Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Miss Bella]

Ok so what would you recommend for me? Go get tested once a week while experiencing no symptoms whatsoever? And BTW, who do you think is paying for all that testing? The government fairy?
The point is there is no reason to test unless you have symptoms or suspect you’ve been exposed. I think it’s asinine to think otherwise. If you do, well...

They don’t want to get tested themselves. They just want everyone else to get tested. Its been the same talking points for months.

 

[rowrbazzle]

They don’t want to get tested themselves. They just want everyone else to get tested. Its been the same talking points for months.

Who is they?

 

[JoeCamel]

There is also a huge downside to getting tested if you aren't showing symptoms. If you have no symptoms, get tested and pop positive....that is quarantine time away from work and away from a pay check. My employer... for example.... provides covid days... but you have to go through a request process AFTER the 14 days are up. THat is two weeks no pay. Now many of you will explode over this and say that people need to get tested responsibly for the sake of others. You aren't wrong. However getting tested on a chance that you have it when you could not get paid for half a month..... its a big risk. I think most people really want to do the right thing, but finances are a real part of the decision.

True but what you leave out is if you "pop positive" as you say then you are presumably capable of spreading to others. I understand you need to make a living but do you not care about infecting others?

 

[Parker in NYC]

On the flip side some people get tested in hopes of getting the two week Covid vacation.

Her bellybutton just popped up! I think she's ready to go.

 

[Heppenheimer]

There is also a huge downside to getting tested if you aren't showing symptoms. If you have no symptoms, get tested and pop positive....that is quarantine time away from work and away from a pay check. My employer... for example.... provides covid days... but you have to go through a request process AFTER the 14 days are up. THat is two weeks no pay. Now many of you will explode over this and say that people need to get tested responsibly for the sake of others. You aren't wrong. However getting tested on a chance that you have it when you could not get paid for half a month..... its a big risk. I think most people really want to do the right thing, but finances are a real part of the decision.

False negatives are a much bigger problem with the current test than false positives.

 

[mmascari]

I dont think they decided to stop testing so much as the Floridian mind doesn't see it necessary. During the spike everyone was like "oh Sh!@" I need to get tested everyones getting it. Now that the spike has gone down, people feel a false sense of security, similar to what we saw in May.

There's no reason for me to get tested, I don't have symptoms and haven't had an exposure.

The lack of testing isn't an individual deciding to get tested issue, it's a public health system failure in identifying people who should be tested.

As long as the percent positive is around 5% or higher there’s not enough testing being done. The problem is more with contact tracing then with finding people to randomly test. I don’t know what the answer is, but you can’t control community spread without adequate testing and tracing. If the goal is just to keep cases low enough to not overwhelm hospitals than mission accomplished.

This accurately describes the failure. Without the fast testing, that enables tracing, and then fast tracing, leading to testing all the contacts, the spread will never be contained. All the other stuff, from masks to distancing, only slow the spread they do not contain it.

Fewer people seemingly aren't feeling the need to be tested. But if you're making safe decisions, then it's really not false. Otherwise, those safe decisions would be meaningless. If they don't have symptoms or if they haven't been engaging in "risky" behavior or if they haven't been around someone known to be positive...? Why would they voluntarily get tested?

Perhaps we need to test more in order to get a clearer picture on the scope of infection. But in most situations you can't make people get tested. Thankfully people seem to have bought in on safe behaviors. Absent cheap, comfortable, at-home testing that may be the best we're going to get right now.

This highlights the problem. The public health tracing infrastructure isn't performing the way it needs to. The 5% positive means community spread isn't under control. There are to many infections not being found. That leaves to many people out there spreading it to others. We're still left slowing not containing the spread.

This assumes 1) adequate contact tracing is being performed, and 2) those who are traced back to potential exposure are willing to get tested and so forth. I think we've collected enough evidence to be sure that neither of these will happen at a sufficient level in Florida, or most of the country. There's a large portion of the population who don't care to cooperate for whatever reason. It is what it is. It's not a capacity issue; we're just riding it out at this point.

Continuing to play out this way is sad and unfortunate. It's a failure of public health infrastructure, much like other infrastructure and disappointing. We shouldn't just accept it and all the poor outcomes that accompany it.

The results from the test solely will let the person tested know if they are positive or negative at the time the test was administered. In sports and other areas personnel are constantly tested to reassure them that they remain negative. The test itself prevents nothing. Behavioral changes / modifications, mask wearing and all the other things discussed at nauseum help reduce spread. It feels good to be told you are negative, good for stats but it does not help resolve the issue of counteracting the disease. The medical community is still wrestling with that.

It shouldn't be a random test (mostly), and the outcome definitely impacts controlling community spread. If you're positive, you isolate and avoid infecting outhers. There's no wrestling with this question.

Mostly not random, since random surveillance testing of populations where transmission is likely is a valid tool to supplement contact tracing and find cases that slip through. More important when community spread isn't under control.

If you're going to talk about NY...

NY State's positivity got under 2% in June and is now under 1%.

View attachment 496516

My understanding is NY rolled out a robust contact trace and testing program. Data showing large numbers of tests, low percent positive, and significant slowing of new cases would seem to reflect this.

If people want to submit voluntarily to random testing, I have no issue with that. But for me, I think it’s inefficient, silly, and wasteful to go get tested if you’ve no reason to suspect you’re infected. Particularly if you aren’t in an at risk group. I believe even the bumbling CDC doesn’t recommend testing in that circumstance.

It would be silly. This isn't a decision an individual can randomly make like "I wonder, should I get a test?". It's about the public health infrastructure determining someone had an exposure and getting them a test to determine if they're continuing to spread the infection. There's nothing random about it.

Even surveillance testing isn't random, it's about testing areas of likely transmission. There's no sense randomly testing the office worker who's at home now and doesn't see almost anyone. But, the grocery store clerk who works 6 days a week, or the teachers/students in a classroom full of people for extended periods would both be good choices for some random testing.

Good luck with this, NY. With schools reopening, college kids back in town, and now indoor dining, it should be a fun November! Social distancing works in the city, when it’s empty... But in tiny restaurants, all I can do is pray. And the transportation it will take to go to said restaurants — another obstacle.

If they get the community spread under control, they will not need any of the items that are designed to slow the spread. They'll have contained it. Now, because they cannot close their borders, they'll have issues of people from less contained areas coming in and breaking their containment. There's no way around that until it's contained at the country level.

False negatives are a much bigger problem with the current test than false positives.

False negatives tend to occur when viral load is to small. Enough testing over multiple days can account for this. Just one test, a negative isn't helpful. But, several in a row over a week, and the early ones are not likely false. The last one still could be, if you're early in the infection occurring in the middle of the testing.

 

[Parker in NYC]

If they get the community spread under control, they will not need any of the items that are designed to slow the spread. They'll have contained it. Now, because they cannot close their borders, they'll have issues of people from less contained areas coming in and breaking their containment. There's no way around that until it's contained at the country level.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Miss Bella]

Her bellybutton just popped up! I think she's ready to go.

You are so strange.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

You are so strange.

Not really, just a funny sense of humor. Something many need here. Ok, maybe a little strange but that’s good.

 

[Miss Bella]

Not really, just a funny sense of humor. Something many need here. Ok, maybe a little strange but that’s good.

Sometimes it’s funny and sometimes it’s mean spirited. I’ve given up trying to figure it out.

 

[oceanbreeze77]

On the flip side some people get tested in hopes of getting the two week Covid vacation.

that's a new one

 

[GoofGoof]

that's a new one

It’s the one big downside to working from home...I’m already quarantining by default so no time off for a positive Covid test

 

[Miss Bella]

that's a new one

I know people that get tested hoping to test positive to get two weeks off. Does that really shock anyone? There are all kinds of people out there.

 

[GoofGoof]

I know people that get tested hoping to test positive to get two weeks off. Does that really shock anyone? There are all kinds of people out there.

I’ve had some pretty bad jobs over the years...not surprising at all.

 

[Kman]

Yes! Like maybe a marking you'll need to buy groceries or attend school. Now, where have I seen something like that before? Oh yeah, it's here: "16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name."

 

[DisneyCane]

Yep. NYC is never going to reopen.
View attachment 496498

What is the scientific reasoning behind the temperature checks? Not just at NYC restaurants, but everywhere. It's just one possible symptom and doesn't capture asymptomatic people who are a large percentage of infections.

Related to that question, does anyone know the approximate percentage of people that have failed the check at WDW since reopening?

 

[FeelsSoGoodToBeBad]

What is the scientific reasoning behind the temperature checks? Not just at NYC restaurants, but everywhere. It's just one possible symptom and doesn't capture asymptomatic people who are a large percentage of infections.

Related to that question, does anyone know the approximate percentage of people that have failed the check at WDW since reopening?

Temp checks are objective, relatively quick, and don't depend on complicated technology working properly. For example, having each guest fill out a screening questionnaire (similar to the ones we have to do for our kids each morning they are to attend in-person school) would be tedious and easily manipulated.

*Reads screening question* Temp over 100.4? uhm.... *checks thermometer* 100.5... I'm sure that's just a fluke; it'll be fine! *marks 'no' and passes screening* Not to mention the potential nightmare should the screening program/app crash making it impossible to complete the self-screening requirement for entering the park.

I realize that a (potentially significant) percentage of people can be asymptomatic or experience symptoms that don't include a fever at the threshold, but catching SOME possible cases with a relatively quick, contact-free, and objective measurement is better than just crossing fingers and hoping people who spent a few thousand on a vacation is being 100% honest with everyone about their health status, imo.

 

[Miss Bella]

What is the scientific reasoning behind the temperature checks? Not just at NYC restaurants, but everywhere. It's just one possible symptom and doesn't capture asymptomatic people who are a large percentage of infections.

Related to that question, does anyone know the approximate percentage of people that have failed the check at WDW since reopening?

It's one of the first and most common symptoms of symptomatic Covid patients. In the twelve days I spent in Orlando I never saw anyone turned away due to a temp. We have our temp taken at work and no one has ever been sent home. The thing is if you have a temp you feel like crap and don't want to go to work or a theme park. How many people can walk around with a temp over 100.5 and feel fine. I'm guessing not that many.
I can also tell that many patients hospitalized with Covid don't run temps. A lot of them are just hypoxic. It's a weird virus with symptoms all over the map.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Temp checks are objective, relatively quick, and don't depend on complicated technology working properly. For example, having each guest fill out a screening questionnaire (similar to the ones we have to do for our kids each morning they are to attend in-person school) would be tedious and easily manipulated.

*Reads screening question* Temp over 100.4? uhm.... *checks thermometer* 100.5... I'm sure that's just a fluke; it'll be fine! *marks 'no' and passes screening* Not to mention the potential nightmare should the screening program/app crash making it impossible to complete the self-screening requirement for entering the park.

I realize that a (potentially significant) percentage of people can be asymptomatic or experience symptoms that don't include a fever at the threshold, but catching SOME possible cases with a relatively quick, contact-free, and objective measurement is better than just crossing fingers and hoping people who spent a few thousand on a vacation is being 100% honest with everyone about their health status, imo.

Having a temp of 100.4 or higher is a good indicator a person is sick / ill but with what? That said, a person that is sick / ill should not be mingling with others that are not but rather go seek professional medical assistance to determine what the illness is. Every thing is not COVID19 there are a lot of diseases that produce fevers and they did not go away because COVID showed up. Screening out any percentage of people that are ill from entering the property I see as a good thing. I know of no one that wants to get sick with anything. Nothing is 100%, not the screening, not the testing and neither will the vaccine all that can be done is the best with what is available.

 

[Miss Bella]

Having a temp of 100.4 or higher is a good indicator a person is sick / ill but with what? That said, a person that is sick / ill should not be mingling with others that are not but rather go seek professional medical assistance to determine what the illness is. Every thing is not COVID19 there are a lot of diseases that produce fevers and they did not go away because COVID showed up. Screening out any percentage of people that are ill from entering the property I see as a good thing. I know of no one that wants to get sick with anything. Nothing is 100%, not the screening, not the testing and neither will the vaccine all that can be done is the best with what is available.

It's hard for me to believe anyone running a temp of 100.4 would be asymptomatic and feel like spending a day walking ten miles at a theme park. I guess anything is possible.