Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About UnorigionalName

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If you read the article they are heavily participating. What they've proposed from the beginning. Usually the way things go is you go through phase i, ii, and iii trials, get approval from all relevant regulators, then start building your factories to ramp up production which takes a few months. The gates foundation from the beginning said there's a lot of smart people already working on dozens of vaccines, so that part is well covered. Let them do their thing. But what we can do is throw huge piles of money and fund useless factories. So the strategy now is as soon as something looks promising in late phase ii or phase iii, like this vaccine or moderna, gates foundation and the US government is funding to pay for factories and hundreds of millions of doses of the vaccine. Knowing full well that most of it might be throwing money away. The thought is if you do that for the first however many dozen vaccines that make it to phase ii until you run out of money, hopefully at least one will work out by the end, and the rest of the money you threw away (on purpose).
  2. did they... just like skip phase ii? How long was their phase i to leapfrog moderna? I was amazed at the proposed Moderna like 1 month phase ii geez.
  3. The CDC already has guidelines for what needs to be done. It's the same game they are playing as with disembarking the employees and the health waivers. There is a way to plan to proceed forward, but the restrictions are too onerous for the cruise lines. They are hoping that with the lock down on the ground ending, that with their mild control measure, the CDC will relax the requirements and they'll be able to have a much lighter plan for when people do get sick. Of course they don't, since it's not true, just wishful thinking.
  4. There's a lot of factors that people forget about other than death rate. Just having to spend 2 weeks in the hospital, even if you have a great survival percentage, is not really something I would look forward to. A lot of people in the middle, like beyond teenage but below 65, while the chance of dying is low, the chance of hospitalization isn't that low. It's more that while you get sick, you can also get better. Like the people surviving off vent and off ecmo are usually the younger patients. But there may turn out to be long term health effects, especially for those that ended up critically ill, even if they survive, like effects of stroke and permanent lung scarring. All things I think people would like to avoid, that adds up to the potential dangers of the disease.
  5. Oh read that wrong, should have included this in original response. Covid deaths are probably being under-reported (see Fauci) Who is Dr. Burkes? can't seem to find what you are referencing. So if you look at the graphs, where are all the excess deaths coming from? The reported COVID deaths don't even account for all the excess deaths. The true COVID deaths are probably ~50% higher than the reported COVID deaths. Heart-attack-patient-not-coming-in-because-of-covid is roughly balanced by decreased murder and traffic accidents last 2 months. That huge spike of unexplained excess deaths, what explanation is there. So no, everyone knows COVID deaths are being UNDER-reported. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/05/us/coronavirus-death-toll-us.html
  6. Yeah, I have no idea what the WHO and CDC is doing anymore. There are easily found articles talking about potential benefits that were neglected to be cited in that review. I don't know why they are cherry picking data. MacIntyre, C. Raina, and Abrar Ahmad Chughtai. "Facemasks for the prevention of infection in healthcare and community settings." Bmj 350 (2015): h694. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2334-12-26 Also, who cares if I'm Christian. You should be more worried about what non-Christians think about the selfishness of so-called Christians. Again, "who is your neighbor" As to your other point though, I don't want to get into debating theology. But If you do I would be gladly willing to chat in messages because that statement is pretty egregious to me.
  7. I think you are thinking of: https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-diy-coronavirus-homemade-mask-material-covid/ While the intent is noble, I am a little amused at all the fervor over home made masks. There is no shortage of surgical masks currently. Surgical masks are superior. The point of homemade masks was to tide you over until you got some surgical masks, or in case surgical masks ran out.
  8. Sigh, the answer is so elementary I always wonder if this line of thought is rhetorical and if I'm wasting my time. It's like saying, if seatbelts work to decrease deaths, why do we need airbags? If airbags work to decrease deaths why do we need seatbelts? ergo, we need neither. The goal is to get R0 < 1, from where it is now, somewhere between 3 and 10. Social distancing alone obviously didn't work, why the disease blew up in march. But maybe it worked a little. Probably if we all lived normal lives, then it would have spread even faster. So the initial social distancing maybe helped a few points like say from 6->5. Lets say shutting down large gatherings and festivals helps a little. Let's say that shutting down other known large areas of transmission helps (work offices, churches, restaurants). Then maybe masks help a little more. The goal is to first to make sure that the number of cases are decreasing, like in NY, where it is rapidly dropping. And then the second question is, are we going to be able to live semi-normal lives before a vaccine? We can't go back to super normal, because that was what it was like when it blew up in march and people wouldn't put up with it. But maybe if everyone wore masks, you can prevent enough spread to say, open up restaurants and and retail stores and keep R0 < 1 still. Wouldn't that be a worthwhile trade? Do masks work? who knows. maybe? The thing is when you are talking about restricting civil liberties, masks is just about the most benign thing possible. If it even has even the slightest chance of saving a few lives, then it is worth it. That's why it is being pushed so hard. It's a lot better than closing businesses. There is too much confusion around masks, which the CDC contributed to greatly. In the early days of the pandemic, there was worry about people stockpiling N95 masks so they wanted to prevent a run on them. There wasn't ever really a significant shortage of surgical masks. Even now it's surprising how many people still confuse n95 and surgical masks. I think there was worry that if they told everyone to wear masks before securing all the supplies of n95, then the few n95's available wouldn't be distributed to those who needed it the most. Now that all the n95s are gone and spoken for, there isn't that worry anymore. Admittedly, there is not much known as to the effects, but to say they are worthless is also premature. If it turns out to be worthless, what did you lose? like $5 and some discomfort? If it turns out to save a couple even dozen lives, I say that that tradeoff was worth it. I also find it pathetic that the demographic of those who don't want to wear masks overlap with those who claim to be Christian. Who is your neighbor? What is loving your neighbor?
  9. Schwartz, Kevin L., et al. "Lack of COVID-19 transmission on an international flight." CMAJ 192.15 (2020): E410-E410. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/15/E410 edit: I'm not trying to say it doesn't happen on planes. It probably does. But given how virulent it seems to be, the assumption was if you were trapped in a tin can with a symptomatic patient, like at least dozens of surrounding people should get infected, but for some reason it's not acting like that. Eldin, Carole, et al. "Probable aircraft transmission of Covid-19 in-flight from the Central African Republic to France." Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease (2020). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7194574/
  10. airlines are high risk in terms of globally spreading a pandemic; that is how it jumps from one continent to another. But low risk on an individual flight perspective for SARS-COV2. Thorough contact tracing has shown that individual air flights and airports are surprisingly low risk. There have been many flights with known even symptomatic COVID patients where no one else on the plane or airport ended up contracting COVID. Everyone assumed airplanes and airports would be huge potential sources of spread, but data does not seem to support it for some reason. Contrast to cruise ships where one positive patient getting off one cruise leads to hundreds positive on next cruise. I don't think any disease has had such intense scrutiny in such a short period. A lot of assumptions are turning out false (like the droplet/aerosol dichotomy) and it's going to be interesting what we learn in the next few years.
  11. RCC is trying to start up cruising before COVID is done with, and they said they envision no buffet for the time being. Every once in a while on cruisecritic people who don't utilize the buffet will post their silly opinion to kill it and replace it with something they like better, like the OP in this thread. Holland America had a run of noro in 2017 and 2018 and killed their buffet. Now it's a cafeteria system.
  12. Why not? If I were living in New Zealand, if my choices are between no air travel and completely open economy and society, vs. air travel and lock downs like the rest of the world, I think I would chose the former. From what I am reading, there seems to be broad support for isolation in new zealand and australia specifically because of their success, and seeing the disaster that is the rest of the world.
  • Create New...