Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[matt9112]

What is this key symptom you will recognize so you can make the choice not to share?

None but i wont barge around touching people or not wearing a mask in stores etc. Everyone else in x store takes that risk. Is the risk inherently higher because of me...? Sure but theres a trade off to be had....shut everything down and grind our GDP to a hault...(and all of those problems) unless you think congress can work on something? Or we can push through it being as safe as possible within reason and await the vaccine roll outs. Further more those at risk of death will be at the front of the line. For most people covid is just a bad and less than fun sickness...its only gimmick is how easy it is transmitted. Getting covid shouldn't be an oh my god moment. Its going to happen to thousands every day. As a society we need to protect and isolate those high risk folks. There are many situations that need adjustments but it is possible. For example my grandparents dont watch my son anymore right now. For obvious reasons.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Ok, so what did I say that is really wrong. I pointed out that "experts" have been all over the place regarding masks and I think they could have done a better job messaging to people so there was less push back. Not sure why this is so controversial.

And frankly people asking for sources can go and google it themselves. There have been numerous articles on masks. This group likes to operate in an echo chamber and only wants to hear its own point of view. So sorry I don't go on her on the weekends and I also work all day so only jump on for a few and you had to wait for an article that you could google yourself...

Have no idea why you responded and quoted my post. I was responding to MOMs post and it was a blanket statement. Wasn’t directed to anyone in particular and there was no names mentioned. I thought it was a informative and fact based post that all should read, including myself.

 

[GoofGoof]

None but i wont barge around touching people or not wearing a mask in stores etc. Everyone else in x store takes that risk. Is the risk inherently higher because of me...? Sure but theres a trade off to be had....shut everything down and grind our GDP to a hault...(and all of those problems) unless you think congress can work on something? Or we can push through it being as safe as possible within reason and await the vaccine roll outs. Further more those at risk of death will be at the front of the line. For most people covid is just a bad and less than fun sickness...its only gimmick is how easy it is transmitted. Getting covid shouldn't be an oh my god moment. Its going to happen to thousands every day. As a society we need to protect and isolate those high risk folks. There are many situations that need adjustments but it is possible. For example my grandparents dont watch my son anymore right now. For obvious reasons.

There are many options between shut everything down and remove all restrictions, but it’s easier to resist common sense restrictions by griping about lockdowns. It’s probably not worth saying again how flawed the idea of isolating the high risk folks is. That’s more than half the population so if we went down that route the economy would be in a world of hurt and unless we want to just watch people starve in their homes the government would need to supplement all of that lost income.

 

[DisneyCane]

I do get what you are saying. I will say no one is in lockdown anymore and I don't think wearing a mask and social distancing really affects the economy like many of you claim.

There are many options between shut everything down and remove all restrictions, but it’s easier to resist common sense restrictions by griping about lockdowns. It’s probably not worth saying again how flawed the idea of isolating the high risk folks is. That’s more than half the population so if we went down that route the economy would be in a world of hurt and unless we want to just watch people starve in their homes the government would need to supplement all of that lost income.

More than half the population isn't truly at risk. For the middle age and younger demographics the "underlying conditions" that are the most likely to lead to a major COVID issue are morbid obesity (not slightly obese) and diabetes. A 45 year old that takes medication to control high blood pressure isn't "high risk."

Yes, there will be exceptions and a health 30 year old can be killed by COVID but it isn't a common occurrence.

The "high risk" people that need to be isolated are people aged 65+. The data is clear worldwide that people in that age range are the ones with a significant risk of hospitalization and death. Also, everything possible should be done to keep the virus out of nursing homes. Even with focusing on them, 40% of Florida's deaths were nursing home residents at my last check a few days ago.

I don't know what the percentage is nationwide but if you even figure 30% it shows how disproportionate it is because nowhere near that percentage of the population resides in a nursing home.

If by "common sense" restrictions you mean social distancing and masks then I agree. If by "common sense" restrictions you mean that certain businesses (bars, restaurants in some places, movie theatres in some places, etc.) aren't allowed to operate then I disagree because that is essentially a partial lockdown.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

More than half the population isn't truly at risk. For the middle age and younger demographics the "underlying conditions" that are the most likely to lead to a major COVID issue are morbid obesity (not slightly obese) and diabetes. A 45 year old that takes medication to control high blood pressure isn't "high risk."

Yes, there will be exceptions and a health 30 year old can be killed by COVID but it isn't a common occurrence.

The "high risk" people that need to be isolated are people aged 65+. The data is clear worldwide that people in that age range are the ones with a significant risk of hospitalization and death. Also, everything possible should be done to keep the virus out of nursing homes. Even with focusing on them, 40% of Florida's deaths were nursing home residents at my last check a few days ago.

I don't know what the percentage is nationwide but if you even figure 30% it shows how disproportionate it is because nowhere near that percentage of the population resides in a nursing home.

If by "common sense" restrictions you mean social distancing and masks then I agree. If by "common sense" restrictions you mean that certain businesses (bars, restaurants in some places, movie theatres in some places, etc.) aren't allowed to operate then I disagree because that is essentially a partial lockdown.

How are you determining that someone with high blood pressure isn't high risk just because they aren't in their 60s or 70s? 60% of the country has a chronic medical condition and 40% has more than 1. That's been shared here before and it's from the CDC, so how are you arriving at only 30% being high risk? Even if they don't die, I don't think being hospitalized for this is something to dismiss. It can still overwhelm hospitals without the high death rate we saw at the beginning of this thing.

 

[Jrb1979]

More than half the population isn't truly at risk. For the middle age and younger demographics the "underlying conditions" that are the most likely to lead to a major COVID issue are morbid obesity (not slightly obese) and diabetes. A 45 year old that takes medication to control high blood pressure isn't "high risk."

Yes, there will be exceptions and a health 30 year old can be killed by COVID but it isn't a common occurrence.

The "high risk" people that need to be isolated are people aged 65+. The data is clear worldwide that people in that age range are the ones with a significant risk of hospitalization and death. Also, everything possible should be done to keep the virus out of nursing homes. Even with focusing on them, 40% of Florida's deaths were nursing home residents at my last check a few days ago.

I don't know what the percentage is nationwide but if you even figure 30% it shows how disproportionate it is because nowhere near that percentage of the population resides in a nursing home.

If by "common sense" restrictions you mean social distancing and masks then I agree. If by "common sense" restrictions you mean that certain businesses (bars, restaurants in some places, movie theatres in some places, etc.) aren't allowed to operate then I disagree because that is essentially a partial lockdown.

I don't see any issues with places not being allowed to operate if they are in hot spots. We had 3 regions close restaurants and bars for 28 days due to rising cases. Our government is helping businesses affected by giving rent subsidies.

 

[DisneyCane]

How are you determining that someone with high blood pressure isn't high risk just because they aren't in their 60s or 70s? 60% of the country has a chronic medical condition and 40% has more than 1. That's been shared here before and it's from the CDC, so how are you arriving at only 30% being high risk? Even if they don't die, I don't think being hospitalized for this is something to dismiss. It can still overwhelm hospitals without the high death rate we saw at the beginning of this thing.

Statistical analysis. Using Florida's data, 8.4% of cases in 55-64 year olds resulted in hospitalization. This goes down significantly with every age range. At the same time, 16% of cases in 65-74 year olds resulted in hospitalization. Almost double the hospitalization rate. Age is the variable that most directly correlates to risk of serious illness.

That's part of how you can conclude that just having a chronic medical condition does not make you high risk for serious illness if you get COVID. The other part is talking with physicians who treat COVID patients in hospitals. I know it isn't a scientific study but the ones I've spoken to have said that almost all of the younger patients hospitalized for COVID have either been morbidly obese, had diabetes, or both. This is not the case for elderly patients.

I don't see any issues with places not being allowed to operate if they are in hot spots. We had 3 regions close restaurants and bars for 28 days due to rising cases. Our government is helping businesses affected by giving rent subsidies.

Rent subsidies aren't sufficient if a government forces closure. They should also cover utilities, payroll (to keep paying employees what they would have earned), provide a profit to the owners and pay suppliers for profit on supplies the business would have purchased.

 

[baymenxpac]

i want to post this, because i think this is indicative of the media completely whiffing on the top-level finding:

https://twitter.com/i/events/1321023718022209537

twitter's synopsis: "According to a study, which is not yet peer-reviewed, conducted by researchers at Imperial College London, antibody levels in the British population declined rapidly during the summer. The study of more than 365,000 people in England found that antibodies fell from 6% of the population around the end of June to just 4.4% in September, suggesting that protection from the virus may not be long-lasting."

this is NOT what this finding implies.

1) antibodies are not the only way your body protects you from infection. once you get any infection, your t-and-b-cells that trigger an immune response retain a memory on how to fight it. a peer-reviewed study in nature that found that up to 80% of the study population had a t-cell response to covid (even if they hadn't been exposed) cited data that found that t-cell response in people that had SARS-1 were still just as strong 17 years later.
2) higher antibody levels are related to more severe cases of covid. if you have an asymptomatic or mild case, you're less likely to test positive for antibodies.
3) we have known for months that antibodies wane after 2-to-5 weeks. it's why any mass seroprevalence study likely severely undercounts the true level of infection. take, for example, this preprint of a study in japan: https://t.co/XVoJfjEcrv?amp=1

it looks at a group of 615 adults in tokyo. when the study began in may, just 6% had antibodies for COVID. by mid-summer, almost half (47%) of that same group did. no hospitalizations or deaths.

i can also speak personally about this, as i know three transit workers in new york that tested positive for covid in march (mild symptoms), waiting three weeks, then got an antibody tested and were negative for antibodies.

when i talk about measuring antibodies, i tell people to think of it like trying to take a picture of a baseball at the exact moment it hits the bat. it's almost impossible. sometimes you'll capture a little after, sometimes a little before. but very, very rarely will you get the ball right at the point of contact. same thing with studies that measure antibodies. sometimes you'll see a larger portion of the true number of people exposed, sometimes the smaller number, but almost never the real number.

so antibody levels don't show the real number of the population that's been exposed, and waning antibodies doesn't mean you don't have protection from another infection. it also doesn't mean you can't get reinfected (though how many documented cases do we have of reinfection globally? 6?).

 

[Tink242424]

No. The belief is not that the issue is "more complex." The belief is that all of this is actually very, simple and the rest of us are trying to complicate it. A tiny, fraction of the population, who happen to be more elderly and more minority than the normal demographics, is going to die and there is not a thing anyone can do about it and so why are we even bothering? Everything else is trying to find some sort of justification for it.

I've tried responding to about 5 different things in topsy-turvy day today, and each time I give up in frustration. Adults have had 7 months to prove how responsible they will be in a crisis and enough of them have failed, that as a country we have failed. They went to bars, they said masks are useless, they said contact tracing was useless, they prioritized information coming from physicists and radiologists over infectious disease experts, they said their meals, entertainment and vacations were more important than someone else's life. They said if you are vulnerable, don't look at me, lock yourselves up while at the same time talking about how we are ruining the lives of essential workers who can't. No one telling these people, "I trust you to seek out the correct information and react accordingly," is going to suddenly start doing so, because they have already had 7 months! Or are you going to try to convince me that a responsible adult is only acting irresponsibly because "someone made them do it." That is NOT a responsible adult.

This virus is simple. Increased contact = increased infection = increased hospitalization = increased death. Contacts -> Deaths.

So when people say they are so worried about the essential workers, and the poor kids, I have a really hard trouble believing it. If you acknowledge essential workers can't isolate, if you acknowledge essential workers are more likely to have more exposures, if you acknowledge essential workers are more likely to live in multi-generational situations where they will spread infections to vulnerable people, then how dare these people suggest living in a way which results in increased contacts, because the predictable outcome is increased deaths in the sphere of these people. These people rely on their abuelas and tias being their to provide childcare. These people rely on grandparents taking over the rearing of their grandchildren in cases of abuse, addiction and abandonment. These are people who have suffered from poorer health outcomes their entire lives, and who the COVID research has shown are experiencing COVID outcomes, across all age brackets, 10 years earlier than their more privileged, and more white counterparts. Meaning that minority populations aged 50-60 are experiencing the same outcomes as others that are aged 60-70. And when the ICU rationing of care starts, who do we think are going to be the ones sent home? Upper and middle class, privileged people? These unnecessary deaths are destroying families, and the next 3 months are going to be devastating for these people.

This is the best I can do today for cogent arguments, and I know I'm just spitting into the wind. I'm hoping this is all just a specifically timed desperation by the overlords who are dispensing the alternate world view because they know that in one week the process begins to remove them from at least the top-level US Administration stage. And once the reality of what is unfolding over the next 3 months becomes impossible to obfuscate, they will crawl back into their holes.

Again, you just proved my point. You are over simplifying the pandemic and the response that is necessary. It is a very complex issue and there are a lot of nuances that are involved. It is not as simple as keeping certain businesses closed and just masking and social distancing. And no, I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything but I don't believe that we need to be so draconian about the response.

 

[Tink242424]

In normal times, I might agree with some of what you are saying, but these are not normal times. Government mandates for masking and social distancing are necessary because without them a large chunk of the population will not follow the guidelines. And in a pandemic, you need everyone following the guidelines, and doing so right away, or their effectiveness is greatly lessened. We don't have the time to educate people through positive reinforcement campaigns and advertising. And honestly, considering the state of politics and the mixed messaging the country has been hearing, I question what sort of positive reinforcement would even be possible right now.

Ironically, the defiance over masking and distancing is only making the situation worse and prolonging our return to normalcy.

Nobody likes this situation. Nobody likes avoiding loved ones, being cooped up in the house, seeing their kids get a diminished education, or not being able to take their annual Disney trip. But just as past generations have had to deal with wars, previous pandemics, and the depression, this is our moment of trial. Let's save the worries about government overreach until we are out of the crisis and focus on the safety of ourselves and our fellow citizens.

On the one hand I'm inclined to agree with you but on the other I do worry about government over-reach. This is probably not the hill to die on but like I said it is a slippery slope. After 9/11 so many people were willing to give up their autonomy in the name of "safety". I know that this country is in a different world than when our founders wrote the constitution but we should remember our history and why our constitution is so important. Our educational system is eroded to the point that we are so willing to allow the government to keep us "safe" by taking away individual rights "for the greater good". One day they may go too far and then it will be too late to go back without a war.

I completely understand why some people feel the way they do about masking. I just fundamentally disagree about how it is being implemented and how people are being treated by the media and politicians. We should hold our country to a different standard and remember that history can and will be repeated if we don't remember the lessons our ancestors learned.

 

[Kevin_W]

i want to post this, because i think this is indicative of the media completely whiffing on the top-level finding:

https://twitter.com/i/events/1321023718022209537

twitter's synopsis: "According to a study, which is not yet peer-reviewed, conducted by researchers at Imperial College London, antibody levels in the British population declined rapidly during the summer. The study of more than 365,000 people in England found that antibodies fell from 6% of the population around the end of June to just 4.4% in September, suggesting that protection from the virus may not be long-lasting."

this is NOT what this finding implies.

I saw that same news this morning, though not through twitter and it presented a much more nuanced picture (essentially omitting the part of the sentence that you bolded). It essentially said: here's some data, but we don't really know what if means yet, and we acknowledge that the data itself could be flawed because it wasn't a truly random population sample.

 

[Heppenheimer]

i want to post this, because i think this is indicative of the media completely whiffing on the top-level finding:

https://twitter.com/i/events/1321023718022209537

twitter's synopsis: "According to a study, which is not yet peer-reviewed, conducted by researchers at Imperial College London, antibody levels in the British population declined rapidly during the summer. The study of more than 365,000 people in England found that antibodies fell from 6% of the population around the end of June to just 4.4% in September, suggesting that protection from the virus may not be long-lasting."

this is NOT what this finding implies.

1) antibodies are not the only way your body protects you from infection. once you get any infection, your t-and-b-cells that trigger an immune response retain a memory on how to fight it. a peer-reviewed study in nature that found that up to 80% of the study population had a t-cell response to covid (even if they hadn't been exposed) cited data that found that t-cell response in people that had SARS-1 were still just as strong 17 years later.
2) higher antibody levels are related to more severe cases of covid. if you have an asymptomatic or mild case, you're less likely to test positive for antibodies.
3) we have known for months that antibodies wane after 2-to-5 weeks. it's why any mass seroprevalence study likely severely undercounts the true level of infection. take, for example, this preprint of a study in japan: https://t.co/XVoJfjEcrv?amp=1

it looks at a group of 615 adults in tokyo. when the study began in may, just 6% had antibodies for COVID. by mid-summer, almost half (47%) of that same group did. no hospitalizations or deaths.

i can also speak personally about this, as i know three transit workers in new york that tested positive for covid in march (mild symptoms), waiting three weeks, then got an antibody tested and were negative for antibodies.

when i talk about measuring antibodies, i tell people to think of it like trying to take a picture of a baseball at the exact moment it hits the bat. it's almost impossible. sometimes you'll capture a little after, sometimes a little before. but very, very rarely will you get the ball right at the point of contact. same thing with studies that measure antibodies. sometimes you'll see a larger portion of the true number of people exposed, sometimes the smaller number, but almost never the real number.

so antibody levels don't show the real number of the population that's been exposed, and waning antibodies doesn't mean you don't have protection from another infection. it also doesn't mean you can't get reinfected (though how many documented cases do we have of reinfection globally? 6?).

I saw the story on the BBC and my first reaction is that this study will get over-interpreted and taken out of context. It might be useful as it adds to our accumulated knowledge about the disease, but it really has little bearing on the progression of either the pandemic as a whole or vaccine development in particular.

 

[baymenxpac]

I saw that same news this morning, though not through twitter and it presented a much more nuanced picture (essentially omitting the part of the sentence that you bolded). It essentially said: here's some data, but we don't really know what if means yet, and we acknowledge that the data itself could be flawed because it wasn't a truly random population sample.

I saw the story on the BBC and my first reaction is that this study will get over-interpreted and taken out of context. It might be useful as it adds to our accumulated knowledge about the disease, but it really has little bearing on the progression of either the pandemic as a whole or vaccine development in particular.

agreed with both of you. i think it will definitely be interpreted as a gloom-and-doom scenario, but all i really think it does it confirm what we suspect: antibodies are a small piece of the puzzle.

 

[Heppenheimer]

. We should hold our country to a different standard and remember that history can and will be repeated if we don't remember the lessons our ancestors learned.

We seem to have forgotten, however, how often our ancestors (even relatively close ones in some cases, like parents and grandparents) needed to self-quarantine when there was a local outbreak of smallpox or polio.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Statistical analysis. Using Florida's data, 8.4% of cases in 55-64 year olds resulted in hospitalization. This goes down significantly with every age range. At the same time, 16% of cases in 65-74 year olds resulted in hospitalization. Almost double the hospitalization rate. Age is the variable that most directly correlates to risk of serious illness.

That's part of how you can conclude that just having a chronic medical condition does not make you high risk for serious illness if you get COVID. The other part is talking with physicians who treat COVID patients in hospitals. I know it isn't a scientific study but the ones I've spoken to have said that almost all of the younger patients hospitalized for COVID have either been morbidly obese, had diabetes, or both. This is not the case for elderly patients.



Rent subsidies aren't sufficient if a government forces closure. They should also cover utilities, payroll (to keep paying employees what they would have earned), provide a profit to the owners and pay suppliers for profit on supplies the business would have purchased.

I'm aware that the hospitalization rate goes down based on age groups, but it's not really a statistical analysis that shows that they aren't at risk if you don't know the medical history of those younger patients who were hospitalized compared with the medical history of people in the same group who weren't hospitalized. It also discounts that even those who are not at risk can come into contact with those who are at risk. Nursing home patients weren't all going down to the bars and spreading COVID-19. The virus was brought into those buildings from the outside by people you would say are not high risk. What about younger people with asthma or an autoimmune disorder? They may not be morbidly obese but they can be hospitalized or killed if they catch the virus - and eliminating restrictions increases their odds of catching the virus.

The fact is that the CDC considers 60% of the adult population to be high risk based on their medical history and telling all of those people to stay home will still have a negative impact on the economy. You can tell restaurants they can open 100% for indoor dining, but if you're also telling 60% of the people who live near those restaurants to stay home then you're going to have a shortage of customers unless the remaining 40% dine out at a higher rate than the average person. But you said you are okay with keeping masks and social distancing, so how can a restaurant open at 100% AND maintain 6 feet between tables when restaurants are designed to maximize the allowed occupancy? So will the restaurants really be better off? There's no easy answer (especially in the parts of the country with cold winters that make outdoor dining difficult if not nearly impossible), but I don't think dismissing the health risk to more than half the population is the answer, either.

 

[Jrb1979]

On the one hand I'm inclined to agree with you but on the other I do worry about government over-reach. This is probably not the hill to die on but like I said it is a slippery slope. After 9/11 so many people were willing to give up their autonomy in the name of "safety". I know that this country is in a different world than when our founders wrote the constitution but we should remember our history and why our constitution is so important. Our educational system is eroded to the point that we are so willing to allow the government to keep us "safe" by taking away individual rights "for the greater good". One day they may go too far and then it will be too late to go back without a war.

I completely understand why some people feel the way they do about masking. I just fundamentally disagree about how it is being implemented and how people are being treated by the media and politicians. We should hold our country to a different standard and remember that history can and will be repeated if we don't remember the lessons our ancestors learned.

Instead worrying about being "forced to wear a mask". Maybe we should focus on getting more businesses to offer sick time. People keep saying if your sick stay home but many won't as they can't afford it. If more businesses have out sick days it would help a lot.

 

[lazyboy97o]

We seem to have forgotten, however, how often our ancestors (even relatively close ones in some cases, like parents and grandparents) needed to self-quarantine when there was a local outbreak of smallpox or polio.

It was not just self-quarantine. Schools and other venues would be shut down for polio outbreaks.

Again, you just proved my point. You are over simplifying the pandemic and the response that is necessary. It is a very complex issue and there are a lot of nuances that are involved. It is not as simple as keeping certain businesses closed and just masking and social distancing. And no, I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything but I don't believe that we need to be so draconian about the response.

And yet you repeatedly laugh at any notion of nuance that doesn't fit an easy answer...

 

[ImperfectPixie]

It was not just self-quarantine. Schools and other venues would be shut down for polio outbreaks.

And yet you repeatedly laugh at any notion of nuance that doesn't fit an easy answer...

That user doesn't believe in mask mandates, either...even though we've got users on these forums who have admitted to not following the CDC recommendation to wear a mask until it was specifically mandated in their state.

 

[Kevin_W]

Instead worrying about being "forced to wear a mask". Maybe we should focus on getting more businesses to offer sick time. People keep saying if your sick stay home but many won't as they can't afford it. If more businesses have out sick days it would help a lot.

That's an interesting point. One of our plants had a mini-outbreak (11 employees infected with Covid), that was traced to a contractor working in the plant who came in sick. The contractor has no benefits, so he didn't get paid if he didn't come in. He knew he was sick, but had (incorrectly) self-diagnosed as "non-Covid".

 

[DisneyDebRob]

I saw that same news this morning, though not through twitter and it presented a much more nuanced picture (essentially omitting the part of the sentence that you bolded). It essentially said: here's some data, but we don't really know what if means yet, and we acknowledge that the data itself could be flawed because it wasn't a truly random population sample.

I saw the story on the BBC and my first reaction is that this study will get over-interpreted and taken out of context. It might be useful as it adds to our accumulated knowledge about the disease, but it really has little bearing on the progression of either the pandemic as a whole or vaccine development in particular.

Agree with you both when I read it. As soon as I see not peered reviewed my mind immediately starts to question things. Not saying that it’s bull or doesn’t lack any substance but we need informed and peer review to make good decisions.