News Disney mask policy at Walt Disney World theme parks

[bdearl41]

Personal anecdote ≠ statistically-significant reduction in severe outcomes in multiple studies with high sample sizes

No one on social media seems to understand this.

Well knowing lots of people to catch it boosted…my point is get the first round of vaccines then stop if you like. That first round is what will save your life.

 

[Heelz2315]

Pure speculation but Friday could be an interesting news day.

Personally I'd be flat STUNNED if WDW dropped them before April.....but who knows at this point.

 

[G00fyDad]

It is frightening to me how few people understand basic biology. Public messaging has indeed been awful throughout this pandemic but it is ludicrous that anyone with a Ph.D. in biological sciences or an M.D. said these vaccines prevent infection or spread. No vaccine does that. It’s impossible. Did someone at the CDC, FDA, or NIH actually say that? I hope not. Because literally the moment they said “94.1% efficacy” that meant it couldn’t prevent all infection or spread.

No

 

[Lilofan]

What I don't understand (since I don't live in Nevada and never really paid attention) is why the Gaming Control Board controls the mask mandate inside casinos. Isn't the task of the GCB to make ensure that casino games are fair and that there is no cheating going on? What does public health have to do with the GCB? They allow smoking in casinos. If public health was part of their charter shouldn't they ban smoking so that I don't have to sit next to a chain smoker while playing blackjack?

Moving forward several Vegas casinos are looking to ban smoking in table games. How annoying when I'm playing when the one next to you is blowing smoke pretty much near my face.

 

[DisneyCane]

Moving forward several Vegas casinos are looking to ban smoking in table games. How annoying when I'm playing when the one next to you is blowing smoke pretty much near my face.

I hope they do. It's bad enough at the slot machines but at least you can move to another one further away. At the tables, many times your choice is to either inhale smoke or not play.

 

[DisneyHead123]

So while I am sorry you had a heart attack using anecdotal unrelated stories is incredibly harmful. This is my issue with anecdotal. Would be like me saying my friend died not long after getting her second dose. She did but cause of death was cancer.

Sharing your story increases unfounded fear. You may be irrational for yourself but using your story in this manner when we know what does cause heart attacks is hurtful as a whole. Sorry and I do hope you recovery is going well. I nearly lost a friend my age (45) after her 2nd heart attack about 5 years ago (yes she was around 40 for her second heart attack) and I know the struggles she faces.

In the case of heart problems, there is some inconclusive evidence that the Covid vaccine very slightly increases myocarditis and pericarditis risk, especially (Maybe exclusively? I'm not clear on that) in men. In extreme cases this could lead to a heart attack. This would make a person an outlier among outliers and would be exceedingly rare, but so far as I understand it, it is possible. (If you Google it you will get an obligatory Healthline report saying there is no evidence of a link, but I don't know how they're getting from A to C there. Vaccines may increase risk of myocarditis. Myocarditis patients may have a tiny risk of heart attack. Healthline seems to infer that the type of myocarditis vaccines could cause is a special type that could not lead to heart attack, which makes no sense and seems like more 'Let's not panic people' reporting.)

I think in this case the problem is not misinformation, exactly, it is that as humans we are just extraordinarily awful at risk assessment. Basing decisions on large scale statistics is just not something we are wired for. If we see one exceedingly rare risk (side effect) listed next to one huge risk (getting Covid), I think the human brain tends to weigh them as more like a 50/50 risk - two things, two risks. Not a one in a million risk vs. a one in a thousand risk. We are not made to really grok numbers that large.

 

[correcaminos]

In the case of heart problems, there is some inconclusive evidence that the Covid vaccine very slightly increases myocarditis and pericarditis risk, especially (Maybe exclusively? I'm not clear on that) in men. In extreme cases this could lead to a heart attack. This would make a person an outlier among outliers and would be exceedingly rare, but so far as I understand it, it is possible. (If you Google it you will get an obligatory Healthline report saying there is no evidence of a link, but I don't know how they're getting from A to C there. Vaccines may increase risk of myocarditis. Myocarditis patients may have a tiny risk of heart attack. Healthline seems to infer that the type of myocarditis vaccines could cause is a special type that could not lead to heart attack, which makes no sense and seems like more 'Let's not panic people' reporting.)

I think in this case the problem is not misinformation, exactly, it is that as humans we are just extraordinarily awful at risk assessment. Basing decisions on large scale statistics is just not something we are wired for. If we see one exceedingly rare risk (side effect) listed next to one huge risk (getting Covid), I think the human brain tends to weigh them as more like a 50/50 risk - two things, two risks. Not a one in a million risk vs. a one in a thousand risk. We are not made to really grok numbers that large.

The inflammation you speak of that could maybe lead to stroke or heart attack if severe and over time damaging the heart due to not seeking treatment, is not the same level as a risk from any mRNA vaccine.

People love to google and try to link answers. Then out of fear they spread more fear. This is a bad chain reaction.

I do agree with you on we suck at assessing risks. As in we don't understand truly how rare things are. Then our minds run with it.

 

[Incomudro]

I normally don’t agree with you, but can attest that you’re correct. It was lead story on CNN this morning.

Thank you, I appreciate it. Then I heard it correctly.
I was cooking, so it was possible I heard it wrong.

 

[Andrew C]

Did someone at the CDC, FDA, or NIH actually say that?

Early on, absolutely. And let us not pretend that those leaders who oversee those departments did not come out with a similar message. However, that message started to shift with Delta, and then even more so with Omicron given that the vaccines did not do as a great a job at preventing infection compared to the early variants.

 

[Trauma]

Illinois officially announcing the end of mask mandates. This moves the number to 46 out of 50 states with no mandate by the end of the month.

 

[Communicora]

My whole family got it. My wife the only one boosted had the worst of it. The boosters are not that much better than just the original vax. Get the original two or one dose(JNJ) and you’ll have the T cells and B cells to keep your symptoms lower.

As many studies have shown, this is inaccurate. For example, here is one from Switzerland

 

[Andrew C]

As many studies have shown, this is inaccurate. For example, here is one from Switzerland

 

[danlb_2000]

In the case of heart problems, there is some inconclusive evidence that the Covid vaccine very slightly increases myocarditis and pericarditis risk, especially (Maybe exclusively? I'm not clear on that) in men. In extreme cases this could lead to a heart attack. This would make a person an outlier among outliers and would be exceedingly rare, but so far as I understand it, it is possible. (If you Google it you will get an obligatory Healthline report saying there is no evidence of a link, but I don't know how they're getting from A to C there. Vaccines may increase risk of myocarditis. Myocarditis patients may have a tiny risk of heart attack. Healthline seems to infer that the type of myocarditis vaccines could cause is a special type that could not lead to heart attack, which makes no sense and seems like more 'Let's not panic people' reporting.)

I think in this case the problem is not misinformation, exactly, it is that as humans we are just extraordinarily awful at risk assessment. Basing decisions on large scale statistics is just not something we are wired for. If we see one exceedingly rare risk (side effect) listed next to one huge risk (getting Covid), I think the human brain tends to weigh them as more like a 50/50 risk - two things, two risks. Not a one in a million risk vs. a one in a thousand risk. We are not made to really grok numbers that large.

... and to add to this myocarditis is a known side effect of COVID infection and happens at a higher rate then is seen with the vaccines.

 

[Communicora]

 

[TehPuddingMan]

 

[marymarypoppins]

No

Apparently you and the two people who liked our NO missed the two direct quotes where the CDC director and our current POTUS both did exactly that!?!?! Imagine being so set in this Covid way of thinking that you will ignore the facts in order to be right!

 

[lazyboy97o]

Apparently you and the two people who liked our NO missed the two direct quotes where the CDC director and our current POTUS both did exactly that!?!?! Imagine being so set in this Covid way of thinking that you will ignore the facts in order to be right!

You accuse others of being set and ignoring facts when that is exactly what you keep doing. How vaccines work and your misunderstanding has repeatedly been explained to you, but you continue to repeat your claims.

 

[Andrew C]

You accuse others of being set and ignoring facts when that is exactly what you keep doing. How vaccines work and your misunderstanding has repeatedly been explained to you, but you continue to repeat your claims.

Someone should have explained that to the leaders then when they went on and on about the vaccines preventing infection. We have been down this road before, people wanting to change history and ignoring what was actually being told to us...how that message was being delivered to the people. As others have said over and over, things did change as new variants popped up but that doesn't negate the initial messaging on vaccines, up until about delta. This pretending that infection prevention was never a component of the vaccines is still laughable, even more so when it gets repeated..

 

[ToTBellHop]

Apparently you and the two people who liked our NO missed the two direct quotes where the CDC director and our current POTUS both did exactly that!?!?! Imagine being so set in this Covid way of thinking that you will ignore the facts in order to be right!

Your quote from the CDC director says the vaccines don’t prevent spread.

As for POTUS, it’s not an excuse but he has no Ph.D. or M.D. and was talking out of his alien swirling saucer to exude confidence as a politician. Again, not an excuse. At best, he didn’t understand the science as a non-scientist. Middle ground: he exaggerated the truth. Worst case: he outright lied to maintain power. All 3 are problematic but I don’t go to politicians or journalists for my science. Actual scientific knowledge is rather esoteric which is why most people should just get a good doctor and listen to him or her.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Someone should have explained that to the leaders then when they went on and on about the vaccines preventing infection. We have been down this road before, people wanting to change history and ignoring what was actually being told to us...how that message was being delivered to the people. As others have said over and over, things did change as new variants popped up but that doesn't negate the initial messaging on vaccines, up until about delta. This pretending that infection prevention was never a component of the vaccines is still laughable, even more so when it gets repeated..

Since we already almost 2 years past all of that, why do you keep wanting to bring it up? It's ancient history. Time to move on.