ilikeanswers

1 hour ago, Docker123 said:

Are we in NZ?

Wrong side of the equator

9 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

If we start demanding people change behavior because the behavior poses a miniscule risk to others there would be a lot of things banned before being unvaccinated.  Every time you get in your car you pose a greater risk to others than an un-vaccinated person poses to vaccinated people.

The car analogy is terrible because we do a lot to mitigate risk and change behaviour. We penalise people for driving drunk, we make you get a licence to drive to prove you are qualified to operate said vehicle, we build roads in certain ways to control how people drive their vehicles. We don't just let people to what they want when they drive a car. 

9 hours ago, SelectSys said:

Sorry, I don't buy this statement.  Novel substances and compounds are made in the lab that don't occur in nature.  For many years, scientists have extended the periodic table with elements that don't occur naturally.  More to the point, I'll bet you might have difficulty finding an mRNA vaccine occurring in nature outside the lab.    

You kind of contradicted yourself. You said it is made in the lab. Therefore it is not the source of the chemicals. You look at the definition of source it is where something originates from. An mRNA vaccine is a final product that combines many sources of chemical to create it. Even a synthesised chemical while it is made in a lab needs different chemicals to create it therefore by definition it is not a source product. 

53 minutes ago, Anita Latte said:

direct injection of lab sourced chemicals into your body

Nothing is "lab sourced". The definition of source is where something originates from. Labs can distill, isolate, cultivate etc but they can't source. Nothing originates from a lab, things are brought into labs to be used. In the end everything comes from nature 😉. 

3 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

What you refer to as what was "well established"  by the Middle Ages was actually knowledge held by a very few.  In a world where witchcraft was widely seen as the cause of illness, bad harvests, etc. the sort of awareness which we think of as knowledge was limited to a very small percentage of the population - the educated very few whose life involved more than scratching out a meager existence.

 

The many millions of peasants who, being illiterate, left no hard record of their ignorance -- it was the less than 5% who had the leisure to think who had such understanding --- as well as the ability to leave traces of that understanding.

Churches talked about a global Earth and nearly everyone attended mass back then, public art depicted spherical Earths, illiterate workers in the shipping industry would have been exposed to the idea of a globe. You would have to have lived as hermit in the middle of nowhere to avoid the information. Besides the elite believed in witchcraft along with a spherical Earth so the two can co exist. 

3 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

But I agree with your concern about the growing lunacy among the conspiracy theorists ---- there may, in fact, be substance in the theory that only a finite amount of intelligence was created by the big bang which brought our present universe into being -- meaning that, as world population grows, human intelligence is more thinly distributed.  Fortunately, it is not absolutely equally distributed.

You are assuming conspiracy theories have anything to do with intelligence when usually it is about having a sense of control and elitism. Being a person who knows something no one else understands and having a theory you can bend to your will. It is addictive like gambling or alcohol. Might not be good for you but gives you a great hit of dopamine. 

6 hours ago, SelectSys said:

It does motivate people incredibly well!

If the Ebola vaccine had been completed earlier we could have prevented the outbreak in the Western African nations. Waiting till it is a profitable situation isn't necessarily the right solution for all problems. 

18 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

 After all — the common belief some 529 years ago was that the Earth was flat.  

That is pretty much a myth, by Middle Ages it was well established the Earth was spherical. The fact that in our present day the flat earth theory bacame a growing movement is what makes it a little disturbing😬. But then I suppose it is not much different to the rise of any conspiracy theory movement, like Qanon, it is practically a new religion😳. 

6 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

Why should people be suspicious?  Could it be that the very notion of developing a vaccine this quickly was derided as delusional?  Or that we were being told it would take years to develop a vaccine and that it would take a miracle for it to happen faster?  Or that prominent politicians, including a future VP, were saying they wouldn't take a vaccine developed under the then administration?

When "the science" turns on a dime in lockstep with political developments, people are naturally suspicious.  Look at the 180* turnaround on whether vaccinated people need to wear masks due to "evolving" science.  And how so many "follow the science" folks were outraged by that and vowed to remain masked.

Very little of this has to do with actual science and everything to do with politics.

To be fair as I pointed out it takes a certain set of conditions to fast track vaccine development so I think it was fair caution to tell the public not to get too excited about a vaccine. Even I was skeptical cause if you look at the more recent history of vaccine development so easily does the research get dropped🙄. Even during the Ebola epidemic it took lots of political pressure to get pharmaceutical companies to complete the development of the vaccine. A pandemic is a unique situation that no politician in the developed world would have any experience and in the less developed those politicians know how difficult it can be to get pharmaceutical companies to assist in an epidemic and at the beginning of the pandemic apart from Moderna most pharmaceutical companies weren't really jumping at the chance to make a Covid-19 vaccine. In my opinion the scepticism was warranted. 

9 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

No, this one was different: After MERS and SARS, researchers figured out how to use genetic sequencing to develop vaccines differently and had discovered a way to apply that in a genetic technique, and they were able to "plug in" the Covid genetic data into that model. Previously, vax development involved use of living or dead viruses to trigger immune responses, and getting that correct took years. (This is a ridiculously paraphrased version of the process!  The "Are vaccines the light at the end of the tunnel?" thread in the Celebrity forum has hundreds or more posts explaining it written by experts.)

I would disagree. The Ebola vaccine could have been created 20 years ago but there was no sense of urgency so funding was cut. The same can be said about SARS and MERS, so many vaccines were in developement some already up to human trials and when the problem went away the funding also got cut. The mRNA techonolgy has been in development since the 90s, Katalin Karikó who discovered the technology could barely get grants to cover her research and Moderna spent years just raising money. This vaccine is really the first product the have created. It is the same problem with antibiotics, the money in that industry has dropped so significantly that the last time we had a new class of antibiotics was in the 80s. To me there is no denying that when the money starts rolling in and people take serious interest everything moves a lot faster.

Lets try this one:

1 hour ago, By The Bay said:

Thanks for the explanation. Have the legislators ever sought to have Alaska removed from the exemption?

You don't exempt Alaska you have to exempt the individual ships. Apparently it has only happened once during WWII and IIRC it was because there was a need to get certain supplies somewhere. The PVSA isn't a cruise ship legislation, it affects all ships that carry passengers including ferries that is why exemptions are so difficult to gain. 

1 hour ago, mayleeman said:

 

I can't think of anything better for us than to have Pfizer and other companies having these new vaccine technologies available to use, as they were for the Covid vax, in months rather than the years-to-decades development pace in the past.

 

There are an estimated 3 billion viruses we haven't a clue about. I am glad Big Pharma has a huge incentive to anticipate the plagues of the future. I just wish they could do the same to develop non-resistant antibiotics--or maybe the govt contracts buying vaxxes could stipulate a few billion for that research?

The sad fact is what everyone is suspicious off a vaccine that is developed in months opposed to years has always been possible but the reality is the will is normally not there. It would be nice if we could do this without a pandemic but I suspect it will just go back to business as normal. This is something we should be celebrating but instead you have all these people trying to tear it down😔. 

Hubbard Glacier? 

3 minutes ago, Blackduck59 said:

I'm not sure why I responded to this.

Here is a new photo

Are in Alaska? 

3 hours ago, Tranquility Base said:

Their vaccination program is planned to take 6-8 weeks.

Does that mean everyone who wants one with both shots or is that everyone will get their first shot in 6-8 weeks? 

3 hours ago, 1980dory said:

Ilike:

There is a big difference in facts and opinions.  Many on CC do not understand this and often present their opinions as being facts with no statistical or scientific evidence to 

prove their point.

I could contradict

 Opinions do not create facts.  Only scientific research, statistics, etc. create facts no matter how many believe otherwise.  Your opinions on how it is here half a world away, are based at least in part on the opinions of others in another country (UK).  And I'm sure you could find many Americans who would also support your opinion.

I have no desire to argue on this forum and so will not provide a rebuttal to your opinions. Just please be aware that there is a tremendous distinction between an opinion and a fact.

FWIW:  I do like Aussies very much.  All I have met have been friendly, gregarious,

helpful, considerate, etc.  You included!   G'Day Mate.

To be honest I am completely confused as to what you are talking about😳. I was never trying to pass off opinions as fact but there are many things I have learnt from posters on this site from all around the world 🤗and I happen to participate in a travel insurance thread where Americans posters started discussing the pros and cons of travel insurance, it got quite in depth and who knew travel insurance could be so fascinating😜? They helped me realise travel insurance is very different on your side of the world enough so that I could understand the arguments against it. I thought since someone brought it up it might be relevant to point out those arguments. It wasn't supposed to offend and to be honest I didn't think the cost and coverage of travel insurance was a controversial thing to raise, it certainly wasn't considered controversial on the travel insurance thread 😂. I can't promise I won't put my foot in it again but I'll try to be more aware that I'm making it clear what is opinion and fact🤗 as it seems I have obviously caused great confusion so my delivery definitely needs work 😉. 

Are we in Chile? 

24 minutes ago, onlyslightlymad said:

Um, no.  I have no interest in surrounding myself with sycophants, but if I have made the effort to put on glad rags and go to a party while on my holiday, then I don't appreciate being treated with contempt.  I can get that at home and it's cheaper.

Fair enough. I have never been to a suite party so I don't really know what effort is involved. Then again he might have had a really bad day and just found the atmosphere of the party too jovial for his mood. Like I said I'm a little too forgiving, it is a force of habit I'm always thinking there could be a story behind everything🤗. 

4 minutes ago, 1980dory said:

Thank you for your opinion.

Your welcome😳? It feels I must have offended you. I don't know what the misunderstanding is but I certainly wasn't trying to offend 🤗. 

Are we in Norway? 

2 hours ago, 1980dory said:

Your comments about our travel insurance based on your CC authorities statements is quite telling too, just ..."to be fair".

There was a particular thread that was discussing travel insurance and lot of of USA posters were listing the cost of their insurance and especially the medical coverage and even after currency conversion comparing the insurance in Australia to me our coverage is much better. Even UK posters weighed in and their deals were much better I thought. 

3 hours ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

We did have one surly assistant waiter on one cruise. Even the main waiter was getting annoyed with him. But that was only 1 in 15 cruises. 

I guess I don't know what surly means😳. Was the waiter rude? Didn't deliver the food. 

1 hour ago, Chiliburn said:

If you are referring to my claims about Pride of America.

The people I where talking to where Australian.

And Pride of America is a ship that has American crew that is Unionised.

I believe it sails around the Hawaiian islands and that’s why it has the Americans to satisfy immigration laws.

 

So I’m told.

Maybe I'm just more forgiving😂, though I'm curious about this union, I thought the service staff on ships had no union only the actual ship crew were unionised🤔. I think I even read that here on CC. 

1 hour ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

On one cruise in Traditional Dining the assistant waiter would spend ages talking to one table near the window as people arrive in his section instead of handing out menus, taking orders for drinks, and serving water. Not just once but several times on that cruise.

 

On another cruise bar staff spent more time talking at the bar than taking orders or serving drinks. Not just once but almost every night.

 

On one cruise our cabin steward missed servicing our cabin in the morning about three times.

 

These are isolated cases and usually not worth worrying about however one of those incidents I mentioned was one of the factors in us deciding not to book another cruise with that line for a while.

That's fair enough. I'm just a little sceptical of claims that one cruise ship has consistently bad service especially when the complaints are from Americans. If it is so bad why is it still in business? Cruising is a highly competitive industry, you would think something so badly run would be weeded out. My experience Americans have very different expectation of service compared to the rest of world so a vague complaint like surly food service makes me wonder if it something valid like your experiences or that they didn't display enough enthusiasm. 

4 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

I haven’t been on the pride of America but from talking to people it’s all of the above.

Waiting at the bar for 10 minutes while the server is doing a crossword.

Your cabin isn’t attended to.

Surly food service.

One person told me about the suite party where the American captain and his staff come in walked around the room and announced he wouldn’t be bothered and had better things to do.

Its the Union Labour.

I have heard complaints like that with every cruise line. Though do people really care about staff attending some party? For me that is a pretty petty complaint😕. Again the surly food service sounds like the typical American complaint of not enough smiling 😂. If service was so consistently terrible would it still be operating🤔? I can't help feeling some of these complaints are people just use to overly eager service and anything less of the you're my best friend act is already considered terrible😜. 

16 minutes ago, Chiliburn said:

I think you’re missed my point.

If we have Australian crew cleaning and serving for low rates on our ships here .The service wouldn’t be as good as people from developing countries.

That is the experience of people I’ve talked to about the ship Pride of America as a example.Not on land.

But what does that mean not as good? That they don't smile enough or your food never makes it to the table?