Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[mmascari]

The hypothetical "Aunt Sally" will not be happy with you.

How would not knowing that you exposed her make her happier?

It would be the same risk, only she wouldn't know it, could potentially pass it one to someone else, or could get sick and not know why, perhaps missing the critical 3 day window for quick treatment.

The alternative to this isn't that Aunt Sally wasn't exposed, it's that she doesn't know it. I get that ignorance is bliss, but knowing should be better.

 

[Andrew C]

Don't agree with everything in the article, but decent read.

 

[seascape]

Right now, when the unvaccinated pool of transmission is so high, you need both. The spill over effect into the vaccinated group is high enough that it's an issue too. Testing helps when actions are taken based on the test results, not just collecting them as abstract data.

Yes, 0.5 billion tests is and inadequate number if that's all we get for an entire year. Did they announce a time frame or duration or just that it's coming? Did you think we all thought they were doing a stellar job with testing?

Ideally, if we're talking about a one year time frame, 52 weeks, we want more like 50 billion home tests. That would let 300 million people test 3 or 4 times a week. Not quite every day, but way more than the less than once a week going on now. If you wanted the smallest possible number, perhaps 10 billion over 12 weeks for about 3 tests a week.

Even so, starting with 0.5 billion is better than starting with 0, which is where we were. Maybe nobody (or not enough) sign up for them, maybe they don't actually use them. If we have enough tests for 300 million people to test 4 times a week, but only 100 million actually request them and they only test 1 time a week for 5 weeks, then 0.5 billion was right on the money. Might as well start with that and ramp up as you get people on board.

I wish people would think about costs before coming out with a statement of how often people should be tested. Saying everyone should be tested 3 to 4 times a week is just crazy. That would mean a family of 4 needs 14 tests a week. Even if tests only cost $20 each the cost would be $280 a week or $14,560 a year per family. Who is going to pay that? Put another way, there are about 330 million people in the US. Testing everyone 3.5 times a week would cost $23.1 billion a week, if the test only cost $20. Now that is $1.2 trillion a year but who cares. The US has a GDP of $21 trillion so spending 5% of that for testing is fine. We can just take that by taking an additional 5% of everyones pay. I want testing but it costs money and should be done on an as needed bases, not everyone every other day.

 

[mmascari]

I wish people would think about costs before coming out with a statement of how often people should be tested. Saying everyone should be tested 3 to 4 times a week is just crazy. That would mean a family of 4 needs 14 tests a week. Even if tests only cost $20 each the cost would be $280 a week or $14,560 a year per family. Who is going to pay that? Put another way, there are about 330 million people in the US. Testing everyone 3.5 times a week would cost $23.1 billion a week, if the test only cost $20. Now that is $1.2 trillion a year but who cares. The US has a GDP of $21 trillion so spending 5% of that for testing is fine. We can just take that by taking an additional 5% of everyones pay. I want testing but it costs money and should be done on an as needed bases, not everyone every other day.

Good thing nobody suggested individuals have to pay that. I posted the cost breakdowns of 300 million people testing 4 times a week earlier this week. Short answer, at $7 retail price per test, it's half a trillion for a year. Better answer, if they can drive the price to $3.50, then 1.5 billion tests "only" costs $273 billion dollars. Compared to the cost and impact of the pandemic that's not that much.

Accurate enough would be good enough. You make up for it with volume.

Walmart sells them for $7 a test. A $14 two pack BinaxNOW. CVS sells the same thing for $25. So, either Walmart is loss leading or selling at cost or pennies above cost, or CVS is has a more expensive operations cost and needs the higher price.

I wonder how much of the $7 is actual test costs vs mark up to cover prior development cost. If it's all materials, hard to drive it down. But, if half the cost is to cover the initial development and initial factory spread out over the expected production run, then someone ordering 1.5 billion tests should be able to drive that price down, spreading that overhead across the huge volume. Not to mention, the profit margin can be a lot smaller on that volume and still turn out hugely profitable.

At $7 for 1.5 billion tests to hit 300 million people 5 days a week for 1 year is $546 billion dollars.

It's only $273B at $3.50 a test if they can drive the price down.

Compared to the economic damage the pandemic is going to cost and the other relief costs, it doesn't sound that bad. I mean, it's not great, but it's not like its out of the realm of possibility.

The assumption that we didn't need to keep pushing testing and could count on just the vaccine was a bad policy.

From this link: https://www.investopedia.com/govern...sis-4799723#toc-stimulus-and-relief-package-1

Across 4 relief packages, mostly the third one, we've already spent $2,793 Billion. Making spending $273 billion on a huge testing and early identification while not cheap also not outrageous. Drop it to 3 tests a week and it's "barely" over $150 billion.


I wish people would think about costs of the pandemic dragging on as they continue to do Pro-COVID actions.


If this was a late night commercial, it would be something like: For the cost of a Micky Bar every day, you too can help to limit the spread of COVID. Your Micky Bar contribution will help save Aunt Sally's life, help a kid go to school, save a cancer patient. PLEASE, will you give your Micky Bar today?

This being a WDW forum, I assume nobody would give up a Mikey Bar, but many would probably give up a Starbucks Coffee.

 

[JoeCamel]

I wish people would think about costs before coming out with a statement of how often people should be tested. Saying everyone should be tested 3 to 4 times a week is just crazy. That would mean a family of 4 needs 14 tests a week. Even if tests only cost $20 each the cost would be $280 a week or $14,560 a year per family. Who is going to pay that? Put another way, there are about 330 million people in the US. Testing everyone 3.5 times a week would cost $23.1 billion a week, if the test only cost $20. Now that is $1.2 trillion a year but who cares. The US has a GDP of $21 trillion so spending 5% of that for testing is fine. We can just take that by taking an additional 5% of everyones pay. I want testing but it costs money and should be done on an as needed bases, not everyone every other day.

Good thing nobody suggested individuals have to pay that. I posted the cost breakdowns of 300 million people testing 4 times a week earlier this week. Short answer, at $7 retail price per test, it's half a trillion for a year. Better answer, if they can drive the price to $3.50, then 1.5 billion tests "only" costs $273 billion dollars. Compared to the cost and impact of the pandemic that's not that much.



From this link: https://www.investopedia.com/govern...sis-4799723#toc-stimulus-and-relief-package-1

Across 4 relief packages, mostly the third one, we've already spent $2,793 Billion. Making spending $273 billion on a huge testing and early identification while not cheap also not outrageous. Drop it to 3 tests a week and it's "barely" over $150 billion.


I wish people would think about costs of the pandemic dragging on as they continue to do Pro-COVID actions.


If this was a late night commercial, it would be something like: For the cost of a Micky Bar every day, you too can help to limit the spread of COVID. Your Micky Bar contribution will help save Aunt Sally's life, help a kid go to school, save a cancer patient. PLEASE, will you give your Micky Bar today?

This being a WDW forum, I assume nobody would give up a Mikey Bar, but many would probably give up a Starbucks Coffee.

Feds are not paying retail, what is the true cost for a test?

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Feds are not paying retail, what is the true cost for a test?

Probably $1-$2. When I got my booster at CVS the reimbursement rate was lasted as $2.50.

 

[mmascari]

Feds are not paying retail, what is the true cost for a test?

No idea, that's why I guessed at $3.50.

Walmart sells the BinaxNOW for $14 and it contains 2 tests. It's $25 at CVS. So, either Walmart is losing money on every sale, or they're making at least a little. Bonus, they'll ship it for free if you spend enough, say 3 units. So, they're either covering the shipping cost or they're really losing money on the order.

If Walmart can sell it for $14 for 2, which is $7 a test. I would hope the federal government could use it's buying power and economy of scale to drive the unit price down to $3.50. At $3.50, everyone should test 3 times (or 4) a week. Take test then eat some breakfast.

 

[Ayla]

A question for those of you who like to brand unvaccinated people stupid and/or selfish: What do you hope to achieve? I can only assume it’s a way for you to let off steam rather than a strategy for actually changing anyone’s mind. I can’t imagine a more counterproductive approach to getting someone on side than insulting them.

At this point, I. Do. Not. Care. Period. The end. Their willful ignorance and stupidity has dragged this out for MONTHS longer than it should have gone.

If they haven't gotten vaccinated by now, they aren't ever going to be vaccinated.

If they are unvaccinated and end up hospitalized or dead, oh well. They made their choice.

(This, of course, does not apply to people who have valid medical reasons for not being vaccinated.)

 

[lazyboy97o]

I wish people would think about costs before coming out with a statement of how often people should be tested. Saying everyone should be tested 3 to 4 times a week is just crazy. That would mean a family of 4 needs 14 tests a week. Even if tests only cost $20 each the cost would be $280 a week or $14,560 a year per family. Who is going to pay that? Put another way, there are about 330 million people in the US. Testing everyone 3.5 times a week would cost $23.1 billion a week, if the test only cost $20. Now that is $1.2 trillion a year but who cares. The US has a GDP of $21 trillion so spending 5% of that for testing is fine. We can just take that by taking an additional 5% of everyones pay. I want testing but it costs money and should be done on an as needed bases, not everyone every other day.

One person in the hospital costs more than a family of four testing for a year. You keep saying “Think of the cost” and then advocate something more expensive.

 

[Heppenheimer]

A question for those of you who like to brand unvaccinated people stupid and/or selfish: What do you hope to achieve? I can only assume it’s a way for you to let off steam rather than a strategy for actually changing anyone’s mind. I can’t imagine a more counterproductive approach to getting someone on side than insulting them.

I come here to rant occasionally, knowing that this is mostly safe territory.

It's kind of hard to really define "stupid" precisely. I've run into people who arrived at their antivaccine and antimask beliefs by perfectly logical thought processes. Aristotle himself might be proud of the reasoning.

But... these sound logical arguments are based on completely faulty premises that they have either implicitly or explicitly accepted as valid. And often, these individuals lack the insight to understand their own knowledge gaps. I've found that they can not accept this and employ all kinds of mental roadblocks to justify holding on to their positions.

Here's an example that's very fresh in my mind. The governor of my state, rather than show the political courage to re-implement a statewide indoor mask mandate while the entire state has become saturated with COVID cases, has left the decision up to the individual towns to decide. Against some small but very vocal opposition, my town board of selectors voted for the mandate. I and the handful of other health care providers who live in this very small rural town wrote an open letter of support for the mandate, and our letter was largely the deciding factor in the vote.

Flash forward a few days ago, and I'm taking my two dogs on our usual walk down to the village green. I see a woman standing on the corner holding a sign that says "Honk for no masks". Well, because I live in the town, our local hospital is bending but not yet breaking from COVID cases, and I have two children too young to get vaccinated (one not yet a week old), I could not let this go unaddressed.

So, I walked over to talk the woman. I asked her why she is against mask mandates in the middle of a pandemic, and what alternative solution she would suggest to slow the spread of COVID when the local medical system is at risk of overcapacity (turns out she was also antivaxx, but I didn't go down that route). She had no answer to the question, only to give her credentials as a "former health teacher" and to pull out a study that showed people had a slight but statistically significant increase in their pCO2 while exercising and wearing an N95 mask. She kept hammering that we don't know the long-term damage of this increase. I tried explaining that because of basic concepts like the Henderson-Hasselbach equation for acid-base buffering and the oxygen-carbon dioxide dissociation curve, this increase in pCO2 can be quickly dissipated by increasing the respiratory rate or tidal volume, or more slowly compensated by increased H+ secretion in the urine. To which, she replied, "Oh, do you have any studies that show that?" Of course I didn't, because these are fundamentals of chemistry and physiology that have been textbook knowledge for over a century. I also pointed out that I have 20 years of clinical experience as a physician and even patients with severe COPD and congestive heart failure can easily tolerate mask wearing. Which was answered again with, "Do you have a study for that"? (There are studies that show this, but I couldn't name them off the top of my head). As of if 20 years of health care experience counts for nothing.

Anyway, it was very clear that her knowledge of medicine was very superficial and the understanding of the underlying chemistry and physics was almost non-existent. But she was just incapable of reaching the realization that her own understanding was extremely superficial.

So, again, what is "stupid"? Is it someone who can not digest complex topics that require multiple levels of base knowledge to comprehend? If so, then count me as stupid, because there's a lot of economic and scientific concepts in which I have no formal training and I struggle to comprehend (I stumble everytime I hear about "bond yields" in business news). Or is it someone who willfully closes themselves off to information that conflicts with their belief system? Or is it someone who refuses to accept that their understanding a superficial point of surface data belies ignorance of the underlying concepts necessary to put that data in the proper context?

I try to have compassion for those who do not have the background to distinguish between good and bad information. I have less patience, though, for those who lack the self-awareness to recognize their own deficiencies. And I have even less patience for those who not only lack this quality, but have the potential to cause active harm through it. Hence, I couldn't let this situation on the village green go unaddressed.

End of rant... for now.

 

[seascape]

"Ahead of Biden’s announcement, New York Attorney General Letitia James put out an alert on COVID-19 test kit price gouging. Though some kits can cost between $14 and $25 per package, her office has heard of some kit prices allegedly running up to $70."

Now, I am sure Biden is paying the US Post office something for delivering the test. So is $20.00 an unreadonable estimate unreasonable? Plus I am not sure thr exact number, I remeber Biden mentioning he was using a billion dollars for this, but I may be wrong. He also said insured people could get their insurance company pay for home testing, so I am sure they will pay $20 or more. I know my insurance company paid much more than that for my in person test and I have had 4 PCR tests and 2 rapid tests. Then add in 3 antibody tests. I did pay for all the Zink, D3 and C but my insurance paid for my steroid. This is not free and the money has to come from somewhere.

 

[mmascari]

I come here to rant occasionally, knowing that this is mostly safe territory.

Please keep coming too, it's quite insightful for the rest of us.

Anyway, it was very clear that her knowledge of medicine was very superficial and the understanding of the underlying chemistry and physics was almost non-existent. But she was just incapable of reaching the realization that her own understanding was extremely superficial.

She's internalized it. It will be impossible for her to change her decision now. That type of self discovery would require that she come to terms with being wrong for the last 2 years and all the implications that has. That's a monumental hill to climb and not likely to ever happen.

Hence, why we need solutions that don't involve her changing her mind. She just needs to do the right thing, not agree with it.



PS: Congratulations on the new offspring.

PPS: Remember, they only get kid rates at WDW until they're 10.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I come here to rant occasionally, knowing that this is mostly safe territory.

It's kind of hard to really define "stupid" precisely. I've run into people who arrived at their antivaccine and antimask beliefs by perfectly logical thought processes. Aristotle himself might be proud of the reasoning.

But... these sound logical arguments are based on completely faulty premises that they have either implicitly or explicitly accepted as valid. And often, these individuals lack the insight to understand their own knowledge gaps. I've found that they can not accept this and employ all kinds of mental roadblocks to justify holding on to their positions.

Here's an example that's very fresh in my mind. The governor of my state, rather than show the political courage to re-implement a statewide indoor mask mandate while the entire state has become saturated with COVID cases, has left the decision up to the individual towns to decide. Against some small but very vocal opposition, my town board of selectors voted for the mandate. I and the handful of other health care providers who live in this very small rural town wrote an open letter of support for the mandate, and our letter was largely the deciding factor in the vote.

Flash forward a few days ago, and I'm taking my two dogs on our usual walk down to the village green. I see a woman standing on the corner holding a sign that says "Honk for no masks". Well, because I live in the town, our local hospital is bending but not yet breaking from COVID cases, and I have two children too young to get vaccinated (one not yet a week old), I could not let this go unaddressed.

So, I walked over to talk the woman. I asked her why she is against mask mandates in the middle of a pandemic, and what alternative solution she would suggest to slow the spread of COVID when the local medical system is at risk of overcapacity (turns out she was also antivaxx, but I didn't go down that route). She had no answer to the question, only to give her credentials as a "former health teacher" and to pull out a study that showed people had a slight but statistically significant increase in their pCO2 while exercising and wearing an N95 mask. She kept hammering that we don't know the long-term damage of this increase. I tried explaining that because of basic concepts like the Henderson-Hasselbach equation for acid-base buffering and the oxygen-carbon dioxide dissociation curve, this increase in pCO2 can be quickly dissipated by increasing the respiratory rate or tidal volume, or more slowly compensated by increased H+ secretion in the urine. To which, she replied, "Oh, do you have any studies that show that?" Of course I didn't, because these are fundamentals of chemistry and physiology that have been textbook knowledge for over a century. I also pointed out that I have 20 years of clinical experience as a physician and even patients with severe COPD and congestive heart failure can easily tolerate mask wearing. Which was answered again with, "Do you have a study for that"? (There are studies that show this, but I couldn't name them off the top of my head). As of if 20 years of health care experience counts for nothing.

Anyway, it was very clear that her knowledge of medicine was very superficial and the understanding of the underlying chemistry and physics was almost non-existent. But she was just incapable of reaching the realization that her own understanding was extremely superficial.

So, again, what is "stupid"? Is it someone who can not digest complex topics that require multiple levels of base knowledge to comprehend? If so, then count me as stupid, because there's a lot of economic and scientific concepts in which I have no formal training and I struggle to comprehend (I stumble everytime I hear about "bond yields" in business news). Or is it someone who willfully closes themselves off to information that conflicts with their belief system? Or is it someone who refuses to accept that their understanding a superficial point of surface data belies ignorance of the underlying concepts necessary to put that data in the proper context?

I try to have compassion for those who do not have the background to distinguish between good and bad information. I have less patience, though, for those who lack the self-awareness to recognize their own deficiencies. And I have even less patience for those who not only lack this quality, but have the potential to cause active harm through it. Hence, I couldn't let this situation on the village green go unaddressed.

End of rant... for now.

Of course the lady had her handout ready and the impenetrable argument of "we don't know what could happen down the road" argument ready, knowing full well that nobody passing her on the street would just be carrying studies around in a binder to show her (as if she would accept their findings, anyway).

The most ridiculous example of hypocrisy and a lack of self awareness that I've seen lately is someone sharing a social media post defending DeSantis and his decisions and saying that nobody can question/criticize him without posting their own education and military credentials because DeSantis attended Yale and served in the Navy (because his BA in history and his law degree make him an expert in infectious diseases, obviously). Of course, none of the people sharing or liking the post have any sort of medical degree but don't feel the need to stop criticizing Fauci or the CDC because they don't have the same level of education. Obviously, anyone can criticize those big dummies but only Yale graduates who served in the military can question a governor (or, more specifically, this particular governor).

 

[mmascari]

Now, I am sure Biden is paying the US Post office something for delivering the test. So is $20.00 an unreadonable estimate unreasonable?

Yes, $20 is an unreasonable estimate, by a huge amount. Beyond that, the Federal Government gets a wonderful US Postal rate. If they're sending that many, they don't have to care how long it takes, junk mail rate. The test box is super light.

The insurance plan (if they still do it) was always garbage. That's like the least efficient way to distribute and pay for tests with the most overhead. Direct mail from them to us. Similar to the direct ordering and delivery to clinics of vaccines or the direct mail for all the other stuff the federal government mails out.

 

[Ayla]

I just ordered 3 BinaxNOW tests from Walgreens to pick up in 30 minutes. All 3 tests were $76 and I used HSA to pay for it.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Of course the lady had her handout ready and the impenetrable argument of "we don't know what could happen down the road" argument ready, knowing full well that nobody passing her on the street would just be carrying studies around in a binder to show her (as if she would accept their findings, anyway).

The most ridiculous example of hypocrisy and a lack of self awareness that I've seen lately is someone sharing a social media post defending DeSantis and his decisions and saying that nobody can question/criticize him without posting their own education and military credentials because DeSantis attended Yale and served in the Navy (because his BA in history and his law degree make him an expert in infectious diseases, obviously). Of course, none of the people sharing or liking the post have any sort of medical degree but don't feel the need to stop criticizing Fauci or the CDC because they don't have the same level of education. Obviously, anyone can criticize those big dummies but only Yale graduates who served in the military can question a governor (or, more specifically, this particular governor).

I outrank him, so even though I didn't go to Yale, is my criticism still valid?

Looks like I also have more combat deployments than him too, if we're going to play that big boy game.

 

[GimpYancIent]

How would not knowing that you exposed her make her happier?

It would be the same risk, only she wouldn't know it, could potentially pass it one to someone else, or could get sick and not know why, perhaps missing the critical 3 day window for quick treatment.

The alternative to this isn't that Aunt Sally wasn't exposed, it's that she doesn't know it. I get that ignorance is bliss, but knowing should be better.

Yeah, sure. Then why didn't you get tested and know before going ahead and exposing "Aunt Sally". I am sure she would have appreciated canceling the meeting so as not to expose her more.

 

[DisneyFan32]

The pandemic could end in 2022 â here's what 'normal' life might look like soon, according to medical experts

Epidemiologists and infectious disease experts say Covid-19 could become endemic, ending the pandemic, in 2022. Here's what 'normal' life might look like soon.

www.cnbc.com

Will COVID-19 end in 2024? Pfizer leaders predict the future of the coronavirus

COVID-19 could see a massive change by 2024.

www.deseret.com

Bill Gates cancels holiday plans due to omicron, believes pandemic will end in 2022

The Microsoft co-founder says the first part of the new year could be bad, but believes an omicron wave could last less than three months.

www.cnet.com

Hopefully this is might be true for pandemic ending soon because COVID-19 pills are available for mid 2022.

 

[jlhwdw]

I'm headed to my basement until July 4th, 2023.

 

[DisneyFan32]

I'm headed to my basement until July 4th, 2023.

Bill Gates cancels holiday plans due to omicron, believes pandemic will end in 2022

The Microsoft co-founder says the first part of the new year could be bad, but believes an omicron wave could last less than three months.

www.cnet.com