Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Disney Glimpses]

They’ve been studied for years. By what mechanism would they cause a problem well after being administered? What other vaccine in general has ever cause an issue long after administration?

Historical Safety Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC

Read more about past vaccine safety concerns, how they have been resolved, and what we have learned.

www.cdc.gov

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Science surprised us everyday. And again, my kids risk of serious illness is low, only if they get COVID.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Historical Safety Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC

Read more about past vaccine safety concerns, how they have been resolved, and what we have learned.

www.cdc.gov

Which one of those is an issue presenting well after administration?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Science surprised us everyday. And again, my kids risk of serious illness is low, only if they get COVID.

The same argument anti-vaxxers made about measles which has been coming back. You’re buying into and spreading bunk.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Which one of those is an issue presenting well after administration?

All it takes is one. And by the way, every single one of those illnesses is far more serious for kids than COVID-19. You don't seem to be understanding. The risk of my kid getting COVID and then subsequently having serious complications is again quite literally 0. Why should I vaccinate my kid for that risk with something that has only received EUA?

 

[Disney Glimpses]

The same argument anti-vaxxers made about measles which has been coming back. You’re buying into and spreading bunk.

Are you saying vaccines are 100% without risk? By the way, the measles is far more serious for kids than COVID. Like, by miles.

 

[lazyboy97o]

All it takes is one. And by the way, every single one of those illnesses is far more serious for kids than COVID-19. You don't seem to be understanding. The risk of my kid getting COVID and then subsequently having serious complications is again quite literally 0. Why should I vaccinate my kid for that risk with something that has only received EUA?

Again, for something to happen there has to be a means by which it can happen. What is the means by which a COVID-19 vaccine would cause an issue months or years after being administered?

Are you saying vaccines are 100% without risk?

No, but every vaccine is a significantly less risk than the disease.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Again, for something to happen there has to be a means by which it can happen. What is the means by which a COVID-19 vaccine would cause an issue months or years after being administered?


No, but every vaccine is a significantly less risk than the disease.

You can't just use the risk of the disease alone in your calculation. You have to use the risk of contracting it as well. It matters.

So we're clear, you're saying, unequivocally, that my child is more likely to get COVID and then subsequently have severe complications than to have complications from a vaccine which is currently still in trials?

And I am the one spreading bunk?

 

[Jrb1979]

For me my family is getting vaccinated not only to protect us but also so we can travel and not have to worry about Covid.

 

[danlb_2000]

I didn't say the risk were zero, but the risk is still lower than what we have deemed acceptable with the flu. The CDC supports that and again updated their guidance today.

But this study is showing a risk that is way above zero..

"Evidence from the first study of long covid in children suggests that more than half of children aged between 6 and 16 years old who contract the virus have at least one symptom lasting more than 120 days, with 42.6 per cent impaired by these symptoms during daily activities. "

 

[hopemax]

Conclusions: Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination.

As I have said in the past, and been heavily criticized for doing so, we are where we are right now because of vaccines, yes. However, we would not be here without the tens of millions of Americans with immunity from prior infection. It's important we recognize that 70% immune is the goal; not 70% vaccinated.

IMO, this would be the wrong conclusion. I had a lightbulb moment when scrolling through Twitter today, and it is related to your conclusion here. Throughout this pandemic we have been inundated with numbers and percentages, and we can recall many of them and pepper our posts with them. But they are usually based on the ORIGINAL virus, or at least the variant that came through Italy and dominated cases until Alpha (UK) and now we're transitioning to Delta (India). Most of these numbers are no longer valid, because the virus they were for has been replaced with a new virus with different numbers. Each iteration has been small, but as time passes and new variants replace old ones the change from the original can become wider, and at some point they will be effectively meaningless. Unvaccinated people are weighing their risk that if they get sick, they are young, healthy, but the sickness they are envisioning is likely to be a picture of what the original virus looked like; not the one they are risking. Which at this point is Delta.

Which brings me to the number of references from my EpiTwitter who kept referring to Delta as "nasty." These are people that throughout have been telling people to calm down every time variant talk came up, because it meant things were different, not that things were necessarily worse. They are all operating that what is out there now is "worse" and thankfully those that are vaccinated are protected. But as @seascape and others look at the numbers that get posted after summer holiday gatherings, and certainly when we get back into the winter period, we should be aware that the rates of hospitalization, the more severe versions of the "mild / doesn't require hospitalization", and the affected ages will look different than they did last year. It will be a smaller number of people, but they will be experiencing worse outcomes than the people that got sick last year. And we'll have to see what happens with long-Covid for this bunch. Those of you who live in areas with low vax rates are likely going to be seeing different things in your communities than those of us who have reached 70%.

The time period of this study, is undoubtedly how well previous infection does against Alpha. We also know that reinfection against Brazil's variant was greater than reinfection against Alpha. What reinfection for Delta is, I haven't looked for. We can not assume that since Alpha held up against reinfection that all future variants will as well. Every iteration changes the game, and we can only count on our defenses being adequate as long as the opponent doesn't upgrade their offense. Any risk calculation should be based on what Delta does to people.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

But this study is showing a risk that is way above zero..

"Evidence from the first study of long covid in children suggests that more than half of children aged between 6 and 16 years old who contract the virus have at least one symptom lasting more than 120 days, with 42.6 per cent impaired by these symptoms during daily activities. "

The study included loss of sense of smell which can persist for some time but returns eventually. I'm talking about serious complications.

IMO, this would be the wrong conclusion. I had a lightbulb moment when scrolling through Twitter today, and it is related to your conclusion here. Throughout this pandemic we have been inundated with numbers and percentages, and we can recall many of them and pepper our posts with them. But they are usually based on the ORIGINAL virus, or at least the variant that came through Italy and dominated cases until Alpha (UK) and now we're transitioning to Delta (India). Most of these numbers are no longer valid, because the virus they were for has been replaced with a new virus with different numbers. Each iteration has been small, but as time passes and new variants replace old ones the change from the original can become wider, and at some point they will be effectively meaningless. Unvaccinated people are weighing their risk that if they get sick, they are young, healthy, but the sickness they are envisioning is likely to be a picture of what the original virus looked like; not the one they are risking. Which at this point is Delta.

Which brings me to the number of references from my EpiTwitter who kept referring to Delta as "nasty." These are people that throughout have been telling people to calm down every time variant talk came up, because it meant things were different, not that things were necessarily worse. They are all operating that what is out there now is "worse" and thankfully those that are vaccinated are protected. But as @seascape and others look at the numbers that get posted after summer holiday gatherings, and certainly when we get back into the winter period, we should be aware that the rates of hospitalization, the more severe versions of the "mild / doesn't require hospitalization", and the affected ages will look different than they did last year. It will be a smaller number of people, but they will be experiencing worse outcomes than the people that got sick last year. And we'll have to see what happens with long-Covid for this bunch. Those of you who live in areas with low vax rates are likely going to be seeing different things in your communities than those of us who have reached 70%.

The time period of this study, is undoubtedly how well previous infection does against Alpha. We also know that reinfection against Brazil's variant was greater than reinfection against Alpha. What reinfection for Delta is, I haven't looked for. We can not assume that since Alpha held up against reinfection that all future variants will as well. Every iteration changes the game, and we can only count on our defenses being adequate as long as the opponent doesn't upgrade their offense. Any risk calculation should be based on what Delta does to people.

It's not my conclusion, it is the Cleveland Clinic's study's conclusion. You should tell them it is wrong though.

 

[danlb_2000]

The study included loss of sense of smell which can persist for some time but returns eventually. I'm talking about serious complications.

I don't see any mention of loss of smell in that paper, but it does say this "with 42.6 per cent impaired by these symptoms during daily activities. " I don't think loss of smell would be considered "impairment of daily activities"

 

[lazyboy97o]

You can't just use the risk of the disease alone in your calculation. You have to use the risk of contracting it as well. It matters.

So we're clear, you're saying, unequivocally, that my child is more likely to get COVID and then subsequently have severe complications than to have complications from a vaccine which is currently still in trials?

And I am the one spreading bunk?

Yes. The risk of contracting any disease and developing complications is greater than developing complications from the vaccine. The most serious complication seen in the mRNA is an allergic reaction that can be easily treated. There is no mechanism by which mRNA that is quickly used by your body can somehow hide for months or years and then cause a problem.

Emergency Use Authorization is not equivalent with trials. All safety data is reviewed as part of the authorization and no new safety data is part of obtaining full authorization.

The idea that vaccines can have a side effect months to years after administration is anti-vaccine bunk. The idea that the risk of getting a disease and having issues are less or near equal to the risks associated with the vaccine is anti-vaccine bunk.

 

[mmascari]

Let's break the math out even simpler:

Scenario A (vaccinated risk for health young child):

100% (Risk of exposure to COVID vaccine) x < 1% (Risk of serious complications from vaccine)

Scenario B (unvaccinated risk for healthy young child):

<1% (Risk of COVID-19 Infection) x < 1% (Risk of serious illness from COVID-19 if infected)

It is impossible to prove that the risk of scenario A is less than scenario B. It is quite literally incalculable.

You need more digits.

That's a common problem when we discuss things in percentages. It naturally means there's only 100 possible items. So, anything in the <1% is the same. But, it's not really true, those extra missing digits are hiding information.

Making up some numbers, 0.1% and 0.01% the first is 10 times more likely than the second. Not just a small amount. If we looked at it as 10% vs 1% everyone would feel different than 0.1% vs 0.01%, but the relative difference is the same.

So, for your second number associated with the risk. You need a lot more decimal places for both the vaccine and COVID (both death and long term impacts).

At first, adding all the extra digits feels silly. But, those statistics are also being applied to a huge number. Say 1,000,000 kids are the sample size, and 0.001% are impacted. That's clearly rare, but for those 1,000 10 kids that are impacted, it's significant to their lives, possibly devastating.

My hunch is you'll find the risk from COVID requires many less digits than the risk from vaccine does. Making the risk from vaccine even with the 100% in the first part of the equation lower.

Edit: 10 not 1,000. I clearly cannot use a calculator and require a spreadsheet that remembers a % implies the decimal in multiplication.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Yes. The risk of contracting any disease and developing complications is greater than developing complications from the vaccine. The most serious complication seen in the mRNA is an allergic reaction that can be easily treated. There is no mechanism by which mRNA that is quickly used by your body can somehow hide for months or years and then cause a problem.

Emergency Use Authorization is not equivalent with trials. All safety data is reviewed as part of the authorization and no new safety data is part of obtaining full authorization.

I appreciate that and we will see what the trials look like.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

You need more digits.

That's a common problem when we discuss things in percentages. It naturally means there's only 100 possible items. So, anything in the <1% is the same. But, it's not really true, those extra missing digits are hiding information.

Making up some numbers, 0.1% and 0.01% the first is 10 times more likely than the second. Not just a small amount. If we looked at it as 10% vs 1% everyone would feel different than 0.1% vs 0.01%, but the relative difference is the same.

So, for your second number associated with the risk. You need a lot more decimal places for both the vaccine and COVID (both death and long term impacts).

At first, adding all the extra digits feels silly. But, those statistics are also being applied to a huge number. Say 1,000,000 kids are the sample size, and 0.001% are impacted. That's clearly rare, but for those 1,000 kids that are impacted, it's significant to their lives, possibly devastating.

My hunch is you'll find the risk from COVID requires many less digits than the risk from vaccine does. Making the risk from vaccine even with the 100% in the first part of the equation lower.

You are probably right. But again, we're basically trying to figure out which 0 is lower. So, it seems as though the consensus here is "why not get vaccinated " vs "here's why you should get vaccinated."

 

[GoofGoof]

The study included loss of sense of smell which can persist for some time but returns eventually. I'm talking about serious complications.

You seriously don’t care about your kid losing their sense of taste or smell? I know that won’t kill them, but it’s a pretty big “inconvenience”. I have gotten my kids plenty of vaccines for stuff that is very unlikely to kill them. How many kids die or have serious complications from chicken pox?

 

[Disney Glimpses]

I don't see any mention of loss of smell in that paper, but it does say this "with 42.6 per cent impaired by these symptoms during daily activities. " I don't think loss of smell would be considered "impairment of daily activities"

"researchers say there may be up to 100 other symptoms"

Loss of sense of smell is absolutely an impairment of daily activities. And that 42% absolutely includes that symptom; it is the most common persistent symptom of COVID-19. I contracted COVID in March of 2020 (likely from WDW) and lost my sense of smell for a year. It was horrible.

You seriously don’t care about your kid losing their sense of taste or smell? I know that won’t kill them, but it’s a pretty big “inconvenience”. I have gotten my kids plenty of vaccines for stuff that is very unlikely to kill them. How many kids die or have serious complications from chicken pox?

Sure, but after full FDA approval. I should've made that more clear, I was specifically referring to the EUA that will likely occur soon.

It took 14 years for the chicken pox vaccine to be approved for use in the United States.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yes. The risk of contracting any disease and developing complications is greater than developing complications from the vaccine. The most serious complication seen in the mRNA is an allergic reaction that can be easily treated. There is no mechanism by which mRNA that is quickly used by your body can somehow hide for months or years and then cause a problem.

Emergency Use Authorization is not equivalent with trials. All safety data is reviewed as part of the authorization and no new safety data is part of obtaining full authorization.

The idea that vaccines can have a side effect months to years after administration is anti-vaccine bunk. The idea that the risk of getting a disease and having issues are less or near equal to the risks associated with the vaccine is anti-vaccine bunk.