Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[havoc315]

But this quote from him highlights Fauci’s major weaknesses - his constantly changing the goalposts.

As I just demonstrated with my prior post, it is possible to use data to determine the appropriate point to lift all restrictions. Some might disagree with my calculation and take a different approach.

Fauci doesn’t do that. One week it’s “maybe this”. The next week it’s “maybe that”. Just a quick search of the Internet shows that it’s easy to find Fauci contradicting himself.

I’d dump my doctor if he told me something different each time I visited him.

Fauci is highly educated and highly knowledgeable. He needs to treat the patient (i.e. the United States) as much as the disease (i.e. COVID).

Fauci has been very consistent. His words have often been distorted by those with an agenda.
Yes, he often says "maybe" -- Because that's how science works. You gain knowledge over time.
As you learn more, you refine past statements, you become more certain.

I know many people are frustrated by uncertainty. But that's science. That's not a matter of contradiction, it's not a matter of being wrong. It's a matter of using the best information you have at any given time, and that information and knowledge improves over time.

And no, it's not possible to simple "use data to determine the appropriate point to lift all restrictions" -- because there is so much uncertainty remaining. There are way too many variables. What are the breakthrough rates of new variants, what are the ongoing mortality rates, what is the availability of and level of testing, what is the state of therapeutics, what are the vaccination rates. how are the cases distributed both geographically and demographically. I understand you'd love the certainty of a magic number that becomes the point where everybody can burn their mask, but that's not how it works at all.

 

[Roy G. Dis]

The thing about the phrase "moving goalposts" is that you already know the established rules of the game and everyone agrees on them, so to "move goalposts" is akin to changing the rules to fit your objective. It's not fair to use the same expression with a global pandemic where we still can't even agree on the ground rules like how many people will actually take the vaccine, how long the vaccine is effective, etc...

 

[cdatkins]

What we are seeing right now is people who are vaccinated are - because of science and human reason - assessing that they are comfortable moving out more into society. They believe (accurately) that they are now much less at risk of death or serious long-term damage if they do get COVID. Isn't it natural to assume that as more people start going out and being around other people, that cases will rise? Isn't that what we would expect at this point? And that though cases may rise, death and serious illness will not be as prevalent due to the vaccine?

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I’d dump my doctor if he told me something different each time I visited him.

I know what you mean. My doctor tried “changing the goal posts on me” by telling me I needed to lose weight. I told him “you didn’t tell me that last time I was here!”

 

[danlb_2000]

What we are seeing right now is people who are vaccinated are - because of science and human reason - assessing that they are comfortable moving out more into society. They believe (accurately) that they are now much less at risk of death or serious long-term damage if they do get COVID. Isn't it natural to assume that as more people start going out and being around other people, that cases will rise? Isn't that what we would expect at this point? And that though cases may rise, death and serious illness will not be as prevalent due to the vaccine?

Based on everything we know, vaccinated people are unlikely to be driving and significant increase in cases. The cases are going up because of the behavior of unvaccinated people couple with more contagious variants.

 

[danlb_2000]

But this quote from him highlights Fauci’s major weaknesses - his constantly changing the goalposts.

As I just demonstrated with my prior post, it is possible to use data to determine the appropriate point to lift all restrictions. Some might disagree with my calculation and take a different approach.

Fauci doesn’t do that. One week it’s “maybe this”. The next week it’s “maybe that”. Just a quick search of the Internet shows that it’s easy to find Fauci contradicting himself.

I’d dump my doctor if he told me something different each time I visited him.

Fauci is highly educated and highly knowledgeable. He needs to treat the patient (i.e. the United States) as much as the disease (i.e. COVID).

I would expect my doctor to tell me what is the best known information at the time, even if it contradicts what he told me last time. People just aren't used to science that has a direct impact on them evolving as quickly as it has had to during the pandemic.

 

[havoc315]

I would expect my doctor to tell me what is the best known information at the time, even if it contradicts what he told me last time. People just aren't used to science that has a direct impact on them evolving as quickly as it has had to during the pandemic.

Yup... I've been told by doctors, "you have been taking this medication, but now there is this new medication.."
And... "based on your age, the recommendation is now...."
And, "there are some new studies suggesting you should have this test.."
And, "given these new complaints you have, you should ...."

Medicine doesn't stay static. It changes with your age, with your symptoms. It changes as the science evolves.

 

[GaBoy]

I think the implication here is that Fauci is not moving the goal post based on changing data but moving it based on personal political objectives. You know... staying relevant because none of us will care much about the CDC, post pandemic. There.... you guys argue about that for a few pages

 

[Roy G. Dis]

Yeah all a dark liberal conspiracy to keep us Disnerds from enjoying WDW maskless. Rumor is it Fauci was a big Figment guy....

 

[ParentsOf4]

The thing about the phrase "moving goalposts" is that you already know the established rules of the game and everyone agrees on them, so to "move goalposts" is akin to changing the rules to fit your objective. It's not fair to use the same expression with a global pandemic where we still can't even agree on the ground rules like how many people will actually take the vaccine, how long the vaccine is effective, etc...

The difference between the start of this pandemic and now is that we have 15 months of data from multiple sources. We now have "established rules of the game" but each side cherry-picks the ones they want to follow.

The virus has been well-analyzed. We have multiple vaccines. We have experience with different mitigations and have data that shows which ones are and are not effective. Some of the assumptions we made at the start were right. Some were wrong.

The time for wishy-washy answers (such as the ones that Dr. Fauci continues to give) to important questions is over.

The problem we run into is that people are locked in to their sides and cannot admit they were wrong. That's why "we still can't even agree on the ground rules."

It was wrong to deny that masks work.

It was wrong for families to have large indoor gatherings.

It was wrong to end indoor mask mandates too soon.

It was wrong to open bars.

It was wrong to disregard social distancing.

It was wrong to send infected patients into nursing homes.

It was wrong to say we'll never have a vaccine.

It was wrong to require masks to be worn outdoors.

It was wrong to close down outdoor beaches and parks.

We didn't know this 15 months ago.

We do now.

Both sides have been wrong on multiple counts. Neither side will admit it.

 

[Chi84]

The difference between the start of this pandemic and now is that we have 15 months of data from multiple sources. We now have "established rules of the game" but each side cherry-picks the ones they want to follow.

The virus has been well-analyzed. We have multiple vaccines. We have experience with different mitigations and have data that shows which ones are and are not effective. Some of the assumptions we made at the start were right. Some were wrong.

The time for wishy-washy answers (such as the ones that Dr. Fauci continues to give) to important questions is over.

The problem we run into is that people are locked in to their sides and cannot admit they were wrong. That's why "we still can't even agree on the ground rules."

It was wrong to deny that masks work.

It was wrong for families to have large indoor gatherings.

It was wrong to end indoor mask mandates too soon.

It was wrong to open bars.

It was wrong to disregard social distancing.

It was wrong to send infected patients into nursing homes.

It was wrong to say we'll never have a vaccine.

It was wrong to require masks to be worn outdoors.

It was wrong to close down outdoor beaches and parks.

We didn't know this 15 months ago.

We do now.

Both sides have been wrong on multiple counts. Neither side will admit it.

Nicely said.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

But this quote from him highlights Fauci’s major weaknesses - his constantly changing the goalposts.

As I just demonstrated with my prior post, it is possible to use data to determine the appropriate point to lift all restrictions. Some might disagree with my calculation and take a different approach.

Fauci doesn’t do that. One week it’s “maybe this”. The next week it’s “maybe that”. Just a quick search of the Internet shows that it’s easy to find Fauci contradicting himself.

I’d dump my doctor if he told me something different each time I visited him.

Fauci is highly educated and highly knowledgeable. He needs to treat the patient (i.e. the United States) as much as the disease (i.e. COVID).

Here’s the problem with Fauci, and I really don’t think it’s his problem, more the news, media , interviewers and us, the people.
We want answers, right now more then ever. We don’t like the “maybe”..”depends” answers that would have satisfied us 25-30 or more years ago. We want a question answered we can have it in 2 seconds online, whether it’s the right answer or not, depending on how we phrase the question.
So when Fauci is asked questions like the ones you highlighted, they are mostly gotcha questions that without a direct answer we feel he’s being wishywashy because the answer is different from a few days before. To ask anyone in this world right now.. When is the right time to remove masks for good? Or.. when can businesses open fully? Trick questions, no one can answer that right now. He gives the best he can with the depending on this.. or if vaccines are going good then..answers. I don’t fault him for any of that, in fact when I hear the questions being asked that no one can answer, I just sit back and say here we go again.
I’ve heard numerous people here question him and his response but over time I’ve seen that most answer, whether we like it or not has always come from a science based review of what was being asked, whether we liked it or not. Few times he seemed to get caught up in all the attention but that’s rare.

 

[mmascari]

But this quote from him highlights Fauci’s major weaknesses - his constantly changing the goalposts.

As I just demonstrated with my prior post, it is possible to use data to determine the appropriate point to lift all restrictions. Some might disagree with my calculation and take a different approach.

Fauci doesn’t do that. One week it’s “maybe this”. The next week it’s “maybe that”. Just a quick search of the Internet shows that it’s easy to find Fauci contradicting himself.

I've thought his message has been consistent. The reporting on it has not. Or, more specifically, reporting and perceptions that focus on very specific parts and then draw much larger conclusions. Those conclusions, which aren't what was actually said but how individual parts were interpreted, have been very different and contradictory. Sometimes for the very same statement.

I think people also try to look to him for policy decisions and directions. But, that's not what he's providing. He's always giving advice, explanation and general direction. He'll say stuff like "I wouldn't" or "don't recommend" and he'll describe scenarios and impacts. But he's not setting the actual policy and federal or state mandates. Some may say there's no difference, that he'll say something and then a politician just does it. But, it does matter, the elected politician is making the decision on how to take his advice and how much weight it has against other advice and concerns.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

The thing about the phrase "moving goalposts" is that you already know the established rules of the game and everyone agrees on them, so to "move goalposts" is akin to changing the rules to fit your objective. It's not fair to use the same expression with a global pandemic where we still can't even agree on the ground rules like how many people will actually take the vaccine, how long the vaccine is effective, etc...

Well said.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Fauci has been very consistent. His words have often been distorted by those with an agenda.
Yes, he often says "maybe" -- Because that's how science works. You gain knowledge over time.
As you learn more, you refine past statements, you become more certain.

I know many people are frustrated by uncertainty. But that's science. That's not a matter of contradiction, it's not a matter of being wrong. It's a matter of using the best information you have at any given time, and that information and knowledge improves over time.

And no, it's not possible to simple "use data to determine the appropriate point to lift all restrictions" -- because there is so much uncertainty remaining. There are way too many variables. What are the breakthrough rates of new variants, what are the ongoing mortality rates, what is the availability of and level of testing, what is the state of therapeutics, what are the vaccination rates. how are the cases distributed both geographically and demographically. I understand you'd love the certainty of a magic number that becomes the point where everybody can burn their mask, but that's not how it works at all.

Also... people seem to want a linear progression. But that's not how health care works, either on an individual or public level. You make certain interventions that based on population data and clinical experience, offer the best chance for the desired outcome. But as they tell you in medical school, "diseases don't read the textbook". You often need to change course, or allow more time than usual. Rather than a linear progression to the ultimate outcome, medicine is usually a series of decision trees. You might not reach your original goal, or you may need to take a completely different path to get there, none of which is regularly predictable at the beginning. And this all assumes that the patient follows your recommendations, which in the case of the pandemic, has certainly not been the case.

Its not so much that the goal posts have shifted, as it is that path to the goal posts is always shrowded in fog, and we can't accurately assess our distance from them.

And then there's this to remember... we are not fighting the same pandemic today that first arrived on our shores last year. These variants are behaving significantly different than the wild strain that began this whole mess.

 

[Kevin_W]

I hope we have learned something on a personal level from this grand experiment and we can reduce the incidence of flu and death from flu going forward.

I hope so, too. Btu I suspect it won't be much learned. Even this week I've seen 2 articles titled something like: "Covid is an airborne sickness, can we stop with all this cleaning of surfaces?" How about we keep cleaning the surfaces to protect us from all the other junk?

 

[DCBaker]

 

[DisneyCane]

This is really surprising/concerning. This is from Publix at 12:21 PM. Moderna appointments for M-F next week. Booking window opened at 7AM.

County (Condado)	Appointments Remaining (Citas restantes)
Alachua	72%
Bay	73%
Brevard	47%
Broward	Less than 1% (menos de 1%)
Charlotte	66%
Citrus	76%
Clay	69%
Collier	9%
Columbia	90%
Desoto	83%
Duval	75%
Escambia	87%
Flagler	57%
Hernando	61%
Highlands	80%
Hillsborough	14%
Indian River	65%
Lake	45%
Lee	33%
Leon	76%
Manatee	56%
Marion	75%
Martin	30%
Miami-Dade	Fully Booked (Completamente reservadas)
Monroe	Fully Booked (Completamente reservadas)
Nassau	88%
Okaloosa	69%
Okeechobee	38%
Orange	Less than 1% (menos de 1%)
Osceola	20%
Palm Beach	Fully Booked (Completamente reservadas)
Pasco	53%
Pinellas	52%
Polk	25%
Santa Rosa	74%
Sarasota	62%
Seminole	4%
St. Johns	76%
St. Lucie	30%
Sumter	91%
Suwannee	78%
Volusia	46%
Walton	81%

 

[mmascari]

I hope so, too. Btu I suspect it won't be much learned. Even this week I've seen 2 articles titled something like: "Covid is an airborne sickness, can we stop with all this cleaning of surfaces?" How about we keep cleaning the surfaces to protect us from all the other junk?

Just headlines or did the article details also make that argument?

Because, there's some nuance to the "stop with all this cleaning of surfaces" that's really important. But, it's not a catchy headline. And, we know catchy headlines are trash to drive clicks, often disconnected from the substance in articles.

1. Some superficial surface cleaning, but just barely above "ewwww" level.
2. A level of cleaning that's appropriate to the task.
3. Hyper vigilant over obsessive cleaning continuously at every possible moment.

I would argue, we were probably at level 1 before the pandemic. And that we've gone straight to level 3. Some pull back to level 2 would be very acceptable. Especially if that frees up resources for other activities, like better ventilation investment. I'll agree, all the way back to level 1 would be lost opportunity.

 

[havoc315]

Also... people seem to want a linear progression. But that's not how health care works, either on an individual or public level. You make certain interventions that based on population data and clinical experience, offer the best chance for the desired outcome. But as they tell you in medical school, "diseases don't read the textbook". You often need to change course, or allow more time than usual. Rather than a linear progression to the ultimate outcome, medicine is usually a series of decision trees. You might not reach your original goal, or you may need to take a completely different path to get there, none of which is regularly predictable at the beginning. And this all assumes that the patient follows your recommendations, which in the case of the pandemic, has certainly not been the case.

We have had a LOT of that!
Scientists "If everyone fully complies with Stay Home orders, with social distancing and with masking, we can get Covid down to miniscule levels within just a couple of months"
..... We then get mixed imperfect compliance, cases swing back up....
And particularly the people who were non-compliant yell, "you said cases would come down within a couple of months, you were wrong!"

Its not so much that the goal posts have shifted, as it is that path to the goal posts is always shrowded in fog, and we can't accurately assess our distance from them.

And then there's this to remember... we are not fighting the same pandemic today that first arrived on our shores last year. These variants are behaving significantly different than the wild strain that began this whole mess.

Yup..... "you said 65% immunity would bring herd immunity.. but now Fauci is saying 70-80%+" ---- but the earlier estimates were based on less contagious variants. More contagious variants require a higher level of immunity to reach herd immunity.

Medicine is very often trial and error, not certainty. "these symptoms appear to be an infection... let's start this antibiotic... ok, you still have the symptoms, let's try a different antibiotic and do some imaging to evaluate alternative possible causes... Hmm, the x-ray was suspicious but inconclusive... let's follow with an MRI.... oh, we see something there needing a biopsy..... oh, based on these biopsy results we need to determine the next step of treatment"