Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[matt9112]

They graphs are deceiving because they also include unvaccinated in them. If you remove the unvaccinated that's skewing the scale, it would be more obvious.

I'm sure I've read that you're something like 3 or 5 times more likely to get sick and have worse outcomes without the booster. Is that 300% to 500% worse outcomes without the booster?

The metric reporting is throwing off the perception. Especially when compare to unvaccinated with is like 15 to 30 times worse or something like that.


See above and the graphs @Kevin_W posted while I was typing. Cover up the unvaccinated line and look at just the other two comparisons. The difference is more than dramatic enough that the booster should be required.

The CDC language is squishy. "Fully vaccinated, however is not the same as optimally protected. To be optimally protected, a person needs to get a booster shot when and if eligible."

The opinion articles from medical people I've seen think the CDC should just change the definition. That the current messaging is confusing. The stats all say you really need the booster and that its a significant improvement.

Im not debating if the outcome is worse without the booster...im sure you get more sick? But i would say so? If my life is no longer at risk and i get sick for a couple days? Thats just you know life? The chart i saw in this thread did have unvaxed on it. They were by far the highest group going to the hospital but like i said the differential between 2 shots and 3 was so minor it seems laughable.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

The biggest reason is not personal IMO. Yes small chances but reducing spread is something to really think about in the future. That's the biggest reason to boost at that age. Same reason why my teen is in conjunction with attempting to stay in school. So it's months away but if things are still going it might be a reason to do it. Again I get your thoughts and I absolutely get the need for boosting too. Remember not all things vaccinated related are for personal reasons.

If the goal is completely reducing the spread then we need to lock everyone up.

Remember to create that calendar entry for 20 years from now to remind those 20 year olds to get the booster then, when they're 40 year olds instead and need it.

In 20 years that booster will have worn off?

 

[mmascari]

In 20 years that booster will have worn off?

Don't know.

Maybe 3 is the magic number and it's enough for a long efficacy. Maybe forever, maybe years, maybe not. We don't know yet.
Maybe it's 4 or 5.
Maybe it's every 10 years.
Maybe it's every 5 years.
Maybe it's every year.

We simply do not know yet, we haven't passed enough time yet to know. We'll figure it out as we get there. With the study participants leading the rest of us by 6 months.

But, it's safe to say, if you skip dose 3, you're falling behind and not just 6 months behind anymore.

Anyone telling you you'll need another dose every year is making it up, they simply do not know.
Anyone telling you after 3 you're done forever is also making it up, they simply do not know.


What we know today is that 3 doses (or the initial 1-2, and then another) is more than 4 times better than just the initial dose.


I mean, I've never regretted my third DTaP dose.

I probably should get another Tetanus dose, it's been too long. On the flip side, I'm exposed to way less Tetanus than COVID.

 

[philly97flyer]

There should never, in the history of the world, ever ever ever be lockdowns again. They accomplish nothing other than satisfying the paranoid

 

[correcaminos]

If the goal is completely reducing the spread then we need to lock everyone up.

In 20 years that booster will have worn off?

While a total lockdown would be effective. And I mean complete, I will not advocate for that and honestly hated it here since it wasn't complete enough to help and it only harmed in the long run. Science repeatedly shows vaccines reduce chances of getting sick to begin with (reduces spread) and if you do the length of time with viral load high enough to spread is also reduced (reduces spread)

 

[G00fyDad]

There should never, in the history of the world, ever ever ever be lockdowns again. They accomplish nothing other than satisfying the paranoid

If people had followed the rules in the first place then they would have worked very well. We also wouldn't be learning the Greek alphabet the hard way.

 

[Andrew C]

We also wouldn't be learning the Greek alphabet the hard way

Of course we would...just like the rest of the world.

 

[nickys]

Again, neither of those has anything to do with lockdowns.

Well in the U.K. I think it did.

All GP practices shut except for emergency appointments. They didn’t see people in person until they had a virtual appointment first. And to get a virtual appointment you really had to have a “good” reason. People were reluctant to phone if a) they were going to have to explain their symptoms to a receptionist manning the phone and b) they didn’t think they were really sick. All screening programmes stopped as the lockdown came into effect. The practice nurses stopped doing things like blood tests, blood pressure checks etc for people with conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure and so on if those were considered to be under control. We were very much discouraged from phoning unless absolutely necessary. Routine wellness type checks for patients just didn’t happen.

And this was all because of the lockdown. And yes, cancer deaths and delayed diagnoses have increased. The NHS and the government have publicly stated this was a result of many health services being stopped during the pandemic. Most screening programmes only restarted in the late summer, 18 months later. But I still can’t see my dentist for a routine check-up, I still can’t just call and arrange a video or phone appointment with my doctor.

It’s hard to not conclude this was a result of the lockdown. Otherwise GP surgeries and hospitals would have continued with their appointments and clinics.

 

[James J]

Well in the U.K. I think it did.

All GP practices shut except for emergency appointments. They didn’t see people in person until they had a virtual appointment first. And to get a virtual appointment you really had to have a “good” reason. People were reluctant to phone if a) they were going to have to explain their symptoms to a receptionist manning the phone and b) they didn’t think they were really sick. All screening programmes stopped as the lockdown came into effect. The practice nurses stopped doing things like blood tests, blood pressure checks etc for people with conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure and so on if those were considered to be under control. We were very much discouraged from phoning unless absolutely necessary. Routine wellness type checks for patients just didn’t happen.

And this was all because of the lockdown. And yes, cancer deaths and delayed diagnoses have increased. The NHS and the government have publicly stated this was a result of many health services being stopped during the pandemic. Most screening programmes only restarted in the late summer, 18 months later. But I still can’t see my dentist for a routine check-up, I still can’t just call and arrange a video or phone appointment with my doctor.

It’s hard to not conclude this was a result of the lockdown. Otherwise GP surgeries and hospitals would have continued with their appointments and clinics.

It'll be an area by area thing unfortunately, and I also guess down to whether it's NHS or private. Down here in the South West of England, my dentist (private) resumed check-ups in the Autumn of 2020 and I've been in twice since for 6 monthly check-ups. I had a phone appointment with my NHS doctor and a couple of in-person appointments last year too.

Routine cancer screenings started up again here towards the end of summer 2020 - my wife went in for her yearly appointment, and at the end of 2020 when my uncle was unfortunately diagnosed with bowel cancer he was thankfully treated and operated on pretty swiftly.

 

[correcaminos]

Well in the U.K. I think it did.

All GP practices shut except for emergency appointments. They didn’t see people in person until they had a virtual appointment first. And to get a virtual appointment you really had to have a “good” reason. People were reluctant to phone if a) they were going to have to explain their symptoms to a receptionist manning the phone and b) they didn’t think they were really sick. All screening programmes stopped as the lockdown came into effect. The practice nurses stopped doing things like blood tests, blood pressure checks etc for people with conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure and so on if those were considered to be under control. We were very much discouraged from phoning unless absolutely necessary. Routine wellness type checks for patients just didn’t happen.

And this was all because of the lockdown. And yes, cancer deaths and delayed diagnoses have increased. The NHS and the government have publicly stated this was a result of many health services being stopped during the pandemic. Most screening programmes only restarted in the late summer, 18 months later. But I still can’t see my dentist for a routine check-up, I still can’t just call and arrange a video or phone appointment with my doctor.

It’s hard to not conclude this was a result of the lockdown. Otherwise GP surgeries and hospitals would have continued with their appointments and clinics.

Wow, while here at times elective procedures were shut down at times, my appointments continued as usual. Same with all my family. The only thing we had delayed was my son's HPV vaccine. I was going to schedule it in the spring of 2020 when that was thwarted. They were limiting then, but if we had had it scheduled at a regular appointment it would have continued. My kid, after a lot of reschedules due to school only, got it at the normal appointment in Dec 2020. My regular appointments including mammas and others with colonoscopies and such were normal.

How long were these shut downs where you are?

 

[matt9112]

Clearly I missed it, or just don't remember.

1% of what? That could be a HUGE number and impact.
Or, was it 1 in a rate per 100K? Even that would be a large actual impact.

1% is tiny on any chart.
Seems to be this novelty that because were talking about human life statistics somehow work differently. The economic damage that has been done will likely be remembered in history for far outweighing the reduction in deaths.

Life is not some moral high ground it comes and goes like anything else. We just feel some kind of way about it because nobody likes to die. There are dozens of other global problems that will take far more lives yet we wont spend a fraction of what we did fighting covid on those.

 

[corgi3]

There should never, in the history of the world, ever ever ever be lockdowns again. They accomplish nothing other than satisfying the paranoid

Nor should they EVERRRRRR tell us to stay off the streets after an ice storm!!

 

[mmascari]

Nor should they EVERRRRRR tell us to stay off the streets after an ice storm!!

Exactly. Why should I have to stay off the streets. Just a few hundred miles south it's completely sunny. Nobody is telling those people to stay off the streets. If they're not doing it, why should I.

 

[maui2k7]

Here's to hoping this downward trend continues and we are in a much better spot come spring time (March/April). I do not want or need to learn anymore greek alphabet letters.

 

[nickys]

Wow, while here at times elective procedures were shut down at times, my appointments continued as usual. Same with all my family. The only thing we had delayed was my son's HPV vaccine. I was going to schedule it in the spring of 2020 when that was thwarted. They were limiting then, but if we had had it scheduled at a regular appointment it would have continued. My kid, after a lot of reschedules due to school only, got it at the normal appointment in Dec 2020. My regular appointments including mammas and others with colonoscopies and such were normal.

How long were these shut downs where you are?

It depends what screening.
Everything stopped in March 2020.

The bowel cancer screening kits started being sent out again around September 2021 on your next birthday unless you call in and ask for one.

I missed my routine Mano and finally got called back in the Summer 2021. I think around that time was when most things started back up.

Now obviously if someone did call their GP worried about a lump or bowel abnormalities they would be seen. But the routine checks stopped, even the bowel screening which you do at home and send in - so no appointment necessary unless it requires a follow-up.

My DS was in the middle of a course of treatment for a skin inflammation and that just went on pause for a year. So all the good that the medication was doing was wiped out because the pescription had to be written by a specialist at the hospital. If it wasn’t life threatening it just didn’t happen.

 

[danlb_2000]

Well in the U.K. I think it did.

All GP practices shut except for emergency appointments. They didn’t see people in person until they had a virtual appointment first. And to get a virtual appointment you really had to have a “good” reason. People were reluctant to phone if a) they were going to have to explain their symptoms to a receptionist manning the phone and b) they didn’t think they were really sick. All screening programmes stopped as the lockdown came into effect. The practice nurses stopped doing things like blood tests, blood pressure checks etc for people with conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure and so on if those were considered to be under control. We were very much discouraged from phoning unless absolutely necessary. Routine wellness type checks for patients just didn’t happen.

And this was all because of the lockdown. And yes, cancer deaths and delayed diagnoses have increased. The NHS and the government have publicly stated this was a result of many health services being stopped during the pandemic. Most screening programmes only restarted in the late summer, 18 months later. But I still can’t see my dentist for a routine check-up, I still can’t just call and arrange a video or phone appointment with my doctor.

It’s hard to not conclude this was a result of the lockdown. Otherwise GP surgeries and hospitals would have continued with their appointments and clinics.

Thanks, I wasn't aware that medical care was being restricted like that in the UK, in the US there was always an exception to lockdowns for medical care. I personally put off seeing my dentists for a cleaning because I was concerned about infection, but my dentist was open and I could have gone if I had wanted to.

 

[Lilofan]

Here's to hoping this downward trend continues and we are in a much better spot come spring time (March/April). I do not want or need to learn anymore greek alphabet letters.

View attachment 618267

Alpha, beta , gamma, delta, etc.. Had to learn it under much frequent duress in fraternity pledging back in my school days..

 

[danlb_2000]

There should never, in the history of the world, ever ever ever be lockdowns again. They accomplish nothing other than satisfying the paranoid

I am not sure if I would go that far. The John Hopkins Study definitely provides some interesting data, but should be used a jumping off point for more studies. The study, which is actually a compilation of results from many studies, points out that it excluded a couple early studies that did show a benefit, so it would be good to understand the difference. Maybe there was a benefit in the very early days because it gave us time to get a handle on what was going on and put other mitigation measures in place.

It also didn't conclude why the lockdowns didn't work. With a respiratory virus it makes sense that reducing contact between people should reduce spread, so we need to understand why that didn't work.

"Our main conclusion invites a discussion of some issues. Our review does not point out why lockdowns did not have the effect promised by the epidemiological models of Imperial College London"

It also says that closing non-essential businesses lead to a 10.6% reduction in fatalities, so maybe we needed to be more targeted with restriction.

I do hope we learn something from this whole thing, but I am not optimistic.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

 

[hopemax]

Yeah. If they cannot put out their data that proves a 3 shot plan will be beneficial, it makes me a bit hesitant to get my 3 year old started with the first two doses. I will look to our pediatrician for advice as we have a strong relationship with her.

Looking at what was posted yesterday. That’s the point. Parents like you will simply wait for the final data. They expect that. Based on the low uptake of the 5-11 shot, they expect the vast majority of parents won’t get their kids vaccinated at all. However, there is a small percentage of parents that will not commit to what you and everyone else wants… learning to live with Covid… until their kids can be vaccinated. And this group is willing to get a jump start on the vaccination schedule.

The families with someone immunocompromised, the families of front line workers in public health, healthcare, teachers and other professions that want either vaccine availability or mitigation. Since everyone else has decided no more mitigation, they are making the vaccine available to those who would choose it.

There are two elements in the vaccine trials. Safety and efficacy. They are confident from the first study and additional data out of Europe where they have vaccinated young kids, that they have satisfied safety concerns. The lay people that are nervous that a third dose might reveal some safety concern the first two didn’t were unlikely to get their child vaccinated right away anyway. So then that leaves VE and the risk of needing additional, reformulated shots later. But since this group is expected to be small, and from the super pro-vax group they will get those shots for their kids too. There is the risk of harming confidence, but pragmatically… that ship sailed.

If 5-11 uptake showed improvement over time they might not take this calculated risk. Given how poor that rate is they have decided there is more to be gained by satisfying the parents who have concerns about their unvaccinated kids being in a world without mitigation. Other parents have already decided to accept the risk of Covid infection for their kids. There is no expected path where delaying the former’s jump start results in the latter vaccinating their kids in significantly increased numbers. This is what “living with Covid” looks like.

If you are uncomfortable, than you just wait for the full data.

Edit to add: allowing parents the choice to jump start, effectively makes it function as an expanded trial. The parents with kids in the trial knew the risks that from a VE perspective the vaccine might not work, and that was okay by society's standards. Now they are giving more parents that choice given we are swiftly moving to no mitigation.

 

[Andrew C]

I am not sure if I would go that far. The John Hopkins Study definitely provides some interesting data, but should be used a jumping off point for more studies. The study, which is actually a compilation of results from many studies, points out that it excluded a couple early studies that did show a benefit, so it would be good to understand the difference. Maybe there was a benefit in the very early days because it gave us time to get a handle on what was going on and put other mitigation measures in place.

It also didn't conclude why the lockdowns didn't work. With a respiratory virus it makes sense that reducing contact between people should reduce spread, so we need to understand why that didn't work.

"Our main conclusion invites a discussion of some issues. Our review does not point out why lockdowns did not have the effect promised by the epidemiological models of Imperial College London"

It also says that closing non-essential businesses lead to a 10.6% reduction in fatalities, so maybe we needed to be more targeted with restriction.

I do hope we learn something from this whole thing, but I am not optimistic.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

It is important to note that prior to utilizing this strategy to deal with COVID, the WHO and other organizations rejected the idea of lockdowns as an effective pandemic strategy. They were looking at studies and historical data/events to reach this conclusion.