Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

Posted | Contributed by Tekwardo

Shanghai Disneyland will close its gates on Saturday in an effort to stop the spread of a new SARS-like virus that has killed 26 people and sickened at least 881, primarily in China. It’s not known when the theme park may reopen.

Read more from Gizmodo.

Related parks

ApolloAndy's avatar

Lord Gonchar said:

Beats, "Everyone who doesn't do what I do is wrong and it frustrates me that I can't control it and they don't understand how misguided and dangerous they are" an equal amount of useless times. (that's a paraphrase of things)

Demonstrably wrong.
(I hope the sarcasm is obvious, but Coasterbuzz.)


Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

Everyone who doesn't do what I do is wrong and it frustrates me that I can't control it and they don't understand how misguided and dangerous they are"…

There’s ALWAYS a right and “demonstrably” wrong…regardless of context…and lucky for me those people, who don’t think and do as I say, are “demonstrably” wrong.

(I hope the sarcasm is obvious…)

On a more serious and ‘on topic’ note. After watching that presser…

Seems like a “highly transmissible virus that results in very mild symptoms”competing with Delta would be a good thing, right? Wrong?

Lord Gonchar's avatar

The first Omicron case has been detected in the U.S.

Good thing we put those travel bans in place.

Last edited by Lord Gonchar,
ApolloAndy's avatar

Aamilj said:

Seems like a “highly transmissible virus that results in very mild symptoms”competing with Delta would be a good thing, right? Wrong?

I'm not a virologist, but off the cuff it seems like it would be a good thing if they're similar enough to share immunity. At that point, isn't it basically a transmissible vaccine? (There's an idea that would almost certainly backfire). If not, then it's just another threat (albeit small) added on top of the existing threat.

I've been mulling over the idea of viruses become more transmissible and less virulent over time by nature. Wouldn't that suggest that there shouldn't be any parasites or any predators anywhere by the same logic? Genuinely curious.

Last edited by ApolloAndy,

Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

Lord Gonchar's avatar

Also not a virologist. In the very most basic sense...

I think the general idea is that anything that kills its host cannot survive. The second you cross that line to not killing, you're dialing in the sweet spot.

Even if that's not correct, we observe it. It a demonstrable truth.

Last edited by Lord Gonchar,
Jeff's avatar

Lord Gonchar said:

Good thing we put those travel bans in place.

The point of travel restrictions is not to prevent all transmission, it's to buy time by reducing it.


Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Phrazy

ApolloAndy's avatar

It's not clear to me that these travel bans will do that at all. They MAY save us a few days (exponential growth and all) if South Africa even has a higher prevalence than Europe or Israel or wherever else the variants are found, but even that seems questionable. However, it is clear to me that it will punish the countries that study and share information about new variants. Especially those with brown people.

Last edited by ApolloAndy,

Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

Lord Gonchar's avatar

So which is it?

Reducing Transmission > Punishing Brown People

or

Punishing Brown People > Reducing Transmission

Which leads to my next question.

Is "Punishing Brown People > Rip Ride Rockit" an offensive punchline?


I'm not a virologist, but off the cuff it seems like it would be a good thing if they're similar enough to share immunity. At that point, isn't it basically a transmissible vaccine? (There's an idea that would almost certainly backfire). If not, then it's just another threat (albeit small) added on top of the existing threat.

You have very sound intuition in identifying scientific debate. I actually have a biology degree with a minor in epidemiology/chemistry…but admittedly don’t work directly in the field and had “Degree OCD” in my twenties before I prioritized making money.

It seems the key question would be can there be concurrent infection…? Can you have Delta and Omicron at the SAME time. Obviously bad… Probably doubtful…

Or would we have viral competition like we seemed to have had with the flu…? Certainly seems possible.

I've been mulling over the idea of viruses become more transmissible and less virulent over time by nature. Wouldn't that suggest that there shouldn't be any parasites or any predators anywhere by the same logic? Genuinely curious.

We’re back to Theobald Smith’s “Law of Declining Virulence.” He mostly (only?) worked with bacteria from what I recall. If you accept his theory…there should not be many “harmful” predatory viruses/bacteria given enough time…and without interference.

I think the general idea is that anything that kills its host cannot survive. The second you cross that line to not killing, you're dialing in the sweet spot.

That is a very nice summation of “declining virulence.”

A reporter actually asked Fauci about the possibility of Omicron running positive interference for Delta today. Fauci shot the question down. It is probably pragmatic at this point. Plus, in my opinion, he’s more politician than scientist anyhow… But there is no doubt that smarter scientists will quickly explore the possibility that Omicron is “good.”

On an unrelated note…but on topic. Media out of Israel were reporting yesterday (preliminary findings) that the vaccines were up to 90% effective for Omicron versus something like 95% for Delta. So it initially appears that there is still good protection to be had there. I’ve not seen anything new today though…

Here is that article out of Israel I referred to above…remember it is preliminary…and I don’t vouch for the source. But it seems with WHO’s announcement and this source…we are starting to see a pattern of folks claiming the vaccines INDEED still work for Omicron.

“Later in the evening, a report by Channel 12 said the Pfizer vaccine is just slightly less effective in preventing infection with Omicron than with Delta – 90% as opposed to 95% – while it is as effective – around 93% – in preventing serious symptoms at least for those vaccinated with a booster.”

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/coronavirus/covid-1st-data-about-vaccine-efficacy-against-omicron-expected-tuesday-687392

If they were convinced that the current boosters are effective against Omicron I don't think we would be hearing the chatter about "100 days to produce a 4th booster".

To Gonch's earlier point about the variant now being identified in California...after the lockdown occurred...I'd simply suggest the variant was already here before the lockdown. The original virus was certainly in the US before it was picked up out in the Northwest.

Back to the racist undertones of the lockdowns this is one area where I will somewhat come to the defense of the Trump administration. They weren't wrong in trying to lock it down via the China embargo...but Trump certainly opened himself up to the racism criticism with the way he talked insensitively about it. That was more of a PR disaster than a policy disaster.

Jeff's avatar

The California case was attributed to travel, not community infection.

Gonch: It can be both, right? I mean, you're the king of gray area.


Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Phrazy

wahoo skipper said:

If they were convinced that the current boosters are effective against Omicron I don't think we would be hearing the chatter about "100 days to produce a 4th booster".

Without testing and data how do they know what the current vaccine can handle in regards to Omicron? It may turn out to indeed be true that a specific booster is needed, but the quickness with which Pfizer and Moderna (specifically their CEO) said that something else will be needed seemed like a quick way to create demand and boost the stock price.

Lord Gonchar's avatar

Jeff said:

Gonch: It can be both, right? I mean, you're the king of gray area.

Or neither.


ApolloAndy's avatar

Or Maverick.


Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

Last edited by BrettV,

ApolloAndy said:

I've been mulling over the idea of viruses become more transmissible and less virulent over time by nature. Wouldn't that suggest that there shouldn't be any parasites or any predators anywhere by the same logic? Genuinely curious.

This is something that I am curious about as well. For the sake of easy numbers, say 1% of the people who catch COVID die of it, only after the virus has had plenty of time to multiply and spread. I don't see how this would provide any pressure on the disease to become less deadly to its host. This isn't to say that it doesn't happen, I just don't quite understand how that is supposed to happen.

OhioStater's avatar

I don't think comparing a virus and the way it mutates (and the end result) to predators and parasites (and their behaviors and subsequent end result) is a discussion that can go very far. Viruses aren't even technically "living things". A predator is, and has (to some degree) a conscious thought to change its behavior, and could survive on other things if it had to. A parasite forms a symbiotic relationship with its host.

A virus is a mindless protein that just is, and replicates itself. Get enough replications and you get a mutation. Get enough mutations and you get a variant. Get a variant that starts doing different crap (like, 100% immunity to a vaccine) and you got a new strain. Thankfully so far we have just had variants.

Does it change and adapt? Sure. But it's not "trying". Makes for a good cartoon and an easy explanation, I suppose, but it's not like there is a group meeting inside a host where the virus talks about the best ways to adapt the spike protein before a change is made. The changes that "work" keep going and the ones that don't...well...don't.

If we end up with a "successful" mutation that spreads really rapidly but for whatever reason doesn't cause severe symptoms there is a scientific word for that:

Luck.

Last edited by OhioStater,

Promoter of fog.

From what I have seen, the virus getting less dangerous over time is viewed as plausible but not certain. And time it would take is likely more long term than short term.

Jeff's avatar

There's still a process of natural selection though. It stands to reason that a virus over time becomes less deadly and more transmissible. On the flip side, humans more resistant to it survive more (though this happens far more slowly since it takes decades for generations to pass, not hours). Mutations that do the opposite are less likely to spread. This is why, for example, Ebola is relatively contained. It kills about half of its hosts and can only be transmitted via bodily fluids, which is inefficient.


Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Phrazy

Closed topic.

POP Forums - ©2022, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...