Changes in Onboard Behavior & Procedures after Cruises restart sailing again...

[Toofarfromthesea]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Interesting statement of “fact”.

 

I was not aware that a vaccine cannot grant immunity if previous infection failed to do so.   Lots of people seem to avoid the flu by getting vaccine - where simply having experienced flu in the past would not have do protected them.

 

Where did you study epidemiology

 

Because flu strains mutate promiscuously and the vaccine covers the strains they expect for the season.  Someone who had a particular strain of the flu last year would, of course, have no immunity to different strains of the flu that this year's vaccine covers.  These mutations are also why the flu vaccine is only about 50% effective.

Where did you?

[navybankerteacher]

18 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Because flu strains mutate promiscuously and the vaccine covers the strains they expect for the season.  Someone who had a particular strain of the flu last year would, of course, have no immunity to different strains of the flu that this year's vaccine covers.  These mutations are also why the flu vaccine is only about 50% effective.

Where did you?

I have read that considerably fewer than 20% of people who have received flu vaccine in recent years wound up with the flu - so it is difficult to understand a claim that the flu vaccine is only about 50% effective. In my personal case, I have never suffered from the flu since regularly getting the vaccine:  hardly scientific but an apparent personal effectiveness rate of well over 50%.

 

I never did study epidemiology - but then I do not make statements which suggest expertise in the field.

[cruisemom42]

3 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Because flu strains mutate promiscuously and the vaccine covers the strains they expect for the season.  Someone who had a particular strain of the flu last year would, of course, have no immunity to different strains of the flu that this year's vaccine covers.  These mutations are also why the flu vaccine is only about 50% effective.
 

 

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I have read that considerably fewer than 20% of people who have received flu vaccine in recent years wound up with the flu - so it is difficult to understand a claim that the flu vaccine is only about 50% effective.

 

You are both partly correct.

 

Yes, flu strains mutate rapidly -- however, the annual mutation often is not so different from the previous year's version(s) that your immunity from the previous year, whether via actually having the flu or via the vaccine -- often provides protection (or at least limits severity).

 

As to how effectiveness is calculated -- it is very complex and takes into account a lot of variables. Usually our figures come from observational studies, which have certain limitations compared with a controlled trial where all (or most) variables can be controlled for.  And remember: efficacy and effectiveness are different. Thanks to the good ol' CDC there's a good explanation here:  https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectivenessqa.htm

[chipmaster]

8 hours ago, SRF said:

 

Actually they are close with a vaccine.  But, as you state, clinical trials will take a while.  The FDA MIGHT allow production of the vaccine prior to completion of clinical trails (but not release it) to reduce the time it takes until it is available.

 

The point is, if the vaccine is readily available, and everyone who wants it can get it, then there is no reason to require it.  Just like either measles vaccination or proof of having had measles is not required. Or many other diseases that have vaccines available.

 

Can't wait to see the circus with this one, release with limited efficacy and no longterm statistical relevant study of short or longterm downside, LOL 

 

I can't wait to see a study with 10,000 who take it ( no SARs-CoV-2 exposed ) and another 10,000 also (  no SARs-CoV-2 exposed ) and the results, even 1000.  May those brave 1000 please step up!!   

[AF-1]

This thread is interesting.  We shall see what the scientists come up with; and see how everything shakes out.

[SRF]

21 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

We can all talk theory until the cows come home but unless you are leader of a country I don't think it is up to you😂. The whole argument is moot because at the end of the day we have no say in what bio secrurity requirements they will choose to implement in the future, just like we have no say over the security protocols at airports. It does not matter if it is effective, it does not matter about your rights, you just have to put up with it if you want the privilege to travel. As such is life😉.

 

Yes, you have to deal with what ever they come up with.

 

However, at least in the US, your RIGHTS do matter.

 

But my point has been, there is NO REASON for them to require the vaccine.  Just like they don't require measles vaccine.

 

Yes, they COULD do it, and may do it, but it does nothing for them.  Except to make people who do not understand feel better.

 

[SRF]

15 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

Can't wait to see the circus with this one, release with limited efficacy and no longterm statistical relevant study of short or longterm downside, LOL 

 

I can't wait to see a study with 10,000 who take it ( no SARs-CoV-2 exposed ) and another 10,000 also (  no SARs-CoV-2 exposed ) and the results, even 1000.  May those brave 1000 please step up!!   

 

Did you read what I said????
 

It will not be released until it meets the standards.

 

But in the past, the companies could not start production until trials were completed.  That means a 3 - 6 month delay, after the trials, to produce the vaccine before it is available.

 

This time, they are allowing production, to shorten the time to it actually being available.  The companies are taking the risk that there is some problem and the vaccine they produced will have to be scrapped.  

 

As for those 1000 people, that is easy.  More than that will step up for the trials.  Or, if as you think will happen, NONE are willing to try it, then there are no trials, and no approval of the vaccine.

[SRF]

21 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Interesting statement of “fact”.

 

I was not aware that a vaccine cannot grant immunity if previous infection failed to do so.   Lots of people seem to avoid the flu by getting vaccine - where simply having experienced flu in the past would not have do protected them.

 

Where did you study epidemiology

 

Johns Hopkins.  As well as immunology.  Where did you study it????

 

Do you understand the flu?  Influenza virus mutates very quickly.  You have immunity to those strains that you have had before, but that does not mean you have immunity to the strain that is prevalent THIS YEAR.  

 

So you are immune to Flu 111, then this year it is Flu 112, and you are not immune.

 

Vaccines work by inducing the immune system to respond.  In doing so, your immune system will produce antibodies to it.

 

Either way, after exposure, your immunity can be measured by the titre of antibodies in your blood.  

[HxFx]

14 minutes ago, SRF said:

 

Johns Hopkins.  As well as immunology.  Where did you study it????

 

Do you understand the flu?  Influenza virus mutates very quickly.  You have immunity to those strains that you have had before, but that does not mean you have immunity to the strain that is prevalent THIS YEAR.  

 

So you are immune to Flu 111, then this year it is Flu 112, and you are not immune.

 

Vaccines work by inducing the immune system to respond.  In doing so, your immune system will produce antibodies to it.

 

Either way, after exposure, your immunity can be measured by the titre of antibodies in your blood.  

Thanks for the follow up. I wasn't sure if somehow a vaccine would make that immunity stronger vs. from exposure. It makes sense that if exposure to the illness does not give immunity than a vaccine would be more difficult (or impossible?)  We seem to be getting mixed messages regarding COVID and exposure immunity. Regardless, I hope one of these therapeutic efforts currently ongoing will be successful. 

[SRF]

1 minute ago, HxFx said:

Thanks for the follow up. I wasn't sure if somehow a vaccine would make that immunity stronger vs. from exposure. It makes sense that if exposure to the illness does not give immunity than a vaccine would be more difficult (or impossible?)  We seem to be getting mixed messages regarding COVID and exposure immunity. Regardless, I hope one of these therapeutic efforts currently ongoing will be successful. 

 

A lot of the issue is there is not good data.  And it has not been around long enough to develop the data.   Also, I am seeing a lot of things being published without peer review, or with very small data sets.   

 

But, the immune system is responding.  MANY people recover, and now that we have antibody testing (not a great test, but at least as start), they are finding that a lot of people have had it, and did not know.  One study, done in CA, found bet 45 and 85 times the people with antibody versus the reported cases.

 

And those that have had is, are showing antibodies in the blood.

 

So, I find a report that people who have had it are not immune to be highly suspect.  And I HOPE that is it totally unfounded, as it would NOT be a good thing if it were true.

 

As of the latest update, 831,393 cases world wide are closed.  79% (659,583) of those have recovered.

 

Of the 1,672,069 current cases, 97% are mild cases.

 

And, take that one study, and a mid point, about 165 million people have it or have had it.  And if those who have had it, are immune, things are looking up.

 

 

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, SRF said:

 

Johns Hopkins.  As well as immunology.  Where did you study it????

 

Do you understand the flu?  Influenza virus mutates very quickly.  You have immunity to those strains that you have had before, but that does not mean you have immunity to the strain that is prevalent THIS YEAR.  

 

So you are immune to Flu 111, then this year it is Flu 112, and you are not immune.

 

Vaccines work by inducing the immune system to respond.  In doing so, your immune system will produce antibodies to it.

 

Either way, after exposure, your immunity can be measured by the titre of antibodies in your blood.  

I find it interesting that someone who has studied epidemiology and immunology would be so cavalier about not requiring measles immunization.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, SRF said:

 

...

 

As of the latest update, 831,393 cases world wide are closed.  79% (659,583) of those have recovered.

 

Of the 1,672,069 current cases, 97% are mild cases.

 

And, take that one study, and a mid point, about 165 million people have it or have had it.  And if those who have had it, are immune, things are looking up.

 

 

Yes - the mortality rate is rather low; apparently between 1% and 2% - but people are not percentages, so the extremely high contagion rate does put a bit of a damper on the low mortality rate.  Things are looking up - except, of course, for the 174,000 + already gone  -  plus the certainly uncounted thousands in North Korea and China.

[Toofarfromthesea]

55 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes - the mortality rate is rather low; apparently between 1% and 2% - but people are not percentages, so the extremely high contagion rate does put a bit of a damper on the low mortality rate.  Things are looking up - except, of course, for the 174,000 + already gone  -  plus the certainly uncounted thousands in North Korea and China.

 

And yet both the Santa Clara study and the Los Angeles study indicate a strong possibility that the mortality rate is vastly lower because of the large number of people who have antibodies, indicating they were infected at some point, but were never included in the number of cases used to compute those high mortality rates.  These studies need to be done on a wider scale to validate it.  The Santa Clara study came up with an imputed mortality rate of 0.10% to 0.14%.  I had posted on this but it was a positive so there wasn't any interest here.

 

Not to mention the fact that the most affected area, NY, is counting covid fatalities in a way that is almost certainly including deaths from the flu, since they count a death as a covid death based on symptoms, without testing if the deceased even had been infected.  While at the same time the reported number of deaths from flu have plummetted, which is likely not the completely true case.  More likely the 'inclusive' way of categorizing covid deaths without proof of infection is simply folding a lot of those miraculously disappearing flu deaths into the covid number.  

So there is a strong likelihood that we have been overcounting the numerator and undercounting the denominator.

[Toofarfromthesea]

22 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I have read that considerably fewer than 20% of people who have received flu vaccine in recent years wound up with the flu - so it is difficult to understand a claim that the flu vaccine is only about 50% effective. In my personal case, I have never suffered from the flu since regularly getting the vaccine:  hardly scientific but an apparent personal effectiveness rate of well over 50%.

 

I never did study epidemiology - but then I do not make statements which suggest expertise in the field.

 

You need to find better sources to read on the effectiveness of the flu virus.  You are saying it was over 80%, but the CDC doesn't seem to think so:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates.html

[chipmaster]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes - the mortality rate is rather low; apparently between 1% and 2% - but people are not percentages, so the extremely high contagion rate does put a bit of a damper on the low mortality rate.  Things are looking up - except, of course, for the 174,000 + already gone  -  plus the certainly uncounted thousands in North Korea and China.

 

The news and people are now getting all gaga over the fact that the death rate is much lower then earlier publicized based on the increased random testing from a couple studies that suggest it is 50-100x more people infected than reported and thus the denominator is far larger to the reported death rate.

But look at the death rate in terms of NUMBERS, not %!   It is terrible, people seem to forget if we open up the economy while the % is low someone you know ( parent, family member, co-worker, neighbor, fellow country man or fellow human ) many more will perish.  Of course the economic cost is terrible to keep it closed.   

 

Take a look at NYC, the stated deaths is 17,200 and change but the reality is that the excessive death over the historical average is even higher by a huge % and even more saddening what the costs are.  

 

yeah as a % of those infected miniscule as deaths totally a tragedy!

 

What are we willing to pay, we should all be explicit in stating that, versus the abstract.   

 

What is the moral, human, ethical, political, social, moral, personal cost each person will tolerate above and beyond to permit life and cruising to begin?

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by chipmaster

[ilikeanswers]

4 hours ago, SRF said:

However, at least in the US, your RIGHTS do matter.

 

At border zones aren't most rights really suspended? In most cases if you refuse a request of a border agent/officer you don't usually get allowed into any country. 

Edited April 21, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[navybankerteacher]

50 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

And yet both the Santa Clara study and the Los Angeles study indicate a strong possibility that the mortality rate is vastly lower because of the large number of people who have antibodies, indicating they were infected at some point, but were never included in the number of cases used to compute those high mortality rates.  These studies need to be done on a wider scale to validate it.  The Santa Clara study came up with an imputed mortality rate of 0.10% to 0.14%.  I had posted on this but it was a positive so there wasn't any interest here.

 

Not to mention the fact that the most affected area, NY, is counting covid fatalities in a way that is almost certainly including deaths from the flu, since they count a death as a covid death based on symptoms, without testing if the deceased even had been infected.  While at the same time the reported number of deaths from flu have plummetted, which is likely not the completely true case.  More likely the 'inclusive' way of categorizing covid deaths without proof of infection is simply folding a lot of those miraculously disappearing flu deaths into the covid number.  

So there is a strong likelihood that we have been overcounting the numerator and undercounting the denominator.

Assuming that “numerator” refers to deaths, how are we “overcounting” the numerator when we have to be virtually certain that China is grossly understating deaths and North Korea is undeniably lying about their lack off any impact.  And if, as you say, “... they count as a COVID death based on symptoms...” why would you assume flu deaths are being so counted — the symptoms are not identical?

[clo]

10 hours ago, SRF said:

Johns Hopkins.  As well as immunology.  Where did you study it????

 

You're joking, right?

[HotinHavasu]

On 3/28/2020 at 8:40 AM, ontheweb said:

No problem, I took no offense. We are all trying to figure out the new reality.

We have been on a cruise when the CDC came on board and took new cleanliness measures.   Food at buffet was handed, drinks etc.  Staff was working OT trying to keep all areas clean, elevators, glass etc.  Personally, I didn't enjoy it as much.

[HotinHavasu]

7 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Assuming that “numerator” refers to deaths, how are we “overcounting” the numerator when we have to be virtually certain that China is grossly understating deaths and North Korea is undeniably lying about their lack off any impact.  And if, as you say, “... they count as a COVID death based on symptoms...” why would you assume flu deaths are being so counted — the symptoms are not identical?

I agree that many have been overcounting, overestimating. Now it's all about the numbers & receiving funding.  Less than 1% affected for an economy that is in ruins now.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, clo said:

You're joking, right?

I also wondered how much attention he paid in class - given his anti-vaxxng stance;  and about his ongoing interest in the field - given his apparent ignorance of recent measles outbreaks and unawareness of resultant immunization mandates

[navybankerteacher]

36 minutes ago, HotinHavasu said:

I agree that many have been overcounting, overestimating. Now it's all about the numbers & receiving funding.  Less than 1% affected for an economy that is in ruins now.

How many dead do you feel we need to see before taking firm steps to control contagion - even at substantial cost to the economy?

[navybankerteacher]

40 minutes ago, HotinHavasu said:

We have been on a cruise when the CDC came on board and took new cleanliness measures.   Food at buffet was handed, drinks etc.  Staff was working OT trying to keep all areas clean, elevators, glass etc.  Personally, I didn't enjoy it as much.

What cruise was that - where “...the CDC came on board and took new cleanliness measures.”?

[ilikeanswers]

6 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

How many dead do you feel we need to see before taking firm steps to control contagion - even at substantial cost to the economy?

 

You look at history and even if governments don't react people do. If they can they will leave cities like in Madrid even before they locked down 2/3 of the population were leaving the city, as if that won't have a negative impact on the economy. If they can't leave they lock themselves indoors anyway like currently in Brazil despite the president urging everyone to get out. People re prioritise, they don't want a new car they would rather buy chickens to lay eggs in their backyard. And don't forget it takes years and money to train healthcare workers so if you lose a large portion your health care work force that will impact negatively on the health of your society which in turn impacts the economy since sick people don't work as efficiently. This argument that you can protect the economy from an infectious outbreak is academic bull. 

[momofmab]

To answer the original question - 

 

I'm not an expert or a cruise "insider" but given the current financial state of the cruise industry, I doubt that they'll be any changes that involve expensive retrofitting of ships.  Possibly they would institute a more comprehensive medical screening process for passengers during the boarding process (although passengers can lie or take Tylenol in an attempt to get fevers down for a few hours in order to board - also they can be symptom-free one day and have full blown COVID the next day).

 

I would love to see crew serving at buffets.  If I had a dollar for every time I saw a kid grabbing food with the their hands....

 

Many of the human hygiene behaviors mentioned on this thread simply cannot be reasonably policed.  All we can do is be vigilant in our own hygiene and hope *most* others do the same.  

 

Those who choose to cruise, do so knowing that a variety of viruses can be easily transmitted on board (albeit most are not life-threatening).  This is not a new concept.  Cruisers should continue to decide for themselves whether the risk of possibly contracting a virus is worth taking - especially if they are elderly and/or have a pre-existing condition.  And we've now seen what happens when viruses spread quickly on ships and ports refuse docking - so there should be no more surprise our outrage when virus cruises have to quarantine.