Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[GoofGoof]

"researchers say there may be up to 100 other symptoms"

42.6% is absolutely an impairment of daily activities. I contracted COVID in March of 2020 (likely from WDW) and lost my sense of smell for a year. It was horrible.


Sure, but after full FDA approval. I should've made that more clear, I was specifically referring to the EUA that will likely occur soon.

Full FDA approval for kids under 12 is likely by the end of 2021 or Jan 2022. The phase 3 trials kicked off already and they need 6 months of safety data.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

View attachment 562885

I don't understand. If they are so unequivocally safe, why conduct rigorous safety trials in the first place? Why monitor for serious complications at all? You chalk it all up to "vaccine bunk" but in reality you are just blind to the fact that these things can and have caused serious complications.

Y'all make it sound black and white as "they are safe, shut up and get your shot you antivaxxer." The truth is, none of you people know if they are safe. What would your response be if tomorrow they declared them unsafe in certain scenarios? You can't backpeddle out of that.

There is a reason they are rigorously evaluated for safety. Because they have the potential to be unsafe.

 

[danlb_2000]

"researchers say there may be up to 100 other symptoms"

Loss of sense of smell is absolutely an impairment of daily activities. And that 42% absolutely includes that symptom; it is the most common persistent symptom of COVID-19. I contracted COVID in March of 2020 (likely from WDW) and lost my sense of smell for a year. It was horrible.

Loss of sense of smell was "horrible", but you are ok with your kids loosing there sense of smell?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't understand. If they are so unequivocally safe, why conduct rigorous safety trials in the first place? Why monitor for serious complications at all? You chalk it all up to "vaccine bunk" but in reality you are just blind to the fact that these things can and have caused serious complications.

Because that’s what’s required of all medications/vaccines

...so lawyers don’t sue the out of everyone.

have a nice day...I’ve passed my “suffer foolishness about covid, bad politics, vaccines and science” phase

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Because that’s what’s required of all medications/vaccines

...so lawyers don’t sue the **** out of everyone.

have a nice day...I’ve passed my “suffer foolishness about covid, bad politics, vaccines and science” phase

LOL wait.. so this guy thinks the CDC, FDA and pharma companies conduct safety trials to "avoid getting sued." hahahahahahaha

So you would personally take a novel vaccine without a single safety trail taking place? Cool story.

I guess this is the type of stuff you get on a Disney fan forum.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

You seriously don’t care about your kid losing their sense of taste or smell? I know that won’t kill them, but it’s a pretty big “inconvenience”. I have gotten my kids plenty of vaccines for stuff that is very unlikely to kill them. How many kids die or have serious complications from chicken pox?

A friend who lost his sense of smell for a time (not COVID related) described it as having a disability.

 

[danlb_2000]

I don't understand. If they are so unequivocally safe, why conduct rigorous safety trials in the first place? Why monitor for serious complications at all? You chalk it all up to "vaccine bunk" but in reality you are just blind to the fact that these things can and have caused serious complications.

Safety trials are done to prove that the vaccines are safe. Side effects from vaccines show up within 6 weeks. The trials were 3 months I believe so if there was a serious issue with vaccines it should have shown up during the trials.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Safety trials are done to prove that the vaccines are safe. Side effects from vaccines show up within 6 weeks. The trials were 3 months I believe so if there was a serious issue with vaccines it should have shown up during the trials.

I mean, more untrue stuff. I dunno where you guys get this stuff. Are you just making it up?

Example: Very rarely, long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, or permanent brain damage may happen after DTaP vaccination.

It happens and long after trials complete.

 

[mmascari]

So we're clear, you're saying, unequivocally, that my child is more likely to get COVID and then subsequently have severe complications than to have complications from a vaccine which is currently still in trials?

I'll say unequivocally that the combined risk of both catching COVID and having issues is larger than the combined risk of getting the vaccine and having issues by many orders of magnitude for anyone the vaccine has had EUA approval for.

For the current vaccines that do not have EUA for people under 12 yet. The risk today while they determine dosage is unknown and I cannot make the same unequivocal statement. However, I can state that the controls put on the trials to get to approval include conditions that should make the same statement true. That even the trials will be many orders of magnitude less risky than the chances of catching and having COVID issues. The trial controls are designed to create this outcome. It's part of why the adult trials are done first too. I would have no hesitation signing up for a child trial based on it's risk vs COVID risk at this point. Other trial requirements that are unpleasant, such as testing, would be a bigger concern.

You are probably right. But again, we're basically trying to figure out which 0 is lower. So, it seems as though the consensus here is "why not get vaccinated " vs "here's why you should get vaccinated."

You're still missing digits, many many digits. It's not which version of 0 is lower.

Which is lower 1,000 or 1?
Does it change if it's 0.1 or 0.0001?

We're talking about a HUGE number being multiplied by that very little statistic. There result of that math will NOT be 0. There will be someone, many someone, who have a life altering experience with COVID.

Why would someone take that risk on purpose when the alternative risk is significantly less? Many orders of magnitude less.

 

[hopemax]

The study included loss of sense of smell which can persist for some time but returns eventually. I'm talking about serious complications.


It's not my conclusion, it is the Cleveland Clinic's study's conclusion. You should tell them it is wrong though.

You conveniently left out the 2nd part of their conclusion statement "vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before."

You and they are applying the results of their study to different scenarios. They were answering the question of who you can skip when you have a limited supply. They include in their study limitations " Lastly, it is necessary to emphasize that these findings are based on the prevailing assortment of virus variants in the community during the study. It is not known how well these results will hold if or when some of the newer variants of concern become prominent."

I am pretty sure your interpretation is that people who had previously been infected, never, ever, ever need to be vaccinated.

 

[zurj]

You need more digits.

That's a common problem when we discuss things in percentages. It naturally means there's only 100 possible items. So, anything in the <1% is the same. But, it's not really true, those extra missing digits are hiding information.

Making up some numbers, 0.1% and 0.01% the first is 10 times more likely than the second. Not just a small amount. If we looked at it as 10% vs 1% everyone would feel different than 0.1% vs 0.01%, but the relative difference is the same.

So, for your second number associated with the risk. You need a lot more decimal places for both the vaccine and COVID (both death and long term impacts).

At first, adding all the extra digits feels silly. But, those statistics are also being applied to a huge number. Say 1,000,000 kids are the sample size, and 0.001% are impacted. That's clearly rare, but for those 1,000 kids that are impacted, it's significant to their lives, possibly devastating.

My hunch is you'll find the risk from COVID requires many less digits than the risk from vaccine does. Making the risk from vaccine even with the 100% in the first part of the equation lower.

I have no idea what you are trying to say, but .001% of 1,000,000 is not 1,000. It's 1% of that.

 

[danlb_2000]

I mean, more untrue stuff. I dunno where you guys get this stuff. Are you just making it up?

Example: Very rarely, long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, or permanent brain damage may happen after DTaP vaccination.

It happens and long after trials complete.

Did those symptoms first show up beyond 6 weeks?

 

[Disney Glimpses]

I'll say unequivocally that the combined risk of both catching COVID and having issues is larger than the combined risk of getting the vaccine and having issues by many orders of magnitude for anyone the vaccine has had EUA approval for.

For the current vaccines that do not have EUA for people under 12 yet. The risk today while they determine dosage is unknown and I cannot make the same unequivocal statement. However, I can state that the controls put on the trials to get to approval include conditions that should make the same statement true. That even the trials will be many orders of magnitude less risky than the chances of catching and having COVID issues. The trial controls are designed to create this outcome. It's part of why the adult trials are done first too. I would have no hesitation signing up for a child trial based on it's risk vs COVID risk at this point. Other trial requirements that are unpleasant, such as testing, would be a bigger concern.


You're still missing digits, many many digits. It's not which version of 0 is lower.

Which is lower 1,000 or 1?
Does it change if it's 0.1 or 0.0001?

We're talking about a HUGE number being multiplied by that very little statistic. There result of that math will NOT be 0. There will be someone, many someone, who have a life altering experience with COVID.

Why would someone take that risk on purpose when the alternative risk is significantly less? Many orders of magnitude less.

You're literally proving my point. The point is both scenarios are incredibly low risk, even if one is a magnitude lower. It's like me driving to the supermarket at 25 mph without a seatbelt on for half a mile vs with 3 seat belts on. In reality the risk is no different.

We're getting away from the point which is to convince parents that their kids SHOULD get vaccinated. There is no data to show that is the case.

 

[zurj]

"researchers say there may be up to 100 other symptoms"

Loss of sense of smell is absolutely an impairment of daily activities. And that 42% absolutely includes that symptom; it is the most common persistent symptom of COVID-19. I contracted COVID in March of 2020 (likely from WDW) and lost my sense of smell for a year. It was horrible.


Sure, but after full FDA approval. I should've made that more clear, I was specifically referring to the EUA that will likely occur soon.

It took 14 years for the chicken pox vaccine to be approved for use in the United States.

I don't even trust the FDA.

One-Third Of New Drugs Had Safety Problems After FDA Approval

More than 70 drugs approved by the FDA from 2001 to 2010 ran into safety concerns that prompted withdrawals from the market, "black box" warnings or other actions.

www.npr.org

 

[hopemax]

We're getting away from the point which is to convince parents that their kids SHOULD get vaccinated. There is no data to show that is the case.

There will be a new mountain of data coming due to the number of infections from Delta currently occurring in UK schools. That will matter more than whatever any parent read about the original virus.

 

[mmascari]

I have no idea what you are trying to say, but .001% of 1,000,000 is not 1,000. It's 1% of that.

Bad math. Stupid me typing in the percent. Forgot the extra two 0. It's 10. Cleary should have used a spreadsheet not a calculator.

Still not great if you're one of the 10. The million is fake too, I didn't look up how many kids (or others) have had COVID either.

Edited the original post to correct this math and report that I'm calculator challenged.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

We should not continue to feed the anti vaxxers.. conspiracy theories.. or the “ but how do we know what may happen in the future from this shot” people. A science based , fir the most part good discussion continues to be rail roaded here every 20 pages or so. They are entitled to their beliefs no matter how far the real science says they are off . Always, in everything in this world, there will be people that won’t do the homework.

 

[Phil12]

It's obvious that because some folks are resistant to getting the vaccine, the COVID-19 virus will be very difficult to control. I suspect it will flourish in some communities for many years. I decided to lay in a supply of surgical masks for the long term.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sure, but after full FDA approval. I should've made that more clear, I was specifically referring to the EUA that will likely occur soon.

Why is this a meaningful difference?

It took 14 years for the chicken pox vaccine to be approved for use in the United States.

Not because of concerns for how people might react years after the vaccine has been administered. The bigger issues are of funding and having the trials reach statistical significance to demonstrate efficacy.

I don't understand. If they are so unequivocally safe, why conduct rigorous safety trials in the first place? Why monitor for serious complications at all? You chalk it all up to "vaccine bunk" but in reality you are just blind to the fact that these things can and have caused serious complications.

Nobody is saying that safety trials are not needed. What is being said is that safety is not tested over long term periods because there is no evidence or known means by which a vaccine can trigger a complication long after administration. The serious complications that happen are shortly after administration. Even in cases where a vaccine is pulled because of complications it’s because they are so rare that they didn’t show in trials, not that they appeared after a period of time that was longer than the trials.

Y'all make it sound black and white as "they are safe, shut up and get your shot you antivaxxer." The truth is, none of you people know if they are safe. What would your response be if tomorrow they declared them unsafe in certain scenarios? You can't backpeddle out of that.

There is a reason they are rigorously evaluated for safety. Because they have the potential to be unsafe.

You can’t have it both ways. If the safety evaluation is rigorous and trustworthy then you can’t turn around and claim Emergency Use Authorization is insufficient in terms of safety data. The safety data has been evaluated at that point.

I mean, more untrue stuff. I dunno where you guys get this stuff. Are you just making it up?

Example: Very rarely, long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, or permanent brain damage may happen after DTaP vaccination.

It happens and long after trials complete.

You accuse others of making stuff up but cannot provide one instance where a complication first presented well after being administered. Yes, there are some complications that cause long term issues but they first present themselves shortly after administration of the vaccine.

You all act as though vaccines have never been recalled before, long after "6 weeks."

Not for complications that first occurred months to years later.

 

[GoofGoof]

We should not continue to feed the anti vaxxers.. conspiracy theories.. or the “ but how do we know what may happen in the future from this shot” people. A science based , fir the most part good discussion continues to be rail roaded here every 20 pages or so. They are entitled to their beliefs no matter how far the real science says they are off . Always, in everything in this world, there will be people that won’t do the homework.

Wise advice. I’ll just leave this here: