• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
A no brainer that wearing a mask in closed quarters would perhaps prevent someone from catching one's germs if they are sick. Is their a study that needs to happen to educate about common sense? If one travels and spends time in Japan, those folks seem to understand common sense.

The fact you wrote “perhaps prevent” is why the study is absolutely needed, if masks ever come back they’re going to get the same (if not much more) pushback as before, being able to say “masks are scientifically proven to prevent infection by x%” will get a much better use rate than “masks may perhaps prevent…”.

The major resistance to masks from day 1 has been that no one has provided scientific evidence of how well they work. If it’s 1% many people still won’t think they are worth the discomfort but if they can show it’s something substantial like 20% most people, even anti-maskers, will get on board.

The success or failure of future mask mandates completely depends on them showing evidence they make a significant difference, common sense they “help” won’t cut it.
 
Last edited:

G00fyDad

Well-Known Member
Oh good! The mask debate has fired back up.
Stare Staring GIF
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
I second that observation. In Illinois, there's generally a mix of masked and unmasked people in indoor spaces, even among store employees. Which itself is a significant change from earlier this year. When I went to Ohio recently, it was rare to see masks indoors.

I am in Southern NJ, and it's like you are seeing in Illinois, masks are not unusual in stores on both staff and customers.
 

OrlandoRising

Well-Known Member
The fact you wrote “perhaps prevent” is why the study is absolutely needed, if masks ever come back they’re going to get the same (if not much more) pushback as before, being able to say “masks are scientifically proven to prevent infection by x%” will get a much better use rate than “masks may perhaps prevent…”.

The major resistance to masks from day 1 has been that no one has provided scientific evidence of how well they work. If it’s 1% many people still won’t think they are worth the discomfort but if they can show it’s something substantial like 20% most people, even anti-maskers, will get on board.
That kind of study sounds like what you would expect for a vaccine or a new drug. But for masking, there are too many factors that researchers could not fully control that make such a precise figure impossible to collect accurately, such as:

1) What type of masks people wear

2) Whether they wear their mask correctly and whether they report on their own mask use accurately. Clinical trial investigators can't follow around subjects all the time to make sure, so they'd likely have to rely on self-reported use.

3) What activities they do and whether they're exposed to COVID while doing them. In real-world conditions, that would be impossible to know. Or maybe they're never exposed at all, which wouldn't prove whether a mask worked or not, same reason why vaccine trials largely avoided participants that worked at home and didn't go anywhere back in 2020.

4) People will behave differently when they're masked vs. unmasked in ways that could affect their exposure. Drug and vaccine trials get around this with placebos, but obviously there's no mask version of a placebo.

5) Are they exposed to COVID in situations where they, understandably, removed their mask, like dining out? If a person who reported wearing their mask correctly caught COVID in that situation, it may incorrectly look like the mask didn't work.

6) All of these same factors would apply to people in the same household, who could then spread COVID to a person in the trial at home when they're not wearing masks.

7) Prior immunity, whether through infection or vaccination, would now affect whether an exposed person gets infected.

Another key point: masks had enough evidence from experimental studies and studies in health care spaces to show that they do reduce spread. Because they are also a harmless intervention that could be rapidly adopted by nearly everyone, the benefit needed to justify the risk is basically anything more than zero. So it made sense to use them even without being able to say it's "X% effective," as long as there was a threat of overwhelming hospitals.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
That kind of study sounds like what you would expect for a vaccine or a new drug. But for masking, there are too many factors that researchers could not fully control that make such a precise figure impossible to collect accurately, such as:

1) What type of masks people wear

2) Whether they wear their mask correctly and whether they report on their own mask use accurately. Clinical trial investigators can't follow around subjects all the time to make sure, so they'd likely have to rely on self-reported use.

3) What activities they do and whether they're exposed to COVID while doing them. In real-world conditions, that would be impossible to know. Or maybe they're never exposed at all, which wouldn't prove whether a mask worked or not, same reason why vaccine trials largely avoided participants that worked at home and didn't go anywhere back in 2020.

4) People will behave differently when they're masked vs. unmasked in ways that could affect their exposure. Drug and vaccine trials get around this with placebos, but obviously there's no mask version of a placebo.

5) Are they exposed to COVID in situations where they, understandably, removed their mask, like dining out? If a person who reported wearing their mask correctly caught COVID in that situation, it may incorrectly look like the mask didn't work.

6) All of these same factors would apply to people in the same household, who could then spread COVID to a person in the trial at home when they're not wearing masks.

7) Prior immunity, whether through infection or vaccination, would now affect whether an exposed person gets infected.

Another key point: masks had enough evidence from experimental studies and studies in health care spaces to show that they do reduce spread. Because they are also a harmless intervention that could be rapidly adopted by nearly everyone, the benefit needed to justify the risk is basically anything more than zero. So it made sense to use them even without being able to say it's "X% effective," as long as there was a threat of overwhelming hospitals.
There are laboratory experiments that can be designed. Obviously nobody is going to volunteer (masked or not) for hanging out in a room and bringing in some COVID positive people to walk around and see what happens.

Studies can be done that observe masking participation and then compare different areas with different levels. As far as I know there was only that one large scale study even attempted and it showed very little efficacy for cloth masks and somewhat higher efficacy for surgical masks (but still not very high). They didn't attempt to include N95 (or equivalent) in the study

No attempt was made by anybody to study particle or droplet flow in an aircraft, an experiment that could be done relatively easily and would have had plenty of aircraft available for the experiment throughout most of 2020.

If Dr. Fauci practices what he preaches it seems like mitigation to prevent infection is an exercise in futility. Either that, or he is a hypocrite and doesn't follow his own recommendations.
 

helenabear

Premium Member
There are laboratory experiments that can be designed. Obviously nobody is going to volunteer (masked or not) for hanging out in a room and bringing in some COVID positive people to walk around and see what happens.

Studies can be done that observe masking participation and then compare different areas with different levels. As far as I know there was only that one large scale study even attempted and it showed very little efficacy for cloth masks and somewhat higher efficacy for surgical masks (but still not very high). They didn't attempt to include N95 (or equivalent) in the study

No attempt was made by anybody to study particle or droplet flow in an aircraft, an experiment that could be done relatively easily and would have had plenty of aircraft available for the experiment throughout most of 2020.

If Dr. Fauci practices what he preaches it seems like mitigation to prevent infection is an exercise in futility. Either that, or he is a hypocrite and doesn't follow his own recommendations.
There have been many studies. I can link to a ton if you like. I'm seriously tired of this debate and how some keep hanging on to anti-mask crap.

Calling Fauci a hypocrite because he contracted covid is crazy to me. Most places do not have mitigation mandates in place.

Kid and I are still negative. Not entirely sure how, but it is what it is. We have a good idea where my spouse picked it up upon return, but kid and I managed trip to WDW 2x maskless (or mostly as March made us wear on monorails and the one time we took a bus) and were fine. Even spouse is barely symptomatic so I give thanks to vaccines for making it not scary.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
There have been many studies. I can link to a ton if you like. I'm seriously tired of this debate and how some keep hanging on to anti-mask crap.

Calling Fauci a hypocrite because he contracted covid is crazy to me. Most places do not have mitigation mandates in place.

Kid and I are still negative. Not entirely sure how, but it is what it is. We have a good idea where my spouse picked it up upon return, but kid and I managed trip to WDW 2x maskless (or mostly as March made us wear on monorails and the one time we took a bus) and were fine. Even spouse is barely symptomatic so I give thanks to vaccines for making it not scary.
I didn't call Fauci a hypocrite because he contracted COVID. I said that EITHER the mitigation measures that he recommends don't stop you from contracting it OR he is not following his own recommendations and would therefore be a hypocrite. It's got to be one or the other.

As far as you and kids not getting it from your husband sometimes the immune system fights things off. Just because somebody is exposed to a virus doesn't mean they will develop an infection.

I don't know what it is for Omicron but for the earlier variants, the transmission rate to spouses in the same household was only around 37%.
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
I am in Southern NJ, and it's like you are seeing in Illinois, masks are not unusual in stores on both staff and customers.
Back in April, when I went into the city, I would say it was probably 30% wearing masks in stores. Now, like 5%. Based on personal observations of course.

I was at the movie theater on Saturday and didn’t see one person wearing a mask. Take that as you wish.
 

fgmnt

Well-Known Member
I didn't call Fauci a hypocrite because he contracted COVID. I said that EITHER the mitigation measures that he recommends don't stop you from contracting it OR he is not following his own recommendations and would therefore be a hypocrite. It's got to be one or the other.

As far as you and kids not getting it from your husband sometimes the immune system fights things off. Just because somebody is exposed to a virus doesn't mean they will develop an infection.

I don't know what it is for Omicron but for the earlier variants, the transmission rate to spouses in the same household was only around 37%.
what do you think the definition of mitigation is? genuine question.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
I didn't call Fauci a hypocrite because he contracted COVID. I said that EITHER the mitigation measures that he recommends don't stop you from contracting it OR he is not following his own recommendations and would therefore be a hypocrite. It's got to be one or the other.

As far as you and kids not getting it from your husband sometimes the immune system fights things off. Just because somebody is exposed to a virus doesn't mean they will develop an infection.

I don't know what it is for Omicron but for the earlier variants, the transmission rate to spouses in the same household was only around 37%.
Nobody, even Facui, has ever claimed masks are a 100% bullet proof way or preventing infection.

He was at an even where he likely go infected and pictures show him without a mask. I don't feel that makes him a hypocrite, he is just making a personal choice like everyone else is these days.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
what do you think the definition of mitigation is? genuine question.
With respect to COVID, anything recommended to prevent transmission. Things like avoiding crowds, social distancing, masking, etc.

That's the way Fauci and others have used the word "mitigation" the whole time.
 

helenabear

Premium Member
I didn't call Fauci a hypocrite because he contracted COVID. I said that EITHER the mitigation measures that he recommends don't stop you from contracting it OR he is not following his own recommendations and would therefore be a hypocrite. It's got to be one or the other.

As far as you and kids not getting it from your husband sometimes the immune system fights things off. Just because somebody is exposed to a virus doesn't mean they will develop an infection.

I don't know what it is for Omicron but for the earlier variants, the transmission rate to spouses in the same household was only around 37%.
You just don't quit do you. Vaccines help. Period. Fauci is older, more susceptible because he is older. Not one single person I know does mitigation 24/7. I am very sure Fauci took a calculated risk and likely failed.

This anti-mask, anti-vax rhetoric is beyond old and I'm tired of it. I will repeatedly give thanks for the vaccines keeping us safe. Whether you want to pretend I am super human, that's on you, but I give a ton of a thanks to the trial for getting these vaccines in me and so many others. Especially since my child spent the night with my spouse in a hotel to avoid 100 degree temps at night, I give a ton of thanks for giving him extra protection knowing how much more transmissible omicron is.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
You just don't quit do you. Vaccines help. Period. Fauci is older, more susceptible because he is older. Not one single person I know does mitigation 24/7. I am very sure Fauci took a calculated risk and likely failed.

This anti-mask, anti-vax rhetoric is beyond old and I'm tired of it. I will repeatedly give thanks for the vaccines keeping us safe. Whether you want to pretend I am super human, that's on you, but I give a ton of a thanks to the trial for getting these vaccines in me and so many others. Especially since my child spent the night with my spouse in a hotel to avoid 100 degree temps at night, I give a ton of thanks for giving him extra protection.
There is irony of an anti vaxxer who has been vaccinated. Strange world we live in.
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
I didn't call Fauci a hypocrite because he contracted COVID. I said that EITHER the mitigation measures that he recommends don't stop you from contracting it OR he is not following his own recommendations and would therefore be a hypocrite. It's got to be one or the other.

As far as you and kids not getting it from your husband sometimes the immune system fights things off. Just because somebody is exposed to a virus doesn't mean they will develop an infection.

I don't know what it is for Omicron but for the earlier variants, the transmission rate to spouses in the same household was only around 37%.

Those are the only 2 options ONLY if you want to assume your predetermined outcome of Fauci being wrong (and even then it's based on the false assumption that anyone ever claimed that any mitigation is 100% effective). Another possibility is that he followed the current CDC recommendations and caught the virus while unmasked in a situation where the recommendations don't call for masking. In that case, he is neither wrong nor a hypocrite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top Bottom