Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
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.
I don't have too much of an issue with kids wearing them in grade school. My second grader has worn one all year and I am mostly indifferent about it and it is almost over anyways. However, it annoys me that they also wear them outside during recess. And the middle-schoolers who wear them on the soccer field, ugh! Unnecessary. But the toddler/pre-school requirement for places that do that has really irked me. We followed the rule to do things where it was required, but I felt like it was just nonsense.
 

mmascari

Well-Known 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.
The headline and the content don't match.

The content makes a distinction between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic. There's no information on how mild or severe a case matters.
Asymptomatic transmission is particularly worrisome for public health officials, leading many to institute severe lockdowns and policies requiring masks in public. That’s because those patients never develop symptoms and, in many cases, don’t even know they are infected. WHO officials say Covid-19 can also spread in the so-called pre-symptomatic stage — a few days before a patient shows symptoms.
So, on a Monday someone appears to be asymptomatic and they mingle with others. On Wednesday, we learn that they were really just pre-symptomatic, but it's mild, looks like allergies. To bad for the interactions on Monday, some of them find out the week after their case isn't as mild.

From a practical stand point, and almost all discussion, there is no difference between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic. Which means if we want to argue that there's no (or so little) asymptomatic spread that we can ignore it. Then, that's essentially an argument that there's no (or so little) pre-symptomatic spread that we can ignore it. We knot this is false. If it wasn't temperature checks would work better.

Wasn't there a ton of discussion (here and all over) about this technical distinction and it being misleading and confusing when this was published originally?
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
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.

I live in Gloucester Co also, and have observed the same thing, mask compliance has been pretty good. I even went to an outdoor food truck festival two weeks ago and masking was pretty good when people weren't actively eating. If you are referring to the Amish Market in Mullica Hill, masking has been an issue there since day one, especially amount the staff.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
From a practical stand point, and almost all discussion, there is no difference between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic.
There is a difference, a huge difference.

We were talking about kids in particular and *kids in particular* tend to be asymptomatic in the technically-correct-as-defined-by-the-WHO-and-CDC way.
 

LaughingGravy

Well-Known Member
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.
Freehold, Asbury Park, Ocean City, and Cape May have been my experience with lax masking over the past 8 months in stores. A lot of noses exposed. Technically wearing, but defeating the purpose. There were places I wanted to go into, but open the door and see a bunch of people inside and walking around with noses exposed or chin diapers, and I get out of there.
 
Last edited:

plawren2

Active Member
Note just general musings:
it’s also not your business if some don’t choose to be vaccinated, unless you advocate mandatory ones which opens up a whole host of legal issues.

The entire mask mandate (and bear in mine I wore mine as required) was on shaky ground when the federal government did their “masks aren’t required” then flipped to the placebo effect of “they are required” only when manufacturers had enough supply last spring. People can argue the merits of that all they want but it’s a fact.

In short it was never about much other than the masses feeling like like they had some measure of control when in reality there was none.

Im not even going to go down the rabbit hold of reducing spread because that’s not even my point, my point is in terms of protecting an individual? Unless one is wearing a positive pressure SCBA you weren’t protected.

And to reiterate I’m not talking about community spread.

Lastly, I’m not surprised at the reactions here. This has been made out to be the “end of the world” when it’s… not.
The entire mask mandate (and bear in mine I wore mine as required) was on shaky ground when the federal government did their “masks aren’t required” then flipped to the placebo effect of “they are required” only when manufacturers had enough supply last spring. People can argue the merits of that all they want but it’s a fact."

Your fact is wrong, CDC changed their recommendation regarding masks when scientific studies shown their effectiveness, those studies did not exist in Feb-Mar 2020 as COVID-19 was a new virus still being studied, hence masks not required as at that time there was no science to support use, that would change a few months later- that timeline and change in CDC recommendation is well documented.
 

GaBoy

Well-Known Member
I’m skeptical Disney will follow this. Maybe just keep masks instead.
DL very well may have a different set of mask rules than WDW. Different Gov and Chapek specifically referenced the Florida heat at WDW. Maybe I'm reaching?
 

helenabear

Premium Member
I don't have too much of an issue with kids wearing them in grade school. My second grader has worn one all year and I am mostly indifferent about it and it is almost over anyways. However, it annoys me that they also wear them outside during recess. And the middle-schoolers who wear them on the soccer field, ugh! Unnecessary. But the toddler/pre-school requirement for places that do that has really irked me. We followed the rule to do things where it was required, but I felt like it was just nonsense.
Have you seen how kids play? I get why they did. Kids have no concept of social distancing. So while outdoor risk is super low, it isn't when you are continually on top of each other. That's how spread in LAX and football for us occurred.
 

Wendy Pleakley

Well-Known Member
They (and Disney... and the CDC) need to come up with an answer for kids under 12. Letting mom and dad unmask while little Johnny, 3, has to wear his all day long is not going to fly with guests.

Why is this (seemingly) a common attitude for parents? Parents should be keeping their kids safe. If that means the kid wears a mask after mom & dad are vaccinated, so be it.

Sounds like saying, well we (adults) don't need car seats so I'm not going to make my kid use one if he doesn't like it.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
There is a difference, a huge difference.

We were talking about kids in particular and *kids in particular* tend to be asymptomatic in the technically-correct-as-defined-by-the-WHO-and-CDC way.

That's not what the sited article was talking about. If want to site that kids are different, let's define kids not just asymptomatic.

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.

For instance, that study doesn't say "most kids are asymptomatic, and don't spread so it's asymptomatic that don't spread". It says that "kids under 6 haven‘t fully developed the receptors that the virus latches on to" and that's what limits spread. (Quoting as I didn't try to find it).

That's fine, if that's what studies find that's great. But, it's not asymptomatic or kids don't spread it. It's kids under 6 that haven't developed the receptors yet don't spread it. The details are important.

So, a 9 or 10 year old that's not showing any symptoms yet and is unable to be vaccinated could very easily be walking around infecting people. They may even only develop mild symptoms in the days ahead. They could have a more severe case, they could have long term impacts, or they could have neither of those. But, on that early day, they 100% could spreading the infection around even though they're both a kid and currently asymptomatic.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
Can't wait for the CDC to come out with a statement that kids under 12 don't need to wear masks. Such a slippery slope for masks these days.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Why is this (seemingly) a common attitude for parents? Parents should be keeping their kids safe. If that means the kid wears a mask after mom & dad are vaccinated, so be it.

Sounds like saying, well we (adults) don't need car seats so I'm not going to make my kid use one if he doesn't like it.
Because the purpose of kids wearing masks is not and has never been for the protection of the kids.

I continue to be shocked how little people understand the age disparity when it comes to COVID risk. Kids aren't just slightly safer than the elderly, they're *thousands of times* safer.

1621007870574.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top Bottom