Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[GimpYancIent]

The U.S. is not France thank God!

 

[DCBaker]

Current Florida vaccine report -

 

[havoc315]

I am a limited government conservative. I tend to identify as a Republican, although the last few years have put that on shaky ground. One thing I am most definitely not, however, is a libertarian. And neither were our founders. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, or any of our other key founding and historical documents will you find the concept of "always the individual." If it was always to be left to the good judgement of the individual, there would be no need for a government at all. And, yet, our founders created multiple levels of government for various purposes.

Look, I think your instincts are generally correct and if we sat down and had a cup of coffee and talked politics, I bet we'd agree 95% of the time. And there is no doubt in my mind that many of the steps that have been taken over the past year, particularly those that have been taken unilaterally by governors without legislative involvement, have been beyond the bounds of the authority that they do (or should) have. But there are also times when the government does need to be involved to protect people from each other. To argue that any governmental involvement is wrong and that everything should be left up the individual is contrary to the way our constitutional republic was designed.

True libertarianism is always very compelling in an abstract way, but it doesn't translate well to the real world.

Most Americans recognize the need for balance and reject the extreme version of libertarianism and reject the extreme versions of socialism/communism.

Ironically, in a historical context, the differences between "Democrats" and "Republicans" are actually not that huge on these types of issues.
Not like many Republicans are actually calling for doing away with the TSA, FDA, etc. Not many Republicans are claiming that we should abolish all our drug laws, our entire regulatory structure, etc. And not many Democrats are calling for ending private property and private business. Instead, the differences are more minor -- Republicans want to get rid of a Federal role in Education, where Democrats want to increase the Federal role in Education and Healthcare. Republicans want a bit less environmental regulation, but they aren't saying lift all such rules. Democrats want a bit more, but aren't talking about banning gasoline overnight.
So we draw our battle lines and declare massive war against each other, merely over small differences.

 

[DisneyNittany]

True libertarianism is always very compelling in an abstract way, but it doesn't translate well to the real world.

Most Americans recognize the need for balance and reject the extreme version of libertarianism and reject the extreme versions of socialism/communism.

Ironically, in a historical context, the differences between "Democrats" and "Republicans" are actually not that huge on these types of issues.
Not like many Republicans are actually calling for doing away with the TSA, FDA, etc. Not many Republicans are claiming that we should abolish all our drug laws, our entire regulatory structure, etc. And not many Democrats are calling for ending private property and private business. Instead, the differences are more minor -- Republicans want to get rid of a Federal role in Education, where Democrats want to increase the Federal role in Education and Healthcare. Republicans want a bit less environmental regulation, but they aren't saying lift all such rules. Democrats want a bit more, but aren't talking about banning gasoline overnight.
So we draw our battle lines and declare massive war against each other, merely over small differences.

There's enough difference between "Democrats" and "Republicans" to sell that there is a difference, and as you alluded to, keep the masses fighting, while the true elites cash in and laugh at us all.

 

[DisneyNittany]

Very fun, mostly civil thread by the way.

It's always fun to hear other PoVs and to be challenged and to learn/evolve.

Appreciate your civility the most, @havoc315

 

[Yodascousin]

....and here in the US we are worried about having to still wear a mask in Costco. I bet if the vaccine was available to anyone who wanted it in France in the next 6 weeks they would have very limited resistance. I just hope enough people realize that this could be us if enough people choose to not get vaccinated ASAP, and before you answer that it won’t happen in America and we won’t go on lock downs again ever....look at the past year+ now and look how many people said that continuously and yet it still happened.

Don’t be so sure France has the highest vaccine hesitancy in the world I think I read somewhere over 60% would refuse a vaccine it’s been made even worse with their politicians badmouthing the AZ vaccine there was also a woman who had bad covid who ended up in hospital who would still refuse the AZ vaccine, France are in big trouble at the moment

 

[DisneyCane]

Current Florida vaccine report -

View attachment 544009View attachment 544010

The capacity clearly exists to administer over 200,000 shots per day in FL. Soon we should start seeing over 100,000 completed series on most days. Roughly 74% of people 65+ have been vaccinated. I'd be surprised if that demographic doesn't get well over 80% in the coming weeks. It will be interesting to see the acceptance rate in the younger demographics.

 

[mmascari]

Should people be required to wear clothing in a foodservice establishment? Should someone be allowed to urinate in public?

If someone doesn't want to wear pants while they're out and about town. Then say they gotta go. If it happens to splatter on someone else......

I feel like there's people here who would argue that it's the person getting sprayed that should be wearing a raincoat. That if they didn't want to be hit, they should have stayed home hiding in their basement.

 

[Animal_Kingdom_09]

Your right that we don't know for certain yet... but the absolute latest a side effect shows up that can be conclusively linked to any vaccines we know of from over a century of research is about 3 months. This is approximately the limit for the latency period of Guillan-Barre syndrome. None of the trials saw a single case of Guillan-Barre syndrome, and of the millions of people who have received the vaccines so far worldwide, I have not read any reports of a case of this condition following vaccination.

So, the vaccines are extremely safe. They've more than passed the same safety thresholds that we have applied to every other vaccine in history.

There was also the possibility of antibody dependent enhancement, since that was an issue with SARS. However, since we are now 8 months past the start date of the phase 3 trials, and have had plenty of breakthrough cases with both Pfizer and Moderna (the 5% who get the disease after vaccination) it is a good bet that they figured out to avoid that problem with SARS2.

So, my wife and I have joined the Moderna crowd. First shots this week.

 

[Parker in NYC]

The U.S. is not France thank God!

Good thing we don't live in a global neighborhood since the last update. Thank the Phoenicians.

 

[GoofGoof]

This isn't true. There is no free society without the rights of the individual (again, slavery is a prime example). However, those rights stop where yours start. That's not anarchy, but seeing the government in its intended purpose of being an arbitrator, not an enforcer.

There is still law and order, again, unlike anarchy.

If a person isn't using unjustified force against others, isn't taking other people’s property by force or fraud, and isn't interfering with other people’s ability to engage in conduct that does not violate anyone else’s rights, then they are not doing anything wrong. If a person is doing those things, then the government has the right to step in as agreed to.

I am not following this. Ultimately it’s still up to the government to set up and enforce laws. The government has to decide whats unjustified force or what’s creating an unacceptable risk to society. In some cases even with a law that is setup to protect people other people lose their right to just do whatever they want. Public smoking bans are a great example. A smoker is being told by the government that their right to light up a cigarette is being limited due to the damage it could cause another individual. Not unlike mask requirements in a pandemic. Same with speed limits on roads. My desire to drive as fast as I want is trumped by the overall need to keep others safe.

In other cases the government allows private businesses to restrict some people’s personal freedom in the name of public safety. I have a constitutional right to bear arms (the government can’t stop me from owning or buying a gun) but Disney has the legal ability to restrict me from carrying a gun into their theme parks anyway. In that case the rights of the individual are definitely being restricted for the greater good of society. Not unlike if Disney chose to require a vaccine passport and didin‘t allow people who were unvaccinated into their parks. In those cases Disney isn’t stopping me from owning a gun and they aren’t forcing me to get vaccinated, but they are preventing me from entering their park if I’m perceived to be a safety risk.

If we had no laws and it was always up to the individual to chose what is right vs wrong that’s the definition of anarchy.

 

[Disney Experience]

I did not see this posted yet (But I could have missed it).
So here it is:

Pfizer-BioNTech Announce Positive Topline Results of Pivotal COVID-19 Vaccine Study in Adolescents | Pfizer

In participants aged 12-15 years old, BNT162b2 demonstrated 100% efficacy and robust antibody responses, exceeding those reported in trial of vaccinated 16-25 year old participants in an earlier analysis, and was well tolerated The companies plan to submit these data to the U.S. Food and Drug...

www.pfizer.com

Pfizer-BioNTech Announce Positive Topline Results of Pivotal COVID-19 Vaccine Study in Adolescents

Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) today announced that, in a Phase 3 trial in adolescents 12 to 15 years of age with or without p

www.businesswire.com

 

[MaryJaneP]

Is it true that SARS is an abbreviation for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome? Vaccines seem to fight the "severe" part, healthcare systems seem to be there to treat the "acute" part. What could be left to address the "respiratory" part of the syndrome? Maybe social distancing, hygiene (hand washing), masks, capacity limits, or other mitigation measures? Isn't even Sarah Palin touting Covid 19 protection/prevention measures after she and some in her family got infected despite all the clean frozen air they are breathing.

"Epidemiologists also point out that the vaccine will be one layer of protection. It’ll protect you if the virus reaches your body, while wearing a mask and physical distancing further reduce the chances that the virus will reach your body in the first place. It’s a patchwork approach, with no form of protection having 100% efficacy." (from DisneyTouristBlog)

"Plus, while vaccinated people are much less likely to get infected, and therefore much less likely to spread the virus, it’s still not entirely
clear that they are not contagious, if they do happen to get infected. 'Until there is a lot less transmission in the community, I will continue wearing a mask,” says Dr. Carlos Del Rio professor of medicine at Emory University, who has been vaccinated. “The protection against infection wasn’t perfect—80% to 90%. Can I increase that to closer to 100% by wearing a mask? Yes.'” (from MMWR)

 

[GoofGoof]

The capacity clearly exists to administer over 200,000 shots per day in FL. Soon we should start seeing over 100,000 completed series on most days. Roughly 74% of people 65+ have been vaccinated. I'd be surprised if that demographic doesn't get well over 80% in the coming weeks. It will be interesting to see the acceptance rate in the younger demographics.

Not sure what has changed, but FL seems to have fallen a bit behind on vaccinations. They were near the top in the beginning for percent used as well as percent vaccinated but now according to the Bloomberg tracker they are in the bottom 15 states in both % of population receiving at least 1 shot and % of supply used. Not sure if there are logistical issues with vaccine sites or if it’s the mix of pharmacies vs state or county run sites. Hopefully once the vaccine is open to everyone they pick up the pace.

 

[Tom P.]

Is it true that SARS is an abbreviation for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome? Vaccines seem to fight the "severe" part, healthcare systems seem to be there to treat the "acute" part. What could be left to address the "respiratory" part of the syndrome? Maybe social distancing, hygiene (hand washing), masks, capacity limits, or other mitigation measures? Isn't even Sarah Palin touting Covid 19 protection/prevention measures after she and some in her family got infected despite all the clean frozen air they are breathing.

"Epidemiologists also point out that the vaccine will be one layer of protection. It’ll protect you if the virus reaches your body, while wearing a mask and physical distancing further reduce the chances that the virus will reach your body in the first place. It’s a patchwork approach, with no form of protection having 100% efficacy." (from DisneyTouristBlog)

"Plus, while vaccinated people are much less likely to get infected, and therefore much less likely to spread the virus, it’s still not entirely
clear that they are not contagious, if they do happen to get infected. 'Until there is a lot less transmission in the community, I will continue wearing a mask,” says Dr. Carlos Del Rio professor of medicine at Emory University, who has been vaccinated. “The protection against infection wasn’t perfect—80% to 90%. Can I increase that to closer to 100% by wearing a mask? Yes.'” (from MMWR)

I suspect that, as a society, people would be happier with 80-90% protection without masks and other mitigation measures vs. 100% protection with those things. And I think once vaccines start pushing us closer to those numbers, that's what you'll see. We, as a society, have always decided that we are willing to accept some level of risk for convenience, comfort, etc. I don't think it will be any different in this case, nor do I think it should be.

 

[GoofGoof]

I suspect that, as a society, people would be happier with 80-90% protection without masks and other mitigation measures vs. 100% protection with those things. And I think once vaccines start pushing us closer to those numbers, that's what you'll see. We, as a society, have always decided that we are willing to accept some level of risk for convenience, comfort, etc. I don't think it will be any different in this case, nor do I think it should be.

Agreed. The goal is not to be 100% safe but to just get back to where we were before the pandemic. There will always be health risks. Mitigations were always intended to be a temporary bridge to get us to vaccinations.

 

[mmascari]

"Plus, while vaccinated people are much less likely to get infected, and therefore much less likely to spread the virus, it’s still not entirely
clear that they are not contagious, if they do happen to get infected. 'Until there is a lot less transmission in the community, I will continue wearing a mask,” says Dr. Carlos Del Rio professor of medicine at Emory University, who has been vaccinated. “The protection against infection wasn’t perfect—80% to 90%. Can I increase that to closer to 100% by wearing a mask? Yes.'” (from MMWR)

For those arguing about mitigations forever. This quote, and the part I bolded, are the point. It's not forever. It's while spread is high.

 

[JAKECOTCenter]

Agreed. The goal is not to be 100% safe but to just get back to where we were before the pandemic. There will always be health risks. Mitigations were always intended to be a temporary bridge to get us to vaccinations.

Exactly. Of course there were measles outbreaks in Disneyland but Disney didn't lower capacity or stop meet and greets. Because measles hasn't been a threat since the 60s due to vaccines. Just like covid won't be a threat anymore a few years from now

 

[Chi84]

I suspect that, as a society, people would be happier with 80-90% protection without masks and other mitigation measures vs. 100% protection with those things. And I think once vaccines start pushing us closer to those numbers, that's what you'll see. We, as a society, have always decided that we are willing to accept some level of risk for convenience, comfort, etc. I don't think it will be any different in this case, nor do I think it should be.

I agree. And it's important to remember that those who want closer to 100% protection can always continue to wear masks. The masks, along with widespread vaccination, should keep them very safe.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The individual. Always the individual.

I should have zero say in you and your family's business. Just as you shouldn't have a say in mine.

As I stated earlier, I essentially lived under a year lockdown, not because Gov. Wolf shut down businesses and events that I usually patron, but because my one grandma was going through chemo and my wife was pregnant. I made that decision, despite the fact that I could have easily (if they were open) gone to bars and sporting events and most likely been fine. I made that decision, and would have made that decision, regardless of what the government did or what the majority demanded. Same reason I got the vaccine, despite the fact that there's <1% chance that I would contract COVID and die. Sometimes doing what is right for you and others requires sacrifice, which isn't easy. The easier thing to do would be to demand that others live how I want them to to best protect my loved ones.

Republicanism demands civic virtue. Unfortunately we are at a point where too many who espouse the rights of the individual are not doing so in good faith. They do so to justify being able to take advantage of and harm others, which goes against the very principles of liberty and republicanism. Unfortunately when it comes to COVID-19 the loudest voices for “liberty” and the individual do so from a place of deception, spreading misinformation, conspiracies and outright lies. These people are a far bigger threat to liberty as they show their willingness to deceive for their own personal gain, even if it is couched in terms of compassion.

If governments are instituted among men to protect life, liberty and property, an order that is almost always held, there are clearly points where protecting life will hinder liberty and property. That is a proper function of civil government. Vaccine requirements hinder liberty because they protect life, including of those who cannot consent. People marvel at how low life expectancy used to be and it’s not that people died in their 30s but because so many died before they were 5, something we now take for granted.

Ideally there would be no need for state action, but that is all predicated on people acting in good faith, being truthful and a commitment to civic virtue. It would mean recognizing that it’s not just about the individual’s risk but how one’s actions risk others. It even means just acting in a way that makes others comfortable, especially when it is so simple. Everyone out for themselves is what kills republics. It has for millennia and it will again.