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

[navybankerteacher]

37 minutes ago, SRF said:

 

So you believe, if the cruise lines do not require the vaccination, then very few people will get it???

 

REALLY?????

 

You don't think that the vast majority of people will get the vaccine anyway?  Or get immunity from having had the disease already?

I never said very few people would get immunization;  so please stop these absurd arguments.   Of course the “vast majority” will get immunized, but there always seem to be some who just do not - for whatever reason.

 

Stating that herd immunity will  protect those who do not is one way to make non-immunization more likely.  And, to remain in context (cruising), there is no valid reason for a cruise line to not require evidence of immunization.  It might not be necessarily to mandate involuntary immunization - but it is only common sense to incentivize it.

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, 2wheelin said:

 

Not worth the time it would take to respond.

[2wheelin]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Not worth the time it would take to respond.

Finally!!!!

[clo]

4 hours ago, SRF said:

Or get immunity from having had the disease already?

If that happens. It seems that there's already some question in some patients.

[Toofarfromthesea]

18 hours ago, clo said:

I just saw this paragraph from Washington Post. Since there appears to be an impenetrable pay wall I'll just share it here. There was no elaboration:

"The World Health Organization on Saturday said there was not enough evidence that a person who has recovered from covid-19 is immune from a second infection."

 

 

The actual quote of what WHO actually said was: ""There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from #COVID19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.""

But they quickly took it down, and replaced it with:  "Earlier today we tweeted about a new WHO scientific brief on "immunity passports". The thread caused some concern & we would like to clarify:

 

We expect that most people who are infected with #COVID19 will develop an antibody response that will provide some level of protection.'

A very different kettle of fish.  And a good reminder that if possible we should go to the actual source, rather than letting the MSM filter it for you.  There is a big difference between a claim that there is "not enough" evidence and a claim that there is "no evidence".

But you shouldn't believe me, either.  Here is the Twitter thread:

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1254160937805926405

and if you scroll down about 4 tweets you'll see their own record of the original immunity passport thread, which they had deleted.  Showing what they actually said, as I described above.

 

[Toofarfromthesea]

17 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes, the process was flawed — but the purpose is more important than each aspect of the process ;  and, when dealing with a problem not previously experienced the purpose should be kept in mind rather than obsessing about the the details of the process.

 

Stop with the gobbledygook already.  Nothing you are saying is remotely relevant to the points I am making.  A ridiculous model which has been a prime motivator of resource misallocations is a part of the process that should be discarded.  Wildly overestimating the problem does nothing to solve the problem - it becomes PART OF the problem.

You can mouth all the platitudes you want but that doesn't make them relevant or helpful.  The more you try to save face the deeper the hole you are digging.

[Toofarfromthesea]

17 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

I remember standing in line with my brother and mother.  It was in our small farm town's elementary school building.  That building was torn down later.  Bricks for a new house my folks had built came from that old building.   

 

Yup, I stood in a line like that back when I was a little kid (age 64, now).  The vaccine was administered on sugar cubes, as I recall, although that might have been a different occasion, since my recollections are hazy.

Whether people get the vaccine or not will depend, in part, on its level of effectiveness.  If they are right and this virus mutates much slower than the flu virus we could have a vaccine with 80%+ effectiveness and I think most people will get it.  If they are wrong about the mutation rate and the effective rate is more like the 50% effectiveness of the flu vaccine, many won't.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Toofarfromthesea

[clo]

15 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

The actual quote of what WHO actually said was: ""There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from #COVID19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.""

I interpreted that just the way it was written. And here's the actual link:

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19

[clo]

8 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Stop with the gobbledygook already.  Nothing you are saying is remotely relevant to the points I am making.  A ridiculous model which has been a prime motivator of resource misallocations is a part of the process that should be discarded.  Wildly overestimating the problem does nothing to solve the problem - it becomes PART OF the problem.

You can mouth all the platitudes you want but that doesn't make them relevant or helpful.  The more you try to save face the deeper the hole you are digging.

Are you forgetting to add the oh-so-important part "IMO." I think anonymous people on a board unrelated to science or medicine should mostly add that. IMO 🙂

[Toofarfromthesea]

9 minutes ago, clo said:

Are you forgetting to add the oh-so-important part "IMO." I think anonymous people on a board unrelated to science or medicine should mostly add that. IMO 🙂

 

REALLY?  Nothing I have said is an opinion - I am citing facts.  And providing links.  On the specific point of the uselessness of a model that tells you in 30 days you will need a minimum of 185,000 beds when it turns out in retrospect that 2000 were enough.  I understand having a margin of safety but that is ridiculous.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Toofarfromthesea

[Toofarfromthesea]

8 minutes ago, clo said:

I interpreted that just the way it was written. And here's the actual link:

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19

 

In your own link, in the first paragraph they say the same thing they said in their tweet: "There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection."

 

[clo]

3 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

REALLY?  Nothing I have said is an opinion - I am citing facts.  And providing links.

I'm referring to that one post.

[navybankerteacher]

22 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Stop with the gobbledygook already.  Nothing you are saying is remotely relevant to the points I am making.  A ridiculous model which has been a prime motivator of resource misallocations is a part of the process that should be discarded.  Wildly overestimating the problem does nothing to solve the problem - it becomes PART OF the problem.

You can mouth all the platitudes you want but that doesn't make them relevant or helpful.  The more you try to save face the deeper the hole you are digging.

If you feel that your actuarial gobbledygook points invalidate the purpose - which has been to scramble to save lives, keep at it.

[clo]

27 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

In your own link, in the first paragraph they say the same thing they said in their tweet: "There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection."

 

Right. 

 

"There is currently no evidence that people ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,are protected from a second infection."

[rkacruiser]

1 hour ago, clo said:

Right. 

 

"There is currently no evidence that people ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,are protected from a second infection."

 

To me, that is the most frightening situation.  If antibodies developed after a first infection does not protect one from another infection, is a vaccine even possible for this virus?  

[navybankerteacher]

24 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

To me, that is the most frightening situation.  If antibodies developed after a first infection does not protect one from another infection, is a vaccine even possible for this virus?  

This is a vital question - we still have so much to learn about what we are up against.  My (lay) understand of immunity from viral infections is that “prior exposure” through actual infection or vaccination of weakened/killed virus works —- but we seem to have not yet been able to confirm that previous models apply this time.

[clo]

6 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

This is a vital question - we still have so much to learn about what we are up against.  My (lay) understand of immunity from viral infections is that “prior exposure” through actual infection or vaccination of weakened/killed virus works —- but we seem to have not yet been able to confirm that previous models apply this time.

In my also lay opinion, it's going to take looking back at the data. Seems most everything now is supposition. And also using that WHO quote as an example, not wanting to freak people out, so they downplay it

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Stop with the gobbledygook already.  Nothing you are saying is remotely relevant to the points I am making.  A ridiculous model which has been a prime motivator of resource misallocations is a part of the process that should be discarded.  Wildly overestimating the problem does nothing to solve the problem - it becomes PART OF the problem.

You can mouth all the platitudes you want but that doesn't make them relevant or helpful.  The more you try to save face the deeper the hole you are digging.

The great thing about Monday morning quarterbacking is that the plays you call are just perfect for the situation.

 

Yes, the projections for hospital beds needed were way off. But sometimes errors happen when dealing with a totally new, unanticipated challenge.

 

Why don’t you put your factual analysis capabilities to work on predicting what we might be seeing down the road.  Let us know if we will see a second round of COVID 19 outbreak;  and tell us  how many hospital beds we should anticipate needing if there is a resurgence - especially if it does turn out that prior infection does not confer immunity.

 

This is a no-loose proposal for you:  if your firm projections are correct, I will congratulate you on your actuarial competence and publicly apologize for questioning your expertise; if you have misjudged (especially if it is by any significant variance from what happens) you only have to lie low and not post on these threads for a while.

[AF-1]

Hey today's Monday;  have a wonderful day and let's remain positive that the scientists develop a shot that cures or prevents this virus from killing so many people.  

[Toofarfromthesea]

21 hours ago, clo said:

Right. 

 

"There is currently no evidence that people ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,are protected from a second infection."

 

Right, it was in the first paragraph and was highlighted in their tweet.  But lower down in their article and completely missing from their tweet was the real truth, there is NOT ENOUGH evidence.  No evidence is not the same as not enough evidence.  And they got called on it and retracted the misleading tweet.

[Toofarfromthesea]

19 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

The great thing about Monday morning quarterbacking is that the plays you call are just perfect for the situation.

 

Yes, the projections for hospital beds needed were way off. But sometimes errors happen when dealing with a totally new, unanticipated challenge.

 

Why don’t you put your factual analysis capabilities to work on predicting what we might be seeing down the road.  Let us know if we will see a second round of COVID 19 outbreak;  and tell us  how many hospital beds we should anticipate needing if there is a resurgence - especially if it does turn out that prior infection does not confer immunity.

 

This is a no-loose proposal for you:  if your firm projections are correct, I will congratulate you on your actuarial competence and publicly apologize for questioning your expertise; if you have misjudged (especially if it is by any significant variance from what happens) you only have to lie low and not post on these threads for a while.

 

No thanks, because I don't make things up.  

[ldubs]

19 hours ago, clo said:

In my also lay opinion, it's going to take looking back at the data. Seems most everything now is supposition. And also using that WHO quote as an example, not wanting to freak people out, so they downplay it

 

You say the WHO purposely downplayed the truth to keep people from panicking.  That would be pretty bad.  Is it true or another supposition for the headline fodder.  

 

A big problem for me is information gets twisted so much it is hard to know what is factual.  A simple sentence taken out of context will be on the talk shows claiming to be news (and I mean all of them) for a week with panels of experts providing their biased condemnations.  It is really starting to piss me off.  There are folks trying to address this crises and move us forward and they there are the others.  

 

Edit: I just read TooFar's (post 551) above.  If the WHO made an error and retracted it then that is entirely different from purposely changing the facts so as to mislead the public.  I wish there were standards of reporting with accountability.  

 

OK, rant over.  

Edited April 27, 2020 by ldubs

[cdwise]

I have a question for all of you who are saying to get a vaccine out as early as possible under emergency authority. So what happens if something is rushed out and turns out not to be terribly effective like the 2017 influenza vaccine and turns out to have long term side effects that lead to a lot of deaths? Are you going to be suing the manufacturer who used their best efforts to give you what you want without having the time to test properly. Think of haw many drugs that went through long term sometimes multi year trials before being approved that when put out into the general public instead of controlled matched studies were found to have serious side effects in the broader world. If double blind studies (which we have had very few of right now) conducted under strict protocols didn't find the problems with drugs that were subsequently recalled why do you think rushed to market vaccines will work without major side effects?

[ldubs]

On 4/26/2020 at 12:21 PM, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Stop with the gobbledygook already.  Nothing you are saying is remotely relevant to the points I am making.  A ridiculous model which has been a prime motivator of resource misallocations is a part of the process that should be discarded.  Wildly overestimating the problem does nothing to solve the problem - it becomes PART OF the problem.

 

 

I don't want to get in your guys argument, but I do have a concern with decisions made on bad info including, as you say, projections that are inaccurate by several orders of magnitude.   In my county CV cases account for 0.02% of the population.  Deaths for 0.002%.  Of course no one would want any deaths or illnesses, but we have completely tanked the economy with severe impacts to people's lives. So severe that many will never recover.   I tend to think the response was a correct one but what a shame if it wasn't because it was based on poor projections.   

 

 

[ldubs]

On 4/26/2020 at 12:29 PM, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Yup, I stood in a line like that back when I was a little kid (age 64, now).  The vaccine was administered on sugar cubes, as I recall, although that might have been a different occasion, since my recollections are hazy.

Whether people get the vaccine or not will depend, in part, on its level of effectiveness.  If they are right and this virus mutates much slower than the flu virus we could have a vaccine with 80%+ effectiveness and I think most people will get it.  If they are wrong about the mutation rate and the effective rate is more like the 50% effectiveness of the flu vaccine, many won't.

 

What I remember is the sugar cube too.  Maybe my life long irrational fear of needles makes it more vivid because I dodged a shot.  haha

 

I would take a vaccine that is 50% effective.  That is a heck of a lot better than what I have now.  Best would be if it was a sugar cube instead of the shot, but that is hoping for too much I know.