Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Chi84]

there’s no debate here...

If you say so; should have let everyone know 3277 pages ago

We are using the term "burden" differently, and if you don’t believe there is any justification for opposing masks or limits on house parties - regardless how unsubstantiated the reason - then we can just say we disagree.

 

[danlb_2000]

The virus *cannot* hit us the way it did last year. It's mathematically impossible. We're not at herd immunity levels of vaccination but we're absolutely at prevent-2020 levels of vaccination.

This is false. A continued wide spread of the virus, either here or in other countries, could lead to variants that are resistant to both vaccines and natural immunity. If these get to the US, we could start the whole process over again.

 

[havoc315]

Spread IS happening with masks. It's relatively low, but it is happening.

We're never going to get to zero.

First statement is true. Yes, spread happens with masks. But it is much lower than without masks.

Second statement is potentially false: If you reduce the rate of spread (with vaccines, masks, etc), then while there is still spread, each person eventually is infecting less than 1 other person on average.
So if you have 1,000 infected people... and they only infect another .8 people each.... then the "next" generation is they infect only 800 people. Then that generation infects only 640... then 512.. then 410, then 328, then 262, then 210, then 169, 134, 107, 86, 69, 55, 44, 35, 28, 23, 18, 14, 12, 9, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.4, 1.9, 1.5, 1.2, 1, .8, .6, .5, less than a half of a person (so eventually becomes zero).

This is how herd immunity works. You eventually get to a point where each person, on average, is infecting less than 1 other person. Masks and other mitigation, done correctly, can have the same effect. Eventually, the number is driven down to 0.

This example was with a R0 (reproduction rate) of 0.8. The goal of mass vaccination is to get to a R0 rate of about 0.4. At 0.4:
It would be 1,000 --> 400 --> 160 -->64 -->26 --> 10 -->4 --> 2 --> 1 -->0.

So you'd go from 1000 cases to 0 cases.. assuming a 2 week cycle, it would take about 2-3 months to get down to 0 cases.

 

[GoofGoof]

My wife is the head of HR for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regions of a Fortune 500 company.... So yes, I've spoke to her. Yes, permanent remote work is very much the plan. For her company as well as others. They are cutting their real estate footprint.

Pfizer has just put a massive site in PA up for sale due to a planned permanent shift to remote work.

 

[Lilofan]

No, it's not like saying that.

Disney will be 100% normal when the following happen:

• No more mandatory masks, indoors or outdoors
• No temperature check
• Partitions and Plexiglas removed from rides, queues, cash registers, and transportation
• Valet parking returns
• All restaurants open (unless some have closed permanently)
• All rides and shows open (unless some have closed permanently)
• Daily housekeeping

Things that might be permanently different that don't count:

• Changes in park hours.
• Park Pass, if it stays.
• FastPass 3.0, if it changes.
• Magical Express going away.
• New bag check procedures.
• Expanded mobile ordering.

Daily housekeeping is just a dream. That stopped/ curtailed several years ago. There was even an incentive if one did not want daily cleaning one can get Disney credits to use to go shopping at the gift store.

 

[hopemax]

Unfortunately, some people buy into crazy stuff and I don't know how to convince them they have entered the twilight zone. Like my friend who I relayed the story about the other day. He's a relatively intelligent and normally pretty reasonable person. Somehow, he was convinced that the mRNA vaccines modify your DNA and no matter what I say, I can't convince him that they don't. What's worse is he and his wife were scheduled to get J&J before the pause. Now that he's had more time to think because of the pause, he's concerned that they aren't telling the truth about that one either so he's holding off for now.

I can't truly describe what it is like to try and have a conversation like that. This is a friend I've had for almost 30 years and who generally respects my opinions on scientific things. For some reason, on COVID vaccine science, he trusts his brother in law who has no scientific background over me.

Because it's not about the science. It's about how human's cope with fear, uncertainty, trauma. This is the biggest disruption Americans have had to face, collectively, in multiple generations, and predictably we're very bad at something we've never experienced. 9/11's trauma effects were heavily localized; the rest of us had new TSA rules. We could go back to the Vietnam/Gas Crisis/Inflation period but I'm not sure how close that is because for the folks "back home" still had the majority of normal things they could do. The adults who lived through those consequences are now our 70+ folks. Then we're back to Great Depression / WWII. All of our belief systems are being stress-tested. People, especially intelligent people, would like to believe they are immune to the effects of fear and uncertainty. That they can remain rational, and that their decisions will be as well. People are wrong. People are not Vulcans.

All of the nonsense explanations are attempts to exert control over a situation in which none of us have control. No one wants to admit their fallibilties. Nobody wants to admit they are just as emotional as the next guy. Nobody wants to be "shrinked." Some people believe they are adaptable; this situation is testing whether they are or not. Others would prefer to be the one defending against "change" in whatever form it comes in. That's where virtue lies. And everyone has learned that calling out another person's emotional reaction is a path to disaster, so we aren't, collectively, talking about it. So we become like them, avoiding the reality of the ground situation because of emotion.

I don't think we can offer rational solutions to what is, at its core, a psychological barrier. Mental health professionals spend a lot of time trying to get people to break through their emotional walls, with varying degrees of success, and we're trying to do it in a couple of months. In regards to benchmarks, IMO, if people think they are close to reaching the vaccination target - they'll be the one that holds out. If people think we aren't close to reaching the target - why bother? The benchmarks aren't about convincing people to get vaccinated. The benchmarks are appeals to the rest of us, who did choose the right thing before, to keep choosing the right thing by complying with everything else for a little while longer to see if we can get close enough. The vaccinated being back to normal, is a signal to the non-vaccinated that they are close to getting their way; normalcy without having to do anything. The unvaccinated are betting on us being the squeaky wheel now.

For the unvaccinated, the carrot or stick has to be impactful enough to break through the walls. I believe our most anti-vax person here, implied they did get this one because they feared not being able to cruise more than anything else. But everyone's currency is different. The common good has definitely proved to not be enough, because everyone thinks they're smarter or heathier, so if bad things happen to others they can avoid it or it doesn't impact them. Cash is a powerful motivator, but the threshold will be the problem. $100 or 4 hr/pay is too low. I know we won't want to offer much more because then we'll start fretting over the people who got the shot and didn't get the carrot, and if we give it to everyone than that is definitely too much money to be handing out. Which is why I started thinking in terms of the costs of medical care in the US for common, non-severe ailments. Is the frequency, which is much more than the frequency of hospitalization or death among the young and healthy, enough that people believe it is possible that they could be one of the unlucky ones? Early UK research indicates 1 in 10, but 10% still may sound low.

 

[havoc315]

You said your wife is literally the *head* of HR for her company? What you're describing is not normal exempt-status employee behavior. That's Senior Executive stuff.

For her region. (and it was the same when she was a Junior HR person years ago, but at it was a blackberry 20 years ago). And it's quite normal in NYC. I typically work a few hours on vacations, not as much as her. My brother, a VP at a financial institution, similar for him. Similar for just about everyone I know.
Heck, first year attorneys at big NYC firms, pre-Covid, were expected to be in the office 6 days per week, at least 12 hours per day.

 

[DisneyFan32]

This is false. A continued wide spread of the virus, either here or in other countries, could lead to variants that are resistant to both vaccines and natural immunity. If these get to the US, we could start the whole process over again.

Please don't this really happen to vaccines and immunity now...I'm getting so afraid about this one. Is REALLY gonna happening?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

First statement is true. Yes, spread happens with masks. But it is much lower than without masks.

Second statement is potentially false: If you reduce the rate of spread (with vaccines, masks, etc), then while there is still spread, each person eventually is infecting less than 1 other person on average.
So if you have 1,000 infected people... and they only infect another .8 people each.... then the "next" generation is they infect only 800 people. Then that generation infects only 640... then 512.. then 410, then 328, then 262, then 210, then 169, 134, 107, 86, 69, 55, 44, 35, 28, 23, 18, 14, 12, 9, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.4, 1.9, 1.5, 1.2, 1, .8, .6, .5, less than a half of a person (so eventually becomes zero).

This is how herd immunity works. You eventually get to a point where each person, on average, is infecting less than 1 other person. Masks and other mitigation, done correctly, can have the same effect. Eventually, the number is driven down to 0.

This example was with a R0 (reproduction rate) of 0.8. The goal of mass vaccination is to get to a R0 rate of about 0.4. At 0.4:
It would be 1,000 --> 400 --> 160 -->64 -->26 --> 10 -->4 --> 2 --> 1 -->0.

So you'd go from 1000 cases to 0 cases.. assuming a 2 week cycle, it would take about 2-3 months to get down to 0 cases.

Exponential degradation...can't wait until we see that.

 

[GoofGoof]

The people sharing all that information should be heavily fined. They are knowingly and purposefully falsifying medical records.

It won’t help us when we show up somewhere thinking everyone is vaccinated and they aren’t. Maybe I’m safe because I’m vaccinated but my kids aren’t vaccinated yet. One of the reasons I think vaccine passports shouldn‘t be plan A. We need to try to get to the end without them.

 

[havoc315]

Exponential degradation...can't wait until we see that.

Happened in Israel. Starting to happen in New York.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Yes, spread happens with masks. But it is much lower than without masks.

That is not correct. Not in a grade school setting, it's not.

 

[Nubs70]

You said your wife is literally the *head* of HR for her company? What you're describing is not normal exempt-status employee behavior. That's Senior Executive stuff.

For me that is normal behavior and I am not Senior Executive. For the last year my SE's have all been home/cottage bound while I and my local team have been in the field except for the first 2 weeks. My travels take me into a county that was at 30% positivity rate about 3 weeks back.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Daily housekeeping is just a dream. That stopped/ curtailed several years ago.

Uh... no it didn't.

They offered an opt-out, but it was never stopped/curtailed for people who wanted it.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

That is not correct. Not in a grade school setting, it's not.

Yes, it is. I highly doubt my kids' schools are saying there is spread in schools when there isn't.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

If you say so; should have let everyone know 3277 pages ago

We are using the term "burden" differently, and if you don’t believe there is any justification for opposing masks or limits on house parties - regardless how unsubstantiated the reason - then we can just say we disagree.

good point...bravo

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Yes, it is. I highly doubt my kids' schools are saying there is spread in schools when there isn't.

Re-read what I wrote, because it isn't that.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It can created greater efficiency for both the employee AND the employer beyond saving money.
In the NYC area, it is not unusual for people to spend 3+ hours per day in door to door commuting.
Leave the house at 7:15 am, get to your desk at 9am... leave the office between 5-7pm, get home 8-10pm. Rinse and repeat the next day.
So a 13-15 hour day, of which 8-10 hours are spent actually working at the office.
Remotely, the employee can put in a 10+ hour day.... just by flipping on their computer at 8:30 am and working until 6:30pm. They still get to sleep in longer than they used to, they can "get home" earlier than they used to, all while actually giving their employer more time.

It also cuts down on sick time (as people can continue to work from home when a little under the weather). Cuts down on personal time off (as it becomes easier for the worker to cut out for an hour to take their kid to the dentist as opposed to having to take off an entire day for the errand). etc.

of course...I was just cherry picking the obvious pro-capitalism reason...

there are many more. Realtors are so happy they’re partying like it’s 2006

 

[CaptainAmerica]

If you say so; should have let everyone know 3277 pages ago

We are using the term "burden" differently, and if you don’t believe there is any justification for opposing masks or limits on house parties - regardless how unsubstantiated the reason - then we can just say we disagree.

It's pretty straightforward, really. If masks were no burden, as I define burden, then people would have been voluntarily wearing them everywhere long before March 2020.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

No guarantees in life. We all must do our own risk assessment multiple times a day.

There are plenty of people who would think it unreasonable for a healthy young person to be afraid of Covid.

I personally think it's perfectly reasonable for someone like me. Young, healthy, fit, to not be afraid of Covid. The odds of me having a bad outcome are astronomically low. So I can't concern myself with them. If I did, I would have to start concerning myself with a host of other "potential" killers out there, and for me, that's no way to live.

Now, before you ask, I am vaccinated. I got vaccinated because the risk of a bad outcome from the vaccine is ALSO astronomically low, and I can't concern myself with that either.

The people who refuse to get vaccinated because they feel that they aren't at serious risk are selfish and clearly either haven't considered the risk of having a good outcome for themselves while spreading it to someone else who may not be so lucky or they just don't care that it's a realistic scenario at all. There are people out there who legitimately cannot get the vaccine due to an allergy or some other medical condition and there are people who haven't had the opportunity to get one due to lack of transportation to the nearest vaccination site, etc. When someone says, "I don't need the vaccine because I'll be fine if I catch COVID," they're admitting to a lack of concern for others and a lack of concern/awareness about the potential for more variants to pop up because of too many people with that attitude.