Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[DisneyCane]

Oh wow, yeah no. Grow up. The needle was smaller than most I've seen.

My first shot I didn't even feel the needle go in. My second shot I barely felt it. I think the first shot was a 24 gauge needle and the second a 22.

Sorry I got it wrong. Your post read negative in tone to me. I fully admit I could've read you wrong. I do want to view full true cause of deaths as they likely were older too based on timing.

You didn't read it wrong. Everything short of no cases or deaths is negative news to that poster.

 

[havoc315]

What you call "common sense," I call unreasonable government overreach. We can get to low numbers with common sense. Zero or almost zero requires either forced vaccinations or continued significant mitigation for months after voluntary vaccinations.

Says someone who opposed almost all mitigation from the start.

Nobody should be forced to get vaccinated. It should simply be a pre-condition to going to publicly shared spaces. If you are going to be around strangers, then the condition is you have to get vaccinated. Just like you have to wear clothes to enter a restaurant, you also need to be vaccinated. If you want to live in a cabin out in the wilderness without a vaccine, go for it.

 

[havoc315]

My first shot I didn't even feel the needle go in. My second shot I barely felt it. I think the first shot was a 24 gauge needle and the second a 22.

You didn't read it wrong. Everything short of no cases or deaths is negative news to that poster.

Every death is bad news. Every reduction is death rate is a good news. Every avoidable death -- should be avoided. Unavoidable deaths will occur, as they are indeed unavoidable.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

so when will we leave the decisions up to the individuals to decide on when to do what rather than the government to tell us

Isn’t that the case now in the USA? It seems to be a free for all - do whatever you want.

Jordan's "mask wearing" drove me nuts, just sayin'.

Same!

 

[ABQ]

Michigan's new case count 2 week average has now surpassed its previous record high set back in December. Ontario should hope the wind doesn't blow too hard northward.

 

[Nubs70]

Michigan's new case count 2 week average has now surpassed its previous record high set back in December. Ontario should hope the wind doesn't blow too hard northward.

View attachment 549402

And hospitals are full up with no nurses to cover additional beds even if the beds were available.

Funny how you don't hear about this like one did 3-4 months ago.

 

[disneygeek90]

My first shot I didn't even feel the needle go in. My second shot I barely felt it. I think the first shot was a 24 gauge needle and the second a 22.

You didn't read it wrong. Everything short of no cases or deaths is negative news to that poster.

How come they use a different size? Genuinely curious.

Also what I've been wondering, are both doses identical? Or are they physically different in some way?

 

[havoc315]

Isn’t that the case now in the USA? It seems to be a free for all - do whatever you want.

Same!

In the US, among a segment of the population, there is a juvenile understanding of "freedom."
Where the most important cherished freedom becomes, "don't you dare tell me to put on a mask!"

 

[pixie225]

This isn’t surprising to me re: Miami. We are here for a 3 night vacation. We are vaccinated but still only dining outdoors and sitting on the beach. If you looked at the hotel dining room last night or the lobby bar you wouldn’t think there was a pandemic. It looks exactly how it did before Covid. No masks, packed and people drinking and laughing. It was so surprising to see!

We were in Fort Lauderdale the week before Christmas break for schools. Even back then we were in the definite minority wearing masks. In fact, as we walked down the street people would say "must be from NY." We also only ate outdoors. The bars were wall to wall people, spilling out on Las Olas Blvd. We are heading there again at the end of May. Can't even imagine what it is like there now.

 

[sullyinMT]

And what's the level you're willing to call normal?

Several posters have replied with numbers between 100,000 and 30,000 yearly deaths, roughly 270 to 100 daily deaths. Still a far drop from where we are today even for the larger value.

That's that answer to the question. We're back to normal when we're down to level we collectively decide is low enough. Pick number or we'll all just assume 250,000, 700 daily IS your normal. We're there. It's normal today.

The problem with defining the acceptable number is that, just like the need for mitigations going forward, is that it's likely to be regional. It's really problematic for a nation our size, and with such diverse population densities.

For example, we have lost roughly 1500 Montanans in the year since our first death. 4 people a day. Most people out here, myself included, will take that number. Our horrific October-January aside, we now ride at roughly 50 hospitalizations at any given time. Our hospitals can handle that, even if it means a person in the literal middle of nowhere needs to be transferred to Missoula, Billings, or Bozeman. I'll be honest, with roughly 40% of eligible people in my county started on vaccination as of the latest weekly update, if someone in Pray (population 750) doesn't want to participate in vaccination that's quickly becoming their problem.

The problem with the above is that, adjusted nationally, that death number becomes 495,000 people. 1,320 per day. That's too many for myself and, I hope, most Americans, to want a full return to normal. Thankfully we're currently approaching half that, but it's still too high. It's why there is still support for mitigations in the face of vaccination until numbers go down.

If you take the hospitalization number adjusted for population, it amounts to about 16,500 active admissions. So long as they're spread out nationwide, we could probably handle that. We're roughly double that number now according to the CDC tracker. The issue with our current state of affairs is a matter of disbursement. Images like we had coming from LA County this summer, or the NYC metro area last Spring, scare the everliving daylights out of people and bring mitigation compliance way up. It's probably why population centers have higher vaccine acceptance.

I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 cases/100k/day (~17,000 cases/day). So long as deaths are distributed nationally and not in hot clusters, that probably means somewhere around 150 dead/day, or 55,000/year.

 

[Heppenheimer]

It opens the door to too many other exemptions to coverage though. Smoke and get lung cancer? We won't cover. Refuse all birth control? Pregnancy not covered.

Health insurance really doesn't operate that way. True, for private plans, smokers pay higher premiums, and some plans offer incentive discounts, like complying with requirements like yearly health exams. But health insurance doesn't work like property insurance, where you can be denied coverage if found at fault. Heck, they even pay for certain special screening tests for smokers that non-smokers wouldn't be covered for, like lung cancer and aneurysm screenings.

So at most, we could see insurance discounts for people who were vaccinated, but I sincerely doubt anyone would be refused coverage for not getting the series.

 

[Incomudro]

Those were all good numbers that I trimmed off the quote. I think there's a good policy value decision in there.

I disagree that the "director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases" should give us the number that's back to normal. This is an unelected official. I count on this role to tell us how to get the current numbers to go down. To tell us if making decision X will cause the number to go up or down. But, I don't want them making the decision on how low is low enough. Lower then today is a relatively safe answer. I think most people can agree that "low" is a good target.

I was disappointed in his answers. To me, when any politician asks the question of the unelected advisor "How low is low enough", the answer should be "What level of community spread, cases, deaths, and long term health impacts is acceptable to you? I can provide guidance on how we can get to that level of impact.".

The entire premise of the question is wrong. If a politician is looking to a bureaucrat to set the policy, why did we elect them to begin with. Isn't that the politician's job?

In a WDW example, I'm sure the first aid team can make park change recommendations based on cases they see. Lots of bumps and bruises form X, they'll recommend changes to X to eliminate them. But, actually making the change isn't the first aid team's decision. Someone else owns the management decision on if the level of cases is acceptable or requires action. Otherwise, all the tripping hazards on main street would be removed and the road surface replaced with something softer to eliminate any chance of scraped knees. That it's not means someone made a management decision that the current rate of scraped knees on main street is an acceptable trade off.

This is such an excellent post.

 

[danlb_2000]

In the US, among a segment of the population, there is a juvenile understanding of "freedom."
Where the most important cherished freedom becomes, "don't you dare tell me to put on a mask!"

The preamble to the constitution should be changed from "We the people" to "Me the person"

 

[mmascari]

The problem with defining the acceptable number is that, just like the need for mitigations going forward, is that it's likely to be regional. It's really problematic for a nation our size, and with such diverse population densities.

Probably need both national and regional values. More likely, it'll be a national value with local hotspots that have increased restrictions. I think it's less likely to have regional areas with less restrictions. Give or take some very isolated regional areas.

The basic problem is, we're not ever going to restrict movement between domestic areas. I'm even a little surprised Hawaii has been able to impose the domestic restrictions it has. It's possible Hawaii and Alaska are afforded some extra leeway vs the rest of the lower 48. Certainly, nobody is going to ever impose meaningful restrictions between attached states. Which means, eventually we'll have local hotspots but everything else will settle out to some more consistent level as people move between areas. In the end, we're going to be much more one nation than fifty states in the steady state normal value.

 

[DCBaker]

 

[sullyinMT]

Probably need both national and regional values. More likely, it'll be a national value with local hotspots that have increased restrictions. I think it's less likely to have regional areas with less restrictions. Give or take some very isolated regional areas.

The basic problem is, we're not ever going to restrict movement between domestic areas. I'm even a little surprised Hawaii has been able to impose the domestic restrictions it has. It's possible Hawaii and Alaska are afforded some extra leeway vs the rest of the lower 48. Certainly, nobody is going to ever impose meaningful restrictions between attached states. Which means, eventually we'll have local hotspots but everything else will settle out to some more consistent level as people move between areas. In the end, we're going to be much more one nation than fifty states in the steady state normal value.

Agreed. And, my example above will probably trend that way, anyway. We have a few counties really hurting our overall state value now. As those naturally level out, and vaccines start having a meaningful effect in the coming weeks, we'll probably get from 15/100k to 5/100k pretty quickly. As we know, hospitalizations and deaths will lag but soon get there, as well.

Nationally, as the waves in MI and the northeast area break, we'll likely see a similar reduction from 20 to 10 to 5 by mid summer. That's the hope, anyway.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Probably need both national and regional values. More likely, it'll be a national value with local hotspots that have increased restrictions. I think it's less likely to have regional areas with less restrictions. Give or take some very isolated regional areas.

The basic problem is, we're not ever going to restrict movement between domestic areas. I'm even a little surprised Hawaii has been able to impose the domestic restrictions it has. It's possible Hawaii and Alaska are afforded some extra leeway vs the rest of the lower 48. Certainly, nobody is going to ever impose meaningful restrictions between attached states. Which means, eventually we'll have local hotspots but everything else will settle out to some more consistent level as people move between areas. In the end, we're going to be much more one nation than fifty states in the steady state normal value.

Hawaii already has some environmental exemptions to protect its unique ecosystems, so they could probably apply restrictions based on precedent.

 

[GoofGoof]

No, point is -- that ship has already sailed. We already didn't accept the mitigation levels of the UK and Israel.

How long would be necessary? 4-6 weeks of REAL mitigation, not the semi-compliant mask wearing and slightly reducing dining capacity that we have been having. 4-6 weeks of real mitigation + vaccine passports, we would be under 5,000 cases per day in about 6 weeks, maybe 8 weeks on the outside.
If we did that, we would probably get down to almost 0 deaths per year. (certainly well under 1,000)

Just to level set you said this:

Do the math from the article that you posted -- 74 dead, in the first quarter of a year, among fully vaccinated. That's not 74 per lifetime, or 74 per year. That's 74, just in the last 2 months or so. (not too many were fully vaccinated before that). So as I said, that easily equates to hundreds or even more than 1,000 per year. If you vaccinated 200 million, with a death rate of 1/million every 2 months, that's 1,200 deaths. If the death rate is a bit higher (considering the lag time of death reporting, it's likely a bit higher than the 74), easily looking at 1500-2000 deaths per year.
On the other hand, if we use vaccine and temporary mitigation to drive cases down to nearly zero... we would likely see practically nearly zero deaths per year among vaccinated people.

And I said this:

You really think the general public is going to agree to continued mitigations to get from 1,200 deaths a year in vaccinated people down to near zero? How long do the continued mitigations last to get cases down to nearly zero? Months? Into 2022? That’s a tough sell, even for people who are interested in following the science.

So you are talking about keeping mitigations around until cases go to almost zero so that deaths will be zero or close to zero and you are saying you think it would only take 4-6 weeks of mitigations to accomplish this? If we keep pace we will have 200M people vaccinated by the end of May and maybe sooner. So you are saying you think we keep mitigations until early July and then cases will go to near zero? I think that’s possible but highly unlikely. It’s going to take far longer than 4-6 weeks for cases to go to near zero. Likely months and maybe the rest of the year. I don’t think people will tolerate that length of time to avoid 1,200 deaths a year.

 

[GoofGoof]

The problem is that those who won't get vaccinated may be in the minority, but it's a high percentage minority...which will equal a long delay.

It's the same with masks and distancing. If everyone had been doing what they should since the get-go, we wouldn't still be here a year into the pandemic.

Maybe I’m being selfish but once I’m vaccinated and all of my loved ones are vaccinated I’m not going to worry about Covid cases. The vast majority of new infections and deaths will come from the unvaccinated group. They have every opportunity to get the vaccine for free so no excuse. If they get sick its on them. For the rest of us we go back to living life. If cases surge because of the unvaccinated then they just get naturally immune faster. I can live with the risk of breakthrough infections since that’s a small number and I do believe cases will be way down.

So I don’t think the permanently unvaccinated delay anything, they are on their own. The only delay is if people who want to get vaccinated drag their feet.

 

[correcaminos]

If anything, the 74 is likely an undercount. But that's ok -- It's still extremely successful.

The "negative" is that those are still avoidable deaths, if we eradicate Covid. If we eradicate Covid, then nobody will die from it.

That's the positive/negative -- are we just going to be happy with Covid reduction, or are we going for Covid eradication?

And as Dr. Gottlieb commented, our country isn't on the trajectory for Covid eradication.

Yeah see you are being negative and almost conspiracy theorist the other way with this. Likely undercounted? Nah, I'm more likely to believe the vaccines are doing great. We're not on a trajectory to eradicate soon but that's also a global issue so yeah, I think you're being negative. Sorry.

My first shot I didn't even feel the needle go in. My second shot I barely felt it. I think the first shot was a 24 gauge needle and the second a 22.

You didn't read it wrong. Everything short of no cases or deaths is negative news to that poster.

I didn't feel a thing my first shot either. I do have a legit history where I was in utter pain weekly getting a few treatments including painful shots done after fingers were frozen to try to treat a skin condition. So I totally like loathe needles (and why I would seriously hold hands of those in similar situations). My body temp goes up a degree and my heart rate is sky high. So when I went in for the trial I just warned them and looked away. No clue the size but I accidentally caught it out of the corner of my eye when I was looking at the syringe with the stickers covering it up (trying to see if I could see through it lol) - and it was tiny. The second time I didn't try to look.

The second shot did hurt more but not the needle, just the juice going in stung.

Of course posting here I realize I have some funky medical stuff, but honestly, I'm really boring medically outside of these things I posted today. Like never taken oral antibiotics in my life boring. So I just got a couple of weird things I guess LOL