Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[MisterPenguin]

Boosters will almsot certainly be approved for everyone once we get a little further along and the shots can be tailored like the flu shots are per season.

That is is presumption based on the efficacy continuing to decline, which it might not. We'll have to wait for the data to confirm that.

Before we get to boosting the original vaccine formulas, there may come a variant that escapes the current vaccines. In that case, we don't need a booster, we'll need a new vaccine formulation and everyone will need to be re-vaccinated. (Of course, a booster from the old formulation can be added to the new formulation so that the original variants don't reappear).

 

[BrianLo]

I'm not falling for anything. I don't believe the efficacy is zero vs. infection/transmission but it is apparently not nearly high enough to get to eradication no matter how high the vaccination rate is. Vermont has the highest vaccination rate AND a low population density and still has the highest case numbers they've ever had. Hopefully the high vaccination rate minimizes severe illness and death but with respect to cases it isn't taking cases to near zero.

69% of the population of Vermont is fully vaccinated (78% of eligible) and 77.2% of the population has had at least one shot (87.4% of eligible). Do you really expect anywhere to exceed these rates by much no matter how many mandates are in place?

The JnJ booster data is for efficacy against symptomatic infection, not infection and spread.

I think this was a false narrative spread when the vaccines were initially much more effective than traditionally expected. Almost every other vaccine has required high 80's/low 90's% vaccination of the total population. No where is even close to that.

Everyone keeps throwing their hands up that there is no way to achieve success, while we still congregate 100's (or 1000's) of unvaccinated snot-lickers in schools and wonder why eradication hasn't been achieved.

We'll get there, but the Pediatric approval is absolutely critical. I truly believe childhood spread of COVID-19 was undersold. It doesn't track with every other viral illness, ever. Kids are a massive, massive reservoir.

 

[GoofGoof]

I'm not falling for anything. I don't believe the efficacy is zero vs. infection/transmission but it is apparently not nearly high enough to get to eradication no matter how high the vaccination rate is. Vermont has the highest vaccination rate AND a low population density and still has the highest case numbers they've ever had. Hopefully the high vaccination rate minimizes severe illness and death but with respect to cases it isn't taking cases to near zero.

69% of the population of Vermont is fully vaccinated (78% of eligible) and 77.2% of the population has had at least one shot (87.4% of eligible). Do you really expect anywhere to exceed these rates by much no matter how many mandates are in place?

The JnJ booster data is for efficacy against symptomatic infection, not infection and spread.

Over 90% of the population has MMR vaccine, how is this any different? We mandate MMR and nearly everyone has gotten it. You are falling for the talking points which haven’t changed since day 1. It’s the old “we have to learn to live with the virus“ narrative. That only works if the vaccines have failed so the constant attempt to paint them as a failure which they clearly are not. This is exactly why we cannot wait for people to decide for themselves. Mandates are the only answer and are ramping up. The spin will go on, but it’s irrelevant now. Nobody has to be convinced of anything. Get the shot or face the consequences.

 

[BrianLo]

Alberta (and Sask) are I believe one of the first regions with sub-par vaccination penetration to introduce passports. The effects have been absolutely massive. People are currently being vaccinated near the rates we achieved at the peak of the vaccine roll-out.

Food for thought.

 

[DisneyFan32]

No. People get angry when I say the mandate will exist until at least January 2025. When cases were on a steep decline before the delta spike there wasn't a peep about thinking about ending it. COVID cases will likely never get to near zero and therefore the ones in charge of this mandate will not remove it. They don't want fully vaccinated people to feel unsafe.

I don't want to wait until 2025. I don't want this happen for a few more years or 2026-2029. The cases will be low enough by next year. Masks will be gone for public transportation. Don't you ever think about it.

 

[DisneyCane]

Over 90% of the population has MMR vaccine, how is this any different? We mandate MMR and nearly everyone has gotten it. You are falling for the talking points which haven’t changed since day 1. It’s the old “we have to learn to live with the virus“ narrative. That only works if the vaccines have failed so the constant attempt to paint them as a failure which they clearly are not. This is exactly why we cannot wait for people to decide for themselves. Mandates are the only answer and are ramping up. The spin will go on, but it’s irrelevant now. Nobody has to be convinced of anything. Get the shot or face the consequences.

So what happens if, after the mandates and availability to 5-11, with 80%+ fully vaccinated, the cases continue to percolate at above the threshold for "low" community transmission? Masks forever?

 

[dovetail65]

That is is presumption based on the efficacy continuing to decline, which it might not. We'll have to wait for the data to confirm that.

Before we get to boosting the original vaccine formulas, there may come a variant that escapes the current vaccines. In that case, we don't need a booster, we'll need a new vaccine formulation and everyone will need to be re-vaccinated. (Of course, a booster from the old formulation can be added to the new formulation so that the original variants don't reappear).

Well it is semantics really but yes a tailored booster could be an entirely different shot.

Right now what they call a booster is just the same shot, in a perfect world we will have tailored boosters for each strain of the virus and each humans own body. I guess after a full year we could call the next shot if it;s a different formula another vaccination instead of a booster. Many Dr's talk and will say a tailored booster(meaning a different shot formula than the first) is best and they still call it a booster even if it fighting a slightly different strain.

Technically correct or not most people as a whole are probably just going to call anything after this first regimen a booster ,even if it's different shot completely,especially if it's from the same company.

In 6 months we will know a heck of a lot more about boosters, what is safe or needed.

 

[correcaminos]

So what happens if, after the mandates and availability to 5-11, with 80%+ fully vaccinated, the cases continue to percolate at above the threshold for "low" community transmission? Masks forever?

How about we cross the bridge if this happens? Even unvaccinated India saw natural drops... it happens one way or another. One way just causes higher deaths and more stress on the medical world.

Well it is semantics really but yes a tailored booster could be an entirely different shot.

Right now what they call a booster is just the same shot, in a perfect world we will have tailored boosters for each strain of the virus and each humans own body. I guess after a full year we could call the next shot if it;s a different formula another vaccination instead of a booster. Many Dr's talk and will say a tailored booster(meaning a different shot formula than the first) is best and they still call it a booster even if it fighting a slightly different strain.

Technically correct or not most people as a whole are probably just going to call anything after this first regimen a booster ,even if it's different shot completely,especially if it's from the same company.

In 6 months we will know a heck of a lot more about boosters, what is safe or needed.

Depends on the trial. The trial I am in is just a 3rd dose of the same. Some boosters are tailored boosters. Truthfully with ongoing booster trials it's hard to guess where it will go. The current recommendations don't surprise me about boosters cor the mRNA. Not sure if J&J will push for 2nd shot. Those numbers are great though.

 

[danlb_2000]

Get shingles in your eye and you might see it differently

So do you vaccinate the children for chickenpox so they don't get it and then don't get shingles, or do you just vaccinate the adults against shingles?

 

[danlb_2000]

Except for places where school districts require COVID vaccines, I don't think the 5-11 uptake will be 60%+. After looking at data, I'm perplexed as to why so much focus is put on the 5-11 year old vaccine availability, specifically with respect to WDW mitigation policies.

According to data from the CDC, through 9/15/2021, there were 79 COVID deaths in children 5-11. Also according to the CDC, there are 26,446,096 children in the population who are 5-11. That's 0.0003% of the population from 5-11 that has died of COVID-19. Is this really a risk that needs to be mitigated? It's under 1 in 333,333. I don't know how many of these 79 had significant comorbidities but I'd guess a lot of them. The risk of a child in this age bracket dying from COVID is nearly zero without vaccines.

Death isn't the only negative outcome.

 

[GoofGoof]

So what happens if, after the mandates and availability to 5-11, with 80%+ fully vaccinated, the cases continue to percolate at above the threshold for "low" community transmission? Masks forever?

So because we don’t know if we will reach a vaccination level which will be high enough we shouldn’t bother trying? Take that argument outside of this politicized debate and it would seem very silly. Despite a nice win last night even if the Packers try as hard as they can they aren‘t likely to win the Super Bowl so should they just not bother trying? Ridiculous argument.

 

[mmascari]

So what happens if, after the mandates and availability to 5-11, with 80%+ fully vaccinated, the cases continue to percolate at above the threshold for "low" community transmission? Masks forever?

Define "forever"?

We'll eventually get above 80%.

We'll eventually get to a level that's high enough, whatever that level is.

One way or another, we'll get there. It may take longer, may involve more deaths. But, eventually enough of the currently younger and invincible people will age into the old and at risk people. Then, they'll either get sick and die or get sick enough and be protected. At the other end, we'll keep creating new children but at some point they'll all be required to get the vaccine just like every other vaccine and close the gap on that end.

We (the big "we", everyone not just individuals) have some agency in this. We could accelerate getting there sooner, or we could draw it out.

Unless of course, we draw it out so long that we get an unlucky mutation that renders the vaccine useless. There's risk in drawing it out.

 

[DisneyCane]

So because we don’t know if we will reach a vaccination level which will be high enough we shouldn’t bother trying? Take that argument outside of this politicized debate and it would seem very silly. Despite a nice win last night even if the Packers try as hard as they can they aren‘t likely to win the Super Bowl so should they just not bother trying? Ridiculous argument.

I never said not to try. I said that data and guidance from the CDC indicates that the vaccination level that is high enough can't be reached. I also do not support mandating vaccination "for the protection of others" when indications are (again, based on CDC guidance for the fully vaccinated) don't protect others to a very high degree.

Define "forever"?

We'll eventually get above 80%.

We'll eventually get to a level that's high enough, whatever that level is.

It's not guaranteed to ever get to the "high enough" level no matter what. If "high enough" requires 80% to be immune but the vaccines are only 70% effective in preventing infection then it is impossible to reach the required level, even with 100% vaccination.

 

[GoofGoof]

I never said not to try. I said that data and guidance from the CDC indicates that the vaccination level that is high enough can't be reached. I also do not support mandating vaccination "for the protection of others" when indications are (again, based on CDC guidance for the fully vaccinated) don't protect others to a very high degree.


It's not guaranteed to ever get to the "high enough" level no matter what. If "high enough" requires 80% to be immune but the vaccines are only 70% effective in preventing infection then it is impossible to reach the required level, even with 100% vaccination.

There is simply no truth to that. I posted a link a few pages back that showed that measles is still about 2Xs as contagious as delta covid. We have 90%+ vaccinated for measles and measles has been eliminated. The covid vaccine efficacy is in the same range of efficacy as MMR. The science does not support that a high enough vaccine level cannot be reached. That’s an anti-vaxx talking point. Like it or not.

It really doesn’t matter if all people support mandates or not anyway. You can’t convince everyone. Get the vaccine or face the consequences. End of story.

 

[mmascari]

I never said not to try.

You kind of did. It feels like you've been fine with not trying all year actually. Content with whatever personal protection the vaccine provides and ignoring any group dynamic the vaccine creates. Which misses the point of how vaccines really work. They work much better on the group dynamic then they do on just an individual.

I also do not support mandating vaccination "for the protection of others" when indications are (again, based on CDC guidance for the fully vaccinated) don't protect others to a very high degree.

What CDC guidance says the vaccine doesn't protect the group?

When I read the guidance, it's clear that individuals being vaccinated in a pool of virus has risk. But, that being vaccinated helps to drain the pool of virus. Eventually, the pool will be empty enough that it's safe for everyone, and enough people being vaccinated will keep the pool that way.

It's has always been a group project, not just an individual task. And the benefit to the group as a whole has always been larger than the the sum of the parts of the individual benefits.

 

[GoofGoof]

What CDC guidance says the vaccine doesn't protect the group?

He‘s saying that because the CDC recommends fully vaccinated people wear a mask that the vaccines don’t work. Same tired, anti-mask rhetoric.

 

[correcaminos]

So do you vaccinate the children for chickenpox so they don't get it and then don't get shingles, or do you just vaccinate the adults against shingles?

Vax the kids here. It's required for school anyway.

 

[mmascari]

He‘s saying that because the CDC recommends fully vaccinated people wear a mask that the vaccines don’t work. Same tired, anti-mask rhetoric.

I like to see it restated every now and then so we can be sure there's not some new misread of the guidance going on.

Nobody has to be convinced of anything. Get the shot or face the consequences.

You can’t convince everyone. Get the vaccine or face the consequences. End of story.

Someone is clearly ready for the group to stop slacking and pull it's own weight too. Either that or you had to much/to little coffee today.

 

[Ayla]

Oh man, all those people that got J&J because it was one and done gonna be mad when they have to get another&J

I got J&J because it was what was available to me at the time. The one shot only had no bearing on why I decided to get it.

 

[DisneyCane]

He‘s saying that because the CDC recommends fully vaccinated people wear a mask that the vaccines don’t work. Same tired, anti-mask rhetoric.

No. I'm saying that because the CDC stated that fully vaccinated people can and do still spread the virus that the vaccines don't have high enough efficacy to reach herd immunity. They definitely work to a high degree in preventing severe illness and significantly reducing death for people who are fully vaccinated based on the data.