron, but because my one grandma was going through chemo and my wife was pregnant. I made that decision, despite the fact that I could have easily (if they were open) gone to bars and sporting events and most likely been fine. I made that decision, and would have made that decision, regardless of what the government did or what the majority demanded. Same reason I got the vaccine, despite the fact that there's <1% chance that I would contract COVID and die. Sometimes doing what is right for you and others requires sacrifice, which isn't easy. The easier thing to do would be to demand that others live how I want them to to best protect my loved ones.

What about when it comes to things we hold in common? Noise ordinances, the use to public spaces and infrastructure, the use of public funding? You keep talking about "you" and "me," but your philosophy doesn't seem to provide much insight to help with things that concern "us" and "we."

Should people be required to wear clothing in a foodservice establishment? Should someone be allowed to urinate in public? Is it ok for people to take up three seats on the subway? Wash their car/water their lawn during a drought? Dig/dump/build/occupy public lands? Fly a drone over your house? Keep wild animals in their backyard?

I see pandemic as a community issue that requires a community response–even at WDW. It isn't enough for everyone to just look out for themselves because so much of life falls into the overlap of shared responsiblity. We have to all agree to establish some rules and abide by them, and at some point, we have to enforce those rules (or change them).

ETA: @Tom P. got at the point I was trying to make!

 

[DCBaker]

Numbers are out - there were 87 new reported deaths, along with 2 Non-Florida Resident deaths.

 

[GoofGoof]

I am a limited government conservative. I tend to identify as a Republican, although the last few years have put that on shaky ground. One thing I am most definitely not, however, is a libertarian. And neither were our founders. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, or any of our other key founding and historical documents will you find the concept of "always the individual." If it was always to be left to the good judgement of the individual, there would be no need for a government at all. And, yet, our founders created multiple levels of government for various purposes.

Look, I think your instincts are generally correct and if we sat down and had a cup of coffee and talked politics, I bet we'd agree 95% of the time. And there is no doubt in my mind that many of the steps that have been taken over the past year, particularly those that have been taken unilaterally by governors without legislative involvement, have been beyond the bounds of the authority that they do (or should) have. But there are also times when the government does need to be involved to protect people from each other. To argue that any governmental involvement is wrong and that everything should be left up the individual is contrary to the way our constitutional republic was designed.

Agreed, “Always the individual” is basically anarchy. In any civilized society there will always be some level of rules that need to be followed and there will always be people unwilling to follow them.

 

[GhostHost1000]

Didn’t we try lockdowns once before with minimal success

 

[mmascari]

They may not be saying zero cases but there are posters in this thread who don't think restrictions should be lifted until community spread is extremely low, regardless of vaccine availability.

I've not seen anyone say "extremely low". Definitely lots of "low". Mostly people not saying what low means, but none of the people talking about the need mitigations seem to mean less than the CDC definition of "low".

I guess I meant yikes in that some will use this to keep us masked and social distanced forever lol

There is literally nobody who is in favor of currently continuing mitigation efforts saying they should continue forever. The only people saying forever are those arguing that they should stop now arguing against forever as if it was a real position someone held.

I've been very pro masks + distancing the whole time but I think once everyone has the vaccine available that needs to go away. We can't just continue to do this forever because 5% of the population may experience weak/non life threatening symptoms. And if everyone else is also vaccinated, the risk for severe community spread becomes incredibly low.

Nobody is asking for forever. Until community spread is low enough. That is not forever, not even close.

Either we vaccinate enough people to drive spread low, or we don't. Let's hope we do.

This is a great example of only looking at short term impacts over long term advancement. It's like chasing quarterly profits even if investing in longer term projects that reduce quarterly profits would generate larger long term profits. Never realizing the larger long term gains because only the next quarter matters.

1. As soon as we get community spread reduced enough, all mitigations will go away.
2. Once enough people are vaccinated, community spread will dramatically decrease.
3. People getting vaccinated faster will accelerate number 2 which will lead to number 1.

It's that simple. That's the reason to get vaccinated.

Let's pretend that we vaccinate people as fast as possible and everyone gets the vaccine, in this simulation, assume we reach enough people that by July 1, community spread plummets and all mitigations can be removed. Someone who finished the vaccine in April had to wait through May and June still using mitigation efforts. While someone who didn't complete vaccination until the end of June only had to wait through two weeks still using mitigation efforts. Was the person who waited really better off?

Now, let's change the scenario. Because those people in April were not able to immediately stop mitigation efforts, they didn't bother with the vaccine. The roll out slowed. Come July 1, not enough people are vaccinated and community spread is still to high to eliminate mitigations. A massive marketing push is done to get more people vaccinated but it takes until September 1 before enough are vaccinated, community spread plummets and all mitigations can be removed. Those people that couldn't be bothered to get vaccinated earlier had to go an extra two months of mitigation restrictions. Were they better off now by waiting? Do they just like extending the time while mitigations are required?

Let's change it again. Even after the marketing push, people still don't bother because they see no immediate point. Community spread never plummets, mitigations continue being required into 2022. Are they better off yet?

If a variant turns up that is highly resistant against the vaccines then we start reverting. Until we see that take place I don't think it's necessary quite yet.

It's to late by the time a variant shows up. It's better to continue mitigations while spread is high until it's reduced to a low level. This way we prevent the likelihood of a vaccine resistant variant emerging. To ignore spread and expose large numbers of vaccinated to the virus, because community spread is high, is the exact plan to encourage a vaccine resistant variant to emerge.

In the words of someone in the field: (Though he works more with birds)
Matt Koci, a virologist and immunologist:

Vaccine Q&A: Vaccination Rates and New Mutations of the Virus

Let's talk about mutations to the virus that causes COVID-19.

news.ncsu.edu

One key point he does not really address is that the selection pressure is greater as there are more vaccinated, while when the amount of virus is great there is more chances of mutations. A mutation whose only advantage is that it can infect the vaccinated will not have a evolutionary advantage if it isn't likely to infect someone who is vaccinated. So the risk when there is few vaccinated is lower because a mutation is less likely to run into the vaccinated vs unvaccinated, and it is low when there are lots of vaccinated but little virus around. The transition from the first state to the second has the higher risk of a mutated virus finding a vaccinated host for selection bias to work. So shorter that transition time is the better.

 

[GhostHost1000]

....and here in the US we are worried about having to still wear a mask in Costco. I bet if the vaccine was available to anyone who wanted it in France in the next 6 weeks they would have very limited resistance. I just hope enough people realize that this could be us if enough people choose to not get vaccinated ASAP, and before you answer that it won’t happen in America and we won’t go on lock downs again ever....look at the past year+ now and look how many people said that continuously and yet it still happened.

i agree but I also think at this point and with so many who just won’t get the vaccine a lockdown order won’t work in the US anymore because people won’t do it

 

[DisneyNittany]

I am a limited government conservative. I tend to identify as a Republican, although the last few years have put that on shaky ground. One thing I am most definitely not, however, is a libertarian. And neither were our founders. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, or any of our other key founding and historical documents will you find the concept of "always the individual." If it was always to be left to the good judgement of the individual, there would be no need for a government at all. And, yet, our founders created multiple levels of government for various purposes.

Look, I think your instincts are generally correct and if we sat down and had a cup of coffee and talked politics, I bet we'd agree 95% of the time. And there is no doubt in my mind that many of the steps that have been taken over the past year, particularly those that have been taken unilaterally by governors without legislative involvement, have been beyond the bounds of the authority that they do (or should) have. But there are also times when the government does need to be involved to protect people from each other. To argue that any governmental involvement is wrong and that everything should be left up the individual is contrary to the way our constitutional republic was designed.

What about when it comes to things we hold in common? Noise ordinances, the use to public spaces and infrastructure, the use of public funding? You keep talking about "you" and "me," but your philosophy doesn't seem to provide much insight to help with things that concern "us" and "we."

Should people be required to wear clothing in a foodservice establishment? Should someone be allowed to urinate in public? Is it ok for people to take up three seats on the subway? Wash their car/water their lawn during a drought? Dig/dump/build/occupy public lands? Fly a drone over your house? Keep wild animals in their backyard?

I see pandemic as a community issue that requires a community response–even at WDW. It isn't enough for everyone to just look out for themselves because so much of life falls into the overlap of shared responsiblity. We have to all agree to establish some rules and abide by them, and at some point, we have to enforce those rules (or change them).

Neither of you are wrong. However, to be clear, I'm not an anarchist.

Our constitutional republic was designed so that the majority couldn't rule the minority. So, in essence, the right of the individual has always been at the forefront. It was also designed so that government was there to PROTECT your rights, not infringe upon them. We've just done a terrible job of holding them accountable to that.

 

[GoofGoof]

i agree but I also think at this point and with so many who just won’t get the vaccine a lockdown order won’t work in the US anymore because people won’t do it

Whether they would work or not isn’t necessarily relevant. If we have a surge in cases like we are seeing in Europe now there will be a return to some level of greater restrictions in a lot of places. Whether people follow it or not didn‘t stop it from happening repeatedly over the last year.

 

[DisneyNittany]

Agreed, “Always the individual” is basically anarchy. In any civilized society there will always be some level of rules that need to be followed and there will always be people unwilling to follow them.

This isn't true. There is no free society without the rights of the individual (again, slavery is a prime example). However, those rights stop where yours start. That's not anarchy, but seeing the government in its intended purpose of being an arbitrator, not an enforcer.

There is still law and order, again, unlike anarchy.

If a person isn't using unjustified force against others, isn't taking other people’s property by force or fraud, and isn't interfering with other people’s ability to engage in conduct that does not violate anyone else’s rights, then they are not doing anything wrong. If a person is doing those things, then the government has the right to step in as agreed to.