Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[correcaminos]

FIL has been admitted. His breathing is labored and O2 stats lower than they would like. But he is only on 3L oxygen and nebulizer treatments. No ICU. Sounds hopeful that he will only need oxygen support for a few days. DH is feeling a little better with this news but still very nervous.

A friend of mine went through similar 2 days after first dose. Asthmatic and other issues. Was out in a few days.

 

[Disstevefan1]

So... what's the problem with mandating the vaccine again?

1. The mandate. Some folks have valid reasons not to get vaccinated at the moment, like trying to have a baby.

2. The arbitrary deadlines for the mandates.

3. Folks who already had COVID and have fully recovered. There is no consideration of natural immunity. There isn't even talk about the use of antibody tests to CHALLENGE folks who claim immunity. I wonder why there is NO TALK WHATSOEVER about antibody tests?

4. The vaccine is only to hopefully protect the person receiving it. The vaccine does not prevent the spread, nor does it prevent the person from contracting COVID, and in rare cases, the vaccine does not prevent dying from COVID, Colin Powell was fully vaccinated.

I am not anti vaccine. I am anti mandate for our first responders who, by the nature of their jobs, everyday face things MUCH MORE DEADLY than COVID.

 

[October82]

1. The mandate. Some folks have valid reasons not to get vaccinated at the moment, like trying to have a baby.

The vaccines have no safety or efficacy concerns around pregnancy.

2. The arbitrary deadlines for the mandates.

What makes a deadline arbitrary? That's a serious question, mind you, I really don't know what, in this case, would make a deadline more or less arbitrary. If there's a good reason for moving the date to some other, I'm sure most people wouldn't have a problem doing that.

3. Folks who already had COVID and have fully recovered. There is no consideration of natural immunity. There isn't even talk about the use of antibody tests to CHALLENGE folks who claim immunity. I wonder why there is NO TALK WHATSOEVER about antibody tests?

We know that recovery from Covid does not produce long-lasting immunity. Folks who have previously had Covid are susceptible to subsequent infection very soon after recovery, while the vaccines induce substantially more durable immunity.

4. The vaccine is only to hopefully protect the person receiving it. The vaccine does not prevent the spread, nor does it prevent the person from contracting COVID, and in rare cases, the vaccine does not prevent dying from COVID, Colin Powell was fully vaccinated.

The vaccines are remarkably effective. As we are all well aware, nothing in life is free from risk, but the Covid vaccines reduce your risk of severe health outcomes from Covid by several factors of 10. If you live in an area with a high vaccination rate, your odds of contracting Covid are reduced by many factors of 10. That's what vaccines do. While they do provide some personal benefit, vaccination is about protecting others. Which is why it seems reasonable to require people who are literally employed to help others to be vaccinated. It costs them nothing while helping everyone, including themselves.

I am not anti vaccine. I am anti mandate for our first responders who, by the nature of their jobs, everyday face things MUCH MORE DEADLY than COVID.

This (sincerely) makes absolutely no sense to me. Yes, other things are dangerous. Covid doesn't have to be dangerous too. It can be something that we just don't have to worry about anymore. But that means getting vaccinated. I want to understand what you're trying to say, and I want to read what you're saying and not think "this person is anti-vaccine", but I just don't get it.

 

[Disstevefan1]

The vaccines have no safety or efficacy concerns around pregnancy.



What makes a deadline arbitrary? That's a serious question, mind you, I really don't know what, in this case, would make a deadline more or less arbitrary. If there's a good reason for moving the date to some other, I'm sure most people wouldn't have a problem doing that.



We know that recovery from Covid does not produce long-lasting immunity. Folks who have previously had Covid are susceptible to subsequent infection very soon after recovery, while the vaccines induce substantially more durable immunity.



The vaccines are remarkably effective. As we are all well aware, nothing in life is free from risk, but the Covid vaccines reduce your risk of severe health outcomes from Covid by several factors of 10. If you live in an area with a high vaccination rate, your odds of contracting Covid are reduced by many factors of 10. That's what vaccines do. While they do provide some personal benefit, vaccination is about protecting others. Which is why it seems reasonable to require people who are literally employed to help others to be vaccinated. It costs them nothing while helping everyone, including themselves.



This (sincerely) makes absolutely no sense to me. Yes, other things are dangerous. Covid doesn't have to be dangerous too. It can be something that we just don't have to worry about anymore. But that means getting vaccinated. I want to understand what you're trying to say, and I want to read what you're saying and not think "this person is anti-vaccine", but I just don't get it.

You win.
I hope we do not lose too many first responders over this.
I hope we don't lose regular vaccinated folks who could not get the help they needed due to the lack of first responders.

 

[mikejs78]

. The mandate. Some folks have valid reasons not to get vaccinated at the moment, like trying to have a baby.

The vaccine is safe for achieving pregnancy and carrying a baby to term. There is zero evidence that the vaccine in any way affects pregnancy. In fact, COVID can cause miscarriages and potential loss of life for the mother.

The arbitrary deadlines for the mandates.

If there's no deadline, it wouldn't be a mandate. Is there any deadline that wouldn't be arbitrary? Why is that a bad thing?

. The vaccine is only to hopefully protect the person receiving it. The vaccine does not prevent the spread, nor does it prevent the person from contracting COVID, and in rare cases, the vaccine does not prevent dying from COVID, Colin Powell was fully vaccinated.

How many times do I have to say it? You're wrong. The vaccine does substantially reduce the spread. The vaccines does substantially reduce a person from contracting covid. Just like all vaccines.

Where all vaccines really shine is when a whole population is vaccinated. The math just multiples so that the virus just has no where to go and dies out.

Vaccination isn't about just protecting yourself. It's about protecting others as well. The COVID infected first responder who is called to the house of a cancer patient who is immunocompromised could literally be responsible for killing that person.

Colon Powell had a severe form of cancer that left him immunocompromised. He wasn't a typical patient.

. Folks who already had COVID and have fully recovered. There is no consideration of natural immunity. There isn't even talk about the use of antibody tests to CHALLENGE folks who claim immunity. I wonder why there is NO TALK WHATSOEVER about antibody tests?

Because natural immunity is uneven. Two people can have the same severity of infection and vastly different levels of immunity. And immunity wanes at vastly different rates for different people.

With vaccines, it's been proven that for the vast majority of people (barring specific people who are immunocompromised) the immune protection is the same. So it's predictable.

Finally, antibody tests don't tell what level of immunity someone has. It only tells how many antibodies are present at a given time. Antibodies wane at rapidly different paces from natural infection. Two people can have the same levels at one point, and one person loses most of them in a month while another one can keep them for 6-8 months.

And there is no test to tell if someone has developed memory T-Cells or B-Cells to fight off future infection once the antibodies wane. Again, some will. Some will not. But with vaccines, almost everyone does. We have the data that proves that.

am not anti vaccine. I am anti mandate for our first responders who, by the nature of their jobs, everyday face things MUCH MORE DEADLY than COVID

Why is the COVID vaccine different from every other vaccine that's mandated for first responders?

 

[mikejs78]

You win.
I hope we do not lose too many first responders over this.
I hope we don't lose regular vaccinated folks who could not get the help they needed due to the lack of first responders.

And I hope where unvaccinated people are allowed to continue being first responders, we don't lose too many people because they were infected by a first responder.

 

[October82]

You win.
I hope we do not lose too many first responders over this.
I hope we don't lose regular vaccinated folks who could not get the help they needed due to the lack of first responders.

I'm not trying to win an argument, I just don't understand what your concerns are.

If what you're really worried about is police officers losing their jobs, I don't think there's anything wrong with being worried about that. I do think people have to be responsible for their actions, and choosing a career as a public servant means that you need to put the public first. That's the choice you make when you put a uniform on, and if you no longer want to make that choice, you can choose another career.

If the NYPD is any indication, it looks like vaccine non-compliance rates are going to be about 0.1%. I don't think there's going to be any longterm consequences from this. Especially considering those people can return to work after getting vaccinated and no doubt many of them will.

 

[mkt]

I chuckle at parents planning to claim a religious exemption.

Tell them the supreme court already determined that pubic health goes above individual liberties (Prince v. Massachusetts)

 

[JoeCamel]

the vaccine does not prevent dying from COVID, Colin Powell was fully vaccinated.

I missed that bit on first reading. He was a sick man before he contracted covid and that disease prevented his immune system from reacting normally to the vaccine as a well person's would.

 

[Timmay]

You win.
I hope we do not lose too many first responders over this.
I hope we don't lose regular vaccinated folks who could not get the help they needed due to the lack of first responders.

Again, honest question. Police/Fire/EMS have been required to have a handful of immunizations/vaccines for at least the last 30 years. What’s different about this one??

 

[danlb_2000]

3. Folks who already had COVID and have fully recovered. There is no consideration of natural immunity. There isn't even talk about the use of antibody tests to CHALLENGE folks who claim immunity. I wonder why there is NO TALK WHATSOEVER about antibody tests?

There is not enough data yet to be able to draw conclusions about your protection level based on your antibody levels.

COVID Antibody Tests Won't Tell You What You Want to Know • Stateline

In Kentucky, the Senate passed a resolution in September that would have enabled residents to substitute an antibody test for proof of vaccination. The resolution proposed that an individual with antibodies at a level above the 20th percentile of the immunized population should be recognized as...

www.pewtrusts.org

 

[ABQ]

There is not enough data yet to be able to draw conclusions about your protection level based on your antibody levels.

COVID Antibody Tests Won't Tell You What You Want to Know • Stateline

In Kentucky, the Senate passed a resolution in September that would have enabled residents to substitute an antibody test for proof of vaccination. The resolution proposed that an individual with antibodies at a level above the 20th percentile of the immunized population should be recognized as...

www.pewtrusts.org

Well now I'm even more confused, as someone earlier in on this forum, yesterday, maybe today, not sure, posted a study that was pretty adamant that immunity from prior infection was not as protective as vaccination. If that is a known conclusion then how does the Pew article claim that they don't know what level of protection antibodies create, but just that apparently, based on the other study, it's not as much as vaccination? I'm not making a claim one way or another, just frustrated at so many conflicting studies and reviews and analysis. Tough to trust the science when it conflicts or seems to mislead. Not directing any of this frustration at you @danlb_2000 , just posting a response based on your linked article.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Interesting chart that came out of the ACIP meeting today that authorized the vaccine for kids. It shows number of annual deaths deaths from the associated disease for which we vaccinate kids before a particular vaccine was introduced. These are all vaccines that we innoculate children with routinely.

View attachment 597486

And here's one for hospitalizations:

View attachment 597487

These numbers are with mitigations in place (masks, social distancing, etc.) - which has an effect that we can see when looking at the flu numbers for the 2020/2021 flu season. Experts extrapolated that the COVID numbers here would likely have been 3x-4x if life was back to normal.

That is, indeed, very interesting.

 

[October82]

Well now I'm even more confused, as someone earlier in on this forum, yesterday, maybe today, not sure, posted a study that was pretty adamant that immunity from prior infection was not as protective as vaccination. If that is a known conclusion then how does the Pew article claim that they don't know what level of protection antibodies create, but just that apparently, based on the other study, it's not as much as vaccination? I'm not making a claim one way or another, just frustrated at so many conflicting studies and reviews and analysis. Tough to trust the science when it conflicts or seems to mislead. Not directing any of this frustration at you @danlb_2000 , just posting a response based on your linked article.

Science journalism is often more conflicting than the underlying science. Different journalists make different simplifications of what scientific studies find, which often leads to confusion about what the science actually was. If you have a technical background, you can often find the paper itself and read that. Beyond that, in general, you should trust the authors of the studies (or even competing studies), then reliable journalism (Pew included), and so on. Low quality journalism, like Fox News, CNN or some random website, probably shouldn't be trusted at all. The people writing articles for these places generally aren't trained science journalists.

The issue here *seems* to be confusion over what is measured. We mainly know about how protective the vaccines are from the clinical trials. Patients are still being followed, so we know how often people get infected at 3,6,9 and probably 1 year at this point. We also know from widespread testing that people are often infected with Covid multiple times. So as a general conclusion, we know that the vaccines are more protective. The anti-body response is only one part of the immune response to Covid, so anti-body levels may or may not correlate with longterm protection.

 

[mikejs78]

Well now I'm even more confused, as someone earlier in on this forum, yesterday, maybe today, not sure, posted a study that was pretty adamant that immunity from prior infection was not as protective as vaccination. If that is a known conclusion then how does the Pew article claim that they don't know what level of protection antibodies create, but just that apparently, based on the other study, it's not as much as vaccination? I'm not making a claim one way or another, just frustrated at so many conflicting studies and reviews and analysis. Tough to trust the science when it conflicts or seems to mislead. Not directing any of this frustration at you @danlb_2000 , just posting a response based on your linked article.

Because the studies are measuring two things.

* One tried to correlate levels of antibodies from natural infection to levels of immunity and couldn't come up with a predictive number based on level of antibodies.
* The other study looked at a population level of how many people with breakthroughs were vaccinated vs previously infected. And there was a statistically significant difference.

 

[Andrew C]

Got my dog vaccinated today. Not Covid. Rabies and bordatella. Just doing my part.

 

[DCBaker]

 

[Andrew C]

 

[BuddyThomas]

1. The mandate. Some folks have valid reasons not to get vaccinated at the moment, like trying to have a baby.

2. The arbitrary deadlines for the mandates.

3. Folks who already had COVID and have fully recovered. There is no consideration of natural immunity. There isn't even talk about the use of antibody tests to CHALLENGE folks who claim immunity. I wonder why there is NO TALK WHATSOEVER about antibody tests?

4. The vaccine is only to hopefully protect the person receiving it. The vaccine does not prevent the spread, nor does it prevent the person from contracting COVID, and in rare cases, the vaccine does not prevent dying from COVID, Colin Powell was fully vaccinated.

I am not anti vaccine. I am anti mandate for our first responders who, by the nature of their jobs, everyday face things MUCH MORE DEADLY than COVID.

More lies.

 

[mikejs78]

View attachment 597495

And?