Polkadotdress
Well-Known Member
That is very clear to understand. However...YIKES to the % of fully-vaxx'd that are hospitalized!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
Kevin_W
Well-Known Member
Right. Can, but are far less likely to. Bad things can happen in many lines of work, but we take reasonable precautions to prevent them. If you can reduce risk somewhere between 5-fold and 20-fold, you should
Vacationeer
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
It can't be an open free for all either. Where to draw the line? They're also not allowed to show up inebriated or punch abusive patients. These are things in society's best interest. I can understand the argument that some can prove exposure... but how much is that going to matter in the long run when possibly variants don't care or immunity wanes? I really don't want my aunt on kidney dialysis or my nephew with RSV needing a higher exposure risk just because they require care.
Kevin_W
Well-Known Member
Not sure what you mean by that. IF 100% of the population was vaccinated, then 100% of the hospitalized would be breakthrough/fully vaccinated cases. With 97% of the over 50 cohort vaccinated, most of the hospitalizations will be from that group. But it's telling that 3% of the population in that cohort is causing 37% of the hospitalizations, still.
DisneyFan32
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
I don't want this happen now. Is next year will be much better as pandemic ends?
It's not the same. This sentence is a bad take in the context of if vaccinations should be required or not for something. The implication in this statement is that it doesn't matter if someone is vaccinated or not, the risk they pose to someone else is exactly the same. That's utter rubbish. The unvaccinated person presents a risk many orders of magnitude larger.
If we're ignoring the reduction in risk and calling them equivalent, that's an argument against anything that reduces risk.
Why have a hand rail on steps, people can still fall?
Why put out a "slippery when wet" sign when cleaning a floor somewhere, people can still fall?
Why reduce the chances someone can pass on an infectious disease buy a huge margin, there's still a reduced chance it happens?
Disney Experience
Well-Known Member
I am still amazed at the responses I personally hear when talking with people ( not online ). Most of these people I am on friendly terms, and try to understand their point of view. Most seem to be prideful or emotional defensive when the topic comes up. Here is a small example:
Coworker:
“Cold day in hell when I will get vaccinated, never had a vaccine in my life, I probably had covid a long time ago. Even if I do, you came through it, so I would not have it any worse.”
Business owner who business is in remodeling of homes:
“Vaccines only exist because people like Fauci have a business interest in covid. Vaccines kill people. I know of a few people who died shortly after getting vaccinated. I probably got covid in June, so I do not need to be vaccinated. I could not get vaccinated because of my kidneys”
I know of a few people that in person I helped on their decision to get vaccinated. But there are others I know I will have very little success in convincing them through care or logic. ( There is a limit on how much time I have to help them )
Coworker:
“Cold day in hell when I will get vaccinated, never had a vaccine in my life, I probably had covid a long time ago. Even if I do, you came through it, so I would not have it any worse.”
Business owner who business is in remodeling of homes:
“Vaccines only exist because people like Fauci have a business interest in covid. Vaccines kill people. I know of a few people who died shortly after getting vaccinated. I probably got covid in June, so I do not need to be vaccinated. I could not get vaccinated because of my kidneys”
I know of a few people that in person I helped on their decision to get vaccinated. But there are others I know I will have very little success in convincing them through care or logic. ( There is a limit on how much time I have to help them )
Last edited:
Timmay
Well-Known Member
Again, I support healthcare facilities enacting a mandatory vaccine policy…getting that out of the way.
Its a double edged sword for some systems though. I know one that is currently weighing which will impact adequate patient care more…unvaccinated clinical staff or reduced clinical staff. I don’t agree with them being hesitant, but I understand why they are.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I would be interested in knowing the facts of this statement. If true, it would make much more sense for hospitals to require it.
According to the CDC that happens "rarely."
Chi84
Premium Member
Check out the CDC website. It says that breakthrough cases happen "much less often" than infections in unvaccinated people, meaning that "the greatest risk of transmission is among unvaccinated people who are much more likely to contract, and therefore transmit the virus."
It also states that vaccinated people appear to be infectious for a shorter time period. "The amount of virus produced by Delta breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people also goes down faster than infections in unvaccinated people. This means fully vaccinated people are likely infectious for less time than unvaccinated people."
If people want to be unvaccinated, there's no way to force them but it makes no sense to allow them to work in healthcare given the greater risk they pose to people who want to avoid contracting COVID.
Roughly 50% of people in the US are fully vaccinated.
Which part of the reporting about how the unvaccinated make up significantly more than 50% of the cases isn't clear? Something above 85% if I remember right.
If you're in say a movie theater with 200 people, 50% of which are vaccinated. The odds that anyone in the room is infectious heavily favors that it's one of the unvaccinated people. If there are 4 infectious people in the theater, it's likely 3 unvaccinated and 1 vaccinated or all 4 are unvaccinated. That makes interacting with the unvaccinated group more risky. The chance that the interaction happens to be with one of the infectious people is much larger when interacting with the unvaccinated.
Could you still have bad luck and sit next to the vaccinated person who is also infected and in the window to infect you? Sure. But, the odds say that's less likely than if you sat next to an unvaccinated person.
This makes all interactions with unvaccinated people a larger risk than interactions with vaccinated people.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It’s not necessarily about convincing a person actively engaged in the conversation. We all tend to actually be trusting of others.
Take the story of the yeti at Expedition Everest having structural issues with its foundation and it not being practical to remove the figure. To a lot of people it sounds plausible so they don’t question it. The story has now spread and it’s probably the reason you would be given if you asked a random Disney fan.
That’s the sort of problem we now see playing out. The anti-vax movement has grown a troubling amount but is still a very small minority of the population. They have largely been ignored but all that time they were seeding many of the doubts we see among the vaccine hesitant. At some point somewhere people saw or heard “We don’t know the long term effects of vaccines” and since it isn’t overly outlandish a question and wasn’t refuted it is assumed to be a valid concern.
Club34
Well-Known Member
I hope so too. But we are currently meandering around 50% is it? But I believe the bigger issue is the globe as I look at the data (and mind you I am dumber than a bag of hammers).
correcaminos
Well-Known Member
Yesterday a friend of mine on FB posted something that really hurt all their friends who were medical people. I know this person to be an "uber Christian" and they posted a meme about more or less my body my choice and how we'll lose freedoms and such. Mutual friend who is a Dr. in a hospital kindly told her to please reconsider. A fried of my friend replied to me when I stated the pope pushing for vaccines and how my child is vaccinated for everything and mandated anyway. Stated that first, my child is not mandated for vaccines (incorrect as my district only allows for medical and true religious exemptions which we have neither) and second the pope would have to answer to God for pushing for vaccinations as an act of love.
Things they replied to that were all false
That they were refusing to be a guinea pig
That mRNA vaccines use fetal cells
That Dr. Malone created these vaccines and says no one should take them
Okay so Dr. Malone didn't create the vaccines but was most qualified to talk about them
(truth is that he did something with lipids and mRNA but that was it some many decades ago)
That they pray I got the placebo since this is all too scary
Also lies shared
Vaccines have killed some 14k people and injured 500k+ more
And so many coivd+ deaths were mislabeled.
All on one little thread... not to mention the next meme they posted with more information.
It's scary what's out there
Things they replied to that were all false
That they were refusing to be a guinea pig
That mRNA vaccines use fetal cells
That Dr. Malone created these vaccines and says no one should take them
Okay so Dr. Malone didn't create the vaccines but was most qualified to talk about them
(truth is that he did something with lipids and mRNA but that was it some many decades ago)
That they pray I got the placebo since this is all too scary
Also lies shared
Vaccines have killed some 14k people and injured 500k+ more
And so many coivd+ deaths were mislabeled.
All on one little thread... not to mention the next meme they posted with more information.
It's scary what's out there
Club34
Well-Known Member
Mandates are a whole other matter and one that will take the politicization of the issue to the stratosphere. I realize we have little control outside our nation but if our vax rate is 100% and the rest of the world is at 30% I don't know if the virus will be contained. Maybe it would. I really don't know. Smart people...?
Club34
Well-Known Member
Anywhere. And I should say there is a difference of a person being ambivalent. I'm talking about folks who are firmly anti-vaxx. I was ambivalent and I was one of the first in the nation to get the vax back in January 2021 because I work in a Level 1 trauma center/ER. I did not want to do it. I felt I had to do it for multiple reasons.
Club34
Well-Known Member
Are you saying asking what the long-term effects are is not a legitimate concern? Because this again is what I am referencing when I say things are being oversold. I don't care how long mRNA has been in development. The vax for covid was not, the delivery system was. I don't care whether or not Dr. Malone played a part in the development of the mechanism or not. We rapidly deployed this tech on a massive scale never before seen in human history. The fact that people would be (and frankly should be) concerned is not a fleeting or trivial matter. The anecdotal evidence is that the vaccine appears relatively safe with 50% of the US now inoculated. But time will tell. I always get flack for this position and it makes no sense. I am concerned because I and everyone I love have this stuff in them. Questioning it doesn't mean you can't see the value that the vaccine represents in fighting the pandemic. But people are not out of bounds wanting to know the trade-offs when taking this new medicine. I find this just as off-putting as ardent anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The sentiment started in regards to the many other, decades old vaccines. Even then, what is the mechanism by which mRNA vaccines somehow stay in the body and then cause a problem months or years later?
- Status