Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

jensenrick

Well-Known Member
That being said, it remarks on his interview with Dr. David L. Katz. Dr. Katz is president of True Health Initiative and the founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, and someone I've respected even before this pandemic started. I think everyone should read this article.

Two points I wanted to pull from the article, involve how Dr. Katz, while certainly not an "open everything now" guy, does present excellent facts about how we should be organizing in a different direction.
To quote:
"The best strategy, argues Katz, starts with what the numbers are telling us: “More and more data are telling us that Covid-19 is two completely different diseases in different populations. It is severe and potentially lethal to the old, the chronically ill and those with pre-existing conditions. It is, however, rarely life-threatening, often mild — and often even asymptomatic — among those under 50 or 60 in generally good health.”

We still don’t yet have a perfect understanding of how the virus works — for instance, if you get it, whether you are immune from getting it again. So, we need to corroborate the patterns we’re seeing through more random sampling of the U.S. population both for infection and immunity. But if these patterns are confirmed, then the proper strategy, argued Katz, is one of “total harm minimization” that saves the most lives and health through “vertical interdiction.”

“That means sheltering the vulnerable, while allowing those who can return to the world most safely to do so — thereby restoring the economy, supply chains, and services, while cultivating the collective protection of herd immunity that leads to the ‘all clear,’” said Katz. “That’s how we get our lives back without waiting on the long and uncertain timeline of vaccine development.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Calmdownnow

Well-Known Member
"The best strategy, argues Katz, starts with what the numbers are telling us: “More and more data are telling us that Covid-19 is two completely different diseases in different populations. It is severe and potentially lethal to the old, the chronically ill and those with pre-existing conditions. It is, however, rarely life-threatening, often mild — and often even asymptomatic — among those under 50 or 60 in generally good health.”
As a professor at the London School of Economics told me many years ago: "Statistics are like lamp posts for a drunken man -- they can either illuminate the path home, or you can cling on to them to keep you up-right."

Katz's argument ignores some data now coming through from medics that suggest the virus may be impacting younger people in different ways and rather than hitting the lungs may be causing blood clots and heart attacks, with deaths not being immediately attributed to COVID because everyone is testing around respiratory symptoms.
 

Calmdownnow

Well-Known Member
Surveys age badly. Ask the same people today or in a week and see how opinions change. Even in my household answers to the same questions change on a daily basis.
That's why trends -- changes in answers when the same question is asked -- is usually regarded as more informative over time, particularly if you can get the same survey groups to respond to repeated surveys.
 

John park hopper

Well-Known Member
These probably will come much more rapidly in the future if changes don't occur. Bats, rats, and primates carry about 75% of the zoonotic viruses. Deforestation has brought these species closer to us, they easily adapt to human habitats. Countries like China tolerate wet markets where these virus-laden species were mixed with domesticated meats. Frankly our US domestic meat processing seems to be not far behind, as they continue to be hot spots and get shut down.

The global ravaging of the environment is biting us in the butt, and after MERS, SARS, Ebola, HIV, etc,. it's taking bigger, more frequent bites.
And the world population keeps growing and other species keep dying off.
 

jensenrick

Well-Known Member
As a professor at the London School of Economics told me many years ago: "Statistics are like lamp posts for a drunken man -- they can either illuminate the path home, or you can cling on to them to keep you up-right."

Katz's argument ignores some data now coming through from medics that suggest the virus may be impacting younger people in different ways and rather than hitting the lungs may be causing blood clots and heart attacks, with deaths not being immediately attributed to COVID because everyone is testing around respiratory symptoms.

While that may be so, Dr. Katz has as recently as last week volunteered as an ER doctor in the Bronx, and keeps on top of things. From the interview I heard with him on a recent podcast, he's not ignoring that new data you reference, so much as putting it in perspective in regard to the "representative samping" done (as with all diseases) by the CDC.
 

Calmdownnow

Well-Known Member
While that may be so, Dr. Katz has as recently as last week volunteered as an ER doctor in the Bronx, and keeps on top of things. From the interview I heard with him on a recent podcast, he's not ignoring that new data you reference, so much as putting it in perspective in regard to the "representative samping" done (as with all diseases) by the CDC.
I will salute Dr. Katz;s service.
I think the point I was making was that the younger deaths may not be appearing in the CDC sampling because they are sampling respiratory deaths not heart-related/blood clot illness and deaths and the docs on the front-line are saying there is a marked difference in how the disease is presenting depending on age.
 

SirLink

Well-Known Member
Well the only we get out of this with strict social distancing is mass testing and contact tracing the only way we step down social distancing is with a vaccine. If that means people can't go to entertainment venues and do regional/international travel via trains/airplanes with the social distancing than so be it. After all this is we might have to as a society rethink and give people more space at work/homes/entertainment/travel. Rather than cram as many humans in venues to relax, work, live and travel.

Also reeducating basic hygiene the amount of times been in the parks and been coughed on, without people trying to catch it in their elbows or a tissue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jensenrick

Well-Known Member
I will salute Dr. Katz;s service.
I think the point I was making was that the younger deaths may not be appearing in the CDC sampling because they are sampling respiratory deaths not heart-related/blood clot illness and deaths and the docs on the front-line are saying there is a marked difference in how the disease is presenting depending on age.

You certainly could be right about that, and I don't want anyone to get the virus- but it doesn't change the idea that young, generally healthy people should, and probably will, be on the forefront of getting "out there" again and getting us back on track towards herd immunity.
 

TrojanUSC

Well-Known Member
That's easy to answer. You and I the taxpayers pay for it each and everyday. People with insurance or no insurance go to the hospital ER for medical assistance. By law, the ER cannot turn you away and must treat you. The ER tries to bill the person being treated but not everyone pays their bill.

Then they must file for bankruptcy or face heavy collection efforts, including judgements.
 

TrojanUSC

Well-Known Member
That being said, it remarks on his interview with Dr. David L. Katz. Dr. Katz is president of True Health Initiative and the founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, and someone I've respected even before this pandemic started. I think everyone should read this article.

Two points I wanted to pull from the article, involve how Dr. Katz, while certainly not an "open everything now" guy, does present excellent facts about how we should be organizing in a different direction.
To quote:
"The best strategy, argues Katz, starts with what the numbers are telling us: “More and more data are telling us that Covid-19 is two completely different diseases in different populations. It is severe and potentially lethal to the old, the chronically ill and those with pre-existing conditions. It is, however, rarely life-threatening, often mild — and often even asymptomatic — among those under 50 or 60 in generally good health.”

We still don’t yet have a perfect understanding of how the virus works — for instance, if you get it, whether you are immune from getting it again. So, we need to corroborate the patterns we’re seeing through more random sampling of the U.S. population both for infection and immunity. But if these patterns are confirmed, then the proper strategy, argued Katz, is one of “total harm minimization” that saves the most lives and health through “vertical interdiction.”

“That means sheltering the vulnerable, while allowing those who can return to the world most safely to do so — thereby restoring the economy, supply chains, and services, while cultivating the collective protection of herd immunity that leads to the ‘all clear,’” said Katz. “That’s how we get our lives back without waiting on the long and uncertain timeline of vaccine development.”

The point he leaves out in all of this is how do you "shelter" these people. It's 100M+ Americans. You can't send them onto an ice flow to ride this out. Many of them are professionals or need paychecks to live. Further, they have spouses, kids, parents, etc. Do they never see them again?

Without some kind of test/trace/isolate system, you're putting everyone at risk of injuring or killing a loved one. Imagine Jane is a healthy 45 year old waitress at a restaurant. She goes back to work, catches COVID-19 and has an asymptomatic case. Her husband is 55, is overweight and has managed hypertension. Jane has no idea she's sick but comes home to infect her husband, who winds up hospitalized.

It's not nearly as black & white as just "sheltering" those who are at risk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DVCakaCarlF

Well-Known Member
Testing hasn’t been widespread yet, but herd immunity has already shown to be the final and quickest solution.

I assume I have had it already.
 
1. I need to clear up my first paragraph, I wasn’t talking theoretically about the lockdown. I was speaking specifically. Where I live we have been locked down for 2 months. Just a statement of fact. The rest of it was just me saying, let’s assume we come out the other end of this someday.

Now, speaking of going forward....You’re speaking in broad platitudes. I want to know specifically, what do you think is going to change to try and prevent this from happening again?

If you are talking about our reaction after the fact? That’s a totally different conversation.
Here’s what I believe could be different in a post-pandemic world:
  1. Social distancing will become the norm
  2. No more handshakes and hugging being commonplace
  3. Increased sanitizing of common objects
  4. Virtual cues for public events
  5. Online ordering increase versus in-person shopping
  6. Masks when you are feeling even somewhat ill
  7. Virtual meetings vs in-person meetings
  8. Better/advanced filtration systems in offices and public spaces
  9. More online schooling (lower ed and higher ed)
  10. Better and faster illness testing (to include at home testing)
  11. Paid sick leave for ALL employees so people can get paid when they are ill rather than working while sick
  12. Mandatory temp checks and screening at public events and airport
This is a partial list of what I can imagine. All could be done in varying degrees to improve our situation going forward. Will we do these things? Who knows. Should be do these things? Some of them - absolutely. Only time will tell as to what we have learned and how will will adapt and change going forward.
 

DVCakaCarlF

Well-Known Member
Here’s what I believe could be different in a post-pandemic world:
  1. Social distancing will become the norm
  2. No more handshakes and hugging being commonplace
  3. Increased sanitizing of common objects
  4. Virtual cues for public events
  5. Online ordering increase versus in-person shopping
  6. Masks when you are feeling even somewhat ill
  7. Virtual meetings vs in-person meetings
  8. Better/advanced filtration systems in offices and public spaces
  9. More online schooling (lower ed and higher ed)
  10. Better and faster illness testing (to include at home testing)
  11. Paid sick leave for ALL employees so people can get paid when they are ill rather than working while sick
  12. Mandatory temp checks and screening at public events and airport
This is a partial list of what I can imagine. All could be done in varying degrees to improve our situation going forward. Will we do these things? Who knows. Should be do these things? Some of them - absolutely. Only time will tell as to what we have learned and how will will adapt and change going forward.
I can easily see TSA using thermal imaging to see if someone has a temperature.
 
No,50% will not be sustainable long term. Either will opening up to early and not drawing the people in because they are still worried about sitting down in a restaurant. That’s why we need to support these places now as much as we can with online and delivery. I’m trying to give my favorite places as much business as if everything was ok. I’m also finding out that I’m enjoying the food I love so much, sitting in pajamas watching a favorite show more then sitting in a restaurant. This whole thing may change my overall habits in the long run.
I guess I'm missing your logic. It seems you're stating that restaurants should be forced to keep their dining rooms closed because potential guests might not want to come in? Do you think citizens should be able to make those choices themselves or do you think citizens need more enlightened folk to dictate to them?
 

zengoth

Well-Known Member
Here’s what I believe could be different in a post-pandemic world:
  1. Social distancing will become the norm
  2. No more handshakes and hugging being commonplace
  3. Increased sanitizing of common objects
  4. Virtual cues for public events
  5. Online ordering increase versus in-person shopping
  6. Masks when you are feeling even somewhat ill
  7. Virtual meetings vs in-person meetings
  8. Better/advanced filtration systems in offices and public spaces
  9. More online schooling (lower ed and higher ed)
  10. Better and faster illness testing (to include at home testing)
  11. Paid sick leave for ALL employees so people can get paid when they are ill rather than working while sick
  12. Mandatory temp checks and screening at public events and airport
This is a partial list of what I can imagine. All could be done in varying degrees to improve our situation going forward. Will we do these things? Who knows. Should be do these things? Some of them - absolutely. Only time will tell as to what we have learned and how will will adapt and change going forward.
All of these seem logical, but i still have trouble with #1. In our increasingly population dense world, the only way to social distance properly is by limiting the amount of bodies at the grocer (lines to get in, virtual queues), as well as at theme parks (now a more exclusive vacation than before because the waiting list extends into the 2030s.) I see folks with money and connections being the ones to get that theatre seat, concert ticket, restaurant table simply because there will be more demand than supply.

i guess that 5th gate doesn’t seem so illogical now.
 

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
Social distancing will become the norm
What does this mean?

There is no way to social distance at a broadway show. Or a theme park. Or a stadium. Or a concert. Or a bar. Or a hole in the wall restaurant. Or at a kids birthday party. Or at school. And so on and so on. Right now all those things are canceled because of that.

So my question is, do you expect those things to be cancelled forever?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom