HongKongFooy
Well-Known Member
i can see it being delayed by a week or 2.
Yep, that will change the viral paradigm dramatically. Just give it a week and things will be substantially different.
i can see it being delayed by a week or 2.
Where are you seeing this??
double you dee double you news today
i can see it being delayed by a week or 2. i’m wondering wether they’ll shut down again if things continue to get worse in florida.
That is not guaranteed yet.WDW will open as scheduled.
The latest data I've seen on when a person is most contagious indicated the opposite. In a study population who had screened positive, but were asymptomatic, their viral burden (measured by viral culture) actually peaked before the onset of symptoms, and steadily declined thereafter, reaching undetectable levels 7-10 days later, if I remember the details correctly.This is where I get confused. We've clearly shifted over the past month into accererating businesses that are taking it seriously. We are kept in the dark about how a majority of these new Florida cases are spreading but we can safely assume that it has a lot to do with gatherings and prolonged contact. Even if someone happens to be infected at the mouse house, it would be almost certainly asymptomatic. People will be screened at the literal entrance. The odds of a sick person even wanting to go to a hot theme park is dramatically lowered and the masks are there to catch any outlier that might be there. Most of my research shows that asymptomatic people are less contagious in a community setting. That is without wearing a mask btw. It sounds like these asymptomatic phenomenons are happening at households or workplaces where your guard is down and interacting closely with people for hours on end.
That is not guaranteed yet.
I'd imagine the PR for delaying opening is much better than the PR of a place like Disney opening then saying "woops sorry folks we are closing again"And if it does open on time lets see if it stays open. That's two totally different things.
That would be great to see the link thanks. I don't doubt it but I was actually pointing out that asymptomatic spread has been studied as more likely in households and dramatically less in the community . I'll look for that link too It holds true with most infectious disease and I'd say they have even less ability to spread with a mask on and distancing etc.The latest data I've seen on when a person is most contagious indicated the opposite. In a study population who had screened positive, but were asymptomatic, their viral burden (measured by viral culture) actually peaked before the onset of symptoms, and steadily declined thereafter, reaching undetectable levels 7-10 days later, if I remember the details correctly.
This is why I don't have faith that temperature screens at Disney World will do anything useful.
I'm working out right now, but I can link the studies (done by the CDC and NIH) after I'm done.
That is unfortunate. They should reopen.That is not guaranteed yet.
Maybe. Maybe not.That is unfortunate. They should reopen.
Here's the link:That would be great to see the link thanks. I don't doubt it but I was actually pointing out that asymptomatic spread has been studied as more likely in households and dramatically less in the community . I'll look for that link too It holds true with most infectious disease and I'd say they have even less ability to spread with a mask on and distancing etc.
I agree that temp checks won't provide any guaranteed measure of anything but it would at least catch people with obvious illness. It's important.
Do you think that they will delay the opening date?
Here's the link:
Communities, Schools, Workplaces, & Events
Cleaning and Disinfecting: Everyday steps, when someone is sick, and considerations for employers.www.cdc.gov
The intention of the paper was to summarize recommendations for quarantine in cases where testing is not readily available, but it includes some very enlightening data they used in compiling those recommendations. Two caveats are that the paper is almost two months old, so there might be newer, superseding information by now, and the sample population they studied was relatively small.
EDIT: I'm not sure why, but the hyperlink displayed on this screen is not for the same article that I linked, but clicking on it does send you to the correct paper that I'm referencing.
No. That wasn't within the scope of the paper. It is more concerned with measuring culturable viral loads and detectable viral RNA at various stages of the illness.Thanks . It's a lot to read and it will take a sec. Does it happen to mention differences between household and community? This is one thing that I feel has been dodged a lot in discussions from the health officials. We manage communicable disease in part by differentiating between close contact and casual.
Why? If the procedures they are putting in place were determined to be safe with 1,000 new cases per day in the state then why don't they work with 9,000 new cases?
It was pretty much guaranteed that there would be some people who had the virus at WDW. Why does it matter that there might be more? With the level of contagiousness of this virus, if the procedures aren't going to work, it would have led to a major increase in cases within a few days starting at the lower level.
This spike is clearly related to people not social distancing. They wouldn't have closed bars if they didn't have data showing bars to be an issue. They wouldn't be begging people not to have private gatherings if they didn't have data showing there is spread happening at gatherings.
At WDW there will be social distancing in place, there will be a requirement to wear a mask and there will be temperature screenings to screen for symptomatic people who are going to be the most contagious. With respect to the way WDW will operate, it doesn't matter if 100,000 people per day are getting infected at bars.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.