Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[mmascari]

Every reporter is going to ask him the questions on when restrictions can be lifted and when we will have a return to normal. It’s their job and they are going to ask it. Fauci knows this or definitely should know it’s coming. IMHO he should have a concise and consistent response. I would be fine if what he actually said is that we have no idea or it’s too early to say as long as that was the consistent answer. IMHO he should always start out answering that question with a reminder that his answers will be an educated guess based on the assumption that we continue vaccinations at the projected pace. The answer should always end with a statement that we aren’t there yet so people need to continue to wear masks, distance, avoid large gatherings and get their vaccine ASAP.

Interviewer: When will be back to normal?
Fauci: When cases are low enough.

Interviewer: When will cases be low enough?
Fauci: When we've manage to reduce spread enough.

Interviewer: How low is low enough?
Fauci: Based on the current variants some where around X per day.

Interviewer: By what date will cases be down to X per day?
Fauci: When they are.

Public: Fauci moved the goalposts, has no idea when we'll be back to normal has unreasonable expectation for case reduction.

Public Also: Fauci says we're practically done now, cases are already Y which is close enough to X that we're done. OPEN IT ALL UP!

Public Also Also: Fauci says we're never going to be done, cases are Y which is so far above X we'll never get there. CLOSE IS ALL!

Does that sound about right?

What he says in between should be based on his educated opinion. That opinion can and should change over time but I feel like it shouldn‘t swing wildly week to week or based on who is asking the question and if/when there is a major change in assumptions he should explain why. So for example if he says no return to normal until 2022 in one interview

Based on what things look like on that date.

and a month later he says I think we could see the lifting of restrictions and a return to normal in July

Because things look different now.

he should further explain why the target moved up (more vaccines, faster pace of injections, less fear of variants, etc).

Because the rest of us, and more importantly the reporters, don't know that NOW and BEFORE were different?


The public contemplating every individual word and the importance of each on it's own is just like the questions from @DisneyFan32

Wildly going between doom and gloom and all roses, all trying to get an answer of a date that no one can give and is influenced by actions every day.

 

[GoofGoof]

Interviewer: When will be back to normal?
Fauci: When cases are low enough.

Interviewer: When will cases be low enough?
Fauci: When we've manage to reduce spread enough.

Interviewer: How low is low enough?
Fauci: Based on the current variants some where around X per day.

Interviewer: By what date will cases be down to X per day?
Fauci: When they are.

Public: Fauci moved the goalposts, has no idea when we'll be back to normal has unreasonable expectation for case reduction.

Public Also: Fauci says we're practically done now, cases are already Y which is close enough to X that we're done. OPEN IT ALL UP!

Public Also Also: Fauci says we're never going to be done, cases are Y which is so far above X we'll never get there. CLOSE IS ALL!

Does that sound about right?


Based on what things look like on that date.


Because things look different now.


Because the rest of us, and more importantly the reporters, don't know that NOW and BEFORE were different?


The public contemplating every individual word and the importance of each on it's own is just like the questions from @DisneyFan32

Wildly going between doom and gloom and all roses, all trying to get an answer of a date that no one can give and is influenced by actions every day.

Why answer the questions at all then? You are blaming the public for contemplating his answers but isn’t the reason he answers the questions to give people information?

“Because things look different now“ isn‘t a real answer. What looks different? In a real life example he did 2 interviews less than 2 weeks apart where in the first one he said no return to normal until 2022 and then 2 weeks later said that we could see a return to normal starting in July. I think it’s fair for people to want to know what changed in those 2 weeks to move the target up that much. Did the movement in cases change his model? Did news from a vaccine manufacturer make it more likely that more vaccines would be available sooner? Did a new study show that the vaccines are more effective than first thought against some of the variants? Whatever the reason, it would be very helpful to the public if we got a little more consistent answers and if they do change targets that the changes were backed by more concrete reasons. I don’t expect the government to have an exact date or a firm answer to that question, but if they are going to speculate it would be helpful if they add a little more color as to why that’s their target date and particularly if they move the target, why the change.

 

[Jrb1979]

Why answer the questions at all then? You are blaming the public for contemplating his answers but isn’t the reason he answers the questions to give people information?

“Because things look different now“ isn‘t a real answer. What looks different? In a real life example he did 2 interviews less than 2 weeks apart where in the first one he said no return to normal until 2022 and then 2 weeks later said that we could see a return to normal starting in July. I think it’s fair for people to want to know what changed in those 2 weeks to move the target up that much. Did the movement in cases change his model? Did news from a vaccine manufacturer make it more likely that more vaccines would be available sooner? Did a new study show that the vaccines are more effective than first thought against some of the variants? Whatever the reason, it would be very helpful to the public if we got a little more consistent answers and if they do change targets that the changes were backed by more concrete reasons. I don’t expect the government to have an exact date or a firm answer to that question, but if they are going to speculate it would be helpful if they add a little more color as to why that’s their target date and particularly if they move the target, why the change.

My answer to that is he shouldn't say anything. I understand people want to know but my answer would be it ends when it ends. There is definite answer right now.

 

[GoofGoof]

My answer to that is he shouldn't say anything. I understand people want to know but my answer would be it ends when it ends. There is definite answer right now.

I’d be fine with that. It’s actually the literal truth. My only point is once you give an estimate of a date if that estimate changes (and especially if it changes dramatically) you owe it to the public to explain why.

 

[JoeCamel]

I’d be fine with that. It’s actually the literal truth. My only point is once you give an estimate of a date if that estimate changes (and especially if it changes dramatically) you owe it to the public to explain why.

" due to jackaloons the pandemic is held over til spring" that would do it for me

 

[DisneyCane]

Yup..... "you said 65% immunity would bring herd immunity.. but now Fauci is saying 70-80%+" ---- but the earlier estimates were based on less contagious variants. More contagious variants require a higher level of immunity to reach herd immunity.

Nope. The early estimates were not based on less contagious variants. Fauci himself said something to the effect that he used the lower number because the public wasn't ready to hear the real number and then when polls indicated higher acceptance he felt he could give he higher estimate.

The lower number was either a lie or something he just made up.

 

[Archie123]

The lower number was either a lie or something he just made up.

Oh I love the total nonsense you just pulled out from somewhere.

 

[mmascari]

Why answer the questions at all then? You are blaming the public for contemplating his answers but isn’t the reason he answers the questions to give people information?

I think his answers have been fine. (Ignoring the mask items done to save supplies. Even then, some of the answer was right, but it didn't update fast enough because of the save supplies goal. A goal he shouldn't be worried about. That was a big fail based on that being a reason given.)

Reporters, headline writers, opinion writers, and our own parsing of the answer is where most of the controversy happens. It's all the stuff we interpret into the answers that's unclear. Especially when we don't like the answer. And we all universally don't' like the answer that we're not done yet.

“Because things look different now“ isn‘t a real answer. What looks different? In a real life example he did 2 interviews less than 2 weeks apart where in the first one he said no return to normal until 2022 and then 2 weeks later said that we could see a return to normal starting in July. I think it’s fair for people to want to know what changed in those 2 weeks to move the target up that much. Did the movement in cases change his model? Did news from a vaccine manufacturer make it more likely that more vaccines would be available sooner? Did a new study show that the vaccines are more effective than first thought against some of the variants? Whatever the reason, it would be very helpful to the public if we got a little more consistent answers and if they do change targets that the changes were backed by more concrete reasons. I don’t expect the government to have an exact date or a firm answer to that question, but if they are going to speculate it would be helpful if they add a little more color as to why that’s their target date and particularly if they move the target, why the change.

Blame the reporting for not asking the follow-up for more details, and blame the interpretation of the first answer. Were they the same question? Was it really a hard deadline? What was the context around both questions? They don't stand on their own in a vacuum. The question of will schools be back to "before times" may have easily been answered with a "by 2022". A hedge that in the fall, before vaccination available to kids that some type of mitigation may still be needed, even if less than today. It may have been a general message, it's probably still safely true today, if the question is "When can I plan a trip and be sure it'll be like before with no extra steps?", then 2022 is a very safe answer. But, if the question is "When can I start to get back to normal", July is a much better answer now. For that matter, between those two answers, what was the vaccination rate? Were we headed up as well as today or slower? There was a time where 1M a day seemed like a stretch and it was going to take eons to get everyone. Today, falling below 2M a day sounds like nonsense and we're wondering if we'll get to 4M daily before supply outpaces demand.

He's not omnipotent. It's an opinion and advisory. A well informed opinion, probably better than other places we're getting opinions, but still not omnipotent.

 

[DisneyCane]

Oh I love the total nonsense you just pulled out from somewhere.

It's not nonsense, Fauci said it.

Here ya go...
New York Times Article

From the article, "In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks."

 

[mmascari]

Nope. The early estimates were not based on less contagious variants. Fauci himself said something to the effect that he used the lower number because the public wasn't ready to hear the real number and then when polls indicated higher acceptance he felt he could give he higher estimate.

I would say his best advice and information is when he's not being pressured into something. He's not good at just ducking the question but tries to answer with something. The walked into a corner give us a specific value questions are not a strong spot. The trending, indications, mechanics, stuff is much better.

 

[CatesMom]

Pfizer has asked to extend the EUA to 12-15 year olds.

FDA will evaluate Pfizer's request to allow Covid-19 vaccine for children ages 12-15 'as quickly as possible,' acting commissioner says | CNN

The Food and Drug Administration will evaluate "as quickly as possible" Pfizer's request to expand the emergency use authorization of the drug maker's Covid-19 vaccine to include people ages 12-15 in the United States, FDA Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock said.

www.cnn.com

 

[DisneyDebRob]

I think his answers have been fine. (Ignoring the mask items done to save supplies. Even then, some of the answer was right, but it didn't update fast enough because of the save supplies goal. A goal he shouldn't be worried about. That was a big fail based on that being a reason given.)

Reporters, headline writers, opinion writers, and our own parsing of the answer is where most of the controversy happens. It's all the stuff we interpret into the answers that's unclear. Especially when we don't like the answer. And we all universally don't' like the answer that we're not done yet.


Blame the reporting for not asking the follow-up for more details, and blame the interpretation of the first answer. Were they the same question? Was it really a hard deadline? What was the context around both questions? They don't stand on their own in a vacuum. The question of will schools be back to "before times" may have easily been answered with a "by 2022". A hedge that in the fall, before vaccination available to kids that some type of mitigation may still be needed, even if less than today. It may have been a general message, it's probably still safely true today, if the question is "When can I plan a trip and be sure it'll be like before with no extra steps?", then 2022 is a very safe answer. But, if the question is "When can I start to get back to normal", July is a much better answer now. For that matter, between those two answers, what was the vaccination rate? Were we headed up as well as today or slower? There was a time where 1M a day seemed like a stretch and it was going to take eons to get everyone. Today, falling below 2M a day sounds like nonsense and we're wondering if we'll get to 4M daily before supply outpaces demand.

He's not omnipotent. It's an opinion and advisory. A well informed opinion, probably better than other places we're getting opinions, but still not omnipotent.

Exactly right. The answers have been fine. It’s us. When it’s a “we have to be careful answer” we have the public saying it’s doom and gloom from Fauci. When it’s the “ we need everyone to stay the course” the public says we can’t get to zero.. why is he not talking more positive.
Sorry, science isn’t pretty sometimes and if the answers aren’t what we want to hear, then maybe we shouldn’t be listening and just think what we want.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

It's not nonsense, Fauci said it.

Here ya go...
New York Times Article

From the article, "In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks."

Important context in that article.

Asked about Dr. Fauci’s conclusions, prominent epidemiologists said that he might be proven right. The early range of 60 to 70 percent was almost undoubtedly too low, they said, and the virus is becoming more transmissible, so it will take greater herd immunity to stop it.

And this..


When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

“We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.”

So yes, you are correct in your highlighted quote but without the additional context it looks completely different.It’s actually science working just fine. More data, better predictions.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think his answers have been fine. (Ignoring the mask items done to save supplies. Even then, some of the answer was right, but it didn't update fast enough because of the save supplies goal. A goal he shouldn't be worried about. That was a big fail based on that being a reason given.)

Reporters, headline writers, opinion writers, and our own parsing of the answer is where most of the controversy happens. It's all the stuff we interpret into the answers that's unclear. Especially when we don't like the answer. And we all universally don't' like the answer that we're not done yet.


Blame the reporting for not asking the follow-up for more details, and blame the interpretation of the first answer. Were they the same question? Was it really a hard deadline? What was the context around both questions? They don't stand on their own in a vacuum. The question of will schools be back to "before times" may have easily been answered with a "by 2022". A hedge that in the fall, before vaccination available to kids that some type of mitigation may still be needed, even if less than today. It may have been a general message, it's probably still safely true today, if the question is "When can I plan a trip and be sure it'll be like before with no extra steps?", then 2022 is a very safe answer. But, if the question is "When can I start to get back to normal", July is a much better answer now. For that matter, between those two answers, what was the vaccination rate? Were we headed up as well as today or slower? There was a time where 1M a day seemed like a stretch and it was going to take eons to get everyone. Today, falling below 2M a day sounds like nonsense and we're wondering if we'll get to 4M daily before supply outpaces demand.

He's not omnipotent. It's an opinion and advisory. A well informed opinion, probably better than other places we're getting opinions, but still not omnipotent.

We can agree to disagree on whether the answers have been fine. That’s a matter of opinion, I think he and others in the government could have done a better job.

The part I bolded and underlined makes my point. What is the reason the answer changed? It would be nice to know and it’s possible that Is the reason. If things changed that dramatically in 2 weeks it would be critical to explain to the public what got that much better if for no other reason than to highlight what we need to focus on.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

We can agree to disagree on whether the answers have been fine. That’s a matter of opinion, I think he and others in the government could have done a better job.

The part I bolded and underlined makes my point. What is the reason the answer changed? It would be nice to know and it’s possible that Is the reason. If things changed that dramatically in 2 weeks it would be critical to explain to the public what got that much better if for no other reason than to highlight what we need to focus on.

The reason was listed right below the paragraph, I quoted it in my post. Think we were typing our response the same time.

 

[DCBaker]

Numbers are out - there were 62 new reported deaths, along with 2 Non-Florida Resident deaths.

 

[DCBaker]

Current Florida vaccine report -

 

[DisneyCane]

Numbers are out - there were 62 new reported deaths, along with 2 Non-Florida Resident deaths.

View attachment 546890View attachment 546891View attachment 546892View attachment 546893

Median age for new cases yesterday was 34. 34 and under represent 0.7% of FL COVID deaths. The worst age group under 35 for case fatality rate is 25-34 and the CFR is 0.1%. Before anybody goes too crazy about "the numbers," look at the overall picture as more and more of the most vulnerable age groups become maximally protected by the vaccines every day.

 

[jmp85]

Either Publix has a boat load of appointments for next week or people aren't motivated to book them. The window has been open for over three hours and only Miami-Dade county is completely booked at this time.

My employer has partnered with a local health care provider to provide on-site vaccinations. Haven't been able to fill all the available spots.

 

[Animal_Kingdom_09]

Median age for new cases yesterday was 34. 34 and under represent 0.7% of FL COVID deaths. The worst age group under 35 for case fatality rate is 25-34 and the CFR is 0.1%. Before anybody goes too crazy about "the numbers," look at the overall picture as more and more of the most vulnerable age groups become maximally protected by the vaccines every day.

Light blue have received the first dose, dark blue are complete. Data is as of 4/7/21 and is for Florida only.