Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

DCBaker

Premium Member
"Iowa schools will remain closed through the end of the academic year in an effort to curb the spread of coronavirus.

"I would like nothing more than to stand before you and say Iowa schools will be open in May," but that's just not the case, Gov. Kim Reynolds said Friday during a news conference at the State Emergency Operations Center in Johnston."


 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
No kidding...

2.5-4.2% is a far cry from the 60% herd immunity.

If 95% of people haven’t had it yet, that implies a lot of future pain.The virus is still present and not going away. So that’s either a lot longer with stricter restrictions than people want, or a lot more deaths.
 

jmp85

Well-Known Member
2.5-4.2% is a far cry from the 60% herd immunity.

If 95% of people haven’t had it yet, that implies a lot of future pain.The virus is still present and not going away. So that’s either a lot longer with stricter restrictions than people want, or a lot more deaths.

And the counter argument is that if 5% have had it, the mortality rate is apparently very low.
 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
Interesting to finally find a study on a wider sample. They seem to focus on the negative "Our findings suggest that there is somewhere between 50- and 80-fold more infections in our county than what’s known by the number of cases than are reported by our department of public health," rather than the positive that this would mean mortality rates are 0.05-0.08% instead of the 3.7% currently recorded by their county.
Yay! We’ve proven extreme social distancing works let’s keep it up for the next 6 - 12 months!?!

Suppressing mortality rates with extreme social distancing only remains valid if extreme social distancing remains in effect. It doesn’t mean the mortality rates for this, overall, are that low in a world with less restrictions. So we have to be careful how far we take this “positive.” It would be more positive if 10 or 15% have antibodies. That would do more to show the distancing was unnecessary.
 

jmp85

Well-Known Member
Yay! We’ve proven extreme social distancing works let’s keep it up for the next 6 - 12 months!?!

Suppressing mortality rates with extreme social distancing only remains valid if extreme social distancing remains in effect. It doesn’t mean the mortality rates for this, overall, are that low in a world with less restrictions. So we have to be careful how far we take this “positive.” It would be more positive if 10 or 15% have antibodies. That would do more to show the distancing was unnecessary.

Mortality rates shouldn't change as long as the level of care remains consistent. We're about to have more ventilators in this country than we know what to do with. In addition, treatment options will continue to improve.
 

monykalyn

Well-Known Member
Yay! We’ve proven extreme social distancing works let’s keep it up for the next 6 - 12 months!?!

Suppressing mortality rates with extreme social distancing only remains valid if extreme social distancing remains in effect. It doesn’t mean the mortality rates for this, overall, are that low in a world with less restrictions. So we have to be careful how far we take this “positive.” It would be more positive if 10 or 15% have antibodies. That would do more to show the distancing was unnecessary.
The NYC hospital that was testing L&D patients when they entered hospital found around a 15% positive rate- with only 4 (IIRC) having symptoms (very small sample size but still in a very hot zone FWIW). So wouldn’t the unrecorded positives, and the confirmed positives and now the antibodies show that far more of the population could have had or do have it? Granted a heck of a lot more testing needs to be done. Another thing- if this first round hit the more vulnerable first/harder then the the dreaded second wave wouldn’t be as bad-% of population already immune and (unfortunately) a significant portion of the most vulnerable in that number. I’m just looking for any silver lining at this point.
 

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
Our airport is keeping up a sense of humor:
93811313_10158715847543933_1234876666094813184_o.jpg

Be a legend. Wear a mask. Heinz History Center

And yes, we have a Franco Harris statue next to George Washington in the airport. Because you know, two big "battles" at Pittsburgh.
48727639752_595a378a77_6k.jpg
 

Kevin_W

Well-Known Member
Can we stop with the infection and mortality rates? Honestly, the numbers prove nothing if you don't agree with them. Go to the politics thread.

Thanks :)

I think discussing facts related to the virus, and new studies as they are made known, is a central theme to this thread. This isn't political and no one is claiming proof of anything. But infection and mortality rates are key pieces of information that are driving policy, so I personally think they are well worth discussion.
 

Parker in NYC

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I think discussing facts related to the virus, and new studies as they are made known, is a central theme to this thread. This isn't political and no one is claiming proof of anything. But infection and mortality rates are key pieces of information that are driving policy, so I personally think they are well worth discussion.

So long as the studies fit one's definition of valid, unbiased, and bipartisan research. Have you not been paying attention?
 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
That’s sarcasm right? 🥴🥴
Well, yes and no. It is probably what should happen. But I acknowledge "the will" will likely not be there.

The NYC hospital that was testing L&D patients when they entered hospital found around a 15% positive rate- with only 4 (IIRC) having symptoms (very small sample size but still in a very hot zone FWIW). So wouldn’t the unrecorded positives, and the confirmed positives and now the antibodies show that far more of the population could have had or do have it? Granted a heck of a lot more testing needs to be done. Another thing- if this first round hit the more vulnerable first/harder then the the dreaded second wave wouldn’t be as bad-% of population already immune and (unfortunately) a significant portion of the most vulnerable in that number. I’m just looking for any silver lining at this point.
CA /= NY. We aren't going to be able to take the results from one region and apply them very much to another region. People have wondered why no place in CA turned into NY. I think the differing results reveal the "state of the spread" at the moment the lockdowns started. Community spread was a lot worse in NY than in CA. NY is still very much a reminder of what could have happened and what could still happen with inadequate restrictions and testing. I think the differing results show that, in that one county in CA, it didn't get into the vulnerable populations, which means they are still vulnerable and a second wave could be worse for that county. That would also mean that for NY/NJ the second wave may not be so bad. But that would only be for them, not nationally.

Like I said before, there are no shortcuts. No magic study that says we can go back to the way things were on June 1st without anymore negative consequences. This will still be a very long road, and Disney theme parks aren't opening anytime soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom