Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

Lord Gonchar said:

So when is the risk acceptable?

R0<1 ?

Yeah, I may have asked the wrong question. (although I appreciate the terrific answers)

What I should have asked was how long do we go until we accept that collectively we're not reaching the finish line and move to the "It's on you now, let the dry humping commence!" phase?

As far as obligation? Slider. It's not a one way street. At some point, I don't change my life where your concern begins.

For me, that's a short "safe period" after everyone has access to the vaccine.

There is a difference between sterilizing immunity and effective immunity.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/covid-19-vaccines-and-sterilizing-im...ty-5092148

Exemptions policies for vaccines vary by state. Some allow for only medical exemptions. Others religious. And still others religious and personal.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/vaccine-exempti...state.html

ApolloAndy said:
R0<1 ?

That number by itself isn't entirely meaningful though, right? If 10 in 100 people are infected, then a 0.9 still means 9 out of the next 100. If the number stays below 1 and the daily infection count is below [some meaningful point where community spread is "unlikely"], then we're getting somewhere.

Anecdotally, even among friends, it seems like when it's getting to the worst point, people are getting more apathetic. I mean, I get why someone wants to go to restaurant right now (they'll gladly offer takeout!), but it's literally the worst time since the pandemic started. I don't think the concern about refrigerated trucks and crying nurses is hyperbole right now, I think it's something we should react to. I'm not saying people should not leave the house, but if everyone can avoid going into places for two weeks, whenever possible, it would certainly help.

Here's a recap of 'Merica's big box of fail: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/us/covid-deaths-2020.html

I can't find the thread on current park experiences (and I tried searching!) but I've spent the morning at Animal Kingdom. Disney seems to be taking things as seriously as they have been since reopening. Everest is now loading every row, and Dinosaur is using plexiglass barriers to allow use of all rows. Despite a posted wait of 45 minutes I was on Kilimanjaro Safaris in about 15, and Everest took 10 minutes. Easily a first for the normally busy MLK holiday.

This is behind a paywall, but linking in the event you have a New York Times account.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/18/briefing/donald-trump-pardon-phi...eaths.html

The gist of the article is our public health officials are dramatically underselling the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine in the hopes that individuals who are vaccinated don't act invincible and continue wearing a mask, physically distancing, etc. over the next 6 months as we vaccinate the general public. It was compared to the public health officials downplaying the effectiveness of masks early in the pandemic so as to avoid a run on medical PPE by the general public and while their heart was in the right place, ended up being the wrong approach.

The medical officials in the reporting argue "the vaccines are essentially 100 percent effective against serious disease... it's ridiculously encouraging". Out of the tens of thousands of individuals in the trials with both Pfizer and Moderna..... there was exactly one individual who contracted a serious illness from COVID-19. Literally one. The 95% effectiveness that is being published comes from the fact there is a small risk of contracting COVID-19 even after vaccination and the studies treat anyone who comes down with even a mild case of COVID-19 as a failure.... but you have essentially no risk of serious disease or death.

They also addressed the theory you could still spread COVID-19 even after being vaccinated... while admitted we don't have any rigorous study yet to prove you can't spread it, the scientists interviewed said they'd be shocked if you could... and indicated they couldn't think of another vaccine that is in widespread use that only prevents disease but not infection.

Great article worth the read

Anyone else see the danger in putting the number of National Guard inside the Capitol during a pandemic?

Equally weird that there are 10 times the amount of troops there than in Afghanistan.

I'm not at all surprised that they're underselling it. If people have demonstrated anything, it's that they'll use whatever excuse they can to justify reckless behavior, not the least of which is governors opening things sooner than the experts wanted. But yeah, I'm not sure what to do with that mistrust, because it can certainly go both ways, and that's destructive in a world where everyone believes their opinions and Google-foo basically make them Nobel scientists.

The article is literally about how "the experts" misinform us.

I have to laugh at how many arguments took place in this thread based on that misinformation.

That sure is oversimplifying it. Compared to what? Politicians who insisted it would just disappear on its own?

Saying it’s 95% effective is misleading? Explaining the nuances of the results doesn’t fit into a 30 second news clip.

"The idea that we have a 94.5 percent effective vaccine is stunningly impressive. It is really a spectacular result that I don't think anybody had anticipated would be this good,"

Jeff said:

Compared to what?

Umm, accurate information.

Jeff said:

That sure is oversimplifying it. Compared to what? Politicians who insisted it would just disappear on its own?

You mean the same politician who was mocked for saying a vaccine would be ready through Operation Warp Speed in record time?(which it was) That one?

You have an incomplete memory, and you're fairly insane if you think that Trump had anything to do with the delivery of any vaccine. You can't pretend the disease is not a threat, deny science, then take credit for a vaccine. He's not a scientist, and he denies the validity of science. And simple math. He lost.

Trust in institutions has been and continues to be significantly eroded, so it seems misguided and short-sighted to once again try to manipulate public behavior by obfuscating the truth. People that are going to put their own spin on anything you say anyway likely can't be reached, so why not adopt a policy of full honesty and transparency so that you can at least avoid alienating those of us that are reasonable and just want the truth?

Even though there appeared to be good intentions behind the early lie about masks, how much damage did that end up doing?

I will give the PINO credit for implementing Warp Speed, shoveling money at it, and staying out of the way. Legitimately! Staying out of the way is something leaders are often not good at.

That said:

• There was no parallel effort on treatments, which might have saved a lot of lives.
• There was clearly no thought at all given to how to distribute a virus once it became available, which has led to the s-show we have now. And which greatly renders Warp Speed pointless.

It's as if the goal was being able to announce a vaccine was developed, as opposed to actually getting people vaccinated and saving lives.

When they talk about the effectivenesss of vaccines, I understood that its how effective with preventing the given virus/illness. At all. Its not just serious cases of it. So when they are saying the vaccines are 95% effective, I do not see that as a misrepresentation.

And no doubt people are going to ditch masks/distancing once they get vaccinated. A lot of people did that without a vaccine. Fatigue is real. So had they said 100% "effective" I do not see that as resulting in an increased number of people abandoning masks/distancing as more so than 95% effective did.

People will tend to find discrepencies if they mistrust the source. Like looking at cloud formations or ink blots. And trust in goverment institutions in general has been on the decline for decades. Internet can help make that worse because it allows like minded people to find each other and spread their particular views to more people.

It’s completely different than the mask statements. Aren’t they being honest? What **** would they be in if they said it was a guarantee you won’t get sick and people did which is very much possible?

I don't have a NYT subscription so I'm only reacting to this:

Chicago07 said:

The gist of the article is our public health officials are dramatically underselling the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine in the hopes that individuals who are vaccinated don't act invincible and continue wearing a mask, physically distancing, etc. over the next 6 months as we vaccinate the general public.

I'll admit that Chicago07's synopsis might be misleading, but assuming it isn't, I interpret that as a) the people in charge b) are not being totally honest c) for the purpose of manipulating public behavior. In that sense, it is very much like the mask statements, even if the particulars are different.

What if stressing how effective the vaccines truly are actually convinces more people to get vaccinated? 1 in 20 presents a different risk calculus than 1 in x1000.