Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[mmascari]

Do you people understand what a survivability rate is? 99.8% survivability is not a percentage of the population, it's the percentage of people who become infected with COVID. This analogy to how many people 0.2% of a Disney attraction capacity is and how many would die per hour on SDD is very ignorant. To have a 0.2% chance (not taking into account age) of dying of COVID, first you have to become infected with it.

You're completely missing the point that 0.2% can be a HUGE number. That's exactly the point of asking if people would still go to a show or ride an attraction if 0.2% of people died on it. It's got nothing to do with how those things compare to COVID.

People in general look at 0.2% and think that's it's a super small chance, practically never happens. They think something like "If I take action X and there's a 0.2% chance that something bad may happen then it's totally safe to take action X.". And, for a single individual in a single event, that's going to be true the vast majority of the time.

But, that's not what is going on. It's not a single event with that chance. It's 10,000,000 or 100,000,000 or more events. At that point, 0.2% is a HUGE number. If the risk was 0.2% of 100,000,000 will break a finger. We might be just fine with 200,000 broken fingers. The impact of a broken finger while bad isn't catastrophic. But, as the impact becomes more severe, even a risk that small becomes a much bigger deal. It's hard to get much more severe than death.

So, yes, when people say "Getting COVID is no big deal, the death rate is only 0.2%", my assumption is they're not picturing 0.2% correctly in comparison to the severity of the risk. The example of 1,000 people do an activity for 1,000 distinct events where 0.2% of those events result in death is exactly the comparison to illustrate the risk better. With no relation at all to COVID but simply a safety factor of going to a show. If a 1,000 seat theater is only 0.2% safe from death each show, then 2 people would die every show. Would the same people who say 0.2% is no big deal not worry about seeing a show in that theater?

Since the concept of "0.2% no big deal" always comes up in the context of doing less to reduce community spread. The alternative to thinking 0.2% isn't being pictured well is that these same people are totally fine with many hundred thousand or millions of deaths. I choose to think it's a visualization problem and not people who don't care about that many deaths.

 

[DisneyTransport]

You're completely missing the point that 0.2% can be a HUGE number. That's exactly the point of asking if people would still go to a show or ride an attraction if 0.2% of people died on it. It's got nothing to do with how those things compare to COVID.

People in general look at 0.2% and think that's it's a super small chance, practically never happens. They think something like "If I take action X and there's a 0.2% chance that something bad may happen then it's totally safe to take action X.". And, for a single individual in a single event, that's going to be true the vast majority of the time.

But, that's not what is going on. It's not a single event with that chance. It's 10,000,000 or 100,000,000 or more events. At that point, 0.2% is a HUGE number. If the risk was 0.2% of 100,000,000 will break a finger. We might be just fine with 200,000 broken fingers. The impact of a broken finger while bad isn't catastrophic. But, as the impact becomes more severe, even a risk that small becomes a much bigger deal. It's hard to get much more severe than death.

So, yes, when people say "Getting COVID is no big deal, the death rate is only 0.2%", my assumption is they're not picturing 0.2% correctly in comparison to the severity of the risk. The example of 1,000 people do an activity for 1,000 distinct events where 0.2% of those events result in death is exactly the comparison to illustrate the risk better. With no relation at all to COVID but simply a safety factor of going to a show. If a 1,000 seat theater is only 0.2% safe from death each show, then 2 people would die every show. Would the same people who say 0.2% is no big deal not worry about seeing a show in that theater?

Since the concept of "0.2% no big deal" always comes up in the context of doing less to reduce community spread. The alternative to thinking 0.2% isn't being pictured well is that these same people are totally fine with many hundred thousand or millions of deaths. I choose to think it's a visualization problem and not people who don't care about that many deaths.

Why math is important to know reason number 1*10^6. .2% is a lot when your talking the whole population

 

[Kevin_W]

On the vaccine front HHS secretary and former chair of the coronavirus task force Alex Azar says there will be enough vaccine to vaccinate nursing home residents, healthcare workers and first responders by the end of January and enough for all Americans by the end of March or early April. Even with a little slippage in timing and the need for 2 shots 3 weeks apart it seems like the vast majority of people who want the vaccine should be able to get it well before Memorial Day and the unofficial start to summer. That would be huge for WDW and for all of us if enough people can be convinced to get it.

HHS Secretary: Coronavirus 'general vaccination' programs by spring

In an appearance on the TODAY show, HHS Secretary Alex Azar outlined what he said would be the distribution schedule for Pfizer's experimental vaccine

news.yahoo.com

I assume he's counting on more than just Pfizer coming through, then. 50 million vaccines is 25 million people vaccinated... and that's world-wide. Maybe the US gets 3 million of that? It's a lot of people, certainly, but is that enough for those groups?

 

[Horizons '83]

On the vaccine front HHS secretary and former chair of the coronavirus task force Alex Azar says there will be enough vaccine to vaccinate nursing home residents, healthcare workers and first responders by the end of January and enough for all Americans by the end of March or early April. Even with a little slippage in timing and the need for 2 shots 3 weeks apart it seems like the vast majority of people who want the vaccine should be able to get it well before Memorial Day and the unofficial start to summer. That would be huge for WDW and for all of us if enough people can be convinced to get it.

HHS Secretary: Coronavirus 'general vaccination' programs by spring

In an appearance on the TODAY show, HHS Secretary Alex Azar outlined what he said would be the distribution schedule for Pfizer's experimental vaccine

news.yahoo.com

Also my beloved concerts that I miss so dearly. That would be great timing for the summer shows.

 

[Heppenheimer]

You're completely missing the point that 0.2% can be a HUGE number. That's exactly the point of asking if people would still go to a show or ride an attraction if 0.2% of people died on it. It's got nothing to do with how those things compare to COVID.

People in general look at 0.2% and think that's it's a super small chance, practically never happens. They think something like "If I take action X and there's a 0.2% chance that something bad may happen then it's totally safe to take action X.". And, for a single individual in a single event, that's going to be true the vast majority of the time.

But, that's not what is going on. It's not a single event with that chance. It's 10,000,000 or 100,000,000 or more events. At that point, 0.2% is a HUGE number. If the risk was 0.2% of 100,000,000 will break a finger. We might be just fine with 200,000 broken fingers. The impact of a broken finger while bad isn't catastrophic. But, as the impact becomes more severe, even a risk that small becomes a much bigger deal. It's hard to get much more severe than death.

So, yes, when people say "Getting COVID is no big deal, the death rate is only 0.2%", my assumption is they're not picturing 0.2% correctly in comparison to the severity of the risk. The example of 1,000 people do an activity for 1,000 distinct events where 0.2% of those events result in death is exactly the comparison to illustrate the risk better. With no relation at all to COVID but simply a safety factor of going to a show. If a 1,000 seat theater is only 0.2% safe from death each show, then 2 people would die every show. Would the same people who say 0.2% is no big deal not worry about seeing a show in that theater?

Since the concept of "0.2% no big deal" always comes up in the context of doing less to reduce community spread. The alternative to thinking 0.2% isn't being pictured well is that these same people are totally fine with many hundred thousand or millions of deaths. I choose to think it's a visualization problem and not people who don't care about that many deaths.

Any army vets out there remember these?

http://acqnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Risk-Assessment-Matrix.png

I would rate frequency of the bad outcomes from COVID-19 as "occasional", but the severity as either "catastrophic" or "serious". Either way, that would put you in either the red or orange areas of the risk assessment matrix, and would require heavy mitigation measures.

 

[DisneyCane]

You're completely missing the point that 0.2% can be a HUGE number. That's exactly the point of asking if people would still go to a show or ride an attraction if 0.2% of people died on it. It's got nothing to do with how those things compare to COVID.

People in general look at 0.2% and think that's it's a super small chance, practically never happens. They think something like "If I take action X and there's a 0.2% chance that something bad may happen then it's totally safe to take action X.". And, for a single individual in a single event, that's going to be true the vast majority of the time.

But, that's not what is going on. It's not a single event with that chance. It's 10,000,000 or 100,000,000 or more events. At that point, 0.2% is a HUGE number. If the risk was 0.2% of 100,000,000 will break a finger. We might be just fine with 200,000 broken fingers. The impact of a broken finger while bad isn't catastrophic. But, as the impact becomes more severe, even a risk that small becomes a much bigger deal. It's hard to get much more severe than death.

So, yes, when people say "Getting COVID is no big deal, the death rate is only 0.2%", my assumption is they're not picturing 0.2% correctly in comparison to the severity of the risk. The example of 1,000 people do an activity for 1,000 distinct events where 0.2% of those events result in death is exactly the comparison to illustrate the risk better. With no relation at all to COVID but simply a safety factor of going to a show. If a 1,000 seat theater is only 0.2% safe from death each show, then 2 people would die every show. Would the same people who say 0.2% is no big deal not worry about seeing a show in that theater?

Since the concept of "0.2% no big deal" always comes up in the context of doing less to reduce community spread. The alternative to thinking 0.2% isn't being pictured well is that these same people are totally fine with many hundred thousand or millions of deaths. I choose to think it's a visualization problem and not people who don't care about that many deaths.

The 0.2% is not the same across the entire population. It is MUCH greater in the elderly, especially over 75 and MUCH lower in the young, especially under 55.

If everybody under age 55 got it, it wouldn't lead to that many hospitalizations or deaths. If everybody over 75 got it there would be an extraordinary number of both.

That's why there should be (and is in some cases) a targeted effort to prevent spread to the elderly and less focus on just preventing general community spread.

 

[sullyinMT]

I assume he's counting on more than just Pfizer coming through, then. 50 million vaccines is 25 million people vaccinated... and that's world-wide. Maybe the US gets 3 million of that? It's a lot of people, certainly, but is that enough for those groups?

Maybe, and I don’t know for sure so please correct me if I’m wrong, the 50M is for US manufacturing and distribution?

Either way, production is sure to ramp up at this point and more facilities may come online.

December and January will assuredly be slow for distribution, but late winter and early spring should be better.

ETA: A lot of state plans I’ve seen kind of subdivide the medical community into tiers. So, ECF residents and staff along with direct COVID care hospital staff in phase 1. Then all other care in phase 2 or even 3 along with other essential employees like food supply chain and grocery workers. So the 1.5M vaccinated out of the initial 3M could theoretically cover phase 1 in that scenario pretty thoroughly.

 

[GoofGoof]

I assume he's counting on more than just Pfizer coming through, then. 50 million vaccines is 25 million people vaccinated... and that's world-wide. Maybe the US gets 3 million of that? It's a lot of people, certainly, but is that enough for those groups?

From what I read the initial wave of vaccinations would be enough for the US to vaccinate around 25M people and would start as early as Dec and go into Jan. In 2021 the US is expected to get more than 20M vaccines a month from Pfizer alone but that ramps up after a few months of production. By the end of March it would be enough for close to 100M people vaccinated but demand is likely to exceed that (hopefully). If Pfizer is the only vaccine to be approved it won’t be rolled out to everyone by April. Due to the low temperatures it also won’t be rolled out in more rural areas. They will need one or several additional vaccines to be approved to reach full vaccination by summer.

 

[Patcheslee]

Any army vets out there remember these?

http://acqnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Risk-Assessment-Matrix.png

I would rate frequency of the bad outcomes from COVID-19 as "occasional", but the severity as either "catastrophic" or "serious". Either way, that would put you in either the red or orange areas of the risk assessment matrix, and would require heavy mitigation measures.

OMG we have these for work safety assessments and use them to determine what areas need engineered or other improvements to reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic incident. As we learn more about a new job process sometimes the rating goes up or down, much like Covid has done in the past 10 months.

 

[carolina_yankee]

If he checks in. It seems a lot of people are depending on My Disney Experience and we know how glitchy/awful that can be.

You mean he'll be notified on January 19 2024 that his room is ready?

 

[Parker in NYC]

You mean he'll be notified on January 19 2024 that his room is ready?

Exactly!

 

[DCBaker]

"Six weeks after the city and county of San Francisco reopened restaurant dining rooms, cases of COVID-19 have skyrocketed by 250 percent, city officials say. That’s why, as of 11:59 p.m. on Friday, November 13, 2020, restaurants will be required to shut their indoor dining operations down again, and to revert to an outdoor dining, takeout, and delivery model for an unknown period of time."

"And though Ghaly said on Monday that the increase in COVID-19 cases was likely due to “private household gatherings,” San Francisco officials say that to stem the COVID-19 tide, the city must “minimize the activities that are known to be of higher risk for increasing the spread of the virus – particularly indoor activities, high traffic activities, and those that allow for mask removal or increase the production of aerosols, such as physical activity and eating.”

That’s why, as of 11:59 p.m. on Friday, all indoor dining in the city, from standalone restaurants, to restaurants inside malls and museums, to food operations inside San Francisco offices, must all cease. (Takeout, delivery, and outdoor dining are still allowed, however.)"

San Francisco Shuts Down All Indoor Dining After 250 Percent Increase in COVID-19 Cases

A spike in COVID-19 cases prompted the city to shut dining rooms back down

sf.eater.com

 

[easyrowrdw]

For the most part they aren't fining you for having a few people over. They ones they are after are the ones I posted earlier, the ones that had over 20 people for a Halloween party. The ones that get in trouble are the ones that have multiple families together with a bunch of cars parked outside.

You can associate with whoever you want. They just don't want people have big parties right now. For the most part they mainly have been warning people. I don't see what the big deal is.

To be clear, you do see what the big deal is as it's been discussed multiple times before. You just don't have a problem with it. And that's fine. We simply have a fundamental disagreement on this point.

 

[Disstevefan1]

You should have been wearing one before Joe said it I don’t know if there‘s good science behind wearing 2 masks, but 2 is better than zero

I can't speak for you, but I have always wore/wear a mask out of the home.

To me, 100 percent mask compliance would have driven the numbers fast and low enough allowing everything to open up quicker.

After re opening, there would have been a "spike" compared to the low numbers that allowed the reopening, but then it would have been harder to "re close" everything..

 

[GoofGoof]

I can't speak for you, but I have always wore/wear a mask out of the home.

To me, 100 mask compliance would have driven the numbers fast and low enough allowing everything to open up quicker.

After re opening, there would have been a "spike" compared to the low numbers that allowed the reopening, but then it would have been harder to "re close" everything..

I’m with you there. If only everyone got on board with some of the more simple things. There’s still time until the vaccine comes out so there’s still time to improve.

 

[DisneyCane]

"Six weeks after the city and county of San Francisco reopened restaurant dining rooms, cases of COVID-19 have skyrocketed by 250 percent, city officials say. That’s why, as of 11:59 p.m. on Friday, November 13, 2020, restaurants will be required to shut their indoor dining operations down again, and to revert to an outdoor dining, takeout, and delivery model for an unknown period of time."

"And though Ghaly said on Monday that the increase in COVID-19 cases was likely due to “private household gatherings,” San Francisco officials say that to stem the COVID-19 tide, the city must “minimize the activities that are known to be of higher risk for increasing the spread of the virus – particularly indoor activities, high traffic activities, and those that allow for mask removal or increase the production of aerosols, such as physical activity and eating.”

That’s why, as of 11:59 p.m. on Friday, all indoor dining in the city, from standalone restaurants, to restaurants inside malls and museums, to food operations inside San Francisco offices, must all cease. (Takeout, delivery, and outdoor dining are still allowed, however.)"

San Francisco Shuts Down All Indoor Dining After 250 Percent Increase in COVID-19 Cases

A spike in COVID-19 cases prompted the city to shut dining rooms back down

sf.eater.com

OK, so San Fransisco says the increase in cases is likely due to "private household gatherings" and it is the same thing that the great Dr. Fauci also says but the solution is to ban indoor dining. This is "following the science" apparently. And people wonder why I argue against restrictions...

 

[sullyinMT]

OK, so San Fransisco says the increase in cases is likely due to "private household gatherings" and it is the same thing that the great Dr. Fauci also says but the solution is to ban indoor dining. This is "following the science" apparently. And people wonder why I argue against restrictions...

I don’t disagree that on the surface it looks stupid. The counter argument, which I used to hate but have come to agree with over the past few months as this has dragged on needlessly, is that if you can’t behave in a way that respects the virus at home, you are only hurting the economy at large since things will unnecessarily close in an effort to limit public exposure that has increased risk due to private behaviors.
I’m not all about “private gathering police,” but for Pete’s sake people need to stop having dinner parties and “Cards Against Humanity” nights right now.

 

[DisneyCane]

I don’t disagree that on the surface it looks stupid. The counter argument, which I used to hate but have come to agree with over the past few months as this has dragged on needlessly, is that if you can’t behave in a way that respects the virus at home, you are only hurting the economy at large since things will unnecessarily close in an effort to limit public exposure that has increased risk due to private behaviors.
I’m not all about “private gathering police,” but for Pete’s sake people need to stop having dinner parties and “Cards Against Humanity” nights right now.

However, punishing businesses who are operating as directed with protocols in place for what people do at home is just wrong on many levels.

It would be like shutting down sporting goods stores if too many people beat up their spouse with a baseball bat. Not the greatest analogy but I think it makes the point.

I guess in relation to this thread it would be like if Universal ended all capacity limits and it led to increased spread that the solution would be to close WDW.

 

[Parker in NYC]

My friend invited my partner and I to their house for Thanksgiving with a bunch of our other friends. I'm like... wait, we haven't seen you since February and you want us to come over? This is a supposedly intelligent guy. Politically, we agree on most everything... except this. And here I didn't ever think this would be a political issue.

Also, you can bet your donkey we aren't going.

 

[sullyinMT]

However, punishing businesses who are operating as directed with protocols in place for what people do at home is just wrong on many levels.

It would be like shutting down sporting goods stores if too many people beat up their spouse with a baseball bat. Not the greatest analogy but I think it makes the point.

I guess in relation to this thread it would be like if Universal ended all capacity limits and it led to increased spread that the solution would be to close WDW.

Or closing theme parks because of NCAAF and NFL tailgates. Again, it is about uncontrolled community spread. It isn’t to punish the small businesses at all. It is to limit interactions in public to activities less dangerous and more essential.
If people really wanted their restaurants and neighborhood clothing boutiques opened, they wouldn’t be having gatherings in their houses and after service potlucks at church.