Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Disney Experience]

As some know here I am part of the Pfizer Phase 3 Trial. Second shot Sept 2020. Second shot had some chills, body ache, tiredness, and a mild 100.3 fever.
I also got moderate Covid (likely Delta) in mid -June 2021. (Lost 20 lbs two weeks. 102.9 fever 1 week, spo2 dropping into 80s, brain fog and covid cough for two months)
I just (as part of the trial) got a booster in late November 2021. (My schedule prohibited getting it sooner)
Twelve hours later I had a very strong immune reaction. More like a day of covid without anything chest wise, much stronger reaction than the second shot. Probably such a strong reaction because of having moderate Delta after fully vaccinated and having a good deal of time between each event.(Initial shots, 9 months later covid, 5 months after covid I got booster).(14 months total timeframe)

 

[mmascari]

I'm shocked. I should have been sitting down to read this. I never in a million years would have predicted... oh, wait, I think a few months ago I guaranteed that it would get extended.

 

[hopemax]

What is the general consensus for you all as far as boosters go? Six or eight months? I'm hearing conflicting.

I already posted a few weeks ago, that I expect there would be at least one more once we had an idea of what an "immune escape" variant looked like. Then Omicron arrived on cue. Whether we need it for Omicron, specifically, or not, we'll see. But just in general... we would want to design for multiple types of variants, immune escape, transmissibility, severity so in the future we can have well-rounded protection.

But I don't think this will go on forever. The virus is still doing the thing new viruses do. Adapt to be more effective at what it does and so we have to adapt too.

 

[DisneyCane]

I already posted a few weeks ago, that I expect there would be at least one more once we had an idea of what an "immune escape" variant looked like. Then Omicron arrived on cue. Whether we need it for Omicron, specifically, or not, we'll see. But just in general... we would want to design for multiple types of variants, immune escape, transmissibility, severity so in the future we can have well-rounded protection.

But I don't think this will go on forever. The virus is still doing the thing new viruses do. Adapt to be more effective at what it does and so we have to adapt too.

The flu shot is yearly and forever so why wouldn't you expect this to be?

 

[Angel Ariel]

Since I mentioned it here, as an update - my cousin in his 20s who caught Covid last week, to my latest understanding, is receiving 100% O2 in the ICU and was being put on a Bi-pap machine.

His family had offered to pay him to get vaccinated, he refused. The rest of their immediate family is fully vaccinated. I pray I will hear better news in the coming days.

I heard today that my cousin is home now, still on O2, but at least not hospitalized at this point. Grateful for that improvement, and hoping he won’t need to stay on it long.

 

[hopemax]

The flu shot is yearly and forever so why wouldn't you expect this to be?

Because it's not the flu.

When people don't have a solid frame of reference to interpret something entirely brand new, their brain searches for the closest analogue. In this case, people keep envisioning a cold or flu. But people who study viruses have a frame of reference to properly place this, and they aren't seeing the rapid antigen drift like influenza. The mutations that have happened so far they think are appropriate and what you would expect during the early development of a novel virus and they expect that it will stabilize. I am deferring to their better judgement and experience.

Apparently, viruses either have or don't have a "proofreading" mechanism. Influenza does not. So when its genome changes it continues to replicate with the error, and then another error happens which is replicated, and then another, and so on. Eventually, there are so many changes that the immune system doesn't recognize it anymore. However, SARS-COV-2 does have some sort of proofreading function, so when an error in the sequence happens, when it replicates it doesn't always duplicate the error. So to give our brains an analogue SARS-COV-2 has autocorrect / spellcheck influenza does not. But as we no autocorrect / spellcheck does allow mistakes two get through so the virus can and does change, just not as many or as fast.

EDIT to add: DNA viruses like measles not only have simple autocorrect / spellcheck but they also have professional copy editors at their disposal which makes DNA viruses a lot more stable.

 

[Kevin_W]

Because it's not the flu.

When people don't have a solid frame of reference to interpret something entirely brand new, their brain searches for the closest analogue. In this case, people keep envisioning a cold or flu. But people who study viruses have a frame of reference to properly place this, and they aren't seeing the rapid antigen drift like influenza. The mutations that have happened so far they think are appropriate and what you would expect during the early development of a novel virus and they expect that it will stabilize. I am deferring to their better judgement and experience.

Apparently, viruses either have or don't have a "proofreading" mechanism. Influenza does not. So when its genome changes it continues to replicate with the error, and then another error happens which is replicated, and then another, and so on. Eventually, there are so many changes that the immune system doesn't recognize it anymore. However, SARS-COV-2 does have some sort of proofreading function, so when an error in the sequence happens, when it replicates it doesn't always duplicate the error. So to give our brains an analogue SARS-COV-2 has autocorrect / spellcheck influenza does not. But as we no autocorrect / spellcheck does allow mistakes two get through so the virus can and does change, just not as many or as fast.

EDIT to add: DNA viruses like measles not only have simple autocorrect / spellcheck but they also have professional copy editors at their disposal which makes DNA viruses a lot more stable.

Thanks for the simplified summary.

 

[DisneyCane]

Because it's not the flu.

When people don't have a solid frame of reference to interpret something entirely brand new, their brain searches for the closest analogue. In this case, people keep envisioning a cold or flu. But people who study viruses have a frame of reference to properly place this, and they aren't seeing the rapid antigen drift like influenza. The mutations that have happened so far they think are appropriate and what you would expect during the early development of a novel virus and they expect that it will stabilize. I am deferring to their better judgement and experience.

Apparently, viruses either have or don't have a "proofreading" mechanism. Influenza does not. So when its genome changes it continues to replicate with the error, and then another error happens which is replicated, and then another, and so on. Eventually, there are so many changes that the immune system doesn't recognize it anymore. However, SARS-COV-2 does have some sort of proofreading function, so when an error in the sequence happens, when it replicates it doesn't always duplicate the error. So to give our brains an analogue SARS-COV-2 has autocorrect / spellcheck influenza does not. But as we no autocorrect / spellcheck does allow mistakes two get through so the virus can and does change, just not as many or as fast.

EDIT to add: DNA viruses like measles not only have simple autocorrect / spellcheck but they also have professional copy editors at their disposal which makes DNA viruses a lot more stable.

Thanks for the good explanation. I wish the "experts" would explain it this way publicly instead of causing panic about variants. Your explanation gives hope that this particular virus can eventually be controlled. Influenza obviously can not be and the way it behaves is how I picture SARS-CoV-2 because of the way the variants are talked about.

 

[dreday3]

Just a quick update after booster yesterday - I feel pretty good! I have mild aches and my arm is sore, but nothing like the fever/chills I had with first 2 shots. Let's say if I called off work for it, i'd be lying.

I had Moderna.

 

[G00fyDad]

Just a quick update after booster yesterday - I feel pretty good! I have mild aches and my arm is sore, but nothing like the fever/chills I had with first 2 shots. Let's say if I called off work for it, i'd be lying.

I had Moderna.

I was lucky enough to have nothing but a sore arm the next day after my booster. My first two shots made me feel horrible. I was told by a nurse that it was probably because I had been exposed to COVID at some point before that first shot. My wife works on the COVID unit at her hospital so I probably got it from her. We both felt like death warmed over for about 7 days a while before we both got our first shots in December 2020. We both got the Pfizer shots.

 

[Andrew C]

Just a quick update after booster yesterday - I feel pretty good! I have mild aches and my arm is sore, but nothing like the fever/chills I had with first 2 shots. Let's say if I called off work for it, i'd be lying.

I had Moderna.

I get mine tomorrow. I am sure because you had an easy time, it will be the exact opposite for me.

 

[dreday3]

I get mine tomorrow. I am sure because you had an easy time, it will be the exact opposite for me.

No, my guy is getting his today - he will be in line for my jinx before you.

(hope you are both okay!)

 

[Disneydad1012]

As some know here I am part of the Pfizer Phase 3 Trial. Second shot Sept 2020. Second shot had some chills, body ache, tiredness, and a mild 100.3 fever.
I also got moderate Covid (likely Delta) in mid -June 2021. (Lost 20 lbs two weeks. 102.9 fever 1 week, spo2 dropping into 80s, brain fog and covid cough for two months)
I just (as part of the trial) got a booster in late November 2021. (My schedule prohibited getting it sooner)
Twelve hours later I had a very strong immune reaction. More like a day of covid without anything chest wise, much stronger reaction than the second shot. Probably such a strong reaction because of having moderate Delta after fully vaccinated and having a good deal of time between each event.(Initial shots, 9 months later covid, 5 months after covid I got booster).(14 months total timeframe)

I also had the worst reaction with the booster out of my 3 doses of Moderna. Had the shot 6pm on Friday. Woke up Saturday fine by dinner time starting feeling fatigued and a chills. By bed time I had uncontrollable shakes unless under the covers. Then soaking wet sweats but fine when I woke up in the morning except for a swollen lymph node in my left armpit. All good now though. My wife got hers at the same time and didn't have a single side effect.

Also DD10 got her 2nd shot yesterday so we are now a fully vaxxed house. She also had zero side effects for either shot.

 

[DisneyFan32]

By then trains will lift mask mandate by mid-March 2022 as Spring comes.

 

[Patcheslee]

It looks like this is the Healthcare specific order that's under the National Emergency umbrella. Interesting that the news story calls the judge out saying "'indefinite states of emergency' pose 'grave risks' to civil liberties". This is definitely true, but it's hardly new. There should be news stories calling this out for many years. According to Wikipedia there are currently 39 active National Emergencies, and the oldest started November 14, 1979.


Is that the OSHA one or a different order under the National Emergency umbrella?

It's hard to keep track of which order under which authority or which rule under which process something came from and who challenged each. Along with if the challenge is process and authority or action related.


The ping pong of executive order only actions and the inability of Congress to ever clarify and deal with the issues in a more permanent fashion is definitely a problem. I'm not sure it's the Courts that need to fix it, so much as Congress dealing the underlying issues that drive orders instead.

We're stuck with no answers at work about the mandate except they are still trying to determine which order would apply to where because some plants are federal contractors, and if the federal contractor rule would apply to only that facility. If that gets stuck down, there is still the OSHA order to deal with. The pause has left things in limbo.

 

[danlb_2000]

We're stuck with no answers at work about the mandate except they are still trying to determine which order would apply to where because some plants are federal contractors, and if the federal contractor rule would apply to only that facility. If that gets stuck down, there is still the OSHA order to deal with. The pause has left things in limbo.

We were discussing this in a meeting at my company to. We are not technically a federal contractor but we do manufacture items for military use, so there is some question as to whether we would be covered under the vaccination rules or not.

 

[mmascari]

We're stuck with no answers at work about the mandate except they are still trying to determine which order would apply to where because some plants are federal contractors, and if the federal contractor rule would apply to only that facility. If that gets stuck down, there is still the OSHA order to deal with. The pause has left things in limbo.

As a business, you cannot go wrong just picking that you'll require everyone to get vaccinated. It's good if any or all of the options end up and still good if none of them end up being required. Good for employees too.

The biggest concern would be for people that are granted exceptions. It's pretty safe that anyone with a real medical exemption would be good under any of the plans. The exact testing requirements then are probably the bigger question, but that's much easier to change over time.

Granting other exceptions probably has the bigger risk. Depending on the final outcome, some of those exceptions could go away or not. There's only an impact if the specific exception goes away and the business was depending on it. For instance, if a business takes a wide exception rule and allows it for any reason with a testing requirement, that's the one that's could likely go away depending on the final rule that really applies to a specific business.

Nobody ever got in trouble for being "to safe". They may have spent some extra money to do it, but that's not the same thing.

Doing it does put the decision squarely on the business though, without the cover of "we're just doing it because we have to". If that's good or bad probably depends on where the business is located.

 

[danlb_2000]

As a business, you cannot go wrong just picking that you'll require everyone to get vaccinated. It's good if any or all of the options end up and still good if none of them end up being required. Good for employees too.

The biggest concern would be for people that are granted exceptions. It's pretty safe that anyone with a real medical exemption would be good under any of the plans. The exact testing requirements then are probably the bigger question, but that's much easier to change over time.

Granting other exceptions probably has the bigger risk. Depending on the final outcome, some of those exceptions could go away or not. There's only an impact if the specific exception goes away and the business was depending on it. For instance, if a business takes a wide exception rule and allows it for any reason with a testing requirement, that's the one that's could likely go away depending on the final rule that really applies to a specific business.

Nobody ever got in trouble for being "to safe". They may have spent some extra money to do it, but that's not the same thing.

Doing it does put the decision squarely on the business though, without the cover of "we're just doing it because we have to". If that's good or bad probably depends on where the business is located.

Actually you can for "wrong" with requiring vaccinations if you end up having to fire to many employees because they won't get vaccinated.

 

[mmascari]

Actually you can for "wrong" with requiring vaccinations if you end up having to fire to many employees because they won't get vaccinated.

I was thinking of that as extra money, and a regional question.

Nobody ever got in trouble for being "to safe". They may have spent some extra money to do it, but that's not the same thing.

Doing it does put the decision squarely on the business though, without the cover of "we're just doing it because we have to". If that's good or bad probably depends on where the business is located.

Regional determining if you're likely to have lots of hold outs or not.
Extra money if you need to pay them more to overcome a reluctance or replace them with new employees.

Which could make it a "wrong" business decision, but it wouldn't be a "wrong" safety decision.

There's lots of businesses where they are more profitable by being unsafe. Wasn't that the entire point of much of the early labor movement?

 

[Disstevefan1]

As a business, you cannot go wrong just picking that you'll require everyone to get vaccinated. It's good if any or all of the options end up and still good if none of them end up being required. Good for employees too.

The biggest concern would be for people that are granted exceptions. It's pretty safe that anyone with a real medical exemption would be good under any of the plans. The exact testing requirements then are probably the bigger question, but that's much easier to change over time.

Granting other exceptions probably has the bigger risk. Depending on the final outcome, some of those exceptions could go away or not. There's only an impact if the specific exception goes away and the business was depending on it. For instance, if a business takes a wide exception rule and allows it for any reason with a testing requirement, that's the one that's could likely go away depending on the final rule that really applies to a specific business.

Nobody ever got in trouble for being "to safe". They may have spent some extra money to do it, but that's not the same thing.

Doing it does put the decision squarely on the business though, without the cover of "we're just doing it because we have to". If that's good or bad probably depends on where the business is located.

It’s a good thing big pharma and governments wasn’t playing it “too safe” when they created and approved the vaccines in 9 months when the safe approach would have been the usual 5 year approval process.

In this case “too safe” would have gotten a lot of folks in trouble….