Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[havoc315]

We should be "concerned" about the variants insomuch as the CDC is concerned about them. Nothing more until we know more. And, I agree with others, reporters need to do a better job of parsing the language and use phrases like "looking into" or "have discovered and are researching implications of" new variants. Also, while we deserve to be an informed public, "discoveries" like the one in a KY nursing home do nothing but fuel fear.

I agree with this. Many over-react or over-simplify in reporting. Saying, "there is no reason to worry" is incorrect... saying, "omg, the sky is falling" is also incorrect.

 

[sullyinMT]

I guess I must have missed a lot of what led up to this, but I doubt schools are going to think this is a good idea, even if it's workable. I'd be interested to know how teachers would feel about it.

Treating adult employees differently based on whether or not they are vaccinated could be more doable, although I suspect few employers are going to want to deal with the practical problems that arise from doing so.

Hospitals have been doing it for years with the flu vaccine. You always know which cafeteria employees (for example) refused the shot from Oct-Apr. Many are becoming more hard line with the flu vaccine and, once approved fully, I'd assume this one as well if COVID is still a concern then. No shot, no work. That has just as much to do with patient protection and the relative weakness of the flu vaccine, so we need closer to 100% compliance for meaningful spread protection.

For teachers and other professions, mask or vaccine is a reasonable approach. And, one I expect a lot of densely populated working condition industries might take.

 

[DCBaker]

"California’s two Disney theme parks will reopen on April 30, CEO Bob Chapek said on CNBC’s “Squawk Alley” Wednesday.

All theme parks in California have been closed due to Covid-related restrictions for the past year. While guidelines in other states, like Florida, allowed parks to reopen with limited capacity, California’s rules have kept theme parks big and small shuttered.

However, new state guidance permits amusement parks to reopen beginning April 1 with 15% to 35% capacity depending on the prevalence of the virus in the community. Masks and other health precautions will be required.

California is reporting just under 2,900 new Covid-19 cases per day, based on a weekly average, a near 32% decline compared with a week ago, according to a CNBC analysis of data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. The rate of new Covid cases has been on the decline as more people have been getting vaccinated. With ramp ups in supply and acces, on average about 2.4 million people are getting vaccinated daily in the U.S.

Orange County, where Disneyland and California Adventure are located, are seeing four new cases a day per 100,000 residents. At its peak, the county saw 118 new cases a day per 100,000 people back in mid-January.

The shutdown last year led Disney to lay off tens of thousands of workers and slashed an important source of revenue for the media company. The parks, experiences and consumer products segment accounted for 37% of the company’s $69.6 billion in total revenue in 2019, or around $26.2 billion.

A year later, revenue shrunk to $16.5 billion, or around 25% of the company’s $65.4 billion in total revenue.

During the company’s fiscal first-quarter earnings call, Chief Financial Officer Christine McCarthy said that for the parks that have been open during the pandemic, the company was able to make a profit from the guests who visited despite reduced capacity levels.

As parks expand capacity and reopen, there will be some level of social distancing and mask wearing for the rest of the year."

Disneyland to reopen on April 30, Disney CEO Bob Chapek says

Disney's two California theme parks will reopen on April 30, CEO Bob Chapek said Wednesday on CNBC's "Squawk Alley."

t.co

Video -

 

[GoofGoof]

I never suggested keep all safety protocols. I never said keep wearing masks indefinitely -- I said let the scientists do their thing. Don't be afraid to speak honestly about the science. My opinion about the safety protocols isn't worth much, neither is anybody else's on this board. But I do care about the safety protocols as recommended by the CDC, by the scientists. (and yes, variants are indeed part of the equation -- as they effect the pace at which we may hit herd immunity. We hit herd immunity at a lower vaccination threshold when a vaccine is 95% effective than when it is 80% effective.. we hit herd immunity at a lower vaccination threshold is there is significant naturally acquired immunity... takes longer to reach herd immunity is naturally acquired immunity doesn't last or doesn't protect against newer variants).

So yes -- if the CDC and the scientific consensus is that we still need some safety protocols, we still need some masking.... then that's what I'll endorse. If the CDC and scientific consensus is that they aren't necessary, then I'll gladly toss all my masks into the garbage.

You are just talking in circles. You agree with me that we should let the scientists do their thing. You agree we should follow the CDC guidelines which right now have nothing to do with variants. You agree we shouldn’t keep masks or safety protocols just because of the possibility that a variant could be vaccine resistant. Based on all of that I assume we then agree that the existence of variants has no current bearing on anything. Why not just wait until we get enough people vaccinated to assess whether cases have dropped enough to remove protocols? Maybe a variant makes the vaccines less effective and we have to get more people vaccinated as a result or maybe not. The issue I have is people assuming that will be the case because Dr XYX says the latest variant May be vaccine resistant. We have a plan and we follow the plan until it needs to be altered. The variants change nothing in that plan.

 

[mmascari]

regarding the 6ft vs 3ft distance I have seen people at airports literally spread out 6ft apart in line and then get on a plane crammed full. Makes no sense. Yes I know planes have better filtering etc but...the optics is just silly along with some of these safety theater rules

Having two different behaviors in two different circumstances makes complete sense. The question is more if the air circulation on the plane is enough different than the air circulation in the terminal to justify the difference. But, as you said, they're not the same. Treating them as if they are the same for optics means treating everything as if it's the lowest common denominator of the worst possible conditions with no differentiation. This is why we cannot have nice things.

For example, I would advocate that the CDC update their guidance today to say once you are fully vaccinated (2 weeks post final vaccination) that masks are no longer necessary in a private setting.

You mean like the CDC did on 3/8, nine days ago?

Fully vaccinated people can:

• Visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
• Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing

After that guidance an employer can make a policy that their employees don’t need to wear a mask if they are vaccinated.

That's not how the vaccine and spread interaction works. Unless everyone is vaccinated so it's a completely vaccinated only interactions.

Employers can easily require employees provide proof of vaccination and make a policy that failure for an unvaccinated person to wear a mask is grounds for termination.

Again, not how the vaccine works. You don't want a vaccinated person interacting in a high spread area with no mitigation anymore than anyone else.

I’m not saying that’s the recommendation today, I’m saying it should be soon. If all teachers have access to the vaccine today then the schools should allow any teacher who is 2 weeks past their final shot to work without a mask on. That would be a great incentive for unvaccinated teachers to get the jab. Do the same for the general public when they are eligible.

Except, that's not how the vaccine works. They're not going to make the recommendation when spread is still high, since it would just expose vaccinated people to the virus more often. That will just speed up the likelihood of creating a vaccine resistant variant.

I don’t know if kids will be done yet for this year, but I think that absolutely should be the rule for next school year unless Covid is completely gone (unlikely). Any kid not vaccinated has to wear a mask in school, the vaccinated do not.

Still not how it works. If spread is still high (unlikely) they'll all need mitigation measures. If spread is low (most likely by September at current rates), then nobody vaccinated or not will need a mask or distance.

I take a different approach on these variants. Let the professionals do their research and let them draw conclusions. So far they haven’t found any definitive proof that any variant is fully resistant to any of the 3 vaccines we have. The general public should wait for the research to be complete to be concerned. There is no reason to change any behaviors based on a what if. Keep wearing masks, keep following safety protocols and get vaccinated. If we need to alter our behavior due to a vaccine resistant variant then we cross that bridge when we come to it. The rest is just clickbait headlines and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but attempting to fear monger. There will be plenty of time to be gravely concerned once we determine if there is something to be gravely concerned about.

This is correct, when combined with above. Meaning while spread is high, everyone should continue mitigation measures no matter their personal vaccination level. Exception in situations where they know everyone is vaccinated.

The problems show up when you change behavior based on an individual being vaccinated, as all the post above suggest. Since that creates extra exposures for vaccinated people.


I get that we all want to be able to stop with all kinds of mitigation items, especially masks. But, there's nothing an individual can do to eliminate their personal need to use mitigation efforts. They can only contribute to the group effort to reduce spread low enough that mitigations aren't needed for everyone. It's an indirect reward.

We're either going to learn that we need individuals to contribute to a community solution instead of going it alone, and figure out how different situations are different and require different mitigations, or we're not. If we don't figure out how to deal with the nuance and differences, we're all going to be stuck with standards based on the worse possible conditions. Putting us right back at: This is why we cannot have nice things.

The media is not our friend in many many many cases. They sensationalize for clicks. They instill fear and always have. It's getting tiresome to try to filter out what is just clickbait really vs what is something we need to worry about.

I follow some media critique accounts on Twitter that point out stupid headlines, stupid tweets, things lacking all context, things where the headline and the actual story are completely different, click bait type stuff, stuff taken out of context to change it's meaning. It's made me start to see this all the time now. You start to realize exactly how bad the media in general is but specifically how absolutely the worst headline writers are. It's no wonder people get confused.

 

[jmp85]

Bobby C also said on CNBC that he expected cruise ships to set sail by the Fall.

 

[havoc315]

You are just talking in circles. You agree with me that we should let the scientists do their thing.

Yes

You agree we should follow the CDC guidelines

Yes

which right now have nothing to do with variants.

No... Right now, the recommendations are based in part on the unknowns with the variants.

You agree we shouldn’t keep masks or safety protocols just because of the possibility that a variant could be vaccine resistant.

I don't agree or disagree. I rely on the CDC and the scientific community. (Who I assume will measure the evidence, include the degree of vaccine resistance if any, the degree to which it is unknown, etc).

Based on all of that I assume we then agree that the existence of variants has no current bearing on anything. Why not just wait until we get enough people vaccinated to assess whether cases have dropped enough to remove protocols?

That's what I'm doing. Which is why I'm saying we should follow the advice of the CDC.

Maybe a variant makes the vaccines less effective and we have to get more people vaccinated as a result or maybe not. The issue I have is people assuming that will be the case because Dr XYX says the latest variant May be vaccine resistant. We have a plan and we follow the plan until it needs to be altered. The variants change nothing in that plan.

??? The plan is ALWAYS EVOLVING. The plan today is not the same plan as 3 months ago, it's not the same plan as 9 months ago. It's constantly changing, constantly evolving. I was speaking to someone in a major NYC hospital yesterday, and going over the changes they are actually making due to the growing prevalence of certain variants.

 

[correcaminos]

I'm just saying -- CDC is "real information." Anonymous anecdotal statement is not "real information."
I'm absolutely willing to agree to disagree on matters of opinion, matters on public policy. You can say "some are concerned, some are not." But the fact is, the CDC is concerned.

Level of concern is what you are missing in my comments. Some in the CDC could be concerned but only mildly or a tiny bit concerned. As in they'll watch it but not expect it to be bad too. Or it could be really bad. Again I'm not going to worry myself about this at this time because I don't see strong levels of concern. We miss that nuance a lot and I think IMO you are not understanding that when some of us say we are not concerned, it means at this time we're not going to worry about it. Let science do them and if they find it is a big concern, then I'll worry. Worrying because they are watching? Not anymore. Sorry. Again time to move on as we won't agree.

 

[GoofGoof]

Having two different behaviors in two different circumstances makes complete sense. The question is more if the air circulation on the plane is enough different than the air circulation in the terminal to justify the difference. But, as you said, they're not the same. Treating them as if they are the same for optics means treating everything as if it's the lowest common denominator of the worst possible conditions with no differentiation. This is why we cannot have nice things.


You mean like the CDC did on 3/8, nine days ago?

Fully vaccinated people can:

• Visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
• Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing

That's not how the vaccine and spread interaction works. Unless everyone is vaccinated so it's a completely vaccinated only interactions.

Again, not how the vaccine works. You don't want a vaccinated person interacting in a high spread area with no mitigation anymore than anyone else.

Except, that's not how the vaccine works. They're not going to make the recommendation when spread is still high, since it would just expose vaccinated people to the virus more often. That will just speed up the likelihood of creating a vaccine resistant variant.

Still not how it works. If spread is still high (unlikely) they'll all need mitigation measures. If spread is low (most likely by September at current rates), then nobody vaccinated or not will need a mask or distance.


This is correct, when combined with above. Meaning while spread is high, everyone should continue mitigation measures no matter their personal vaccination level. Exception in situations where they know everyone is vaccinated.

The problems show up when you change behavior based on an individual being vaccinated, as all the post above suggest. Since that creates extra exposures for vaccinated people.


I get that we all want to be able to stop with all kinds of mitigation items, especially masks. But, there's nothing an individual can do to eliminate their personal need to use mitigation efforts. They can only contribute to the group effort to reduce spread low enough that mitigations aren't needed for everyone. It's an indirect reward.

We're either going to learn that we need individuals to contribute to a community solution instead of going it alone, and figure out how different situations are different and require different mitigations, or we're not. If we don't figure out how to deal with the nuance and differences, we're all going to be stuck with standards based on the worse possible conditions. Putting us right back at: This is why we cannot have nice things.


I follow some media critique accounts on Twitter that point out stupid headlines, stupid tweets, things lacking all context, things where the headline and the actual story are completely different, click bait type stuff, stuff taken out of context to change it's meaning. It's made me start to see this all the time now. You start to realize exactly how bad the media in general is but specifically how absolutely the worst headline writers are. It's no wonder people get confused.

We can agree to disagree. I can tell you with 100% certainty that people will not continue following Covid safety protocols and mask wearing for very long once the vast majority of people are vaccinated. In no way will people accept that they have to wear a mask indefinitely because a small percent of people are unvaccinated. You think after 365+ days of lots of people doing whatever they want they will suddenly decide to contribute to a community solution? I see no issue with employers requiring masks or vaccination as a stop gap until community spread is virtually gone and all protocols can be removed.

 

[GoofGoof]

Yes


Yes



No... Right now, the recommendations are based in part on the unknowns with the variants.



I don't agree or disagree. I rely on the CDC and the scientific community. (Who I assume will measure the evidence, include the degree of vaccine resistance if any, the degree to which it is unknown, etc).



That's what I'm doing. Which is why I'm saying we should follow the advice of the CDC.


??? The plan is ALWAYS EVOLVING. The plan today is not the same plan as 3 months ago, it's not the same plan as 9 months ago. It's constantly changing, constantly evolving. I was speaking to someone in a major NYC hospital yesterday, and going over the changes they are actually making due to the growing prevalence of certain variants.

I give up. I can’t follow what you are saying. No point wasting everyone’s time.

 

[danlb_2000]

We can agree to disagree. I can tell you with 100% certainty that people will not continue following Covid safety protocols and mask wearing for very long once the vast majority of people are vaccinated. In no way will people accept that they have to wear a mask indefinitely because a small percent of people are unvaccinated. You think after 365+ days of lots of people doing whatever they want they will suddenly decide to contribute to a community solution? I see no issue with employers requiring masks or vaccination as a stop gap until community spread is virtually gone and all protocols can be removed.

Exactly. A lot of people are getting fed up with the whole thing and will start going back to "normal" whether conditions warrant it or not.

 

[GoofGoof]

Exactly. A lot of people are getting fed up with the whole thing and will start going back to "normal" whether conditions warrant it or not.

Agreed, which is not a good plan. We need to hang on a little while longer and I think the best way to get people to do that is dangle the big carrot of a return to normal once we all get vaccinated.

 

[drizgirl]

Agreed, which is not a good plan. We need to hang on a little while longer and I think the best way to get people to do that is dangle the big carrot of a return to normal once we all get vaccinated.

They're not ready to give up the control. And it's going to bite them in the butt when it causes people to say "why even bother getting the vaccine?"

 

[rogerrabbitfan9]

Disneyland reopening news is great. I’m hoping the next few months are filled with more and more news about things shifting back to normal.

 

[SamusAranX]

Which one....unless it’s me in which case you aren’t reading this anyway

Never! Lol

 

[DisneyFan32]

So variants will become as dominant or not, it will not gonna happen? By July or Fall/Winter, there may be back to normal soon if all people got vaccinated?

 

[mmascari]

The relaxing of Covid safety protocols should follow cases and community spread.

Exactly this.

The number of people vaccinated, the existence of variants, the dominate one, possible new ones, an individual's own vaccination status, none of those have any impact at all on if one person, one location, or one group should change it's mitigation practices. All these things impact the number of cases and community spread. Reduce it and we need less mitigation, increase it and we need more.

Gathering circumstances and what mitigations are being used in combination have a larger impact for a particular scenario. Gathering of 20 people and all of them are vaccinated, no mitigations needed at all. Same gathering, but add 2 kids from one household, still nothing. Change it to 4 kids from 2 households and now you need to add some level of mitigation, probably minor. Change it to 50 random people in a grocery store, and you need to increase the level of mitigation again. Another change to 15,000 people in a stadium, probably change it again, also depends on if it's 15,000 person stadium or a 70,000 person one. Change to 20 kids plus a teacher in a classroom, change the mitigations again.

In each scenario, the combination of mitigation items should be tailored for the specific circumstances. There's not a one size fits all set of items to use. Masks and distance are just the ones an individual has the most control over. It's not like an individual can impact the ventilation in a building.

 

[Chi84]

Hospitals have been doing it for years with the flu vaccine. You always know which cafeteria employees (for example) refused the shot from Oct-Apr. Many are becoming more hard line with the flu vaccine and, once approved fully, I'd assume this one as well if COVID is still a concern then. No shot, no work. That has just as much to do with patient protection and the relative weakness of the flu vaccine, so we need closer to 100% compliance for meaningful spread protection.

For teachers and other professions, mask or vaccine is a reasonable approach. And, one I expect a lot of densely populated working condition industries might take.

I think hospitals are a special case because people who work there are in contact with an especially vulnerable population. Requiring masks in otherwise healthy populations may prove more difficult.

In my opinion, masks should be used for one reason only - to contain the pandemic. They should not be used as part of a carrot and stick approach to coerce/entice people into getting a vaccine that can’t be required because of their EUA status. Nor should they be used (as some posters suggested) as a means of signaling to others that we care about them.

If the CDC, governments and employers are going to implement rules that have unmasked, vaccinated people working or going to school next to masked, unvaccinated people, I hope there will be some very solid science showing how much of an effect those rules have on containing the pandemic.

 

[havoc315]

I give up. I can’t follow what you are saying. No point wasting everyone’s time.

I’ll spell it out simply. — “listen to the scientists and the CDC”

 

[drizgirl]

We wouldn't be having these issues if Republicans had taken the pandemic seriously. We're reaping the fruits of their denial campaign now.

Is that the excuse they're using in the rest of the world?