Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[DCBaker]

"Nearly three months since Universal Orlando reopened its theme parks, about 840 employees at three hotels on the property are now out of their jobs as the the industry continues to struggle with a slow recovery in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

About 840 employees at Hard Rock Hotel, Loews Portofino Bay Hotel and Cabana Bay Beach Resort are indefinitely furloughed or were permanently terminated, according to a notice filed with the state this week.

“Unfortunately, the global pandemic surrounding COVID-19 has forced Loews Hotels & Co to make some difficult decisions as it relates to our workforce. Team Members are the backbone of our company and rest assured, these measures were not taken lightly,” said spokeswoman Jennifer Hodges, adding the three hotels are still remaining open."

At 3 more Universal Orlando hotels, 840 people are losing their jobs

Nearly three months since Universal Orlando reopened its theme parks, about 840 employees at three hotels on the property are now out of their jobs as the the industry continues to struggle with a …

www.orlandosentinel.com

 

[monykalyn]

It may just be a complete lack of understanding of what contact tracing is and how it works then. In no way does the department of health publicly list out people by name to be harassed on social media. That‘s just not how it works.

The recent threat came days after the Springfield-Greene County Health Department said a second stylist at the 1864 S. Glenstone Ave. salon tested positive for coronavirus and worked from May 16 to May 20 while experiencing mild symptoms. The stylist potentially exposed 56 clients.

A hairdresser at the same location who tested positive for the virus had served 84 clients and exposed seven co-workers, the department said Friday. That stylist also went to a Walmart, Dairy Queen and a fitness center.

The stylists and their clients were wearing face coverings, according to the health department.

As he announced news of the possible exposures, Springfield Greene-County Health Director Clay Goddard said: “I’ll be honest, I’m very frustrated to be up here today. And maybe more so, I’m disappointed.”

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article243054311.html

This was AFTER the idiot that is our "health commissioner" said he was "disappointed in her behavior" of the FIRST stylist who went to the dr and was told it was allergies!
Exactly ZERO clients tested positive. the first stylist has engaged a lawyer. If I was on the jury I'd give her the keys to the IDIOT's house first, then every penny he has.

 

[GoofGoof]

The recent threat came days after the Springfield-Greene County Health Department said a second stylist at the 1864 S. Glenstone Ave. salon tested positive for coronavirus and worked from May 16 to May 20 while experiencing mild symptoms. The stylist potentially exposed 56 clients.

A hairdresser at the same location who tested positive for the virus had served 84 clients and exposed seven co-workers, the department said Friday. That stylist also went to a Walmart, Dairy Queen and a fitness center.

The stylists and their clients were wearing face coverings, according to the health department.

As he announced news of the possible exposures, Springfield Greene-County Health Director Clay Goddard said: “I’ll be honest, I’m very frustrated to be up here today. And maybe more so, I’m disappointed.”

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article243054311.html

This was AFTER the idiot that is our "health commissioner" said he was "disappointed in her behavior" of the FIRST stylist who went to the dr and was told it was allergies!
Exactly ZERO clients tested positive. the first stylist has engaged a lawyer. If I was on the jury I'd give her the keys to the IDIOT's house first, then every penny he has.

So let me see if I can summarize. Based on the attached story, back in May two separate hair stylists at the same location went to work knowing they were positive and potentially exposed a bunch of people to Covid and in reaction the health department made a public statement to warn people of the potential exposure listing out the dates and location when the exposure may have happened? What’s the issue? Don’t people who have been potentially exposed have a right to know? At least in the story you attached they didn’t disclose the names of the people who were positive, just the business where it happened. I’m having a hard time following how the people who went to work knowing they were positive are the victims here. It’s not right for people to make threats against the hair dressers, but that’s the way social media works these days. I’m sure someone familiar with the employees outed them on Facebook or whatever and that’s how their names were revealed. That’s not really an issue with contact tracing.

 

[DCBaker]

Numbers are out -

 

[Tha Realest]

Numbers are out -

I really appreciate your posting these each day. As someone who’s been looking to visit, and eager to read up on the trends in one of our largest states, this is incredibly helpful. Thank you!

 

[_caleb]

Has there ever been an exhibit at Epcot about infectious diseases? Like back in the edutainment days, did the Wonders of Life pavilion have anything about epidemics or preventing the spread of disease?

 

[xdan0920]

Maybe this is why the CDC said what they said originally. Before being browbeaten into a half walk back....

From the New York Times....


Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.

More not worrying quotes...

“In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

“The Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that “commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own.””


““I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high C.T. value results,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing.”

Edit to add...

This is also why NY/NJ as an example have been flat for MONTHS. We can’t get below 1% or so positive. It’s literally impossible with the PCR test. Perpetually stuck at 300 or so positive tests a day. It’s not because we are bad boys and girls. It’s because this is the floor for PCR testing. It can’t go any lower. And these positive tests are being used to make policy decisions. Indoor dining, schools, sports. It’s an embarrassing situation. Maybe now that the venerable NYT has finally woken up, things will change.

 

[GoofGoof]

Maybe this is why the CDC said what they said originally. Before being browbeaten into a half walk back....

From the New York Times....


Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.

Reading the actual article, not just the headline:

Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.

Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time. But researchers say the solution is not to test less, or to skip testing people without symptoms, as recently suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Instead, new data underscore the need for more widespread use of rapid tests, even if they are less sensitive.

“The decision not to test asymptomatic people is just really backward,” said Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, referring to the C.D.C. recommendation.


Based on reading this article there’s nothing in there that would remotely support the now walked back plan to reduce testing and not test people who are asymptomatic. The article calls for more testing...something I agree 100% with. The only way to get the cases under control is to test more not less.

Edit: Final conclusion of the article which I agree with. More frequent testing is needed:

People infected with the virus are most infectious from a day or two before symptoms appear till about five days after. But at the current testing rates, “you’re not going to be doing it frequently enough to have any chance of really capturing somebody in that window,” Dr. Mina added.

Highly sensitive PCR tests seemed like the best option for tracking the coronavirus at the start of the pandemic. But for the outbreaks raging now, he said, what’s needed are coronavirus tests that are fast, cheap and abundant enough to frequently test everyone who needs it — even if the tests are less sensitive.

“It might not catch every last one of the transmitting people, but it sure will catch the most transmissible people, including the superspreaders,” Dr. Mina said. “That alone would drive epidemics practically to zero.”

 

[xdan0920]

Reading the actual article, not just the headline:

Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.

Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time. But researchers say the solution is not to test less, or to skip testing people without symptoms, as recently suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Instead, new data underscore the need for more widespread use of rapid tests, even if they are less sensitive.

“The decision not to test asymptomatic people is just really backward,” said Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, referring to the C.D.C. recommendation.


Based on reading this article there’s nothing in there that would remotely support the now walked back plan to reduce testing and not test people who are asymptomatic. The article calls for more testing...something I agree 100% with. The only way to get the cases under control is to test more not less.

Wrong. Read the article again. These PCR tests are not useful. When the CDC made its recommendation, it was in regards to PCR testing.

 

[xdan0920]

Also, been awfully quiet about Georgia. Schools fully open for a month and positive tests still decreasing statewide.

 

[GoofGoof]

Wrong. Read the article again. These PCR tests are not useful. When the CDC made its recommendation, it was in regards to PCR testing.

There was nothing in the CDC recommendation that said they should not use PCR tests on asymptomatic people but instead they should ramp up more quick testing. That’s just not true. The attached article actually makes a lot of sense and is something we have all been talking about in reference to getting schools open. The plan makes a lot of sense. I don’t believe the CDC recommendation had anything to do with that. That was simply a plan to reduce testing overall so case numbers dropped.

 

[Touchdown]

There’s just times when it’s not worth arguing anymore...

 

[xdan0920]

There was nothing in the CDC recommendation that said they should not use PCR tests on asymptomatic people but instead they should ramp up more quick testing. That’s just not true. The attached article actually makes a lot of sense and is something we have all been talking about in reference to getting schools open. The plan makes a lot of sense. I don’t believe the CDC recommendation had anything to do with that. That was simply a plan to reduce testing overall so case numbers dropped.

Sounds very tinfoil hat-ish to me. If you don’t think the CDC knew that 90% of positives in these areas weren’t really positive, then I dunno what to tell you.

 

[easyrowrdw]

There was nothing in the CDC recommendation that said they should not use PCR tests on asymptomatic people but instead they should ramp up more quick testing. That’s just not true. The attached article actually makes a lot of sense and is something we have all been talking about in reference to getting schools open. The plan makes a lot of sense. I don’t believe the CDC recommendation had anything to do with that.

Indeed. And the new article says the problem is more with the threshold used for the PCR test. It's not that the test isn't useful, but that it's being used in a manner that is "overly-sensitive" to diagnosis. It also is more time-consuming, which is a problem given the volume of testing needed.

The idea that more fast, even if less sensitive, tests would be helpful is something I've seen mentioned before. We seem to be coming up short of the availability of such tests, though. Hopefully they're able to rectify that soon.

 

[JoeCamel]

Sounds very tinfoil hat-ish to me. If you don’t think the CDC knew that 90% of positives in these areas weren’t really positive, then I dunno what to tell you.

How would you know they were "not really positive" unless you tested them? Insignificant amount to whom? 23 yo track star or 90 yo with emphysema?

 

[GoofGoof]

Sounds very tinfoil hat-ish to me. If you don’t think the CDC knew that 90% of positives in these areas weren’t really positive, then I dunno what to tell you.

I’m trying to have a serious conversation. You say I’m being tin foil hat-ish but you are suggestimg that the CDC made their recommendation based on the theory in this article, but they never said that when making the recommendation. If that was true then why not say here’s the recommendation and here’s why? Then when the recommendation was questioned they walked it back. Again, why not at that point say why you did it? If it was because of the reasons you are assuming why wouldn’t they just say it? So nobody from the CDC is saying this is the reason but you are jumping to the conclusion that this is the reason. That’s a huge leap to make. Seems very unlikely to me.

 

[easyrowrdw]

Sounds very tinfoil hat-ish to me. If you don’t think the CDC knew that 90% of positives in these areas weren’t really positive, then I dunno what to tell you.

Well, the Times seems to be the one that did the analysis. And if the CDC had that same information, it seems strange that they didn't mention it. It also seems strange that they didn't advocate for more rapid testing while making the change in recommendation. I'd say it's gross incompetence if they knew all of this, but didn't inform the public.

 

[GoofGoof]

Well, the Times seems to be the one that did the analysis. And if the CDC had that same information, it seems strange that they didn't mention it. It also seems strange that they didn't advocate for more rapid testing while making the change in recommendation. I'd say it's gross incompetence if they knew all of this, but didn't inform the public.

Agreed. If this was really the reason why not just say that? It makes no sense to hide your motivation for a change if it’s based in science. It makes more sense to stay silent on reason if it’s based on some other motivation.

 

[xdan0920]

How would you know they were "not really positive" unless you tested them? Insignificant amount to whom? 23 yo track star or 90 yo with emphysema?

Ask the NYT. They did the analysis. Write a letter to the editor.

 

[xdan0920]

I’m trying to have a serious conversation. You say I’m being tin foil hat-ish but you are suggestimg that the CDC made their recommendation based on the theory in this article, but they never said that when making the recommendation. If that was true then why not say here’s the recommendation and here’s why? Then when the recommendation was questioned they walked it back. Again, why not at that point say why you did it? If it was because of the reasons you are assuming why wouldn’t they just say it? So nobody from the CDC is saying this is the reason but you are jumping to the conclusion that this is the reason. That’s a huge leap to make. Seems very unlikely to me.

Ok. A serious conversation. 90% of the positives in the decimated in March/April states are not real positives. You don’t see that as a major issue?