• 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

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
I'm in the US, Ohio specifically. My state is below average with 57.9% with one dose and 52.8% fully. That's pretty pathetic when you realize 50% with one dose was back in the beginning of Aug. I have seen a small uptick in my state but I'm sure it has to do with mandates. I don't want to mandate but when your state has counties with vaccination rates below 20% - and I'm not joking - your sense of hope diminishes

Hey, east TN waving at you. Check these numbers and climbing 50% week over week. See you in the spring
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Vaccines are not perfect. Vaccines are not useless. Both of those statements are true. I wish people could accept that both can be the case.

For me, personally, I am pro-vaccination -- I am fully vaccinated myself -- but I also don't believe that vaccines are going to "end" Covid. I just don't believe that, given the level of efficacy we are seeing from the vaccines, that you are going to ever get a high enough percentage of the population vaccinated to effectively stop Covid from transmitting in significant numbers. And, no, I don't think mandates or vaccine passports are going to get us there either. That's why I'm not interested in waiting until cases come down or vaccine rates go up or whatever to end mitigation measures and resume normal life. Because I just don't think it will happen.
How is people being denied medical care “normal life”? How are on going shortages “normal life”?
 

helenabear

Well-Known Member
Your state health board is telling you little white lies.
My medical board is not a state board to clarify. My health boards in my state is what I was saying. They also were not lying. We saw it with our own eyes. Acting like something isn't true, doesn't mean you are correct or that your lie becomes the truth.

Hey, east TN waving at you. Check these numbers and climbing 50% week over week. See you in the spring
I'm hoping we climb... (vaccines that is). We have been so flat for a long time.
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
I'm hoping we climb... (vaccines that is). We have been so flat for a long time.

I check our state rates a few times a week and it’s surprising that we are still averaging about 10,000 vaccinations a day. (Up a little more now but that’s due to boosters). We maxed out at about 25,000 a day in April.

I’d love to know what finally convinces people who have held out for 6 months to get the vaccine, if it’s just a higher comfort level as more time has elapsed, work mandate, someone they know suffered a bad case, etc.

Had we maintained 10,000 more vaccinations a day we could have had another 1.8 million vaccinations in arms in a state of 3 million, we’d be at essentially 100%. (We are currently at 61% over age 5)
 

MisterPenguin

🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧Fully Pfizered!🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧🐧
Premium Member
You are correct that the transmission is not equal. But the transmission among the vaccinated is also not zero. So what makes you think that even if we got to 100% vaccination (which never happens with any vaccine) that we would eliminate Covid?
Look at the chart below. The current wave is powered by the unvaccinated. The vaccinated do get 'breakthroughs.' But they are way more protected from hospitalizations and death than the unvaccinated. And they transmit it less... mostly from not getting it at all less, but also their window of being contagious is smaller.

Now, imagine if everyone was vaccinated. Rather than a big wave powered by the unvaxinated, you'd have a weak swell of breakthroughs. Vaccinated breakthroughs infect others less, so, the number of breakthroughs also drops. Less and less people get infected until it dies out.

We don't need transmission among the vaccinated to get to zero. As each breakthrough infects less and less, that is enough. Otherwise, how could any previous wavy have ever subsided? With everyone vaccinated, the case rate continually drops.

1637743187162.png
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
The Re was under 1 for many weeks in FL. What caused that?
Presumably, that equation is based on vaccination and doing nothing else. But, that's not how people behave, even in FL. Behaviors change, interactions change, group dynamics change. All things that impact the base rate of transmission. None of them are as durable as vaccination, since that's permanent and you don't have to keep doing it. Nobody makes a mistake and forgets to bring their vaccine status with them or thinks "it's just this once, it'll be fine".

Also, a ton of people were infected. Which also changes the dynamic and eliminates people who can get infected again, at least for a time.

All of those play out together. I assume some combination of them caused the Re in FL to drop.

Durability is the big difference. Keeping the vaccination percent high should be durable and keep the Re low. Without it, all those behaviors and group dynamics change. People react different when spread is lower. Drop their guard, think it's over. Prior infections will help for a while, until they aren't as durable either. Then it ramps back up.

That's the natural cycle you've talked about in many posts. It's not just some natural virus in isolation cycle. It's coupled with all those reactions too.

We need a durable mitigation that keeps the level low and isn't dependent on peoples day to day actions.

Cycles of peaks and valleys may get us there eventually. We've seen some studies on how much future protection past infection provides and for how long. But, has anyone done a study on what multiple infections provides? If someone had COVID, then got it again a year later (or 18 months or 2 years), do they have an enhanced protection that's stronger now and provides a more durable protection than a single infection? That would get us to the end too, it's just the long way there with lots left behind along the way.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
Presumably, that equation is based on vaccination and doing nothing else. But, that's not how people behave, even in FL. Behaviors change, interactions change, group dynamics change. All things that impact the base rate of transmission. None of them are as durable as vaccination, since that's permanent and you don't have to keep doing it. Nobody makes a mistake and forgets to bring their vaccine status with them or thinks "it's just this once, it'll be fine".

Also, a ton of people were infected. Which also changes the dynamic and eliminates people who can get infected again, at least for a time.

All of those play out together. I assume some combination of them caused the Re in FL to drop.

Durability is the big difference. Keeping the vaccination percent high should be durable and keep the Re low. Without it, all those behaviors and group dynamics change. People react different when spread is lower. Drop their guard, think it's over. Prior infections will help for a while, until they aren't as durable either. Then it ramps back up.

That's the natural cycle you've talked about in many posts. It's not just some natural virus in isolation cycle. It's coupled with all those reactions too.

We need a durable mitigation that keeps the level low and isn't dependent on peoples day to day actions.

Cycles of peaks and valleys may get us there eventually. We've seen some studies on how much future protection past infection provides and for how long. But, has anyone done a study on what multiple infections provides? If someone had COVID, then got it again a year later (or 18 months or 2 years), do they have an enhanced protection that's stronger now and provides a more durable protection than a single infection? That would get us to the end too, it's just the long way there with lots left behind along the way.
To answer the question in your last paragraph, no, nobody has yet done that study. Probably because the disease hasn't been around long enough that you could reasonably assemble a large enough cohort of people to follow who have contracted COVID multiple times.

What we do have, though, is emergin evidence that prior infection provides less reliable immunity on a population basis than vaccination.
 
Last edited:

mmascari

Well-Known Member
To answer the question in your last paragraph, no, nobody has yet done that study. Probably because the disease hasn't been around long enough that you could reasonably assemble a large enough cohort of people to follow who have contracted COVID multiple times.
Yup.

The studies on both if "the third COVID infection is the one that finally gives lasting protection or not" and "after the fourth booster, you're good for a decade instead of just a year, we finally think maybe" both suffer from the same basic issue.

I'll look forward to the possibility of reading both of those. (Not really, that would be depressing by then. Somebody bookmark this to check on when we get there.)
 

havoc315

Well-Known Member
As I said earlier, arms out for boosters:

Top U.S. infectious disease official Dr. Anthony Fauci said on Tuesday the vast majority of Americans who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 should receive a booster shot, and that an additional dose could eventually become the country's standard for determining who is fully vaccinated.

Asked to quantify, he said, the "overwhelming majority" of Americans who have been fully vaccinated should now receive a COVID-19 booster shot based on data showing they provide "substantial" protection beyond what is seen from the original inoculation.

 

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

Top Bottom