GoofGoof
Premium Member
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
GoofGoof
Premium Member
4,000+ pages in I can say there were many, many stupider things said. I‘m not saying masks should or shouldn’t be back, just that many other stupid things have been said too
GoofGoof
Premium Member
They went back to indoor masks about a week after they dropped them. Israel is not the most vaccinated country anymore. Still in the top 20 but no longer #1. They have struggled to get above 60% of their population fully vaccinated (58.5% according to Bloomberg). The UK is only about 3% back now and even the US is less than 10% back.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
You guys are rewriting history here. Mask compliance was very high, because everyone was required to do it. It wasn't until they went on the "honor" system that it all went to hell. Masks are what kept us in the 100's of thousands of deaths versus millions before the vaccines were available. Study after study showed the effectiveness of masking and social distancing.
The mistake was clearly dropping that too soon. In concert with the vaccines, we had a fighting chance. But because everyone was just "over it!" the CDC and White House caved and just told everyone to rip them off in a misguided attempt to promote vaccinations (given the percentages, clearly, that didn't work).
To me it’s a slippery slope.
First it’s the mask.
When case numbers continue to rise, since most people won’t follow the mandates anyways, next will be social distancing.
Those two mitigation’s combined should be enough to finish off thousands of small businesses across the country.
But hey think of all those poor anti vaxers we have to protect them!!
hopemax
Well-Known Member
There is a word I didn't use, but I assumed people would infer because with situations like this, you need a lot of them. Contingencies. Contingency planning is a huge part of what is necessary to adequately adapt to new, unknown and changing conditions, such as this one. Most contingency plans are just discussions and paperwork and don't go beyond that. New info breeds new streams of contingencies. But people in authority (and us in the back of of our minds, so we aren't taken off guard), absolutely need to be having them now, and what I am advocating for, not the alternative path of doing nothing while waiting for data, because you can't put plans into place after the fact and have them have an impact. We need contingencies if it's valid. We need contingencies if it's not. A two-prong approach. Pausing at the fork in the road, and reviewing your defenses. Keeping an eye on how you can get from one path to another. Not just keep running down, the side you've been on at the same speed. Mitigations are not much different than putting on safety gear when entering a construction site, slowing down when approaching an accident scene. They're the things you do... things we usually do, when info is scant or contradictory. A flip here, is not doing that much outside of expressing some caution when caution is warranted (still the case that no one has been here, with this virus before), although people are acting as if it's the worst thing that can happen. Boosters have been primarily considered in the context of the high risk cohort (age and immunocompromised). That was the case long before the Israel study, it's the case after the Israel study. Talking about them is not a change of strategy or policy. They were always on this table. This is a potential bullet point as to why that initial assumption continues to be a smart assumption and still on the table.
I had to use a lot of qualifying language to try to demonstrate that what I am advocating for is not a radical change of strategy. It's a willingness to think and discuss the possibility, that this is yet another situation where things did not turn out the way that people wanted. The things we were told from the beginning might be necessary, still might be, even this far in the process. That vaccinated people still have a role in mild infections and transmissions, and we didn't just tap out of the game completely, like we thought. But at the end of the day. "Wait and see" has no chance of changing what happens over the next few weeks or months. Either we are committed to limiting community transmission, or we end up letting it continue. "Wait and see" is just a nicer way of saying, "We're letting it rip."
Also, I disagree with the framing of Israel data as an outlier, because they hold an important role in all of this. They were the first to get their population to high levels of vaccinations. Their data, will frequently represent a fresh page, a new chapter in how this unfolds. They are the canary in the coal mine. And this is really recent data! That type of information always holds the potential of being different. We need information regarding the possibility of waning protection. This tweet tells us where to look to find that info
Pfizer is not the least effective vaccine, but the other elements are present in the Israel data. UK has a different set of circumstances, in part due to their different strategies of getting shots in arms, but also because they are just not as far along the path as Israel is. The Israel data that revealed the lower levels is specifically in the June and July data, outside of what could possibly be captured in the UK data which ended in May. The US is even farther behind on the path, and we have insufficient data by choice. "Lets just put this, maybe first of this kind of info over there for later..." instead of working with it as best we can at the moment, is not going to get us where we want to be. We're going to see things in old/immunocompromised people, that may or may not have implications for the general public. But we can't ignore the implications for that cohort because it might freak everyone else out.
correcaminos
Well-Known Member
You must live in a different place than I do. I had a few businesses during mask mandates say "no masks" that I came across. I also know that outside of my city, actually having businesses enforce the rules was minimal. I even walked into a dealership where no one was masked when I walked in. Fortunately I was 2 weeks post 2nd dose and it wasn't a placebo, but it was shocking to see back last fall.
Many places didn't care to enforce.
It will only be worse now.
Remember the mask doesn’t protect you it protects others.
You have already done the best thing to protect others, getting vaccinated.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Of course there are contingency plans being developed and always being considered. Fauci said recently the CDC is considering options including reinstating some mitigations. LA county and St Louis and other places have returned to masking indoors. I never said we shouldn’t have contingency plans. I said we shouldn’t enact a change based just on that study. Your statement was we should proceed as if it’s valid and take additional precautions as a result. I view that study as nothing more than one piece of data that is out there and so far it’s the only one that depicts the vaccines as ineffective so soon. As I said from the start of this conversation it should have triggered a more detailed look at the available data and potentially additional studies here. You keep trying to paint this narrative that I’m suggesting we ignore that study when all I said is it’s not the end all be all in making decisions and setting policy. If we acted based on that study would we not be ignoring the recently released, peer reviewed study out of the UK that said the Pfizer vaccine efficacy is still 88%? Shouldn’t we take the time to figure out which study is correct before acting?
It’s obvious you and I won’t agree on this so the last I’ll say on it is this recap: the CDC, FDA and public health officials should be working in conjunction with Pfizer, Moderna and JnJ to determine the efficacy of the vaccines vs new variants and also to determine how long the doses will last and if/when people need to get boosters. Pfizer and Moderna are both coming up on a year for their original trials so we have 10s of thousands of people being actively monitored for breakthrough infections from the trials. If the vaccines stop working in less than 6 months those people will start seeing infections. I hope they plan to release a follow up study or some statistics on breakthrough infections from that data. If it is determined that the efficacy of the vaccines is slipping then actions should be taken. I’m not opposed to bringing mitigations back if the situation requires it. I’ve always said mitigations should be a dial and not a light switch.
hopemax
Well-Known Member
It will continue on for years in any case. That's what infectious diseases do.
Some people still care about the ways the virus can still impact them and their loved ones. The circumstances in which vaccinated people can still be brought back on the field. Do we give them the information and tools to continue to make smart decisions to protect themselves. Or do we just let it rip for them too?
The answer I'm hearing is "Well, it's a smaller sample size than before, so yeah. Giving people those things freaks everyone else out that can't handle that this is still a thing."
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Apparently we do. I live in New England, and we had mask mandates, and everyone wore them.
At the very beginning you saw some people trying to sneak around without them, but that ended very quickly. I didn't see a single person in a store/etc. without a mask for almost a year, until the bone-headed decision to lift restrictions on the honor system.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Yup, just like we stopped wearing seat belts when they invented air bags.
Oops, wait a minute...
BaconPancakes
Well-Known Member
Ah the tired old slippery slope fallacy. Btw if you read my posts you’d see that I strongly disagree with masks coming back. Masks aren’t a quality of life issue though, that’s ridiculous.
If air bags where as effective as vaccines you probably could.
But hey no one is stopping you from wearing a mask enjoy.
I didn’t say they where.
BaconPancakes
Well-Known Member
*were Also my quality of life comment wasn’t directed towards you.
Chi84
Premium Member
I know you have very strong feelings - almost an emotional response - that no one could possibly be negatively impacted by masks. My only point is that there are other people who feel differently. It’s okay to disagree as long as people follow whatever rules society currently puts in place.
Last edited:
Chomama
Well-Known Member
Barrington here!
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
I have sinus issues and asthma...masks make me miserable (although it's not as bad in cold weather). As much as I hate them, with cases quickly on the rise even where I am (I'm in MA in a county that at one point not long ago had 1.1/100,000 new cases per day), I'd like to see mask mandates come back. Our cases are about 5x what they were just two or three weeks ago. It's very clear that people are lying about being vaccinated and not being careful.
- Status