"Will It Be Safe to Travel When This Is All Over? Will We Even Know?"

[clo]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Interesting to hear from some of the crew. Can't believe the Greg Mortimer is still having problems, after the passengers left it slipped out of the news so I assumed it was all over. Sad there are crew still stuck on the ships like that. When cruising resumes they really need to come up with a better plan that doesn't leave crew stranded. 

I was astounded really that there was a HAL person who was no longer getting paid.

 

 

[navybankerteacher]

3 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

What source are you looking at? 

 

From Worldometers, it appears that Sweden is perhaps just below the middle of the pack when you look at per capita cases and deaths in the EU.  Since identified cases often depends on how much testing was done, I feel the deaths is probably a better comparison -- and in deaths per 1M population, Sweden has fewer than Spain, UK, Italy, France, Belgium, and is about at par with the Netherlands and just slightly above Ireland.

 

Of course what remains to be seen is what happens when some of the countries that took more of a "lock down" approach open up again -- there may be a new spike in their numbers. Take Greece, for example, where containment apparently has worked so well. What happens when people start interacting again?

 

World Health Organization reports as of May 8: Finland with 5.5 million population had 255 deaths;  Norway with 5.3 million population had 209 deaths; Sweden with 10.3 million population had 3,040 deaths.  This is as close to comparing apples to apples as possible among European countries. Sweden, with about twice the population of its neighbors had more than ten times the deaths.

 

Seems a hard-to-ignore variance among three countries - whose significant difference is how they responded to the threat.

Edited May 11, 2020 by navybankerteacher

[navybankerteacher]

4 hours ago, slidergirl said:

Wait, wait.  What did I do?????   

It seems you might have annoyed the self-appointed regulators (who may or may not have confused you with someone else).

[clo]

6 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

It seems you might have annoyed the self-appointed regulators (who may or may not have confused you with someone else).

Like me 🙂 And it's funny that there are those who think that smiley-face emoji doesn't mean I'm laughing 🙂 

[navybankerteacher]

11 minutes ago, clo said:

Like me 🙂 And it's funny that there are those who think that smiley-face emoji doesn't mean I'm laughing 🙂 

To be blunt:  some times I, too, find you a bit annoying - but in what I would characterize as a silly way - while some of your critics are simply annoying in an annoying way.

[clo]

6 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

To be blunt:  some times I, too, find you a bit annoying - but in what I would characterize as a silly way - while some of your critics are simply annoying in an annoying way.

Many decades ago a friend/colleague when asked for a reference about me said "she doesn't suffer fools gladly."  🙂

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

World Health Organization reports as of May 8: Finland with 5.5 million population had 255 deaths;  Norway with 5.3 million population had 209 deaths; Sweden with 10.3 million population had 3,040 deaths.  This is as close to comparing apples to apples as possible among European countries. Sweden, with about twice the population of its neighbors had more than ten times the deaths.

 

Seems a hard-to-ignore variance among three countries - whose significant difference is how they responded to the threat.

 

While true, this is not what the other poster was suggesting (to whom my reply was addressed) -- which was that Sweden's death rate was much worse than "almost all EU countries".

 

Actually I would not necessarily be quick to compare Finns and Swedes -- the Finnish people are not really Scandinavian; they are ethnically diverse -- for example:  https://blog.23andme.com/ancestry-reports/not-so-close-neighbors-the-genetically-isolated-people-of-finland/.  Which could certainly play a role in susceptibility to any new virus.

[sverigecruiser]

5 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

You should really check your statistics — Sweden’s policy serves as an effective “control” in the experiment on how NOT to address the threat.  Total deaths, as well as rates, dwarf those of their immediate neighbors: Norway and Finland.  And, from available information, their death rate -per population- is close to the highest in the world.

 

It seems like you want to help me with the statistics, Thank you.

 

I mentioned Great Britain, Spain, Italy and New York as places which are doing worse than Sweden. Which of them are doing better than Sweden?

[chipmaster]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

World Health Organization reports as of May 8: Finland with 5.5 million population had 255 deaths;  Norway with 5.3 million population had 209 deaths; Sweden with 10.3 million population had 3,040 deaths.  This is as close to comparing apples to apples as possible among European countries. Sweden, with about twice the population of its neighbors had more than ten times the deaths.

 

Seems a hard-to-ignore variance among three countries - whose significant difference is how they responded to the threat.

 

No question the elevated deaths are a tragedy, but I could argue what has been the impact to the economy.   

 

I think every country didn't do enough at the beginning, but a few like So Korean and Taiwan seem to have been smart.    

 

Most other countries are in the mitigation including the US, so in the end deaths are only being postponed.  Unless it mutates or we get a vaccine with near 100% efficacy and no downside, sadly I know no such vaccine for disease that we've been fighting for decades, so I'm skeptical one will show up ( maybe UV light or was it clorax bleach? )  

[sverigecruiser]

4 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

Remember lock down was about flattening the curve so when you do get COVID19 the hospitals would have a bed and stuff for you.  

 

The hospitals here have a bed for thoose who needs it. Our curve is flat enough without a lockdown.

 

Many deaths, yes but the health care system can still handle it.

[sverigecruiser]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

World Health Organization reports as of May 8: Finland with 5.5 million population had 255 deaths;  Norway with 5.3 million population had 209 deaths; Sweden with 10.3 million population had 3,040 deaths.  This is as close to comparing apples to apples as possible among European countries.

 

I could say that Great Britain and Belgium are better apples to compare with but since I have no need to defend the Swedish strategy I won't do that.

[ilikeanswers]

I think before we compare death rates we need to wait and see if we get a second wave. Usually the second wave is more deadly than the first and currently Hokkaido is in the grip of a second wave. The Swedish scientists believe their model will lesson or even avert this second wave. That will be the real test as to which model is the right, one🤗. 

[sverigecruiser]

 

I have found some new statistics about deaths in Sweden.

 

The average number of deaths during the years first 18 weeks 2015-2019 was 32910. During the first 18 weeks this year 34867 people died. So 1957 more people has died this year.

 

My part of Sweden had 60 less deaths this year compared to the average number 2015-2019. (1174 and 1114)

 

I don't know if that statistic really give any more information. More people have died but not extremely much more.

 

 

The source is SCB which is a reliable source. 

[calliopecruiser]

8 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

While true, this is not what the other poster was suggesting (to whom my reply was addressed) -- which was that Sweden's death rate was much worse than "almost all EU countries".

I didn't respond because you pointed out the same thing that I said, except you seem to have forgotten that the UK is not in the EU and that you thought it supported you in opposition of what I said.  There are 27 EU countries, and Sweden is in the top 5.  

 

Fair enough if you would have preferred me to say it was greater than about 80% of the EU countries have. 

[cruisemom42]

20 minutes ago, calliopecruiser said:

I didn't respond because you pointed out the same thing that I said, except you seem to have forgotten that the UK is not in the EU and that you thought it supported you in opposition of what I said.  There are 27 EU countries, and Sweden is in the top 5.  

 

Fair enough if you would have preferred me to say it was greater than about 80% of the EU countries have. 

 

Mea culpa -- my logical brain refuses to accept Brexit as it makes so little sense!

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, clo said:

Like me 🙂 And it's funny that there are those who think that smiley-face emoji doesn't mean I'm laughing 🙂 

I don't find you annoying. Am I missing something?

[sverigecruiser]

12 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

I don't find you annoying. Am I missing something?

 

I agree with you. Me and clo does not agree on many things but that doesn't mean that she is annoying!

[navybankerteacher]

8 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

It seems like you want to help me with the statistics, Thank you.

 

I mentioned Great Britain, Spain, Italy and New York as places which are doing worse than Sweden. Which of them are doing better than Sweden?

Comparing country to country:

the US - with 75,364 deaths out of 331,000,000  population - or 1 out of every 4,392

is doing better than Sweden with 3,226 deaths out of 10,000,000 population - or

1 out of every 3,099.

 

Yes, New York City has a much higher rate (perhaps due to its focal point for world travel) but I would also think that Stockholm would show a concentration of Sweden’s mortalities.

[sverigecruiser]

7 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Comparing country to country:

the US - with 75,364 deaths out of 331,000,000  population - or 1 out of every 4,392

is doing better than Sweden with 3,226 deaths out of 10,000,000 population - or

1 out of every 3,099.

 

Yes, New York City has a much higher rate (perhaps due to its focal point for world travel) but I would also think that Stockholm would show a concentration of Sweden’s mortalities.

 

But I didn't mentioned the US.

 

Can you give me an example where I was wrong in the statistics I mentioned? I want to be corrected if I was wrong.

[clo]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I don't find you annoying. Am I missing something?

Like many/most of us I've been focusing a lot on COVID. And I've shared info from some reputable sources about the disease and the short'ish term future of cruising. And some of the, IMO, disreputable actions of the industry. Things that may be new or old but things I learned about on CC and have followed up on. And it's annoyed some people. There are people here saying they would cruise tomorrow if they were allowed to. We're big believers in "don't confuse them with the facts." Anyway that's the short version. And thanks 🙂 

[clo]

1 hour ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I agree with you. Me and clo does not agree on many things but that doesn't mean that she is annoying!

Thanks, kiddo. And I appreciate your giving detail on how you work with your students and the small spaces. Hope you're having a nice day.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

But I didn't mentioned the US.

 

Can you give me an example where I was wrong in the statistics I mentioned? I want to be corrected if I was wrong.

No, you did not mention the US — and I never said you were “wrong” ; but if you are comparing international death rate statistics, it is hardly “right” to compare a whole country’s rate with the rate of a city with one of the busiest international airports in the world.

 

It is sort of like comparing pine cones to apples.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, clo said:

...

 

. And it's annoyed some people. There are people here saying they would cruise tomorrow if they were allowed to. We're big believers in "don't confuse them with the facts." Anyway that's the short version. And thanks 🙂 

You realize, I hope, that you risk further enraging your squad of knee-jerk (what is the term for opposite of cheerleaders?) who seem unable to contemplate life without cruise ships.

Edited May 11, 2020 by navybankerteacher

[clo]

30 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

You realize, I hope, that you risk further enraging your squad of knee-jerk (what is the term for opposite of cheerleaders?) who seem unable to contemplate life without cruise ships.

Yep, nbt. But I was asked a question and answered it sincerely. I don't lie. If I give out incorrect info it was never intentional. I'm sure I've said this here that I'm a self-described info junkie. I fact check more in a week than I'm guessing most people do in a year. Or ever. So when I see people making decisions based on wrong or incomplete info I speak up. Just who I am.

PS: If all those people who were threatening to "ignore" me have done so then there should be no more problems 🙂

[pris993]

the question for me is not whether it is safe to travel, it is will I want to travel with all the preventive measures in place?   I doubt it, too much trouble, but I am 73 have been most places I wanted to see.  Was thinking of simply doing close loop cruises out of San Francisco, was on my last one the Grand in February.   But if that even becomes to much ... will pass and simply enjoy staying home, using the travel money I would have spent to enhance my at home experience.