Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Mallefiscent said:

They are saying that a mask will protect people from the virus like wearing a pair of pants will protect others from your pee.  The masks have holes that are bigger than the virus.  If someone pees through the hole of a pair of ripped jeans, you're still going to get pee on you. 

Not only has that not been proven by the experts, but there must be 1000 or more variations of masks...with a 1000 variations on protection levels towards C-19.  Anytime global statements are made about something not working...which even the scientific community doesn't have 100% agreement on..."lay experts" opinions are nothing more than that...opinions (not facts).

 

Luckily for the cruising world...future cruise policies about masks and other methods to minimize health risks will be based on more than just urban legends or vague opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, broberts said:

 

One doesn't instantly develop a full blown infection with an initial contact. By the time one is expelling virus when breathing the infection is so far advanced that the amount expelled is a very tiny fraction of the amount already hosted.

How many contacts do you think someone has to have before they are set up to get a "full blown infection"? It is all dependent on the viral load inoculation as well as the health status of the patient. And sometimes just plain luck.

 

Now, if what you mean is that it takes several days for the infection to cause clinical symptoms, that I agree with. But if you think about what you said that one has to have a "full blown" infection in order to be shedding the virus then asymptomatic people probably really are not all that contagious and their mask wearing is unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CRUISEFAN0001 said:

Not only has that not been proven by the experts, but there must be 1000 or more variations of masks...with a 1000 variations on protection levels towards C-19.  Anytime global statements are made about something not working...which even the scientific community doesn't have 100% agreement on..."lay experts" opinions are nothing more than that...opinions (not facts).

 

Luckily for the cruising world...future cruise policies about masks and other methods to minimize health risks will be based on more than just urban legends or vague opinions.

It is far from unusual to have several physicians look at the same set of "facts" and draw very different conclusions and opinions from them. Facts today are often fiction tomorrow. That is why lawyers get rich off of medicine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

hat is why lawyers get rich off of medicine.

That’s a fact. Malpractice is expensive too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

How many contacts do you think someone has to have before they are set up to get a "full blown infection"? It is all dependent on the viral load inoculation as well as the health status of the patient. And sometimes just plain luck.

 

Now, if what you mean is that it takes several days for the infection to cause clinical symptoms, that I agree with. But if you think about what you said that one has to have a "full blown" infection in order to be shedding the virus then asymptomatic people probably really are not all that contagious and their mask wearing is unnecessary.

 

One contact is sufficient. I was attempting to convey the fact that some time passes between a contact and infection.

 

I think one has to distinguish between those with a developing infection but yet to display symptoms and  asymptomatic sufferers who have a full blown infection. Both are highly infectious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

It is far from unusual to have several physicians look at the same set of "facts" and draw very different conclusions and opinions from them. Facts today are often fiction tomorrow. That is why lawyers get rich off of medicine.

Then again....they call it practicing law and practicing medicine....probably for a reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2020 at 8:06 PM, chipmaster said:

 

Actually that isn't true, before they die they walk around spreading it, perhaps right on you at your local bar, beach, shopping mall.

 

Take a look at the recent study of gatherings and the spreading.    

 

We may have to agree to disagree on this. The world has to learn to navigate around and through this dreadful situation. The facts are that no everyone can stay at home. And while opening up means that the potential loss of life occurs to those that venture out, then so be it. It is their personal choice. But those that are concerned, or afraid they might be infected also have their personal choice of staying at home. We as a people have to understand and respect one another. So whether you & I differ on going out or staying home, we must respect one another's reasoning for doing so.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, broberts said:

 

One contact is sufficient. I was attempting to convey the fact that some time passes between a contact and infection.

 

I think one has to distinguish between those with a developing infection but yet to display symptoms and  asymptomatic sufferers who have a full blown infection. Both are highly infectious. 


“What we know” ...what experts tell us...is changing rapidly..
 

Not  even the “experts” can definitely deem asymptomatic cases as “highly infectious.”  They said that about infection from surfaces...now had to pull that back. 

One study says one thing...a few weeks later...oh gee, something different. 

 

We all have to assess our own risks and comfort level and proceed with our lives from there.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, hazence said:


“What we know” ...what experts tell us...is changing rapidly..
 

Not  even the “experts” can definitely deem asymptomatic cases as “highly infectious.”  They said that about infection from surfaces...now had to pull that back. 

One study says one thing...a few weeks later...oh gee, something different. 

 

We all have to assess our own risks and comfort level and proceed with our lives from there.
 

 

 

Sure there is a lot of stuff on the net that purports to be science. And, it seems that many insist science not evolve its thinking as new data becomes available. Neither of these should encourage peop!e to pick and choose appropriate behaviors. Just because there are those that, (in my opinion often maliciously), post misleading and confusing content does not give everyone license to pick and choose. 

 

Science does evolve and we must adjust as new data establishes new understsnding.

 

The current understanding is that asymptomatic people are infectious. 

 

During this pandemic, more so than at other times, an individual's behavior has a direct and potentially deadly effect on many others. In these circumstances individuals do not have the right to behave based only on their own risk factors. The fact that people may have no intent to harm others does not relieve them of the need to behave in a manner that does not put others at risk.

Edited by broberts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, broberts said:

 

Sure there is a lot of stuff on the net that purports to be science. And, it seems that many insist science not evolve its thinking as new data becomes available. Neither of these should encourage peop!e to pick and choose appropriate behaviors. Just because there are those that, (in my opinion often maliciously), post misleading and confusing content does not give everyone license to pick and choose. 

 

Science does evolve and we must adjust as new data establishes new understsnding.

 

The current understanding is that asymptomatic people are infectious. 

 

During this pandemic, more so than at other times, an individual's behavior has a direct and potentially deadly effect on many others. In these circumstances individuals do not have the right to behave based only on their own risk factors. The fact that people may have no intent to harm others does not relieve them of the need to behave in a manner that does not put others at risk.


 

There is no law where I live that residents of SC have to wear masks, so residents absolutely “have the right” not to wear them.  
 

As for the idea that they are morally required, what enforces moral behavior...peer pressure among other things. In lightly effected states, there does not seem to be community disdain for non mask wearers...if anything, it’s a bit opposite that. Where you live, that community pressure to fall in line with this “Recommendation ” may exist because the virus is widespread. 
 

When I read “current understanding”...I’m reminded, as you say, that science evolves. In regard to masks, it has evolved and un-evolved and now, they are scientifically in vogue again.

 

I find it hard to believe that if masks...as a-preventive of spread...were such settled science...that Dr Fauci and the CDC...at the height of the pandemic...would not have said...
 

“PLEASE  USE anything you have as a mask. We are going to prevent sale of the masks needed for the medical community and ask you to understand why. But in the meantime, to save lives, cover up with any bandana, or scarf that you have!!!!!”

 

But instead, when lives were being lost daily, they said...”Nah, masks are unnnecessary.”

 

Were those early lives expendable so a lie that masks were unnecessary was okay?

 

Really?

So our scientists let the virus spread  at the beginning of the pandemic and let many people die...never advocated for any type of covering...when it’s such settled science that masks save lives????

 

As you say.... “The fact that ( experts) may have no intent to harm others does not relieve them of the need to behave in a manner that does not put others at risk.”

 

So why lie if masks really work?

 

 

 

Edited by hazence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, broberts said:

 

Sure there is a lot of stuff on the net that purports to be science. And, it seems that many insist science not evolve its thinking as new data becomes available. Neither of these should encourage peop!e to pick and choose appropriate behaviors. Just because there are those that, (in my opinion often maliciously), post misleading and confusing content does not give everyone license to pick and choose. 

 

Science does evolve and we must adjust as new data establishes new understsnding.

 

The current understanding is that asymptomatic people are infectious. 

 

During this pandemic, more so than at other times, an individual's behavior has a direct and potentially deadly effect on many others. In these circumstances individuals do not have the right to behave based only on their own risk factors. The fact that people may have no intent to harm others does not relieve them of the need to behave in a manner that does not put others at risk.

Proven science doesn’t evolve.  We may learn a deeper meaning.  

Junk science, which we have in abundance today, evolves, devolves and just plain deceives.  Public health science clearly falls into this kind of science. 

 

JC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, broberts said:

 

Sure there is a lot of stuff on the net that purports to be science. And, it seems that many insist science not evolve its thinking as new data becomes available. Neither of these should encourage peop!e to pick and choose appropriate behaviors. Just because there are those that, (in my opinion often maliciously), post misleading and confusing content does not give everyone license to pick and choose. 

 

Science does evolve and we must adjust as new data establishes new understsnding.

 

The current understanding is that asymptomatic people are infectious. 

 

During this pandemic, more so than at other times, an individual's behavior has a direct and potentially deadly effect on many others. In these circumstances individuals do not have the right to behave based only on their own risk factors. The fact that people may have no intent to harm others does not relieve them of the need to behave in a manner that does not put others at risk.

 

So, you want us to treat science like a religion?  Believe in the Almighty Scientist.  Do what we say whether it is right or not.  In fact, you can pick and choose which scientist to believe, since they all seem to have different opinions. If it turns out to be wrong, the Almighty Scientist can say he had a new "vision" that told us something different. 

 

"During this pandemic, more so than at other times, an individual's behavior has a direct and potentially deadly effect on many others." 

This isn't true.  There have been other diseases with a much higher fatality rate floating around and no one locked down. No one batted an eye.  No one upped their handwashing game or rudely judged those not wearing a mask.  In fact, most people probably don't know much about them.   The video people are watching about covid being passed around from person to person is true about a lot of germs, not just covid.  

 

It is great that people are becoming more conscientious about their hygiene, even if they are making errors in how to combat it.  It isn't great that people are trying to shove their ethical beliefs on others who don't believe the same as they do.   That doesn't make them right or wrong - just different, and different is what makes the world go around. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, broberts said:

 

Sure there is a lot of stuff on the net that purports to be science. And, it seems that many insist science not evolve its thinking as new data becomes available. Neither of these should encourage peop!e to pick and choose appropriate behaviors. Just because there are those that, (in my opinion often maliciously), post misleading and confusing content does not give everyone license to pick and choose. 

 

Science does evolve and we must adjust as new data establishes new understsnding.

 

The current understanding is that asymptomatic people are infectious. 

 

During this pandemic, more so than at other times, an individual's behavior has a direct and potentially deadly effect on many others. In these circumstances individuals do not have the right to behave based only on their own risk factors. The fact that people may have no intent to harm others does not relieve them of the need to behave in a manner that does not put others at risk.

 

This is where the need for the slogan of #stayathome comes into play. If I go out, I'm only a risk to myself and others that are out as well. If you stay at home, most believe you're longer at risk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a hospital RN in a heavily hit part of NJ. Our staff infection rate dropped dramatically when we went to universal masking. I do not go anywhere in public without an N-95 mask and another mask on top of that, and goggles. I have remained negative. NJ has successfully flattened the curve, things are dramatically improved and we are down to less than 50 positive inpatients. Some of my infected and recovered coworkers are starting back to work now. 

 

I love cruising, it's my happy place. I look forward to getting back out there. Unfortunately my employer is requiring a 14 day quarantine after cruising so that's going to make it difficult. I would go but definitely in a balcony cabin just in case we get stuck having to stay in. And I will definitely be wearing a mask. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Jasukkie said:

I'm a hospital RN in a heavily hit part of NJ. Our staff infection rate dropped dramatically when we went to universal masking. I do not go anywhere in public without an N-95 mask and another mask on top of that, and goggles. I have remained negative. NJ has successfully flattened the curve, things are dramatically improved and we are down to less than 50 positive inpatients. Some of my infected and recovered coworkers are starting back to work now. 

 

I love cruising, it's my happy place. I look forward to getting back out there. Unfortunately my employer is requiring a 14 day quarantine after cruising so that's going to make it difficult. I would go but definitely in a balcony cabin just in case we get stuck having to stay in. And I will definitely be wearing a mask. 

My wife is a retired RN and she will never leave our house without a mask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2020 at 12:46 PM, Ourusualbeach said:

Just announced that masks will be required for crew and probably by guests initially and maybe until there is a vaccine. 

I would have to consider going on a cruise if masks are mandated for guests. Don't like it. And I feel for the crew as well. As many hours as they work, do you think they really want to wear one? Also, with the heat, it would seem unhealthy to wear one for hours on end; and there are other health issues that do not support wearing a mask for long periods of time. The crew's hospitality is a special part of a cruise, and all one will see is a face covering, no human interaction or emotion. You cannot see someone's smile. That goes for the mask issue for everybody. Something to think about...the loss off facial expressions. Personally, I am opposed to mandating masks on cruises, but the company is going to do what they have to do to start sailing once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, keywestbruce said:

I would have to consider going on a cruise if masks are mandated for guests. Don't like it. And I feel for the crew as well. As many hours as they work, do you think they really want to wear one? Also, with the heat, it would seem unhealthy to wear one for hours on end; and there are other health issues that do not support wearing a mask for long periods of time. The crew's hospitality is a special part of a cruise, and all one will see is a face covering, no human interaction or emotion. You cannot see someone's smile. That goes for the mask issue for everybody. Something to think about...the loss off facial expressions. Personally, I am opposed to mandating masks on cruises, but the company is going to do what they have to do to start sailing once again.


We are also in the wait and see category.   I don’t mind wearing a mask when running errands but I don’t think I would enjoy sitting at the pool in a mask. 
 

I am hopeful that more and more solutions like ClearMask that’s been on the news lately or face shield hats will become a suitable and mainstream solution so you can see their faces and smiles.   My husband also struggles with hearing loss and the muffled sound plus the lack of lip reading for him is a challenge.    But a clear SeaFace mask 😷 would make it more possible To enjoy our time!

 

My bestie has a cruise planned for February and they fully plan to take it.  Their traveling party includes a 77 year old matriarch who is leading the charge.   Will be watching how it all unfolds...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, lenquixote66 said:

My wife is a retired RN and she will never leave our house without a mask.

My wife is a retired physician of 37 years and she says wearing a mask is worse for your health than not wearing one.  Lots of different points of view even among professionals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Lazz said:

My wife is a retired physician of 37 years and she says wearing a mask is worse for your health than not wearing one.  Lots of different points of view even among professionals.

This is what we were always taught as nurses. That the act of touching the mask and contaminating your hands caused more disease spread than not wearing a mask. I know it's anecdotal but at my hospital,the numbers say otherwise. Universal masking of all healthcare workers and visitors, and patients where possible drastically cut transmission. Of course, these are actual medical masks and not fabric ones so I can't say that helps at all. 

 

Honestly, it's depressing being masked for 12 hours at a time. You talk to your peers less, you move inward emotionally. You deal with chronic dehydration (UTIs are a problem). Your mask starts to break down over time and little fibers break lose and get in your mouth. Sometimes you feel hungry for air or get headaches. It's still better than getting the virus and perhaps unknowingly transmitting to someone vulnerable. That is a constant fear for healthcare workers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lazz said:

My wife is a retired physician of 37 years and she says wearing a mask is worse for your health than not wearing one.  Lots of different points of view even among professionals.

Well, I am not retired and I completely agree with her. I cover my face when I enter a business that request it out of respect for the establishment.  To not leave the house without wearing one is fine if it is someone's choice but it sure is not mine.

 

Remember when you were a kid and your mother would say get outside and get some fresh air? There is plenty to be said for that. Mother really did know best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, xpcdoojk said:

Proven science doesn’t evolve.  We may learn a deeper meaning.  

Junk science, which we have in abundance today, evolves, devolves and just plain deceives.  Public health science clearly falls into this kind of science. 

 

JC

There are any number of reasons way public health science falls into your "junk science" category. First, politics are always involved with it. Even State Departments of Health ultimately answer to a political governor. Then you have people in jobs that have to show that they are doing something to earn their paychecks, and others trying to make a name for themselves, and on it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

There are any number of reasons way public health science falls into your "junk science" category. First, politics are always involved with it. Even State Departments of Health ultimately answer to a political governor. Then you have people in jobs that have to show that they are doing something to earn their paychecks, and others trying to make a name for themselves, and on it goes.

You know I agree with you.  I think there are lots of good public health doctors, but when people and in particular people in Government say follow the science... like it is some sort of religious chant, and people who want to believe them parrot it... I laugh at comparing those scientists with Newton or Einstein.  They act like the science is equally valid, because it is science.  

 

It is not.  So, we are just left with their demands that we accept the religion or be heretics.  Have you noticed how much time these governors of mostly blue states spend talking about science everyday.  Or how they wont send their kids to summer camp, and neither will you.  Or how, they close beaches to swimming, but you are allowed to be on the dry sand.  Insanity, is not descriptive enough.  

 

I wear a mask, everytime I go into a store.  Where I live I am in the vast minority.  I know that some people are deeply offended when they see someone without a mask, I don’t need to trigger additional hostility trying to buy food.  

 

JC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lazz said:

My wife is a retired physician of 37 years and she says wearing a mask is worse for your health than not wearing one.  Lots of different points of view even among professionals.

Obviously .I have a niece who is currently an MD and she is very pro wearing of a mask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, hazence said:

So why lie if masks really work?

 

They did not lie. There is no evidence to suggest that scientists knowingly made false statements. Without evidence, suggesting that they did is an obvious attempt to discredit their work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, xpcdoojk said:

Proven science doesn’t evolve.  We may learn a deeper meaning.  

Junk science, which we have in abundance today, evolves, devolves and just plain deceives.  Public health science clearly falls into this kind of science. 

 

JC

 

We are not dealing with proven science. That does not make it junk. In fact if only proven science is considered science an awful lot of scientists are going to be surprised. Science is a methodology of gathering knowledge. By its very nature it evolves our understanding of the real world.

 

Suggesting that medical doctors practice junk science is undeserved and inaccurate.

Edited by broberts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with the Quark Expeditions Team!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...