Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
DisneyCane said:
If he did that it is 100% justified to suspend and then terminate him. Important note, I said "IF."

I know of hospital administrators who have been fired for looking at employee health records that had nothing to do with COVID.

He could have made his point without exact numbers and just done a survey of his department.

Yes, targeting him is probably political in nature but when in a political position you need to know not give easy ammunition to your opponents. He could have just sent a memo detailing the consequences of the staffing issues and expressing his opinion that it is irresponsible for health department employees to not be vaccinated. There was no need to do anything that could put his job at risk.

Also, a small pet peeves but someone in his position should write with proper verb tense when sending out a memo.
Click to expand...
Dr. Pino honestly voiced his frustrations - how can we ( his teams ) not practice what we preach? He exposed internal information , and he is being retaliated against by him being forced to take a leave of absence.
 
Last edited:
G00fyDad

G00fyDad

Well-Known Member
Lilofan said:
Or for some risk losing your job in companies that set policy , refuse shot, lose your job.
Click to expand...
That's what they did at my wife's hospital. A lot of them thought the hospital wouldn't have the guts to fire them. They are all working elsewhere or looking for another job right now. I think it is a good thing too. If you don't care enough about others to get the vaccine then I don't want you taking care of me or my family.
 
Heppenheimer

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
Kevin_W said:
Except we were actually told by various health officials to use the rapid tests for just such pre-symptomatic suspicion prior to holiday gatherings. The thought being you could be one of the cases that has a sufficient viral load but no symptoms. (For the past 2 years we've talked about that scenario being a curse of Covid - lots of pre/asymptomatic spread.)

I'm agreed that with tests hard to find, these days saving them for symptoms is probably a better route. But I don't think that's been universally true.
Click to expand...
That may have been like a "better than nothing" situation, but it isn't an ideal use of the rapid tests. You can definitely trust a positive test in those circumstances, but a negative test may not be enough for an adequate rule out, especially if the level of suspicion is high.
 
Andrew C

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Kevin_W said:
Except we were actually told by various health officials to use the rapid tests for just such pre-symptomatic suspicion prior to holiday gatherings. The thought being you could be one of the cases that has a sufficient viral load but no symptoms. (For the past 2 years we've talked about that scenario being a curse of Covid - lots of pre/asymptomatic spread.)

I'm agreed that with tests hard to find, these days saving them for symptoms is probably a better route. But I don't think that's been universally true.
Click to expand...
Also required to fly back into the US due to the test one day prior to arrival rule.
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Heppenheimer said:
That may have been like a "better than nothing" situation, but it isn't an ideal use of the rapid tests. You can definitely trust a positive test in those circumstances, but a negative test may not be enough for an adequate rule out, especially if the level of suspicion is high.
Click to expand...
Presumably, if you take them often enough, over enough time, you'll get a better answer too. As you move through the virus replication timeline.

Plus, while a negative may not tell you you're still going to be negative in 6 hours (just not there yet), a positive certainly tells you you're positive RIGHT NOW, and shouldn't be near people.

Compared to getting a PCR test and not knowing the results for 48 to 72 hours or more. Unless the suspicions was high enough that you're isolating for all that time while waiting for the results. Which may be the correct course of action. But, if it takes that long, the at home now and another after 72 hours might be just as good. More so if you're not going to isolate in that time.

Neither the at home test that's to early to tell or the PCR test that can tell but you don't get the answer until to late is helpful enough. At least with the at home test, you can take it a bunch of iterations over time.
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Andrew C said:
Also required to fly back into the US due to the test one day prior to arrival rule.
Click to expand...
In that scenario, they really should do them at the gate while waiting to board the plane.

Since, taken a day before, if you're to early to tell, you've had a day to turn into replicating enough virus. The negative is less useful.
If it was taken immediately prior to boarding, and negative, that's only the duration of the flight to turn into replicating enough virus.

In either case, a positive would bump you.
 
Andrew C

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
mmascari said:
In that scenario, they really should do them at the gate while waiting to board the plane.

Since, taken a day before, if you're to early to tell, you've had a day to turn into replicating enough virus. The negative is less useful.
If it was taken immediately prior to boarding, and negative, that's only the duration of the flight to turn into replicating enough virus.

In either case, a positive would bump you.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But it’s just not how it works today.
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Andrew C said:
Maybe. But it’s just not how it works today.
Click to expand...
Right, they should do it that way, they don't. A shift to 1 day is at least better than 3 days prior.

There must have been a dozen posts here pointing out that a test done 3 days prior to flying is practically useless. Since you could be infected in between. At least 1 days makes that shorter. But, then using an at home test instead of a PCR test a day before opens that window up again. Since we know you can get a false negative if you test to early, by as close as a few (say 6) hours, which is still less than a day.

We've also seen a bunch of reporting that the closer to an interaction a test happens, the better the confidence is that someone is not infectious during the interaction.

Hence why I said, they "should" do the rapid test at the airport right before boarding. That way, even if it's off by a few hours, the interaction is already over by then. At least for a short enough flight. Those traveling between continents or hemispheres need a more robust confidence.


Over the holidays, we tested right before going to a family gathering. We figured that would be good enough for at least a few hours of knowledge. That we then stayed longer than that was an abuse of the test, as we could have had a false negative by as little as a few hours or a day and then been infectious. We understood that it was an abuse and not perfect, but still better than no test at all. And, had the test been positive, we would have cancelled, a better plan that just going with no test at all.
 
Vegas Disney Fan

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
mmascari said:
Right, they should do it that way, they don't. A shift to 1 day is at least better than 3 days prior.

There must have been a dozen posts here pointing out that a test done 3 days prior to flying is practically useless. Since you could be infected in between. At least 1 days makes that shorter. But, then using an at home test instead of a PCR test a day before opens that window up again. Since we know you can get a false negative if you test to early, by as close as a few (say 6) hours, which is still less than a day.

We've also seen a bunch of reporting that the closer to an interaction a test happens, the better the confidence is that someone is not infectious during the interaction.

Hence why I said, they "should" do the rapid test at the airport right before boarding. That way, even if it's off by a few hours, the interaction is already over by then. At least for a short enough flight. Those traveling between continents or hemispheres need a more robust confidence.


Over the holidays, we tested right before going to a family gathering. We figured that would be good enough for at least a few hours of knowledge. That we then stayed longer than that was an abuse of the test, as we could have had a false negative by as little as a few hours or a day and then been infectious. We understood that it was an abuse and not perfect, but still better than no test at all. And, had the test been positive, we would have cancelled, a better plan that just going with no test at all.
Click to expand...

The problem with at gate tests is any positive people will already be exposing people in the terminal, at least with the 3 day tests the ones that do test positive will stay home and not expose anyone.

Switching to one day makes sense but only if tests are readily available and include at home tests. It’s already stressful enough with the 3 day period to get an appointment and get the results back in time.
 
D

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Lilofan said:
When some are brainwashed to hear and believe that the media is " the enemy of the people " this irresponsible and dangerous statement clouds some gullible minds. It is also no surprise that this pandemic of the unvaccinated has turned our country upside down.
Click to expand...
Repeating over and over that it is a pandemic of the unvaccinated doesn't make it so. The "pandemic" is defined by viral spread, not severity of outcome. A large percentage of cases are in vaccinated people therefore it isn't a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
DisneyCane said:
Repeating over and over that it is a pandemic of the unvaccinated doesn't make it so. The "pandemic" is defined by viral spread, not severity of outcome. A large percentage of cases are in vaccinated people therefore it isn't a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
Click to expand...
* For some definitions of "large" but not others.
 
T

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
DisneyCane said:
Repeating over and over that it is a pandemic of the unvaccinated doesn't make it so. The "pandemic" is defined by viral spread, not severity of outcome. A large percentage of cases are in vaccinated people therefore it isn't a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
Click to expand...
If everyone was vaccinated and had the hospitalization rate of a vaccinated person we wouldn’t call it a pandemic. We would call it “Covid season” and operate like normal. But we aren’t so it’s a pandemic, because of the unvaccinated; a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
 
L

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Touchdown said:
If everyone was vaccinated and had the hospitalization rate of a vaccinated person we wouldn’t call it a pandemic. We would call it “Covid season” and operate like normal. But we aren’t so it’s a pandemic, because of the unvaccinated; a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
Click to expand...
It is pandemic denial of the anti vax and some vaxxers who support their cause. When the anti vax think it is a threat against their freedoms, liberties, rights etc, they develop strategies to rally around and support their cause but meet with terrible consequences. Long term beliefs in their rationalism of being anti-vax can and have harmed themselves and others around them.
 
Last edited:
Andrew C

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Trauma said:
Well looks like Europe is staring to wind down restrictions.

Looks like we will be getting our free masks just in time to not need them.

Typical government response.
Click to expand...
I heard Spain is ready to go into endemic mode. No more treating it like an emergency.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom