Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[ImperfectPixie]

The thing you both miss is if you are anti-vax you will seek anti-vax medical care. Someone I know takes their kids to her because of autism worries. I actually had to block this doctor on facebook as weird as that sounds, they're a bit unhinged to be true, but it is what it is.

His license should be revoked and he needs to be barred from practicing medicine.

 

[mickeymiss]

In theory this makes sense but what about kids? Do we just let them be exposed by the adults who drop protocols? That doesn’t seem to make sense to me

I have cared about my son more than anyone else during this. I've always worried about flu season every year too. Kiddos are low risk for covid statistically but they deserve to be considered at least until we think adult herd immunity is approaching. My area has elementary school outbreaks more now than a few months ago. I don't mind wearing a mask for a couple more months as long as we can still do things. Going to Disney last August was very cathartic for me because I felt safe and we didn't get sick. I think their precautions were effective and I really didn't mind the masks in the heat. Again, I think communities should be able to relax rules more than specific crowded destinations.

 

[plawren2]

The thing you both miss is if you are anti-vax you will seek anti-vax medical care. Someone I know takes their kids to her because of autism worries. I actually had to block this doctor on facebook as weird as that sounds, they're a bit unhinged to be true, but it is what it is.

I am not missing that reality, just that "doctors" who are anti-vax are not Drs.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I am not missing that reality, just that "doctors" who are anti-vax are not Drs.

I'm wholeheartedly of the opinion that people like Jenny McCarthy should have to relinquish all profit from the spread of misinformation surrounding autism and vaccines to autism research or to families who need help getting services for their children who have autism.

 

[Parker in NYC]

I am not missing that reality, just that "doctors" who are anti-vax are not Drs.

Didn’t autism exist pre-20th century? It did according to my extensive research (i.e. Google and a prayer).

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Didn’t autism exist pre-20th century? It did according to my extensive research (i.e. Google and a prayer).

It did. And the doctor who wrote a paper claiming there's a link between autism and vaccines has LONG since retracted and admitted that he made the whole thing up. Yet there are STILL people spreading the nonsense.

 

[Heppenheimer]

This is exactly what I’m talking about. To me you are just some guy on a message board with a cool picture of a dog so I’d probably trust what you say anyway, but for someone more cautious they can talk to their actual doctor, the person who prescribes them stuff and has given them or their kids vaccinations already, I think that carries a lot of weight or it should. Maybe there is a medical reason for concern, everyone is different, but your doctor can and should be able to help.

What research in our community has revealed is that many of the people who refuse vaccination don't have an established medical provider, for any number of reasons. So unfortunately, they don't have access to a trusted (and trustworthy) voice, and will go with whatever they see on Facebook.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Didn’t autism exist pre-20th century? It did according to my extensive research (i.e. Google and a prayer).

If memory serves, he retracted in either the 80s or 90s. It's been a long freaking time.

ETA: And this is why people who spread misinformation need to have consequences. ONE PAPER has created more than 30 years of vaccine suspicion...all based on lies. And the suspicion isn't likely to go away any time soon because people continue to profit off of the misinformation.

 

[LaughingGravy]

How about if we give them free beer if they get a shot?
Your NJ just did this

Kind of....it's Budweiser..similar to making love in a canoe.

 

[havoc315]

Oddly.... I simultaneously feel like much of the US may be re-opening too fast and aggressively...
While feeling like WDW may be moving a little too slowly. (I'd be dine with WDW removing temp checks, lifting outdoor mask requirements, returning entertainment, reducing social distancing to 3 feet and increasing restaurant capacity... I'd prefer WDW kept indoor masks for now, and avoided character meets, buffets, etc).

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Oddly.... I simultaneously feel like much of the US may be re-opening too fast and aggressively...
While feeling like WDW may be moving a little too slowly. (I'd be dine with WDW removing temp checks, lifting outdoor mask requirements, returning entertainment, reducing social distancing to 3 feet and increasing restaurant capacity... I'd prefer WDW kept indoor masks for now, and avoided character meets, buffets, etc).

I agree 100% with your first sentence. We're giving the virus way too much opportunity to spread and mutate.

I'd be okay with most of the rest of what you said, but I think masks outdoors in crowded situations should stay. Unfortunately, there's a decent portion of WDW guests for whom that is too difficult a concept to grasp, so they either won't do it, or do it poorly, or cause issues.

 

[Heppenheimer]

If memory serves, he retracted in either the 80s or 90s. It's been a long freaking time.

ETA: And this is why people who spread misinformation need to have consequences. ONE PAPER has created more than 30 years of vaccine suspicion...all based on lies. And the suspicion isn't likely to go away any time soon because people continue to profit off of the misinformation.

Wakefield never retracted the paper, The Lancet, where the paper was published, did the retraction.

He has since embarked on the typical voyage of a quack doctor.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Wakefield never retracted the paper, The Lancet, where the paper was published, did the retraction.

He has since embarked on the typical voyage of a quack doctor.

I know I read a quote from him in which he admitted lying, but it's been like 10 years and I'd likely have difficulty finding it again. I did extensive research on this when my oldest was little because we suspected early on that he has autism (he does). I almost became an anti-vaxxer and the information I found about this doctor is what convinced me NOT to become one.

 

[JoeCamel]

Kind of....it's Budweiser..similar to making love in a canoe.

Thought it was craft brewhouses?

 

[Patcheslee]

Thought it was craft brewhouses?

I just want a donut or coffee or something around me lol

 

[LaughingGravy]

Thought it was craft brewhouses?

Oooh, that's nice! I missed that. Thanks!

 

[mmascari]

Here is yet another front page article from a mainstream news outlet questioning President Biden's continued wearing of masks in situations where it is not supported by science.

As before when I posted the last such article (from Yahoo News), I'm sure there will be a rush to defend needless mask wearing. But please note that even some of President Biden's most ardent supporters are recognizing that Biden might be sending the wrong message. Despite the article's initial emphasis on this being a political debate, it later recognizes that this debate is going on amongst medical experts as well.

I encourage you to be open-minded and consider what strategies the President can employ to encourage the unvaccinated to get vaccinated.

This entire article is a "both sides are equal" trash equivalency article. From CNN or not, it's just poor reporting.

From the article (I can't easily get the quote to change to CNN, sorry):

Top White House adviser Anita Dunn Sunday defended President Joe Biden over his continued use of a mask outdoors -- even though the practice appears to conflict with new and relaxed administration guidelines for fully vaccinated citizens.

In comments that didn't necessarily clarify the situation, Dunn told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" that "extra precautions" were being taken for the President and that mask wearing was "a matter of habit."

This is a trick question with a crap answer. They really do need to work on how to answer these. I'll completely agree that "a matter of habit" is a poor answer. But, the question also presumes a "conflict with new and relaxed administration guidelines". Sure, standing at a podium, he's clearly outside in an uncrowded location. There didn't appear to be anyone near him. But, 10 steps earlier, was that still true? Was he in a crowd then? Was he inside? Surrounded by support staff? Should he have whipped the mask off the second he crossed whatever threshold made the change into uncrowded outdoors? Or, did he wait until the timing was easier? Perhaps even for dramatic effect that he was now in a area where it could be removed. Tell us what was going on around that time, don't just tell us "at this second as if he arrived by magic alone in a circle outside he was wearing a mask when not needed, SHAME".

Republicans, seeking to dent strong public approval ratings for Biden's handling of the pandemic, have already accused him of whipping up stigma against people who refuse to wear masks, who include many conservatives. The Republican National Committee, for instance, blasted Biden for "breaking" US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance, and the issue has become one of the latest culture war flashpoints for right-wing talk show hosts.

Republicans are seizing on the controversy over masks to bolster their wider narrative that Biden and Democrats are too politically correct and using the power of government to infringe on the freedoms of Americans -- a conceit that works for them on taxes to guns and public health to climate change.

This part isn't even reporting about the guideline and following them or not. It's repeating an assertion that there's a controversy and then repeating that the same group is playing up the controversy. A thing that only exists because they say it does. Also poor reporting, it's practically just a press release.

The exchanges suggest that safely dismantling the web of Covid-19 precautions will prove as contentious as implementing them was, proving that little is immune from politicization in a nation internally estranged over ideology.

This one is frequently common in political reporters covering other topics. They're political reporters, everything must be framed in that context. Give us some reporting on the underlying topics. Reporters should go find the studies that try and determine which actions provide which benefits and their value vs the trade offs. They skip that and just tell us one side says A and the other 1. That doesn't help anybody and is poor reporting. Might as well be a gossip column. Reporting on the value of the different guidelines would actually be useful commentary, not just what someone says.

Debates among political rivals and in the medical community and conversations among citizens about how to emerge from a year of isolation are almost certainly only the first of a series of arguments about how vaccinated and unvaccinated people can behave. The coming months will likely see a flurry of controversies including in the hospitality industry, cruising, education, aviation and those triggered by the mass return to work.

It's not just political factions using the issue for partisan advantage -- though that is happening as Covid-19 restrictions continue to straddle the quintessentially American tension between individual freedom and the reach of government. Medical experts are engaging in an intense debate over whether the CDC is being too cautious in the way it's loosening mask guidance or is offering the public conflicting, confusing advice.

I've definitely seen some opinions about the guidelines changing slowly, both when they started and now as they pull back. But, most of those opinions are about very specific distinct activities. The guidelines in general try to deal with all the edge cases, all the transition zones between those distinct activates. At this point, after a year, I would expect the guidelines to be to slow in general in an effort to include all those transition zones. If they're going to report on medical experts giving opinions, ask them how we tell when we're switching zones? When someone is walking from the parking lot through the ticket gate, down the concourse, to their seat in loanDepot park, where are the transition points between "outdoor uncrowded" and not? What about if they use the bathroom? What about if the roof is closed? Get the science reporter out there digging into the definition of the transition zone. The political reporting of we found two options to contrast is just junk in comparison.

That medical debate is giving way to an escalating political debate as families struggle to assess their risks, look to leaders for advice and try to decide whether and how to travel, vacation and socialize in the surprisingly daunting process of resuming their pre-pandemic activities.

'A patriotic responsibility'​

The complications of exiting the pandemic -- a process that no one currently in positions of power has ever experienced -- explain why Biden's success in getting more than 100 million Americans fully immunized doesn't mean Covid-19 is no longer perilous or is any less politically treacherous for the White House.

The latest debate over mask wearing -- a practice that ex-President Donald Trump did much to unnecessarily politicize during his neglectful handling of the pandemic -- was triggered by the President himself. He wore a mask while walking to a microphone at an outside announcement at the White House last week announcing new practices on masks. Then he told NBC News in an interview that it was a "patriotic responsibility" for vaccinated people to continue to do so. His comment came despite evidence that vaccines are highly effective and that Covid-19 is far less transmissible outdoors than in crowded and poorly ventilated indoor settings.

Another example of a political reporter playing both sides because every political story is a two sided fight or it's not worth reading. Go get the science guy, have them get us some information on why they have that recommendation. Is there a reason, is a medical one, is it sociology one, is just a power trip to feel woke? The CDC messaging is an issue here too, they're not saying why very well. It's all wishy washy on you might this or might that and we're not sure. They need to explain not just the might, but the solid reasons that you use mitigations when spread is high even if you're vaccinated. This is also playing into the same trick as above, using "while walking to a microphone at an outside announcement". Where did he come from right before that?

The President's remarks followed new CDC guidance last week that mean fully vaccinated people can now unmask at small outdoor gatherings or when dining outside with friends from multiple households. Unvaccinated people should still cover their faces.

The advice encapsulated the conundrum that may be impossible to solve in a nation where many people are now fully vaccinated -- but millions more decline to do so at a time when the virus is still widely circulating.

Scientists and administration officials have to balance giving incentives to reluctant Americans to get vaccinated -- by talking up the restored freedoms that it might bring -- while avoiding giving the impression that everyone should rip off their masks. Many Americans, meanwhile, in the first blush of summer, appear to be taking matters into their own hands with mask wearing anecdotally down in some cities and towns on the east coast this weekend.

After months of stressing caution and sticking to restrictions -- after a failure to do so cost thousands of lives under Trump -- Biden now appears at risk of paying a political price for being too circumspect even though his initial caution proved successful.

Is he really? Or, is that just a talking point being shared as part of the story?

Scientists are not united over masks either​

The political debate over masks is mirrored in the medical community.

Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a renowned cardiac surgeon and professor at George Washington University, said the CDC had been "too cautious."

"They've been both very competent since the new administration took over and very cautious," Reiner said on CNN's "Inside Politics" on Sunday.

Reiner said that while he had been adamant on mask wearing for the first 12 months of the pandemic, he was certain that someone who has been fully vaccinated is immune from Covid-19, no longer needs to mask in public and can do the same inside.

"It's time for the CDC to start embracing this kind of bifurcated strategy and perhaps giving the unvaccinated a hint of what life can be like if they become vaccinated," he said.

Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said that with average daily new cases of Covid-19 still above 50,000 and with many adults declining to be vaccinated, government experts will continue to be cautious.

"The CDC will be hesitant on pulling back indoor mask mandates and I think that's right," Jha said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"This is a pretty dangerous time to be unvaccinated, but what (the) CDC is signaling is if you are fully vaccinated, freedoms are just becoming safer and safer for people."

Some more he said, she said. How about some reporting on how identifying "someone who has been fully vaccinated" would work in real life? The pro and con of how someone goes to the grocery story and know which someone is? If it's even possible to do in that scenario and what it would mean. How it would impact people day to day? Otherwise it's just hand waiving for a magical scenario that cannot exist so they can do a both sides. It's like a physics class that talks about "in a frictionless world, how would A be different from B", since the problem maker knows damn well that in a world with friction the problem completely falls apart.

GOP senator warns against 'shaming' vaccine holdouts​

While public health experts warn that maximizing vaccinations is vital to creating the herd immunity in the population necessary to stop Covid-19 spreading, some 44% of Republicans said in a CNN poll last week that they wouldn't try to get an inoculation.

And one Republican, Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas, warned the administration over the weekend against trying to pressure or stigmatize that group.

"It is America. Everybody has an individual right. I think that one of the things we have to be careful about is not shaming people or talking down to them or objecting to their way of life," Marshall told CNN's Pamela Brown on "Newsroom" on Saturday.

Marshall, who is also a physician, has been working to persuade people that vaccines are the best way to ensure a swift return of normal life. But he argued that many Americans were being alienated by confusion over masks.

"They've been told they don't need a mask. They need a mask. They've been told that even if you have a vaccine, you have to keep wearing the mask," Marshall said.

Nobody should pressure or stigmatize group that wants to pee in the pool. Look they've been told not to and they've been told (by my friends) there's plenty of chlorine it doesn't matter. What should they believe? Why do we still just report "what someone said" as if it can stand on it's own? How lazy has the reporting become?

But Dunn told Tapper that the best way to ease such concerns and to get rid of masks for good is to get vaccinated.

"People should follow the CDC guidelines, and they should take advantage of getting the vaccine, getting fully vaccinated, and taking that mask off, particularly as the weather grows so beautiful and we all want to be outside," Dunn said.

"It's a lot more fun to take that outside walk without a mask," she said.

This is at least correct.

Once you read every news article with this type of perspective, the political reporting from even some of the most balanced sources can make you scream.

 

[carolina_yankee]

People should not go to the doctor. He’s clearly not a qualified medical expert.

Any time I have a medical question, I come to WDW Magic, do a search on my question, read the thread, and eventually discover the Dining Plan is to blame.

In all seriousness, I am impressed with the skill of some posters in threads like these to dig up raw data and find the actual experts above and beyond soundbites. And then there are others . . .

 

[havoc315]

I agree 100% with your first sentence. We're giving the virus way too much opportunity to spread and mutate.

I'd be okay with most of the rest of what you said, but I think masks outdoors in crowded situations should stay. Unfortunately, there's a decent portion of WDW guests for whom that is too difficult a concept to grasp, so they either won't do it, or do it poorly, or cause issues.

I was on the fence about mask outdoors. I really don't think they are necessary when walking around outdoors in a "normal" crowd. In other words, strolling through Disney Springs, generally walking around the parks. But I would still like to see them when you're potentially brushing up close to other people. So in ride queues (especially if social distancing is reduced to 3 feet), in outdoor theaters if you are filling most of the seats.

I kind of see it as: Socially distance + ventilation OR masks. So I agree with you though, it's too difficult to distinguish for guests when you do need masks and when you don't.
But I do feel that by June, we will likely be in a position where I'm comfortable without masks outdoors, even in semi-congested places.
I'd like to see indoor masks stick around until we have under 1,000 cases per day nationally, but that's unlikely to happen.

 

[GhostHost1000]

7-day rolling average of US deaths is down to its lowest point since July 10, 2020 - the eve of WDW's reopening.

Hoping & praying that number drops off a cliff here as soon as possible.

I think this is the number we should all be focusing on, not the number of cases because it’s always going to be around and be possible to get. There are better therapeutics now along with much lower numbers of the elderly who have the highest risk of death. Yes numbers are still high in the younger crowd but they also fight it off better in most cases. Of course there are exceptions but again there is always going to be a slight risk in this virus and lots of others things we do in life which brings me to what I keep saying....something is going to have to give at some point but I’m afraid the news media and political parties will stay more focused about their corners than reality.