Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
But that is the science...unvaccinated people are still a risk to spread Covid so need to wear a mask. The virus doesn’t say I won‘t infect little Johnny because his parents get to not wear a mask. I think for parents with kids under 12 you just have to decide if you want to go or not while that is the rule.
Johnny hasn't been wearing a mask to protect Johnny. Johnny is wearing a mask to protect Grandma from Johnny's spread. Grandma is vaccinated, so Johnny doesn't need to protect her anymore.

Asymptomatic spread is not rare. The opposite is true and that’s why we have so many issues with this virus. If asymptomatic spread was rare temperature checks would be our best line of defense and nobody would need to quarantine unless they show symptoms.
You're just wrong on that one. Asymptomatic spread is *possible.* It is not common.

I thought the prevailing belief was that asymptomatic spread may be rare, but not pre-symptomatic spread? In most cases the distinction isn't to important, we assume everyone is pre, but for kids it would make a difference since they have much less change of going from pre-symptomatic to symptomatic.
This.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member

On paper I would think the same as you, but the data seem to potentially show otherwise. Not that I have a lot of faith in the WHO, but they seem to believe asymptomatic spread is rare. A lot of people have symptoms but no fever.
We can’t have our cake and eat it too. If asymptomatic infection is rare than the umber of people infected is roughly equal to the number of people who tested positive. If it’s not rare than many more people were infected than the number testing positive. We are assuming there is a lot more natural immunity than just the 10% who tested positive and many studies have shown that to be true. If that’s not the case then we really probably should delay some of the decisions beimg made right now.
 

helenabear

Premium Member
I think the official CDC guidance is that 2 weeks after your shot, you're considered "fully vaccinated."

Just another example of the CDC not "following the science," as they claim to have been doing. They don't trust people to be able to handle nuance, so they put out blanket rules that don't apply in all situations.
2 weeks is used for all when trials stated otherwise for some.

That actually gives me an idea.
How wonderful would it be if WDW used the park pass system to require vaccination when booking the park pass...

And you could even set aside vax vs unvax park-days.
Ex: Monday: MK, AK and EPC are only open to vaccinated people and masks will not be required. DHS is open to everyone, but masks will be required.
Tuesday: MK, EPC and DHS are only open to vaccinated people, masks will not be required. AK is open to everyone, but masks required.
Uh no... I'd skip if I had to follow more restrictions on when I can go to what park. Just too much work for my brain. I'd rather just indoor vs out distinctions for all.
I thought the prevailing belief was that asymptomatic spread may be rare, but not pre-symptomatic spread? In most cases the distinction isn't to important, we assume everyone is pre, but for kids it would make a difference since they have much less change of going from pre-symptomatic to symptomatic.
This was my understanding as well.
 

AmesTARDIS

Member
We are #$%^ed, again. Even if stores and other businesses have mask mandates, there will be those idiots starting trouble..."Your great CDC said I don't have to wear a mask, and you can't make me...that's the federal gov't which overrides state." . Fights and all kinds of other crap will start up even more now.

Our family is all vaccinated, so I feel much better, but even here in NJ, where we are getting better, there's gonna be a ton of trouble, just starting with comments and looks from people to those who wear a mask. Southern NJ is the bigger problem.
In NJ, the mask mandate has not been lifted for indoors in public.
For the most part, it's been OK, but this is NJ with a lot of people with attitudes about masks before, that the numbers are fake, etc, especially if they don't know someone directly who has been seriously affected. Somehow, third party accounts mean nothing. A lot know someone who had it and went through it, but they think that since their friends or whoever went through it without death or hospitalization, that it's not a big deal, "just another flu".

Now, they will see this as their mandate to not wear a mask, when that's not what it is.
NJ currently requires all people to wear masks indoors in public and outdoors in public when you can’t socially distance, but people have been flouting it with no consequences. The socially distancing outside is easy.

We are still staying away from most people, except for those we know, because we know them to be honest, who have been vaccinated.
I am genuinely curious about your meaning of Southern NJ being a bigger problem. I am looking for context. Almost everywhere I go (Gloucester Co) with the exception of the Amish market this past weekend, (That was odd, BTW. Many people stating that they did not have to wear their masks there.) people have been wearing masks, and aside from numbers in Cumberland Co, and Salem, the percentages vaccinated seem more or less on par with the rest of the state.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Johnny hasn't been wearing a mask to protect Johnny. Johnny is wearing a mask to protect Grandma from Johnny's spread. Grandma is vaccinated, so Johnny doesn't need to protect her anymore.


You're just wrong on that one. Asymptomatic spread is *possible.* It is not common.


This.
Anyone who is not vaccinated needs to wear a mask still. Period. No exceptions. It’s really crystal clear and spelled out by the CDC. There is no science that supports that because Johnny’s grandmother is vaccinated he’s no longer a threat. I get an e-mail almost daily from one of my kid’s schools that a kid tests positive. They do get covid and they can spread it. Again, this change is not a dropping of masks for everyone. It’s supposed to be a reward for the vaccinated. If someone has a problem with their kid having to wear a mask when they don’t the easy answer is they can wear a mask too. We have about a month of school left the last thing we need is dropping masks for kids. TERRIBLE idea.
 

Chomama

Well-Known Member
Ehh...do you really think there is an actual benefit for a bunch of 2 and 3 year old's wearing spit covered/soaked masks? Its just for show IMO. As I said previously, they should bump up the age to 10.
Our preschool used them for 2+ until staff was vaccinated. Once that happened they dropped masks for all kids. This was a good policy IMHO. That was in February and we have had zero Covid cases at the preschool
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Anyone who is not vaccinated needs to wear a mask still. Period. No exceptions. It’s really crystal clear and spelled out by the CDC. There is no science that supports that because Johnny’s grandmother is vaccinated he’s no longer a threat. I get an e-mail almost daily from one of my kid’s schools that a kid tests positive. They do get covid and they can spread it. Again, this change is not a dropping of masks for everyone. It’s supposed to be a reward for the vaccinated. If someone has a problem with their kid having to wear a mask when they don’t the easy answer is they can wear a mask too. We have about a month of school left the last thing we need is dropping masks for kids. TERRIBLE idea.
I think they need to make an distinction between grade school children and toddlers/preschoolers. Masks for the latter age group don't have much benefit, nor are they practical.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
It's better than just lifting now, but it also means those who don't want the vaccine now have a date that the mask mandate will be lifted whether they are vaccinated or not.
As we've heard, for many people that's already today.

I plan to do the reverse, wear a mask when I'm surrounded by unknown people, when asked why or given the side eye respond with: I'm not vaccinated, cough cough 🤧

That's a least a less dangerous lie.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Ehh...do you really think there is an actual benefit for a bunch of 2 and 3 year old's wearing spit covered/soaked masks? Its just for show IMO. As I said previously, they should bump up the age to 10.
My kids are over 10 so would have to wear one either way, but there are cases popping up every week in the elementary school including kids under 10. So those kids that are testing positive would be in school all day and on the bus with all of their classmates with no masks. No thanks. We have had schools open for most of the year with limited issues of in school spread...because the kids all wear masks and distance when they don’t. That’s what the study showed that reduced distancing to 3 feet in schools. As long as masks were used the distancing could be reduced. I see no reason to rush out and change that now.
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Our preschool used them for 2+ until staff was vaccinated. Once that happened they dropped masks for all kids. This was a good policy IMHO. That was in February and we have had zero Covid cases at the preschool

If my child's (almost 3 now) pre-school made her wear a mask, I would have switched schools. It is silly...

When she wore it on an airplane and at amusement parks, it was constantly falling off her nose and constantly soaked with saliva (no matter the type, size, etc.). Just not necessary.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Anyone who is not vaccinated needs to wear a mask still. Period. No exceptions. It’s really crystal clear and spelled out by the CDC. There is no science that supports that because Johnny’s grandmother is vaccinated he’s no longer a threat. I get an e-mail almost daily from one of my kid’s schools that a kid tests positive. They do get covid and they can spread it. Again, this change is not a dropping of masks for everyone. It’s supposed to be a reward for the vaccinated. If someone has a problem with their kid having to wear a mask when they don’t the easy answer is they can wear a mask too. We have about a month of school left the last thing we need is dropping masks for kids. TERRIBLE idea.
I understand what the rule is, I'm saying the rule is

Masking kids was NEVER about the kids, it was ALWAYS to protect the vulnerable. We don't *care* if Johnny passes COVID to Suzie in school because COVID is basically the flu to Johnny and Suzie. We only cared that Johnny and Suzie could give it to Grandma and Baba.

It's also kind of a self-own to say "our kids are wearing masks and spread is happening anyways."
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I think they need to make an distinction between grade school children and toddlers/preschoolers. Masks for the latter age group don't have much benefit, nor are they practical.
I don’t disagree with that. There is actually some science behind it too. I posted an article hundreds of pages ago where an expert from CHOP discussed how kids under 6 haven‘t fully developed the receptors that the virus latches on to so that’s why we were seeing less frequent infections in very young children. Not impossible to get sick, but much less frequent. School age kids should wear masks until cases and vaccination rates dictate nobody needs them. I actually think that won’t be much longer, possibly by July if the unvaccinated get off their rear ends and take the jab.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I understand what the rule is, I'm saying the rule is bull****.

Masking kids was NEVER about the kids, it was ALWAYS to protect the vulnerable. We don't *care* if Johnny passes COVID to Suzie in school because COVID is basically the flu to Johnny and Suzie. We only cared that Johnny and Suzie could give it to Grandma and Baba.
As a parent I fundamentally disagree. I don’t want my kids to get Covid. Not just because they could spread it to me, but because I don’t want them to get it.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom