Do you think that Disney world will reclose its gates due to the rising number of COVID cases in Florida and around the country?

[twilight mitsuk]

Source?

Rick rolled

 

[Miss Bella]

I wouldn’t go into them. As you and many others (or, let’s just call them “the blob”) have said, go to Disney. It’s safer there!

Yeah, last time I was there I saw some guy put his hands down his pants scratch his butt and then start touching everything. My husband likes to go there to buy pool supplies. I'll only go with him if he takes me out to lunch first. I'm easily manipulated with food. Other than that I'm not a Wal mart shopper.

 

[Parker in NYC]

Yeah, last time I was there I saw some guy put his hands down his pants scratch his butt and then start touching everything. My husband likes to go there to buy pool supplies. I'll only go with him if he takes me out to lunch first. I'm easily manipulated with food. Other than that I'm not a Wal mart shopper.

Ha! I'm easily manipulated with food, too. I can't lie.

 

[wendysue]

If Disney is open your not entitled to a refund.

Yes, I understand that and should have asked for the partial refund earlier. (I guess it's too late now) We thought it would be ok to just move our vacation to August, but we do not feel that it's safe yet, so we will just let our AP's expire and move on.

 

[DisneyCane]

No, Miami, Broward and Palm Beach never had the sort of lockdown or mask compliance that you had in NY. And critically, they demonstrate the need to do these things on more than a county-by-county basis.

And what we are seeing now... the fastest growth in Florida is actually the other counties:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242270081.html

For example, the case doubling time in Miami-Dade is now 19.3 days, slightly below the state average of 19.9. But Osceola is 14 days.. Monroe County is 12.7 days. Santa Rosa is 13.5 days.

Do you live in one of these counties? I live in Broward. The restrictions in place back in late March and April were very restrictive. Mask compliance at every business I've been to since the requirement was put in place has been as close to 100% as possible.

Case doubling rates are a fun fact but I'm looking at the share of total cases vs. the percent of population that lives there. Miami-Dade is consistently around 25% or more of the daily cases while representing under 13% of the population.

The point stands that the most restrictive counties in the state that waited the longest for any kind of reopening have the most disproportionate share of cases now. What it shows is that there are countless other variables at play and just adding restrictions or mask mandates doesn't predict success in reducing the number of cases.

The spread is not happening where people are following the rules. It is happening where they aren't. Further restricting businesses that are following the rules will not do anything.

 

[havoc315]

Do you live in one of these counties? I live in Broward. The restrictions in place back in late March and April were very restrictive. Mask compliance at every business I've been to since the requirement was put in place has been as close to 100% as possible.

Case doubling rates are a fun fact but I'm looking at the share of total cases vs. the percent of population that lives there. Miami-Dade is consistently around 25% or more of the daily cases while representing under 13% of the population.

The point stands that the most restrictive counties in the state that waited the longest for any kind of reopening have the most disproportionate share of cases now. What it shows is that there are countless other variables at play and just adding restrictions or mask mandates doesn't predict success in reducing the number of cases.

The spread is not happening where people are following the rules. It is happening where they aren't. Further restricting businesses that are following the rules will not do anything.

You just, quite unintentionally, proved my point. You say businesses in Broward have been following the rules...
In a hard lockdown, businesses are closed, period. Only the absolute most essential businesses are open. Florida isn't alone -- no state did a true hard lock down. Many places in Europe and Asia did proper hard lock downs.
But Florida's lockdown was softer than most.

Meanwhile, you contradict yourself further -- You say most of the spread is happening in South Florida. Then you say people in South Florida are following the rules. And then you say that the spread is NOT happening where people are following the rules. So which is it? The spread is in South Florida, or not? South Florida is following the rules, or not?

But here is the point --more restrictive rules do work. They need to remain in place for long enough to smash the virus, and then slowly loosened to the point where the virus can still be contained.
No surprise that denser urban areas that had more early spread, still have a disproportionate share of the virus. But the doubling times show where it is growing fastest -- And it is growing fastest in the places that had the least restrictions (whether mandatory or voluntary).

 

[Dizneykid]

Do you live in one of these counties? I live in Broward. The restrictions in place back in late March and April were very restrictive. Mask compliance at every business I've been to since the requirement was put in place has been as close to 100% as possible.

Case doubling rates are a fun fact but I'm looking at the share of total cases vs. the percent of population that lives there. Miami-Dade is consistently around 25% or more of the daily cases while representing under 13% of the population.

The point stands that the most restrictive counties in the state that waited the longest for any kind of reopening have the most disproportionate share of cases now. What it shows is that there are countless other variables at play and just adding restrictions or mask mandates doesn't predict success in reducing the number of cases.

The spread is not happening where people are following the rules. It is happening where they aren't. Further restricting businesses that are following the rules will not do anything.

I can't think of anything more high risk for virus transmission than large gatherings inside or outside in a party like atmosphere. Not a beach or a theme park that has strict rules. No policy can stop the ability to gather privately. It's happening on some level in every state but especially warm climate states that have a party culture. Yes, bars opened too soon but those people will only take their party somewhere else. I've been to several places with mask rules over the past few weeks. Knock on wood, not sick. I don't think we have to worry about businesses being open especially if people wear masks. There will always be percentages of people that will gather no matter what. Those people are almost certainly behind a lot of the spread.

 

[DisneyCane]

You just, quite unintentionally, proved my point. You say businesses in Broward have been following the rules...
In a hard lockdown, businesses are closed, period. Only the absolute most essential businesses are open. Florida isn't alone -- no state did a true hard lock down. Many places in Europe and Asia did proper hard lock downs.
But Florida's lockdown was softer than most.

Meanwhile, you contradict yourself further -- You say most of the spread is happening in South Florida. Then you say people in South Florida are following the rules. And then you say that the spread is NOT happening where people are following the rules. So which is it? The spread is in South Florida, or not? South Florida is following the rules, or not?

But here is the point --more restrictive rules do work. They need to remain in place for long enough to smash the virus, and then slowly loosened to the point where the virus can still be contained.
No surprise that denser urban areas that had more early spread, still have a disproportionate share of the virus. But the doubling times show where it is growing fastest -- And it is growing fastest in the places that had the least restrictions (whether mandatory or voluntary).

The spread is happening in private settings and households not at businesses which are following the rules. It also can/did happen at businesses (especially bars) which were not following the rules. The vast majority of businesses in South Florida are following the rules.

If more restrictive rules worked then South Florida should be doing better than the parts of Florida with less restrictions. South Florida has always been the most restrictive and had the worst outbreak.

Putting in hard lockdowns for longer does not "smash" the virus. All of the places in Europe and the US that had more severe restrictions came down to a steady state and report several hundred cases per day consistently.

As one example, Spain had a true hard lockdown. After reaching a stead state in the mid 300s of new cases per day, an increase began in the beginning of July and the seven day moving average is now 1437.

There is no evidence that severe hard lockdowns lead to less cases in total. They certainly "flatten the curve" and suppress spikes but they absolutely do not eliminate the virus. Even in the model of response and mask compliance, South Korea, the current seven day moving average is at 7.3% of the peak and is pretty much flat and constant.

The only way to eliminate this virus with isolation and quarantines would be a literal shut down of the world for 6-8 week where nobody could leave their house for any reason. Not food, not medical care, nothing. No essential business or government operations. When you have a virus that can spread asymptomatically you can not eliminate it with these methods.

 

[legwand77]

You just, quite unintentionally, proved my point. You say businesses in Broward have been following the rules...
In a hard lockdown, businesses are closed, period. Only the absolute most essential businesses are open. Florida isn't alone -- no state did a true hard lock down. Many places in Europe and Asia did proper hard lock downs.
But Florida's lockdown was softer than most.

Meanwhile, you contradict yourself further -- You say most of the spread is happening in South Florida. Then you say people in South Florida are following the rules. And then you say that the spread is NOT happening where people are following the rules. So which is it? The spread is in South Florida, or not? South Florida is following the rules, or not?

But here is the point --more restrictive rules do work. They need to remain in place for long enough to smash the virus, and then slowly loosened to the point where the virus can still be contained.
No surprise that denser urban areas that had more early spread, still have a disproportionate share of the virus. But the doubling times show where it is growing fastest -- And it is growing fastest in the places that had the least restrictions (whether mandatory or voluntary).

Guess you missed this worldwide study that was linked earlier that says lockdowns are not that much of a factor at all
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext

 

[Heppenheimer]

Guess you missed this worldwide study that was linked earlier that says lockdowns are not that much of a factor at all
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext

Did you read the study?

Quoted directly from the discussion section:

"Similarly, the number of days to any border closure was associated with the number of cases per million (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). This suggests that full lockdowns and early border closures may lessen the peak of transmission, and thus prevent health system overcapacity, which would facilitate increased recovery rates. "

 

[Miss Bella]

Yes, I understand that and should have asked for the partial refund earlier. (I guess it's too late now) We thought it would be ok to just move our vacation to August, but we do not feel that it's safe yet, so we will just let our AP's expire and move on.

I hope you got enough trips out of them to break even. I always figure I need two trips to break even and anything over that I'm going for free.

 

[Miss Bella]

Do you live in one of these counties? I live in Broward. The restrictions in place back in late March and April were very restrictive. Mask compliance at every business I've been to since the requirement was put in place has been as close to 100% as possible.

Case doubling rates are a fun fact but I'm looking at the share of total cases vs. the percent of population that lives there. Miami-Dade is consistently around 25% or more of the daily cases while representing under 13% of the population.

The point stands that the most restrictive counties in the state that waited the longest for any kind of reopening have the most disproportionate share of cases now. What it shows is that there are countless other variables at play and just adding restrictions or mask mandates doesn't predict success in reducing the number of cases.

The spread is not happening where people are following the rules. It is happening where they aren't. Further restricting businesses that are following the rules will not do anything.

Just out of interest are there low-income areas with multigenerational housing and high population density? Are there pockets of neighborhoods with a lot of community spread?

 

[havoc315]

The spread is happening in private settings and households not at businesses which are following the rules. It also can/did happen at businesses (especially bars) which were not following the rules. The vast majority of businesses in South Florida are following the rules.

If more restrictive rules worked then South Florida should be doing better than the parts of Florida with less restrictions. South Florida has always been the most restrictive and had the worst outbreak.

Putting in hard lockdowns for longer does not "smash" the virus. All of the places in Europe and the US that had more severe restrictions came down to a steady state and report several hundred cases per day consistently.

You're missing the point of a lockdown. It's not solely a question of whether virus is spreading inside the doors of the business. It's about whether the virus is spreading in the Uber on the way to the business. It's about whether people are congregating outside the business. It's about whether employees have to take mass transit or carpool to get to work at the business, during which time virus spreads.

And yes, the hard lock downs do smash the virus. "Several hundred cases per day" in places with populations in the tens of millions -- that is indeed smashed. France, for example, when from over 4,000 cases per day... Over the last 2 months, down to 400-600 cases per day. The population of France is 3 times the population of Florida -- So that would be the equivalent of Florida having only 100-200 cases per day, as opposed to 10,000 per day. Yes, I'd say 95-99% fewer daily cases is smashed.

As one example, Spain had a true hard lockdown. After reaching a stead state in the mid 300s of new cases per day, an increase began in the beginning of July and the seven day moving average is now 1437.

Yes, let's use Spain as an example. Perfect.
Population of Spain -- 47 million.
Population of Florida -- 21.5 million.

Spain case peak: About 7,800 Florida peak-- unknown at this time, but maybe about 11,000
Spain 7 day average through June -- About 350 cases.
Now in July, a couple months after the end of the lockdown, cases are starting to rise again -- They are back up to about 1400.
Current in Florida -- 11,000 on average.
So... population of 47 million -- 2-3 months after end of a hard lock down, only 1400 cases.
Florida, population of 21 million, 2-3 months after end of a very soft lock down, 11,000 cases.

So Florida has about 20x more daily cases on a population-adjusted basis.

There is no evidence that severe hard lockdowns lead to less cases in total. They certainly "flatten the curve" and suppress spikes but they absolutely do not eliminate the virus. Even in the model of response and mask compliance, South Korea, the current seven day moving average is at 7.3% of the peak and is pretty much flat and constant.

You're missing the whole point --- So you're saying, there is no difference between 500 cases and 10,000 cases. No difference between 300,000 deaths and 3,000 deaths??

As you just said -- Lockdowns suppress spikes --- So if you suppress the spikes and keep them low enough, while you develop improved treatments and vaccines -- you save lives!!!!! Hundreds of thousands of lives!!!

You're saying that since a lockdown would only save 90% of the potential lost lives, since 10% of the deaths may still occur... we might as well just give up and let everyone die??

The only way to eliminate this virus with isolation and quarantines would be a literal shut down of the world for 6-8 week where nobody could leave their house for any reason. Not food, not medical care, nothing. No essential business or government operations. When you have a virus that can spread asymptomatically you can not eliminate it with these methods.

There you go again. Since it's not practical to eliminate 100% of the virus, we shouldn't even bother taking steps that can eliminate 90% of it????

 

[oceanbreeze77]

173 reported deaths today. 173. that is awful. absolutely awful.

 

[havoc315]

Did you read the study?

Quoted directly from the discussion section:

"Similarly, the number of days to any border closure was associated with the number of cases per million (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). This suggests that full lockdowns and early border closures may lessen the peak of transmission, and thus prevent health system overcapacity, which would facilitate increased recovery rates. "

It's important to note the limitations of any study. We are so early into this pandemic, it's very hard to get a full statistical picture.
The statistics in this study -- are the stats as of May 1st. In other words, it doesn't include more than half the cases and deaths that have occurred worldwide.

That's not to say the findings are significant. If anything though, they are very preliminary. They don't offer definitive conclusions about what does or doesn't work. More, just between January and May, what factors were MOST significant in determining mortality. Now, many countries in Europe were at their peak at the time of the statistical data. So the data does not actually measure the EFFECT of their lockdowns.

What the study found-- between January and May, fast border closures, obesity, and other factors were more predictive of morality than lockdowns. But that lockdowns do definitely play an effect in lessening peaks/spikes. And now let's apply some common sense -- If you avoid peaks, keep the cases low... while you improve treatments and develop vaccines, then in the long term you significantly reduce mortality.

 

[Parker in NYC]

173 reported deaths today. 173. that is awful. absolutely awful.

And it angers me to no end. Full-throttle anger.

 

[JoeCamel]

You're saying that since a lockdown would only save 90% of the potential lost lives, since 10% of the deaths may still occur... we might as well just give up and let everyone die??

There you go again. Since it's not practical to eliminate 100% of the virus, we shouldn't even bother taking steps that can eliminate 90% of it????

Baby and bathwater?

 

[havoc315]

173 reported deaths today. 173. that is awful. absolutely awful.

Ahh the shifting goal posts. Just 3 weeks ago, in this very thread, I was being told Covid isn't a major issue because deaths were still only 30-40 per day. I was dismissed by some when I said deaths would quickly rise to over 100 per day.

Now the new goal posts are people who don't think 173 deaths are significant.

 

[Parker in NYC]

Ahh the shifting goal posts. Just 3 weeks ago, in this very thread, I was being told Covid isn't a major issue because deaths were still only 30-40 per day. I was dismissed by some when I said deaths would quickly rise to over 100 per day.

Now the new goal posts are people who don't think 173 deaths are significant.

You should see what they said to me here back in February! 5 months of continued stupidity indicates that things aren't getting better any time soon.

 

[oceanbreeze77]

Ahh the shifting goal posts. Just 3 weeks ago, in this very thread, I was being told Covid isn't a major issue because deaths were still only 30-40 per day. I was dismissed by some when I said deaths would quickly rise to over 100 per day.

Now the new goal posts are people who don't think 173 deaths are significant.

I just dont understand the lack of empathy that some display.