Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Disstevefan1]

UPDATE: Sone states are updating their rules that would indicate a "COVID related" death.

The old rule was if you were diagnosed with COVID 60 days prior to your death, even if COVID was not mentioned on the death certificate, your death was considered a COVID related death.

They have changed that to, if you were diagnosed with COVID 30 days prior to your death, even if COVID was not mentioned on the death certificate, your death will be considered a COVID related death.

That's good, right? Well not so much for the dead person as they died of something, but it should improve the death numbers.

 

[mmascari]

I'm pretty sure the testing requirements are for both vaccinated and not. One of my vaccinated friends got caught with a positive test coming from across the pond during break. Not sick really (a tiny stuffy) so they aren't singling out unvaccinated or vaccinated with testing.

I didn't try to track down the entire letter, just read that reporting. This could definitely be a case of the reporting loosing important nuance. A reporting problem we've had since forever.

On the flip side, I've never met a CEO who didn't want to do whatever they could for one more sale even if there was some negative external impact. External things are external after all.

 

[correcaminos]

I didn't try to track down the entire letter, just read that reporting. This could definitely be a case of the reporting loosing important nuance. A reporting problem we've had since forever.

On the flip side, I've never met a CEO who didn't want to do whatever they could for one more sale even if there was some negative external impact. External things are external after all.

The latter is so true.

I'm just unsure this affects only unvaccinated. Vaccinated obviously can test positive too. Does it matter if they were or not if you were seated next to them on the plane?

I'm unsure how to feel. International travel is too stressful due to testing requirements to even consider doing any for me anyway. I'll stick to domestic for now n

 

[ABQ]

The article says, bolding mine:



So, it's not just masks, but everyone must be fine everywhere, no concern for even slowing down bringing in new transmission.

Or, is there some other vaccination requirement in there that might replace that? It's not like vaccinations for international travel is a new thing.

Otherwise, it seems like a poor plan to encourage more international travel of unvaccinated and unknown infection status people.

(Yes, yes, I know a vaccinated infected person could still infect someone. But the impacts are all much lower. Less chance of being infected, infectious for less time, likely to spread to less people. It's not about perfect, it's about creating friction to reduce transmission.)

I have a friend meeting me in Vegas, along with 4 other people in his traveling party coming down from Edmonton Alberta and that's the one thing he's real worried about, that at the 11th hour, feeling just fine, that one of them tests positive and his entire trip is shot.

 

[ToTBellHop]

The latter is so true.

I'm just unsure this affects only unvaccinated. Vaccinated obviously can test positive too. Does it matter if they were or not if you were seated next to them on the plane?

I'm unsure how to feel. International travel is too stressful due to testing requirements to even consider doing any for me anyway. I'll stick to domestic for now n

I think, at this point, countries are looking at overall risk vs. economic impacts. Many countries would like tourism dollars (or Euro, or pesos, or pounds…). They know more people will travel if they don’t need to worry about testing. If you are less likely to test positive in the first place and far less likely to require hospital care in the country you visit, I imagine the risk is low enough to let you visit. The world needs to function and this is an easy way to push vaccination, too. It’s not even arbitrary. Unvaccinated people are more likely to get sick, require hospitalization, and die. All of those things are inconvenient to the country you are visiting.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I'm not thrilled at the notion of dropping mask requirements because it causes people to act out on flights. It feels like rewarding bad behaviour.

Dropping testing requirements is fine. COVID in the age of Omicron is so contagious that one can catch it anywhere, so moving into personal risk territory is okay with me.

However, I'd feel a lot better about that if vaccinations would be required for all flights, and that's something I don't see happening in the USA at least.

 

[Andrew C]

I'm not thrilled at the notion of dropping mask requirements because it causes people to act out on flights. It feels like rewarding bad behaviour.

I see it more as taking a huge burden off airline staff.

 

[danlb_2000]

UPDATE: Sone states are updating their rules that would indicate a "COVID related" death.

The old rule was if you were diagnosed with COVID 60 days prior to your death, even if COVID was not mentioned on the death certificate, your death was considered a COVID related death.

They have changed that to, if you were diagnosed with COVID 30 days prior to your death, even if COVID was not mentioned on the death certificate, your death will be considered a COVID related death.

That's good, right? Well not so much for the dead person as they died of something, but it should improve the death numbers.

If that's all there is to the rules, then that is really problematic whether it's 30 or 60 days. I would think there would have to be at least some other criteria to believe that COVID was the cause of death.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I keep seeing articles about a new strain but everything looks good so far.

 

[mmascari]

I'm just unsure this affects only unvaccinated. Vaccinated obviously can test positive too. Does it matter if they were or not if you were seated next to them on the plane?

The article didn't say, so it's unclear what was asked for.

This is an example people bring up all the time (not to pick on you, you just happened to walk into it), that if the person next to you is vaccinated and positive and can infect you, did it really matter to you that they were vaccinated and didn't have to test so they ended up sitting in that seat vs if they were unvaccinated and forced to test so they wouldn't end up there vs just not testing anyone and they end up there.

There's some hidden problems in the question though.
First, the vaccinated person has to be infected. We know cases are much lower in vaccinated vs unvaccinated people.
Second, the infected vaccinated person has to be in the time period when they are infectious. I think we've determined this is a shorter time period than for an unvaccinated person.

The question assumes we've already gotten the bad luck and lost on both of those. In that case, it doesn't matter to us, we've lost the dice roll and hopefully we've taken enough personal steps for whatever level of risk we're comfortable with in that scenario.

But, on a plane full of people, and really on an entire day of passengers boarding planes to travel, the math works different. It's not solving for what happens when those two things have already turned up bad. It's solving for what percentage of people out of the entire population of travelers are likely to lose on those two things. In that calculation, requiring vaccination is likely to reduce how often those two events are lost and we would prefer not to sit next to that person. Which lowers (but doesn't eliminate) the risk.

Testing everyone obviously lowers the chance of losing those 2 things too, but it's way more disruptive.

So, yeah, if it was me sitting on that plane (and it will be this summer), I will be less than thrilled if the person next to me is currently infected and infectious no matter if they're vaccinated or not. However, between requiring vaccination, requiring testing, requiring masks, or just winging it like it was 1999, I think I would prefer requiring vaccination as balance between reducing risk and overall hassle. Of course, I'm only flying domestic, so it'll probably be winging it like it was 1999 by then.

 

[danlb_2000]

I keep seeing articles about a new strain but everything looks good so far.

View attachment 628539

Looks like the small increase in the UK may be leveling out.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Looks like the small increase in the UK may be leveling out.

We’ve had a bit of a bump in the Northeast, too, but it has been rather modest. Hardly end-times in NYC.

 

[mmascari]

If that's all there is to the rules, then that is really problematic whether it's 30 or 60 days. I would think there would have to be at least some other criteria to believe that COVID was the cause of death.

I think it's fuzzy.

Someone with say, high blood pressure. They catch COVID and is stresses their system. They recover but have lingering effects for months. Coughing spasms, breathing difficulty, fatigue. The blood pressure get's worse and they're done.

If it was day 7 after testing positive, is that a COVID death?
If it was day 14 after testing positive, is that a COVID death?
If it was day 31 after testing positive, is that a COVID death?
If it was day 59 after testing positive, is that a COVID death?
If it was day 62 after testing positive, is that a COVID death?

I don't know the answer to that question.

It's likely the day 7 one listed COVID on the death certificate. It sounds like the old stats would have included days 7, 14, 31, and 59 but not 62. While the new stats would only count days 7 and 14.

It's fuzzy. I could see arguments for including or excluding all of them. Extra fuzzy if you try to look at what caused them and infer if the COVID stress was a contributing factor. Say this guy rides a motor cycle and the fatigue and coughing caused a crash. Is that an indirect COVID cause or just stupidity for riding when physically unable to? Change that to the high blood pressure was the fault, it get's fuzzier.

It'll probably be mostly an academic question. Clearly with impacts on the "COVID Deaths" stats. But, it will not have any impact on the "Excess Deaths" stats. The COVID boulder was still dropped in pond and the impacts ripple out, even for the stuff not right under where it dropped.

It'll probably create new categories too. Instead of just "From COVID" vs "With COVID", we'll probably start to see stuff like "COVID Contributed", "Long COVID", and "Long COVID Contributed".

PS: Public heath and statistics is really hard. If you work with a statistician or someone who collect the raw data, remember to thank them. Whatever the topic of study may be.

 

[Andrew C]

I keep seeing articles about a new strain but everything looks good so far.

View attachment 628539

Basically, they are saying don't be surprised to see some sort of increase but we don't expect a surge like we saw in certain parts of Europe due to BA.2.

I think we are seeing that. Very flat right now...probably start to rise a bit like we see in NY...

 

[Disneydad1012]

If that's all there is to the rules, then that is really problematic whether it's 30 or 60 days. I would think there would have to be at least some other criteria to believe that COVID was the cause of death.

MA did it this way. They gave an example of one. Person died 78 days later in a car accident and it was counted as a covid death. They've since changed it and removed 4000

 

[correcaminos]

I see it more as taking a huge burden off airline staff.

That's more of how I view it. I've been on enough flights lately that you can tell they are soo darn tired of playing parent so to speak to kids on a flight.

The article didn't say, so it's unclear what was asked for.

This is an example people bring up all the time (not to pick on you, you just happened to walk into it), that if the person next to you is vaccinated and positive and can infect you, did it really matter to you that they were vaccinated and didn't have to test so they ended up sitting in that seat vs if they were unvaccinated and forced to test so they wouldn't end up there vs just not testing anyone and they end up there.

There's some hidden problems in the question though.
First, the vaccinated person has to be infected. We know cases are much lower in vaccinated vs unvaccinated people.
Second, the infected vaccinated person has to be in the time period when they are infectious. I think we've determined this is a shorter time period than for an unvaccinated person.

The question assumes we've already gotten the bad luck and lost on both of those. In that case, it doesn't matter to us, we've lost the dice roll and hopefully we've taken enough personal steps for whatever level of risk we're comfortable with in that scenario.

But, on a plane full of people, and really on an entire day of passengers boarding planes to travel, the math works different. It's not solving for what happens when those two things have already turned up bad. It's solving for what percentage of people out of the entire population of travelers are likely to lose on those two things. In that calculation, requiring vaccination is likely to reduce how often those two events are lost and we would prefer not to sit next to that person. Which lowers (but doesn't eliminate) the risk.

Testing everyone obviously lowers the chance of losing those 2 things too, but it's way more disruptive.

So, yeah, if it was me sitting on that plane (and it will be this summer), I will be less than thrilled if the person next to me is currently infected and infectious no matter if they're vaccinated or not. However, between requiring vaccination, requiring testing, requiring masks, or just winging it like it was 1999, I think I would prefer requiring vaccination as balance between reducing risk and overall hassle. Of course, I'm only flying domestic, so it'll probably be winging it like it was 1999 by then.

I totally respect this mentality. My view was simply about removing the testing requirement. I get it, but it sucks. Removing it doesn't make it better for one group or another specifically for the flight and entering whatever country they are going to was where my brain was.

I'm still off of international travel for a while. Earlier I had other reasons and then covid hit. Blech. Easier to do most domestic travel at this time.

Basically, they are saying don't be surprised to see some sort of increase but we don't expect a surge like we saw in certain parts of Europe due to BA.2.

I think we are seeing that. Very flat right now...probably start to rise a bit like we see in NY...

And not all of Europe followed the same route too. Denmark really is most interesting. They cannot tell if the slight uptick was due to masks or BA.2 I think timing of each and when BA.2 hit vs BA.1 might make a difference. Also if one's peak was lower on average it might take a while to bottom out.

I did notice locally they said waste water infections had increased but we didn't see the positive tests. Just tossing that out. This article is more generic but discusses areas where that did happen

Coronavirus Rates Jump At Some Wastewater Testing Sites—Even As Case Counts Decline

Positive coronavirus tests have plummeted nationwide for weeks, but some wastewater sampling sites tracked by the CDC are showing an increase in Covid-19 rates.

www.forbes.com

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I see it more as taking a huge burden off airline staff.

It's both.

It's frustrating that the decision might not be based on risk factors, science, safety, etc.

The fact that some adults continue to act like toddlers and that we have to appease them in some way is infuriating.

They shouldn't be a factor.

 

[danlb_2000]

I think it's fuzzy.

Someone with say, high blood pressure. They catch COVID and is stresses their system. They recover but have lingering effects for months. Coughing spasms, breathing difficulty, fatigue. The blood pressure get's worse and they're done.

If it was day 7 after testing positive, is that a COVID death?
If it was day 14 after testing positive, is that a COVID death?
If it was day 31 after testing positive, is that a COVID death?
If it was day 59 after testing positive, is that a COVID death?
If it was day 62 after testing positive, is that a COVID death?

I don't know the answer to that question.

It's likely the day 7 one listed COVID on the death certificate. It sounds like the old stats would have included days 7, 14, 31, and 59 but not 62. While the new stats would only count days 7 and 14.

It's fuzzy. I could see arguments for including or excluding all of them. Extra fuzzy if you try to look at what caused them and infer if the COVID stress was a contributing factor. Say this guy rides a motor cycle and the fatigue and coughing caused a crash. Is that an indirect COVID cause or just stupidity for riding when physically unable to? Change that to the high blood pressure was the fault, it get's fuzzier.

It'll probably be mostly an academic question. Clearly with impacts on the "COVID Deaths" stats. But, it will not have any impact on the "Excess Deaths" stats. The COVID boulder was still dropped in pond and the impacts ripple out, even for the stuff not right under where it dropped.

It'll probably create new categories too. Instead of just "From COVID" vs "With COVID", we'll probably start to see stuff like "COVID Contributed", "Long COVID", and "Long COVID Contributed".

PS: Public heath and statistics is really hard. If you work with a statistician or someone who collect the raw data, remember to thank them. Whatever the topic of study may be.

But then you have the other end of the spectrum where a person comes in with massive trauma from a car accident or shooting, where the COVID is very unlikely to be a factor in their death.

 

[Andrew C]

It's both.

It's frustrating that the decision might not be based on risk factors, science, safety, etc.

The fact that some adults continue to act like toddlers and that we have to appease them in some way is infuriating.

They shouldn't be a factor.

risk vs reward.

 

[mmascari]

But then you have the other end of the spectrum where a person comes in with massive trauma from a car accident or shooting, where the COVID is very unlikely to be a factor in their death.

Exactly, that's why I used the "motor cycle" example. I figured it was a classic complaint we've seen.

The car accident trauma is clearly not, when I read that I'm assuming they were hit by a drunk driver who walked away then.

Now the shooting victim, that's definitely COVID contributed. If they hadn't had COVID and then been fatigued afterwards, I'm sure they would have been able to parkour their way out of danger and avoided being shot.


Or, maybe I have that backwards. The car driver was fatigued and drove off the road. The shooting death was someone drinking while cleaning a gun and did themselves in with a clear case of stupidity.

Could go either way, I suppose we'll never know.