Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[DisneyCane]

Current Florida vaccine report -

View attachment 551295View attachment 551296

From yesterday's report to today's report there were 78,754 people added to the "Total People Vaccinated." In prior weeks it seemed to be a lot closer to 100k on average and I think the number added yesterday from Monday was more than today's increase. Not a great trend, especially when it has nothing to do with logistics or short supply. There is some effect from J&J being paused since there are people who specifically wanted that shot.

The increase represents approximately 0.36% of the population. My calculations say about 38.5% of the FL population has been vaccinated so far. If the increase continues at today's daily rate on average, it will take 60 days to reach the 60% benchmark. That wouldn't be too bad (even though the supply and shot capacity are enough for it to happen faster) but I fear the pace may continue to slow.

 

[DisneyCane]

If my math is correct, that's 0.0075%

Yet people call me "unwise" and "uncaring" because, now that I'm two weeks past Moderna shot #2, I no longer wish to participate in government mandated masking.

Edit to add some perspective: The current seven day rolling average indicates 0.02% of the US population testing positive EVERY DAY. The 0.0075% number is over the course of several weeks.

 

[mmascari]

CDC is considering revising its mask guidance. Here's what health experts say.

Some health experts are increasingly calling for mask restrictions to be eased for outdoor activities.

www.nbcnews.com

As with all headlines, there's way more nuance in there.

Masks should be used during large outdoor gatherings where people are close together for a prolonged period of time, such as a rally or sports events in packed arenas, he said. But passing someone on a street or going for a run without a mask is a very low-risk situation.

A review paper published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, found that less than 10 percent of transmission occurs outdoors and the odds of spreading the virus indoors were 19 times higher.

The rate of community transmission is an important factor for loosening rules. In places where it's lower, it may be an appropriate time to start lifting requirements.

“If you're vaccinated and if there's low rates of community transmission, it's definitely reasonable to not worry about wearing masks outdoors” she said.

But when in a crowded situation, even if outdoors, it's safer to keep the mask on, Rimoin said.

As has always been the case, it's not the primary activity of being outside that's the risk. It's all the edges and transition environments where the risks are.

According to current CDC guidance, “masks may not be necessary when you are outside by yourself away from others, or with people who live in your household.”

Well, duh. I don't think anyone wears one when this is true already.

Using a Disney example, if rules were different. Someone starting at GF and walking to MK, into the park, into a ride queue, then into a ride building. They're transitioning through a lot of environments with different profiles. That GF to MK walkway, who cares, they're probably well away from anyone or it's a very short pass as both parties give distance while passing. Into the park through the front gate? Depends on how crowded it is, how much space is there, are they interacting up close with cast members or automated entry? The walk to the ride queue, could be wide open lots of space, could be packed in crowding. The ride queue, how is the distancing working, is it outside, does it transition to inside? Into the ride building, how is the ventilation, is there still spacing, is the space getting cramped and the air a little heavy?

That's the problem the Disney policy is trying to solve. When's the right point in that chain to require the mask be put on? Not just which parts need it, but operationally, when's the right spot to have the policy change. How do they manage the changes. Assuming at each change there's some that are slow, forget, or need reminding, how many is that and how often is that happening? With the current policy do they want you to wear it on that walking path to the park or just when you get near the front gate?

That article was a great example of poor reporting. They pointed out some exceptions, focused on what people already realize is ridiculous, and completely ignored talking about the transitions and what people should be aware of for changing situations. Acknowledging that most things aren't just one situation and providing some reporting on transitions to be aware of would be some helpful reporting giving people actual help in how to evaluate their environments.

 

[disneygeek90]

Yet people call me "unwise" and "uncaring" because, now that I'm two weeks past Moderna shot #2, I no longer wish to participate in government mandated masking.

Edit to add some perspective: The current seven day rolling average indicates 0.02% of the US population testing positive EVERY DAY. The 0.0075% number is over the course of several weeks.

I understand that. That's why I feel like vaccine passports are reasonable on some level. Just because everyone didn't/isn't doing what they should, doesn't mean those that did get vaccinated and did do the right thing should still be living in mask and distancing hell. I'm okay waiting a few more months until everyone is fully vaccinated, but we can't continue and expect everyone vaccinated to want to continue the mitigations for the foreseeable future.

 

[Chi84]

That's the problem the Disney policy is trying to solve. When's the right point in that chain to require the mask be put on? Not just which parts need it, but operationally, when's the right spot to have the policy change. How do they manage the changes. Assuming at each change there's some that are slow, forget, or need reminding, how many is that and how often is that happening? With the current policy do they want you to wear it on that walking path to the park or just when you get near the front gate?

If it's that difficult, maybe Disney should start considering vaccination passports. Might be worthwhile if this continues much longer.

 

[havoc315]

An unenforceable differentiation is exactly what anti-maskers want because then they can ignore the rules even more than they already do. Why bother with the exposed nose mask ruse in a store when they can just not wear one at all and then scream about their liberty being stolen if someone asks them to produce proof of vaccination?

Yes, the anti-science, anti-government, anti-mask, anti-vax crowd basically argues:
-- There shouldn't be any Covid restrictions anywhere!
-- I really don't follow the Covid restrictions except when it's enforced!
-- Oh, if you really want me to get a vaccine, then you have to remove all the Covid restrictions and I'll cross my fingers behind my back as I promise that I'll get vaccinated. Really.... if you remove all the restrictions, then scout's honor, I'll get vaccinated! Oh... but you have to remove all the restrictions first. If restrictions don't stop until sometime after I get vaccinated, then I'm not going to do it!

 

[DisneyCane]

As with all headlines, there's way more nuance in there.





As has always been the case, it's not the primary activity of being outside that's the risk. It's all the edges and transition environments where the risks are.

Well, duh. I don't think anyone wears one when this is true already.

Using a Disney example, if rules were different. Someone starting at GF and walking to MK, into the park, into a ride queue, then into a ride building. They're transitioning through a lot of environments with different profiles. That GF to MK walkway, who cares, they're probably well away from anyone or it's a very short pass as both parties give distance while passing. Into the park through the front gate? Depends on how crowded it is, how much space is there, are they interacting up close with cast members or automated entry? The walk to the ride queue, could be wide open lots of space, could be packed in crowding. The ride queue, how is the distancing working, is it outside, does it transition to inside? Into the ride building, how is the ventilation, is there still spacing, is the space getting cramped and the air a little heavy?

That's the problem the Disney policy is trying to solve. When's the right point in that chain to require the mask be put on? Not just which parts need it, but operationally, when's the right spot to have the policy change. How do they manage the changes. Assuming at each change there's some that are slow, forget, or need reminding, how many is that and how often is that happening? With the current policy do they want you to wear it on that walking path to the park or just when you get near the front gate?

That article was a great example of poor reporting. They pointed out some exceptions, focused on what people already realize is ridiculous, and completely ignored talking about the transitions and what people should be aware of for changing situations. Acknowledging that most things aren't just one situation and providing some reporting on transitions to be aware of would be some helpful reporting giving people actual help in how to evaluate their environments.

Maybe the CDC can do some actual scientific experiments to justify why masks would ever be needed outdoors and under what conditions. Perhaps they can do some laser imaging of SARS-CoV-2 sized particles at night and determine, under various conditions how long they hang around.

We are supposedly "following the science" and the current outdoor mask guidance appears to be based on a gut feeling. Due to ventilation, there are probably indoor situations that involve close contact for several minutes or longer where science would show a justification.

 

[havoc315]

If it's that difficult, maybe Disney should start considering vaccination passports. Might be worthwhile if this continues much longer.

Would be very good public health policy. But it's a political powder keg and therefore won't happen. WDW won't want to wade into the controversy. Not to mention, Florida is trying to forbid such passports.

 

[mmascari]

Yet people call me "unwise" and "uncaring" because, now that I'm two weeks past Moderna shot #2, I no longer wish to participate in government mandated masking.

Edit to add some perspective: The current seven day rolling average indicates 0.02% of the US population testing positive EVERY DAY. The 0.0075% number is over the course of several weeks.

The risk isn't to you. It's to the community. Every time a vaccinated person is exposed to the virus, there's a chance this is the one that's mutated and the vaccine is less effective against. The chance that you're the one out of every virus-vaccinated interaction that occurs on any given day is unbelievably low. Even lower than that 0.0075%, since all of those were fended off. Statistically, you're way more likely to have issues with a vending machine or shark.

It's the total of all those interaction. If each one is buying a one in a billion lottery ticket, lets not buy more than are absolutely necessary. Since if one of them wins, the implications of that extremely rare event are immense. The less chance we give it as a community, the better.

If it's that difficult, maybe Disney should start considering vaccination passports. Might be worthwhile if this continues much longer.

If spread never goes down, I expect it. I would prefer that we get spread under control first though.

I support a voluntary "vaccine pass" that allows you to be exempt from following any COVID-related rule. I don't think you should be restricted if you don't volunteer. For example, while traveling if I have a vaccine pass, I don't have to wear a mask in the airport or on the plane but if I don't want to have a voluntary pass then I have to follow the rule. However, I'd be adamantly against requiring a vaccine passport to travel at all.

It's not going to be that comingling of those with a pass and those without. It's going to be spaces where only vaccinated people are allowed. In this example, it would be a fully vaccinated plane vs one where everyone is masked because the travelers aren't all vaccinated.

Let's get enough vaccinated that spread is reduced and this two worlds of isolation isn't needed.

 

[MrPromey]

... We are supposedly "following the science" and the current outdoor mask guidance appears to be based on a gut feeling. Due to ventilation, there are probably indoor situations that involve close contact for several minutes or longer where science would show a justification.

Given a lack of definitive knowledge about plants, my inclination is to avoid eating berries from a plant I find in the woods that I can't identify. Other people may stumble across that same plant and feel differently with the same limited knowledge I have.

Both could be called "gut feeling" choices.

I'd humbly suggest one is wiser than the other, though.

If I was an official in a position where I had to make a decision with limited information that "the science" hasn't yet completely figured out and that decision was something that would affect not just my life and the lives of those I love but also many others, I don't think my gut feeling or the choice I make based on it would change in the absence of reliable knowledge.

 

[disneygeek90]

The risk isn't to you. It's to the community.

You mean the community that refuses the vaccine? Sorry but... I can't be bothered to care about protecting them if they choose to not protect themselves and others.

For the small amount that physically are unable to vaccinate well, they should probably be more concerned with the anti vax group.

 

[mmascari]

Maybe the CDC can do some actual scientific experiments to justify why masks would ever be needed outdoors and under what conditions. Perhaps they can do some laser imaging of SARS-CoV-2 sized particles at night and determine, under various conditions how long they hang around.

We are supposedly "following the science" and the current outdoor mask guidance appears to be based on a gut feeling. Due to ventilation, there are probably indoor situations that involve close contact for several minutes or longer where science would show a justification.

I fully support the nuance. And, more definitive information about when those conditions occur.

But, it feels like a pretty solid gut feeling that anytime a group is close enough outside that accidental spittle could hit someone. That if I'm sitting in a sports stadium and the guy behind me could accidently spill his beer on me if he's cheering to enthusiastically. Those feel pretty safe that they could also infect me. Even with the ventilation benefits of outside. Conversely, when we're outside and none of those are possible, I feel fine not worrying about it.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Yes, the anti-science, anti-government, anti-mask, anti-vax crowd basically argues:
-- There shouldn't be any Covid restrictions anywhere!
-- I really don't follow the Covid restrictions except when it's enforced!
-- Oh, if you really want me to get a vaccine, then you have to remove all the Covid restrictions and I'll cross my fingers behind my back as I promise that I'll get vaccinated. Really.... if you remove all the restrictions, then scout's honor, I'll get vaccinated! Oh... but you have to remove all the restrictions first. If restrictions don't stop until sometime after I get vaccinated, then I'm not going to do it!

Exactly. It's like arguing with a wall sometimes with people who refuse to accept that this was ever serious or that any mitigation efforts did anything to reduce the spread. They argue for impossible and/or irresponsible things while also arguing against the things that would make some of their impossible/irresponsible things happen sooner, so it's just one big circle or arguing where they never realize that refusing to do certain things they don't like prevents them from doing other things they do like.

"Get rid of masks!" OK, we need enough people to get vaccinated before that can happen.

"I'm not getting vaccinated if I can't immediately stop wearing a mask!" Well the only way that works is if businesses require proof of vaccination.

"Vaccine passports are terrible, an invasion of privacy, and I'll never be in favor of them! I'll take my business elsewhere if someone requires it!" OK, but not requiring proof of vaccination means that masks need to stay until enough people get vaccinated to drive cases down, so we're back to needing masks in public until enough people get vaccinated.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

You mean the community that refuses the vaccine? Sorry but... I can't be bothered to care about protecting them if they choose to not protect themselves and others.

For the small amount that physically are unable to vaccinate well, they should probably be more concerned with the anti vax group.

I think the point was that if a large enough percentage of the population refuses to get the vaccine then the virus has a much better chance of mutating into something that is resistant to the vaccines that the rest of us got and therefore could put the vaccinated at risk when we think we're protected.

 

[havoc315]

You mean the community that refuses the vaccine? Sorry but... I can't be bothered to care about protecting them if they choose to not protect themselves and others.

For the small amount that physically are unable to vaccinate well, they should probably be more concerned with the anti vax group.

No. If we have widespread disease, the risk is to EVERYONE.

-While rare, you get breakthrough cases and deaths among vaccinated people. The more widespread the disease, the more breakthrough deaths you will get. There have already been dozens of deaths among fully vaccinated people.
-Breakthrough is rare, SO FAR. But when you have uncontrolled widespread disease, that's when more and more new variants emerge. And those variants may be less responsive to the existing vaccines. May even get to a point where there are variants that are totally non-responsive to the existing vaccines. So this is the danger of allowing widespread infection to continue.

Basically... if we get to herd immunity, it protects EVERYONE. If we continues to have uncontrolled widespread disease, then it puts EVERYONE at greater risk.

 

[mmascari]

You mean the community that refuses the vaccine?

No, to the community that is vaccinated.

Not today, or tomorrow, but in the longer term.

The current vaccines are super effective. So far, they're still super effective against every variant that's emerged. Vaccinate enough people, spread falls like a rock, emergence of new variants also falls like a rock at the same time. No worries, my long term health as a vaccinated person is safe. That low level of spread might still catch an unvaccinated person, that's on them. But, the number of virus-vaccine interactions will be very small with very few variants emerging.

Conversely, don't vaccinate enough people, spread never comes down. Virus-vaccinated interactions happen all the time. Say the vaccinated people in general treat it as a super power and don't worry about exposures at all, since the individual risk to each of them is insanely low. Any new variant that emerges that the vaccines are even a little less effective against will out compete the other variants spreading. Repeat that for enough cycles and we end up with a variant the vaccine doesn't stop. Now, the vaccinated community is in trouble, they've lost their super power.

I'm not worried about a single variant that's in the wild TODAY. I'm worried about creating the conditions to select for one that is a problem. It's not like the variants that exist TODAY are the end. There's new ones everyday. Some are about the same, some are way less competitive and disappear on their own. Some are more worse and replace the originals.

 

[mmascari]

There have already been dozens of deaths among fully vaccinated people.

Before some jumps on this and says it's only dozens. Or, points out that it's so statically rare to be practically 0. That's not the point.

While it's sad that someone vaccinated was impacted anyway, it's not the point.

The point is that continued uncontrolled spread will only move this statistic in one direction. A direction that given enough time will be bad for the vaccinated group. The solution is to eliminate uncontrolled spread and get it down to a low level. The same thing that's been the goal forever.

 

[jlhwdw]

With that logic, the goalposts will forever be moved and we'll be living with preventative measures forever.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

No, to the community that is vaccinated.

Not today, or tomorrow, but in the longer term.

The current vaccines are super effective. So far, they're still super effective against every variant that's emerged. Vaccinate enough people, spread falls like a rock, emergence of new variants also falls like a rock at the same time. No worries, my long term health as a vaccinated person is safe. That low level of spread might still catch an unvaccinated person, that's on them. But, the number of virus-vaccine interactions will be very small with very few variants emerging.

Conversely, don't vaccinate enough people, spread never comes down. Virus-vaccinated interactions happen all the time. Say the vaccinated people in general treat it as a super power and don't worry about exposures at all, since the individual risk to each of them is insanely low. Any new variant that emerges that the vaccines are even a little less effective against will out compete the other variants spreading. Repeat that for enough cycles and we end up with a variant the vaccine doesn't stop. Now, the vaccinated community is in trouble, they've lost their super power.

I'm not worried about a single variant that's in the wild TODAY. I'm worried about creating the conditions to select for one that is a problem. It's not like the variants that exist TODAY are the end. There's new ones everyday. Some are about the same, some are way less competitive and disappear on their own. Some are more worse and replace the originals.

That's not how variants work.

 

[mmascari]

With that logic, the goalposts will forever be moved and we'll be living with preventative measures forever.

This goalpost? "The solution is to eliminate uncontrolled spread and get it down to a low level."

There's no movement. That's the goal. That's always been the long term end state goal. There have been several more immediate goals, things not not crashing hospital systems, or slowing rates of increase. But, getting spread under control has always been the final goal.

We can go back to talking about the definition of "low". It's not 0, and there's a bunch of values expressed on this board. They're all way below today though.