Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Willmark

Well-Known Member
You still haven't said who is being "rounded up"
The implication is to restrict travel no? How would that be accomplished? Honor system, feds checking? rounding up? Might want to check my follow up post. My even bigger question was denial of care? What’s your stance on that?
or acknowledged that there were existing vaccination requirements for international travel prior to this pandemic
Why would I need to acknowledge someone else’s point that I didn’t make or deny?

and your post hasn't been deleted,
Shockingly no, but that’s hardly the norm. So good job so far?

so are you really making a contrary point or just looking to play the victim?
Nope but interesting responses none the less. And to add I’m not the only one who has noticed the usual suspects will pounce on anything they don’t like.

Normally I just read this thread.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Which ones and for what except enrolling in school or international travel?

As far as I know there is no other disease for which vaccination is required for any typical activity. Has there ever been a vaccination required for an adult to get in order to be able to go to restaurant?
I'll bet your wife has stories of someone testing positive in the hospital and immediately being quarantined and not allowed to leave the hospital. Followed by immediate contact tracing and then testing those contacts.

I know I've heard them.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
In the past, places were closed due to public health concerns and peeople were forcibly isolated. These things did happen. Go read up on Mary Mallon. She wasn’t just put up in a hotel, there was a whole facility that existed where she was quarantined. These things stopped happening with frequency because vaccines and modern medicine dramatically reduced cases and improved outcomes.
Still doesn't answer the question of whether there have ever been vaccine requirements for adults to enter places of business.
I'll bet your wife has stories of someone testing positive in the hospital and immediately being quarantined and not allowed to leave the hospital. Followed by immediate contact tracing and then testing those contacts.

I know I've heard them.

Are you talking about COVID or other diseases?

Either way, what does this have to do with whether or not adults have ever been required to prove vaccination in order to go about a normal daily activity before?
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Still doesn't answer the question of whether there have ever been vaccine requirements for adults to enter places of business.


Are you talking about COVID or other diseases?

Either way, what does this have to do with whether or not adults have ever been required to prove vaccination in order to go about a normal daily activity before?
You’re getting ridiculous. You’re looking at a very specific use case and trying to claim it as somehow different than prohibiting people to go certain places, prohibiting people from engaging in certain types of work, school requirements that capture the vast majority of the population, university requirements that impact adults and compulsory vaccination that led to things like Jacobson v Massachusetts. Restricting access, restricting movement and penalties for acting or not acting for public health is not new. No, people weren’t barred from entering venues because they’d e imprisoned or forcibly committed to a quarantine hospital.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
Either way, what does this have to do with whether or not adults have ever been required to prove vaccination in order to go about a normal daily activity before?
To build off your thoughts:

At some point there is going to have to be something that gives. People are getting this despite being vaccinated, wearing masks, social distancing etc.

Likewise at some point there will come a point when the above will eventually lose steam and all the finger pointing at the unvaccinated won’t matter. Could be argued it doesn’t now.

I would think natural immunity and vaccinations are the only way out. I’m not entirely sure it ends any other way, certainly doesn’t look like vaccinations only will do it. (Got my vaccination debating the booster currently.)

And note to anyone: I’m not implying or saying that if it’s not 100% effective we shouldn’t do it. But at this stage everything should be reviewed for effectiveness, and yes that may include some things people will be uncomfortable discontinuing.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
And to add it seems like the options out of this are:
1. Vaccines only
2. Natural immunity.
3. Some combination of 1 and 2.
Edit: 4. Social distancing for a ~month until all infections are over. How would that be accomplished?
5. Something else? I’m all ears.

The sense I get here and IRL is that ONLY option 1 will work. I don’t see it that way, stranger things and all but doens’t seem likely.
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
The implication is to restrict travel no? How would that be accomplished? Honor system, feds checking? rounding up? Might want to check my follow up post. My even bigger question was denial of care? What’s your stance on that?

How are you making the leap from travel restrictions to "rounding people up?" If someone is arguing for vaccine requirements to travel, how does that constitute "rounding people up" in any way? Are you aware that such restrictions are already in place for international travel and haven't resulted in people being rounded up?

Denial of care is something that should only happen if hospitals are filled to capacity and/or using up all of their resources and the doctors need to determine the best way to use the available resources. Right now, there is a shortage of monoclonal antibodies, so they are only using them on patients that meet certain criteria. In that instance, I'm for it because there's no reason why a vaccinated cancer patient with a breakthrough case should be denied care over someone with a much lower risk of serious illness.

Why would I need to acknowledge someone else’s point that I didn’t make or deny?

So you didn't say this?

Let’s expand it then: if people are fine with restricting travel (which sounds like a ban on movement), next step after that doesn’t work? (because it sure doesn’t look like it has. Or perhaps we need to lock things down even more?)

That sure sounds like you're opposing the current travel restrictions, so it's more than fair to bring up the fact that similar restrictions were in place long before this pandemic.

Shockingly no, but that’s hardly the norm. So good job so far?

The only time I see posts get removed are when they violate forum rules or are part of a larger conversation that violated the rules (false information, abusive posts, etc.). If you are expecting your post to be deleted then it might be because you think you may have violated the forum rules or you are assigning presumed traits to others who disagree with you. Otherwise, why worry about it?

Nope but interesting responses none the less. And to add I’m not the only one who has noticed the usual suspects will pounce on anything they don’t like.

Normally I just read this thread.

People tend to pounce on things that are blatantly false, particularly when people continue posting demonstrably false information in the face of contrary evidence without sharing a source for their claims. People are going to disagree with each other here. It's an online forum and there's no realistic possibility that everyone will agree on anything, let alone a topic as charged as this one. There's a big difference between disagreeing with someone and "pouncing." If people can't handle someone disagreeing with them then an online forum isn't the place to share their opinions. And if you think there are "usual suspects" who violate the forum's rules in their responses then you can use the "Report" button on their posts and those types of responses will cease to be an issue. Or, if you'd rather not do that, just use the forum's "Ignore" feature and you won't even see their responses at all.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
And to add it seems like the options out of this are:
1. Vaccines only
2. Natural immunity.
3. Some combination of 1 and 2.
Edit: 4. Social distancing for a ~month until all infections are over. How would that be accomplished?
5. Something else? I’m all ears.

The sense I get here and IRL is that ONLY option 1 will work. I don’t see it that way, stranger things and all but doens’t seem likely.
Measles didn’t go away due to infections. Polio didn’t go away due to infections. Smallpox didn’t go away due to infections. Every wave has had people declaring that this will be the one where there will finally be enough infections. Vaccines are how you get widespread immunity and you do it without the high costs associated with infections.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
How are you making the leap from travel restrictions to "rounding people up?" If someone is arguing for vaccine requirements to travel, how does that constitute "rounding people up" in any way?
Other countries are far more draconian in their approaches are they not as to how they are mitigating this are they not?
Are you aware that such restrictions are already in place for international travel and haven't resulted in people being rounded up?
Likewise we’re there not instances of international travelers getting fined if they broke quarantine prior to X Days? Continued to their hotel rooms? A round up and keep them in one place? Sure sounds like the implication that I orginally


Denial of care is something that should only happen if hospitals are filled to capacity and/or using up all of their resources and the doctors need to determine the best way to use the available resources. Right now, there is a shortage of monoclonal antibodies, so they are only using them on patients that meet certain criteria. In that instance, I'm for it because there's no reason why a vaccinated cancer patient with a breakthrough case should be denied care over someone with a much lower risk of serious illness.
Now we are getting somewhere! So here’s the pickle: say someone smoked for X number of years. Denial of care? After all they did this to themselves. IV drug use and unprotected sex and get an STD? Denial of care? My point is it’s a really slippery slope to start with “screw them” when it’s someone else
So you didn't say this?



That sure sounds like you're opposing the current travel restrictions, so it's more than fair to bring up the fact that similar restrictions were in place long before this pandemic.
The only ban travel ban/restrictions that would have worked was in the very beginning or had it never happened but there were plenty of fights on that one. No need to rehash.
The only time I see posts get removed are when they violate forum rules or are part of a larger conversation that violated the rules (false information, abusive posts, etc.). If you are expecting your post to be deleted then it might be because you think you may have violated the forum rules or you are assigning presumed traits to others who disagree with you. Otherwise, why worry about it?
I don’t worry about it, I commented on it.

People tend to pounce on things that are blatantly false, particularly when people continue posting demonstrably false information in the face of contrary evidence without sharing a source for their claims.


People are going to disagree with each other here. It's an online forum and there's no realistic possibility that everyone will agree on anything, let alone a topic as charged as this one.
no disagreement

There's a big difference between disagreeing with someone and "pouncing." If people can't handle someone disagreeing with them then an online forum isn't the place to share their opinions.
I’m guessing I’m (likely) far more for an open Wild West type of forum than most and possibly.

And if you think there are "usual suspects" who violate the forum's rules in their responses then you can use the "Report" button on their posts and those types of responses will cease to be an issue.
We’ll aware of the TOS and read them quite a few times.

Or, if you'd rather not do that, just use the forum's "Ignore" feature and you won't even see their responses at all.
I don’t use the ignore feature on any forum I visit. Simply skimming of skipping works best IMO.

Anyways off to server patching!
 

sullyinMT

Well-Known Member
While I’m at it, I’m not ready to get aboard the optimism train about omicron not causing mass hospitalizations. Because at least in Wisconsin (62% fully vaxxed, 44% of those boosted) we aren’t seeing a decoupling of hospitalizations from infections yet:
View attachment 611973
Now this may be due to Delta previlance still (we were just peaking when omicron hit) but if this does not change soon it will be disastrous. Omicron will be fully responsible for hospitalizations in less then 2 weeks.
You’re better vaxxed than we are, and our Omicron wave looks to be just starting. I’m sure it won’t be decoupled around here, either.

It will be “interesting” to see if the higher case counts actually decouple from a more vaccinated state or region once Omicron is proven to be the dominant strain and pushes Delta out or way down.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
(Got my vaccination debating the booster currently.)

You didn't ask for my (or anyone's) advice, LOL - but seriously...get it.

Here is what I am hearing over and over - yeah, doesn't seem to stop you from getting it, but if you do have the booster - you get far less sick. I personally know a number of couples who were exposed over the holidays - who are one boosted/one not - the ones boosted had a mild cough or other minor symptoms for a couple of days, and the ones who aren't boosted have been sick as a dog for a week, and multiple have had to go to the ER just to get fluids. And these are people living in the same household/sleeping in the same bed.

Yup, totally anecdotal - but I keep hearing the same story over and over.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
i should wear a mask when working even though nobody else is? What does that solve?

I wear a mask anywhere it’s required or requested.
Good point but places I am at could have had people in them ( elevators, conference rooms, bathrooms that particles in the air may be present. ). I'm trying to be safe than sorry and wear my mask. It is not always pleasant but I go home to taking care of an immunocompromised family member. I have worn my mask everywhere I go, wash hands, social distance and I had headaches different days of the week last week. I went to get PCR test and 48 hours it came back negative.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
You didn't ask for my (or anyone's) advice, LOL - but seriously...get it.

Here is what I am hearing over and over - yeah, doesn't seem to stop you from getting it, but if you do have the booster - you get far less sick. I personally know a number of couples who were exposed over the holidays - who are one boosted/one not - the ones boosted had a mild cough or other minor symptoms for a couple of days, and the ones who aren't boosted have been sick as a dog for a week, and multiple have had to go to the ER just to get fluids. And these are people living in the same household/sleeping in the same bed.

Yup, totally anecdotal - but I keep hearing the same story over and over.
Not really a debate per se it’s simply timing. Now really off to patching.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
There has never been a pandemic, at this level of death/hospitalization, that had a vaccine available. If you don't want to be an active member of society then stay home, your choice.
If the vaccine that is available doesn't significantly curb the ability of the vaccinated to spread the disease (which is the case with the current vaccines and Omicron) then what is the justification to allow the vaccinated to do things that the unvaccinated aren't allowed to do?

If the vaccines were able to drastically slow or stop the spread (which is what we were told they would do despite people pretending that it wasn't what we were told or what the goal was), I could be convinced that there was a justification.

Even saying the unvaccinated are significantly more likely to overwhelm the health care system is not known to be true with Omicron. Even if the vaccines still significantly reduce the risk of ending up in the hospital with an infection of the Omicron variant, the baseline severity of disease caused by Omicron may be low enough that the health care system wouldn't be overwhelmed if nobody was vaccinated.

I'm not saying for sure that is the case but the early data from outbreaks which are vast majority Omicron certainly point to this being a plausible hypothesis.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
We should make it harder for the unvaccinated to move about and live normally. They are the sole reason we are still dealing with this bullcrap.

Sure and when we’re done you have no issue applying this practice to other diseases, no?

It’s already applied to other diseases.

Which ones and for what except enrolling in school or international travel?

As far as I know there is no other disease for which vaccination is required for any typical activity. Has there ever been a vaccination required for an adult to get in order to be able to go to restaurant?

I'll bet your wife has stories of someone testing positive in the hospital and immediately being quarantined and not allowed to leave the hospital. Followed by immediate contact tracing and then testing those contacts.

I know I've heard them.


Still doesn't answer the question of whether there have ever been vaccine requirements for adults to enter places of business.


Are you talking about COVID or other diseases?

Either way, what does this have to do with whether or not adults have ever been required to prove vaccination in order to go about a normal daily activity before?
In the context of "making harder for the unvaccinated to move about and live normally" and the question of "other diseases" along with "for any typical activity" and "in order to be able to go to restaurant". I'm saying that YES, we have restricted people from going to to a restaurant or doing any activity by not even allowing them to leave a hospital room, simply because they tested positive for a disease.

A restriction that is far more restrictive in the service of public health. Which makes sense, since a positive result is more conclusive than simply being unvaccinated.

With the unvaccinated, the assumption is they present a greater risk to public health than the vaccinated and hence should be restricted in how they interact with the public at an equal level. So, not confined and isolated like a positive test, but also not out there in situations where risk of transmission is elevated. A balance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Good point but places I am at could have had people in them ( elevators, conference rooms, bathrooms that particles in the air may be present. ). I'm trying to be safe than sorry and wear my mask. It is not always pleasant but I go home to taking care of an immunocompromised family member.
If you are trying to be safe than sorry, I hope you are wearing an N95 respirator or equivalent that fits correctly and that you change to a new one at the recommended frequency. If you are trying to protect your immunocompromised family member, a cloth mask or even a surgical mask isn't going to minimize the risk to them.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
If the vaccine that is available doesn't significantly curb the ability of the vaccinated to spread the disease




The vaccine significantly curbs the ability to spread the disease.



1641312300108.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom