Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[LukeS7]

NYC should have had a MUCH higher death rate, since their outbreak was well before masks, in a very high density population.

Spoiler alert: they do. Including the probable deaths from their dashboard, their death rate is 10.6%, even factoring out probables, it’s still 8.51%. By comparison, Florida is at 1.45% and the US as a whole is at 3.33%. Why try to make an argument that’s so easily disproven?

 

[The Mom]

Posters have been warned about having the same arguments over and over, along with making snarky remarks about others, so some of you have been given a time out.

 

[rowrbazzle]

Lets hope so.
I think we may see some negative impacts from the failed in person school science experiment. (not just grade school, colleges too)

I'm sure there will be more cases as people gather in schools, just as there are with any gathering. But maybe we can wait for it to actually fail before declaring it a failure?

 

[Trentster05]

To help start something new to talk about related to this thread. Is it likely that Disney World will do much for Christmas? I am considering taking family down for a week in December but really only if they have decorations up.

 

[GoofGoof]

To help start something new to talk about related to this thread. Is it likely that Disney World will do much for Christmas? I am considering taking family down for a week in December but really only if they have decorations up.

It’s hard to say what will be happening by then, but my gut says they will likely have a lot of the regular Christmas decorations up, especially at MK, but the other parks too. It looks like it’s going to be a while before major demand increases from out of state tourists, but the Christmas stuff is popular with locals too and they will want to have some extra draw for people to come. They probably won’t have the Christmas parties with parades and fireworks, but decorations on Main Street, Jungle Cruise overlay, trees and decorations at the resorts that are open should all be in the cards.

It’s still pretty cool even without the parades. One of my favorite weeks to go was always the week before Thanksgiving. MK would put their decorations up on Nov 1 after the last Halloween party because MVMCP would start the first week of November. The one year we were there the decorations at CR went up literally overnight one night. Nothing out when we went to bed at night and when we left the room the next morning the big tree in the lobby and giant wreath where the monorail comes out were there. Like magic. Always a fun time to visit.

 

[Chomama]

To help start something new to talk about related to this thread. Is it likely that Disney World will do much for Christmas? I am considering taking family down for a week in December but really only if they have decorations up.

I bet they will decorate! Pipe in music and have some cavalcades with Xmas character outfits. And probably sell some Xmas treats too! I wouldn’t expect parade or fireworks, but yes to decorations!

 

[GoofGoof]

I bet they will decorate! Pipe in music and have some cavalcades with Xmas character outfits. And probably sell some Xmas treats too! I wouldn’t expect parade or fireworks, but yes to decorations!

Cavalcades should be cool. Characters in Christmas costumes, toy soldier and ginger bread men walking in front. Maybe even Santa. I guess nobody gets to sit on Santa‘s lap this year (which is epically sad), but I know at least for me the silver lining in all of this is I will appreciate those little things so much more when I get it back.

 

[hopemax]

In one of these threads, someone said the Main Street Christmas Tree is a go. Someone else asked since they aren't running parades, can they have the garlands across Main Street back. Maybe, that would be enough to get me on a plane, lol.

 

[Trentster05]

I bet they will decorate! Pipe in music and have some cavalcades with Xmas character outfits. And probably sell some Xmas treats too! I wouldn’t expect parade or fireworks, but yes to decorations!

This is definitely enough to encourage me to go. I think the cavalcades can still give the "magic" that the parades bring.

Cavalcades should be cool. Characters in Christmas costumes, toy soldier and ginger bread men walking in front. Maybe even Santa. I guess nobody gets to sit on Santa‘s lap this year (which is epically sad), but I know at least for me the silver lining in all of this is I will appreciate those little things so much more when I get it back.

I agree! The little things. That's what I appreciate about Disney is the details in everything! Every trip shows you something new.

 

[G00fyDad]

To help start something new to talk about related to this thread. Is it likely that Disney World will do much for Christmas? I am considering taking family down for a week in December but really only if they have decorations up.

I'm positive it'll have the decorations up. But I believe they've already cancelled the Very Merry Christmas Party. It should still feel "Christmas-y" though.

 

[toolsnspools]

Universities do not profit off of research grants. University endowments are supported by philanthropy and long term investments,

Thank you for elaborating on my point. Wealthy donors are the life blood of University programs. Without them, the professors and programs would disappear. So when a company (and its wealthy owners) stand to receive huge amounts of government $$, and are also likely donors back to the University(ies) that decide who can see what data, I see a conflict of interest. I see real world examples of successful treatment by 30 or so doctors, being quickly dismissed and even banned by the institutions that stand to grow endowments and build programs off of the alternative.

 

[Thelazer]

I'd hope there would be Snoap... but debatable right now what that would do to cause crowding.

 

[October82]

Thank you for elaborating on my point. Wealthy donors are the life blood of University programs. Without them, the professors and programs would disappear. So when a company (and its wealthy owners) stand to receive huge amounts of government $$, and are also likely donors back to the University(ies) that decide who can see what data, I see a conflict of interest.

Donors do not take part in research. Neither donors, nor universities, decide who can see data. To the contrary, universities and governments often require that raw data be made available for government funded research (again, donors are not funding research activities, they are funding football teams). As was mentioned earlier in this thread in response to (IIRC) one of your comments, it is typical that raw data is made available to the community by researchers as part of the peer review process even when governments do not require it. For example, in the previously mentioned post, I linked to the procedure for obtaining the researcher's raw data. You can do this and perform your own analysis if you find the published results inadequate.

I see real world examples of successful treatment by 30 or so doctors, being quickly dismissed and even banned by the institutions that stand to grow endowments and build programs off of the alternative.

In the aforementioned example, the main concern was that the pharmaceutical company providing hydroxychloroquine would have undue bias in favor of positive results for their products. Researchers are required to state any possible conflicts of interest for this reason, and the researchers detailed the steps they took to make sure that they were not biased by needing to work with a drug manufacturer in order to obtain the drug in question. Among those steps was that they conducted a randomized trial. RCTs are considered the "gold standard" in medical research.

Scientific research papers also undergo peer review by 2-3 independent researchers at different institutions, often in different countries, who are also experts on the same research topic. This means that not only would one research group have to be corrupt, but every research group directly involved in the process would be as well.

Beyond that, what matters is not the result of any one paper (though papers are always more credible than random internet sources), but the consensus of researchers. On important topics, there will be dozens of papers produced by hundreds of researchers. Once again, there's a basic misunderstanding of the scale of who is involved in research. There simply are too many people involved for your claims to be plausible.

 

[GoofGoof]

Donors do not take part in research. Neither donors, nor universities, decide who can see data. To the contrary, universities and governments often require that raw data be made available for government funded research (again, donors are not funding research activities, they are funding football teams). As was mentioned earlier in this thread in response to (IIRC) one of your comments, it is typical that raw data is made available to the community by researchers as part of the peer review process even when governments do not require it. For example, in the previously mentioned post, I linked to the procedure for obtaining the researcher's raw data. You can do this and perform your own analysis if you find the published results inadequate.



In the aforementioned example, the main concern was that the pharmaceutical company providing hydroxychloroquine would have undue bias in favor of positive results for their products. Researchers are required to state any possible conflicts of interest for this reason, and the researchers detailed the steps they took to make sure that they were not biased by needing to work with a drug manufacturer in order to obtain the drug in question. Among those steps was that they conducted a randomized trial. RCTs are considered the "gold standard" in medical research.

Scientific research papers also undergo peer review by 2-3 independent researchers at different institutions, often in different countries, who are also experts on the same research topic. This means that not only would one research group have to be corrupt, but every research group directly involved in the process would be as well.

Beyond that, what matters is not the result of any one paper (though papers are always more credible than random internet sources), but the consensus of researchers. On important topics, there will be dozens of papers produced by hundreds of researchers. Once again, there's a basic misunderstanding of the scale of who is involved in research. There simply are too many people involved for your claims to be plausible.

My guess is they don’t mention all this when the talking heads are pushing their conspiracy theory narrative

 

[toolsnspools]

Moving to DM with @October82 so we don't continue to bore the rest of the thread. If you're interested in the convo, DM me and we can include you.

 

[October82]

My guess is they don’t mention all this when the talking heads are pushing their conspiracy theory narrative

One of many reasons why science education and outreach are important.

It's easier to imagine that scientists are manipulating data for personal/political ends when you don't personally know people involved in research or know the lengths that scientists take to ensure the integrity of their results. Another thing people tend not to appreciate is that scientific misconduct is very rare. Science is hard and while mistakes happen, they are far far more often both subtle and unintended.

 

[toolsnspools]

One of many reasons why science education and outreach are important.

It's easier to imagine that scientists are manipulating data for personal/political ends when you don't personally know people involved in research or know the lengths that scientists take to ensure the integrity of their results. Another thing people tend not to appreciate is that scientific misconduct is very rare. Science is hard and while mistakes happen, they are far far more often both subtle and unintended.

Ok. So you don't want to DM.

Every good statistician will tell you. Data doesn't lie, but liars use data all the time. I don't dispute the scientific process itself. I doubt people who dismiss real life experience without asking questions and/or seeking additional data. There is a motivator here that is not seeking a scientific answer. Instead it is seeking to silence an alternative to the "we must have a vaccine" community. A community that is receiving a LOT of money from the government right now.

Signing off.

 

[October82]

Ok. So you don't want to DM.

Every good statistician will tell you. Data doesn't lie, but liars use data all the time.

I haven't had a chance to respond to your DM, but was planning to do so. TBH, I don't mean this as an insult, but there is a pervasive cynicism underlying your comments (and many others in this thread), and it's difficult to respond to.

We can talk about matters of fact, how statistics and science works, etc., but those conversations are only productive if we're willing to change our minds. If every thing we talk about ultimately ends in a response that there are people out there that are lying, I don't know what to do with that.

I don't dispute the scientific process itself. I doubt people who dismiss real life experience without asking questions and/or seeking additional data.

But that is exactly what the linked article that @hopemax provided does. That's what science does. Scientists took people's anecdotal experience that some drug might be helpful, and they did an awful lot of work to check and see if it actually did. It's not just the linked study as well - there are dozens finding similar results. In science, we accept results that we disagree with or find undesirable when the evidence shows that those results are true. I find it far more likely that the authors of this study were biased in favor of a positive result than the alternative. We all want there to be a therapeutic that would save lives and allow society to return to normal.

There is a motivator here that is not seeking a scientific answer. Instead it is seeking to silence an alternative to the "we must have a vaccine" community. A community that is receiving a LOT of money from the government right now.

Signing off.

And this is the sort of cynical outlook on the world that I can't respond to with facts or otherwise discuss in a truthful and civil way. It's not that I don't want to, it's that there's nothing here but the belief that someone, somewhere, has a secret agenda that is preventing the truth for some implied nefarious personal or social aim.

 

[NickMaio]

To help start something new to talk about related to this thread. Is it likely that Disney World will do much for Christmas? I am considering taking family down for a week in December but really only if they have decorations up.

It might be shutdown by then....only WHO knows

 

[GoofGoof]

It might be shutdown by then....only WHO knows

It’s open right now...couldn’t get much worse on the ground. Outside of a series of outbreaks directly linked to WDW I don’t see them shutting down for anything Covid related. It is possible that the economics force a shutdown if demand really drops off.