• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

helenabear

Well-Known Member
You do realize the blacks has the highest rate % of not vaccinated. I would say most are not republicans.
For the national election 12% voted red. So most, 87%, voted blue. Vaccine hesitation has to do with medical inequality issues that Blacks deal with as well as socioeconomic issues that make vaccination hard. A few might be political. However roughly 13.4% of all people in the US are Black. Last I can see 36% of Blacks have been vaccinated. While Blacks need help to vaccinate since they have been disproportionately hit by covid, in terms of total numbers they are a small percentage we need to get through
 

DonniePeverley

Active Member
Back of the envelope math again.

Do I think that will happen? Not likely. What goes up eventually drops down again. No reason to assume cases will double every 9 days indefinitely.

I hate to say this ... but you were wrong. You've learnt nothing from the pandemic, and warning signs from other countries. Delta was going to hit the USA hard. Under what scenario did you assume it would not hit the USA the way it's wrecking the UK ?
 

Trauma

Well-Known Member
I hate to say this ... but you were wrong. You've learnt nothing from the pandemic, and warning signs from other countries. Delta was going to hit the USA hard. Under what scenario did you assume it would not hit the USA the way it's wrecking the UK ?
See this is the problem I have with this sensationalism of case numbers. When I look at the death rate it’s not “wrecking” the UK.

Maybe that will change but so far it hasn’t.
 

Trauma

Well-Known Member
The UK had the highest case numbers in the world last week. That's horrific on all terms.
Figure out how many people in your country have not had covid or been vaccinated.

That’s how many case numbers you should expect to see over the course of time, if not more.

We are not eradicating the corona virus it is here to stay.
 

KrzyKtty

Well-Known Member
Look, at the end of the day we are all just along for the ride. Do your part, protect your family, get those you can vaccinated. Write your senators if you feel so inclined, write your congressman. Do it for the state and the federal. Wear your masks if you feel like you should. But the constant doom and gloom and numbers aren't going to solve anything. They're just going to drive everyone completely mad. This is a horrible thing, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's not. But eventually it will end, and everybody just has to hold on as best as they can until then. But analyzing everything until you're blue in the face is just going to drive everyone absolutely mental. Don't make yourself nuts over this.

I'm saying this with the best of intentions as I can. But there seems to be more than just one or two people on this thread who seemed to be stressing over this more than is probably healthy.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
For the national election 12% voted red. So most, 87%, voted blue. Vaccine hesitation has to do with medical inequality issues that Blacks deal with as well as socioeconomic issues that make vaccination hard. A few might be political. However roughly 13.4% of all people in the US are Black. Last I can see 36% of Blacks have been vaccinated. While Blacks need help to vaccinate since they have been disproportionately hit by covid, in terms of total numbers they are a small percentage we need to get through
I would argue that because of the factors that lead to the disproportionate deaths in the black community, it is more important for black people to get vaccinated to offset them. I don't want to see anybody end up dying because they didn't get a safe and free vaccine.

In Florida blacks have only a slightly higher mortality per 100k than whites 167.7 vs. 165.4 likely due to the large population of elderly white people. I would imagine if it was broken down by age and race then the disproportionality would be more obvious.
 
Last edited:

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
See this is the problem I have with this sensationalism of case numbers. When I look at the death rate it’s not “wrecking” the UK.

Maybe that will change but so far it hasn’t.

The UK had the highest case numbers in the world last week. That's horrific on all terms.

At this point, in places where vaccines are readily available, case numbers don't really matter. What matters is the people who end up hospitalized or dead from COVID.

If 100% of the population gets a cold it doesn't matter. If 10% of the population gets Ebola it is a catastrophe. Degree of illness matters greatly.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
I was thinking back to a discussion earlier about how protected a vaccinated person is. I have come to the conclusion that when they say a vaccine is 90% effective in preventing infection, it must mean that 90% of the people who have been vaccinated will be protected from infection 100% of the time while the vaccine won't "work" for 10% of the vaccinated people. In the earlier discussion it was implied that a vaccinated person who is exposed to more transmission opportunities becomes more likely to have a breakthrough infection.

The problem is that if you treat each transmission opportunity as an independent event and say that each time there is a 90% chance an infection will be prevented, if you are exposed to 22 transmission opportunities there will be a 90% chance you get infected by one of them. I'm pretty sure I calculated correctly.

I could be thinking about this wrong as I've never previously given any thought to vaccine science or studied it.
 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
I was thinking back to a discussion earlier about how protected a vaccinated person is. I have come to the conclusion that when they say a vaccine is 90% effective in preventing infection, it must mean that 90% of the people who have been vaccinated will be protected from infection 100% of the time while the vaccine won't "work" for 10% of the vaccinated people. In the earlier discussion it was implied that a vaccinated person who is exposed to more transmission opportunities becomes more likely to have a breakthrough infection.

The problem is that if you treat each transmission opportunity as an independent event and say that each time there is a 90% chance an infection will be prevented, if you are exposed to 22 transmission opportunities there will be a 90% chance you get infected by one of them. I'm pretty sure I calculated correctly.

I could be thinking about this wrong as I've never previously given any thought to vaccine science or studied it.
It has been explained again and again, that it isn't calculated like that. It is a comparison between the number of infections between an unvaccinated group and a vaccinated group.

If you have 1000 unvaccinated people and you find that 200 got infected, a 90% efficacy means that out of a similar group of 1000 vaccinated people you would expect 20 of them to get infected. Engaging in high risk behavior, or a more transmissible variant increases the incidents of infections. So 1000 unvaccinated people engaging in this scenario might lead to 500 infections. Then a 90% reduction would mean you would expect 50 infections in vaccinated people in a similar environment.

EDIT: And I'll add, that while I used infection in the example above, when we are talking about the COVID vaccines, we're usually talking efficacy versus severe outcomes. Versus avoiding infection entirely or symptomatic infection, we should expect it to be lower. How much lower we'll find out as these next waves blow through. The Israel study from today, is not promising. Singapore study had it 70% vs any infection, and 80-90% against symptomatic infection. The US should be revealing since it will be more of a baseline, since the US is essentially down to vaccines and not vaccines + other types of mitigation.
 
Last edited:

Disney Experience

Well-Known Member
I was thinking back to a discussion earlier about how protected a vaccinated person is. I have come to the conclusion that when they say a vaccine is 90% effective in preventing infection, it must mean that 90% of the people who have been vaccinated will be protected from infection 100% of the time while the vaccine won't "work" for 10% of the vaccinated people. In the earlier discussion it was implied that a vaccinated person who is exposed to more transmission opportunities becomes more likely to have a breakthrough infection.

The problem is that if you treat each transmission opportunity as an independent event and say that each time there is a 90% chance an infection will be prevented, if you are exposed to 22 transmission opportunities there will be a 90% chance you get infected by one of them. I'm pretty sure I calculated correctly.

I could be thinking about this wrong as I've never previously given any thought to vaccine science or studied it.
The approximate 90% was from the initial study ( such as I am in ) and later countries like Israel.

They wanted subjects to not know whether they were vaccinated so that they would not modify their life given that knowledge. They also wanted people who were more likely to be exposed .

In a few months they had enough cases to do EUA. Why do I bring it up? That diverse set of people(30000 Pfizer) likely had subjects who had multiple exposures. So the 90% included multiple exposures

Some peoples immune system react differently to the shot. So given the same exposure some vaccinated may get covid another may not.

There are a lot of variables.
 
Last edited:

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

Top Bottom