Are vaccines the light at the end of the tunnel?

[UnorigionalName]

59 minutes ago, 4774Papa said:

 

In particular, we all know the risk of death or serious complications from COVID19 is very, very low for children under 16.  

 

I think this was true one year ago, but less and less true today.  Many of the new variants seem to hit younger people harder than the original strain.

 

Also, getting minor fatigue as a life-long complication of a COVID infection is pretty bad when you are 70, but if you are 15... that's pretty devastating.

[D C]

2 hours ago, docsneeze said:

Cruise ship.  We need to focus on this subject in the context of a cruise ship.  Lot of brilliant people on this thread but still need to acknowledge the potential increased risk of a cruise ship and vaccinate 12-15 y/o accordingly.  If you want to cruise, you need the shot.  As a researcher, this is no brainer as 12 and above usually evaluated with adults.  Studies so far show 100% efficacy!  As parent of 3 y/o, will vaccinate my child but additional safety data will be available by late Fall when that decision is made.  As pediatric immunologist, this vaccine is apparently the safest and most effective one developed.  Key word apparently.  Where would we be if we had the same attitude about the.polio vaccine in the 50s?

The potential increased exposure on a cruise ship would be minimal, would it not?

Assuming a 95% vaccination requirement and assuming that the current known infection rate is about 1/1000 of the US population.  The unvaccinated 5% would need to be one of those 1/1000 just to get a case onboard.  Very small chance of that.  For it to spread, the lone person beating those odds would have to seek out and have meaningful contact with another unvaccinated person or one of the small percentage of vaccinated people susceptible to a breakthrough case.   There are a lot of zeros after the decimal point.  We're talking a risk level on par with me getting hit by lightning walking to my mailbox on a sunny day.  

[docsneeze]

4 minutes ago, D C said:

The potential increased exposure on a cruise ship would be minimal, would it not?

Assuming a 95% vaccination requirement and assuming that the current known infection rate is about 1/1000 of the US population.  The unvaccinated 5% would need to be one of those 1/1000 just to get a case onboard.  Very small chance of that.  For it to spread, the lone person beating those odds would have to seek out and have meaningful contact with another unvaccinated person or one of the small percentage of vaccinated people susceptible to a breakthrough case.   There are a lot of zeros after the decimal point.  We're talking a risk level on par with me getting hit by lightning walking to my mailbox on a sunny day.  

Only if more than 95% are vaccinated which is my point precisely!  Still 5% unvaccinated of 1000 would be 50 people whose contact would be more intimate than the general population.  Not to mention variants.

[D C]

40 minutes ago, docsneeze said:

Only if more than 95% are vaccinated which is my point precisely!  Still 5% unvaccinated of 1000 would be 50 people whose contact would be more intimate than the general population.  Not to mention variants.

Let's say there are 2500 people on a ship

5% of those unvaccinated = 125 unvaccinated people on the ship

1/1000 people with covid = 0.125 people with covid expected on the ship if we assume a random sample of people in the US today and do nothing in the way of screening.  

2499.875 out of 2500 aren't infected, so a 99.995% chance that nobody on the ship is infected.

 

That isn't good enough?

 

 

 

[docsneeze]

3 minutes ago, D C said:

Let's say there are 2500 people on a ship

5% of those unvaccinated = 125 unvaccinated people on the ship

1/1000 people with covid = 0.125 people with covid expected on the ship if we assume a random sample of people in the US today and do nothing in the way of screening.  

2499.875 out of 2500 aren't infected, so a 99.995% chance that nobody on the ship is infected.

 

That isn't good enough?

 

 

 

Depends.  If one person has Covid asymptomatically, could potentially spread easily to infect others.  Not sure if I agree with 1/1000 infection rate with Positivity rates ranging 1-10% roughly depending on state.  Either way, too many variables with intimate contact to risk which is why they may still insist on masking, distancing, etc.  My main point is that to enjoy the cruise without other public health measures, almost complete vaccination is needed to protect as many individuals as possible.  Even the best vaccines have only 91% efficacy after 6 months of data so far.

[D C]

1 minute ago, docsneeze said:

Depends.  If one person has Covid asymptomatically, could potentially spread easily to infect others.  Not sure if I agree with 1/1000 infection rate with Positivity rates ranging 1-10% roughly depending on state.  Either way, too many variables with intimate contact to risk which is why they may still insist on masking, distancing, etc.  My main point is that to enjoy the cruise without other public health measures, almost complete vaccination is needed to protect as many individuals as possible.  Even the best vaccines have only 91% efficacy after 6 months of data so far.

The US reported ~36k cases yesterday, which is a snapshot of a downward trend.  Assume someone is 'infected' for 10 days, that's 360k infected people.  330 million in the us, that works out to 1.1 cases for every 1000 people.  I like easy math, so 1/1000 it is.

 

The positivity is out of people being tested.  Let's hope that number is higher and that those people have a reason for being tested.

 

At 99.995% covid free, with little risk of transmission, I'll enjoy those odds as they should be good enough for a completely normal cruise.  

 

btw, the efficacy is effectively 100% against death and nearly as good against severe illness resulting in hospitalization.   The CDC doesn't even care enough about mild breakthrough cases at this point to even track them.  

Edited May 11, 2021 by D C

[Oceangoer2]

2 hours ago, K.T.B. said:

 

Over a decade ago I had some rather major neck surgery performed on me.  I had very good odds of pulling through just fine, but there was a chance things could go wrong.  I had a blown disc pressing up against my spinal cord.  I forget the odds that I could end up paralyzed after the operation (I think 10-15% chance), but I had a 100% chance of eventually being paralyzed if I did nothing.  I know you didn't ask me that question, but hell yes I'd do it.  Just like I got my shot. 

 

Always got with the odds.  

Speaking of odds....DH was in the same position re spinal surgery....you play the hand you're dealt and happy there was something in the cards that could work....sorry for all the play on words...can't help myself...LOL.  Very happy your surgery worked for you!

Edited May 11, 2021 by Oceangoer2

[docsneeze]

25 minutes ago, D C said:

The US reported ~36k cases yesterday, which is a snapshot of a downward trend.  Assume someone is 'infected' for 10 days, that's 360k infected people.  330 million in the us, that works out to 1.1 cases for every 1000 people.  I like easy math, so 1/1000 it is.

 

The positivity is out of people being tested.  Let's hope that number is higher and that those people have a reason for being tested.

 

At 99.995% covid free, with little risk of transmission, I'll enjoy those odds as they should be good enough for a completely normal cruise.  

 

btw, the efficacy is effectively 100% against death and nearly as good against severe illness resulting in hospitalization.   The CDC doesn't even care enough about mild breakthrough cases at this point to even track them.  

Yeah I know.  You win.  Feel better?

[nocl]

38 minutes ago, D C said:

The US reported ~36k cases yesterday, which is a snapshot of a downward trend.  Assume someone is 'infected' for 10 days, that's 360k infected people.  330 million in the us, that works out to 1.1 cases for every 1000 people.  I like easy math, so 1/1000 it is.

 

The positivity is out of people being tested.  Let's hope that number is higher and that those people have a reason for being tested.

 

At 99.995% covid free, with little risk of transmission, I'll enjoy those odds as they should be good enough for a completely normal cruise.  

 

btw, the efficacy is effectively 100% against death and nearly as good against severe illness resulting in hospitalization.   The CDC doesn't even care enough about mild breakthrough cases at this point to even track them.  

mortality is reduced by 98% against the original strain and B.117. less against B.1.351 and other with E424 mutation. so protection is not effectively 100% against death and hospitalization. greatly reduced but not eliminated with current strains.

[4774Papa]

2 hours ago, UnorigionalName said:

 

I think this was true one year ago, but less and less true today.  Many of the new variants seem to hit younger people harder than the original strain.

 

Also, getting minor fatigue as a life-long complication of a COVID infection is pretty bad when you are 70, but if you are 15... that's pretty devastating.

Here are the latest numbers, the risk for the young is still extremely low.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

 

[mayleeman]

@D C Let's play Russian Roulette with the odds you cite. Here is a thousand chamber gun with a single round loaded. I spin the chamber. How many times would you willingly play it in order to cruise? Thought not.

 

Anyway, the infection rate is not distributed randomly. There may be more or less of a chance of getting an infection or aberrant infection depending on where someone is coming from and how they travel to the port. Those odds get increased for every interaction on the way. People flying may be with dozens of infected people since vax is not required to fly or enter an airport, and only masks and good filters will lower the odds of exposure.

 

Then there is the crew, all the people working in the cruise terminal, all the people in ports of call, and (perhaps worst of all) all the people who don't give a [----] about whether they are exposed or exposing, and who fake vax docs or lie about symptoms to get aboard.

 

The exposure odds may not be large overall, but they are not one tiny dot in a massive scatter graph.

Edited May 11, 2021 by mayleeman

[4774Papa]

1 hour ago, mayleeman said:

@D C Let's play Russian Roulette with the odds you cite. Here is a thousand chamber gun with a single round loaded. I spin the chamber. How many times would you willingly play it in order to cruise? Thought not.

 

Anyway, the infection rate is not distributed randomly. There may be more or less of a chance of getting an infection or aberrant infection depending on where someone is coming from and how they travel to the port. Those odds get increased for every interaction on the way. People flying may be with dozens of infected people since vax is not required to fly or enter an airport, and only masks and good filters will lower the odds of exposure.

 

Then there is the crew, all the people working in the cruise terminal, all the people in ports of call, and (perhaps worst of all) all the people who don't give a [----] about whether they are exposed or exposing, and who fake vax docs or lie about symptoms to get aboard.

 

The exposure odds may not be large overall, but they are not one tiny dot in a massive scatter graph.

Come on, Russian Roulette involves a 1 in 6 chance of dying, with one bullet in a 6 chambered revolver.

Even without a vaccine, even a senior like me with NO underlying conditions, my chance of death to the virus is less than 1%.    With a vaccine, the risk of death is WAY, WAY lower.   

We have been going out to eat about 3 times a month for the last 6 months, even before we had the vaccine early this year.   I guess we were playing Russian Roulette!  NOT.

 

[docsneeze]

28 minutes ago, 4774Papa said:

Come on, Russian Roulette involves a 1 in 6 chance of dying, with one bullet in a 6 chambered revolver.

Even without a vaccine, even a senior like me with NO underlying conditions, my chance of death to the virus is less than 1%.    With a vaccine, the risk of death is WAY, WAY lower.   

We have been going out to eat about 3 times a month for the last 6 months, even before we had the vaccine early this year.   I guess we were playing Russian Roulette!  NOT.

 

Please tell that to the 583,000 Americans who died and their families who thought it wouldn't happen to them.  Sorry but I and others on this thread feel differently.  We all want to cruise together and I would be happy to dine with all of you when it's safe to do so.  Nevertheless, I wish you only the best.

[D C]

 

2 hours ago, mayleeman said:

@D C Let's play Russian Roulette with the odds you cite. Here is a thousand chamber gun with a single round loaded. I spin the chamber. How many times would you willingly play it in order to cruise? Thought not.

 

Anyway, the infection rate is not distributed randomly. There may be more or less of a chance of getting an infection or aberrant infection depending on where someone is coming from and how they travel to the port. Those odds get increased for every interaction on the way. People flying may be with dozens of infected people since vax is not required to fly or enter an airport, and only masks and good filters will lower the odds of exposure.

 

Then there is the crew, all the people working in the cruise terminal, all the people in ports of call, and (perhaps worst of all) all the people who don't give a [----] about whether they are exposed or exposing, and who fake vax docs or lie about symptoms to get aboard.

 

The exposure odds may not be large overall, but they are not one tiny dot in a massive scatter graph.

 

Change that to a 20k round gun with 1 round chambered, but instead of killing you, it gives you a nasty paper cut and squirts some lemon juice on it.   That's the kind of risk we're talking about here.  Yeah, that cut might get infected, land you in the hospital, sepsis sets in and you end up dying, but that's so remote you don't even worry about it. 

 

It's a level of risk that is far below so many other things we do on a daily basis that it should readily fall into the "acceptable risk" category.  But it's a NEW risk.  I get it.  Many people are more afraid of new risks than longstanding risks that are far greater. 

[nocl]

3 hours ago, D C said:

Let's say there are 2500 people on a ship

5% of those unvaccinated = 125 unvaccinated people on the ship

1/1000 people with covid = 0.125 people with covid expected on the ship if we assume a random sample of people in the US today and do nothing in the way of screening.  

2499.875 out of 2500 aren't infected, so a 99.995% chance that nobody on the ship is infected.

 

That isn't good enough?

 

 

 

Now just get the cruise lines to send in the documents committing them to vaccination, complete their port agreements and submit their plans for review. The only one out of the big 3 that seems to be actively working on US departures is NCL.

 

I expect that even with vaccination, excursions will be restricted until case counts have dropped low enough in ports. Masks will certainly be required during embarkation and most likely during excursions. probably indoor except when dining, probably not outdoor.

 

estimates are that testing is only catching about 1 in 3 cases because many are not tested.

 

Some things will get more relaxed when case numbers get down in the 10k per day and lower range.

[UnorigionalName]

5 hours ago, 4774Papa said:

Here are the latest numbers, the risk for the young is still extremely low.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

 

 

aggregate us data is not what I am saying, I am saying newer variants.

 

and why are you fixated on only death?

 

so-far-permanent fatigue, depression, and change of sense of smell are pretty bad outcomes in young people, and not only seen in severe cases.  Who knows what the long term costs are going to be.

 

[nocl]

1 hour ago, UnorigionalName said:

 

aggregate us data is not what I am saying, I am saying newer variants.

 

and why are you fixated on only death?

 

so-far-permanent fatigue, depression, and change of sense of smell are pretty bad outcomes in young people, and not only seen in severe cases.  Who knows what the long term costs are going to be.

 

a number of papers exist discussing long term cardiac, brain, kidneys, etc that a showing up in a number of cases, even in asymptomatic illness, not even getting to the long haulers.

 

The impact of covid on quality of like, medical costs and even longevity in the future from cases today will be material.

[4774Papa]

COVID19 is likely to be around for a while.  We will likely need booster shots every year.   However, I don't plan to hide in my basement (sorry, don't have a basement) the rest of my life.

[TeeRick]

18 hours ago, UnorigionalName said:

 

I think this was true one year ago, but less and less true today.  Many of the new variants seem to hit younger people harder than the original strain.

 

Also, getting minor fatigue as a life-long complication of a COVID infection is pretty bad when you are 70, but if you are 15... that's pretty devastating.

You might be right with some variant(s) and the younger ages.  But it is hard to document so far anyway.  Just a very small fraction of Covid positives have their virus actually sequenced.  And it might not be random but targeted.  So is a variant more severe or deadly in younger people/kids?  Or does it just stand out more since so many more older adults are vaccinated or have natural immunity?  A variant infecting young people and kids is higher by proportion now but is it really more severe or deadly?  

[TeeRick]

13 hours ago, docsneeze said:

Please tell that to the 583,000 Americans who died and their families who thought it wouldn't happen to them.  Sorry but I and others on this thread feel differently.  We all want to cruise together and I would be happy to dine with all of you when it's safe to do so.  Nevertheless, I wish you only the best.

I think the best focus for me now is forward.  So much has changed since many of these poor Americans perished from the virus when it was unknown and there were no vaccines.  But getting us back to cruising and living more normal lives is now the issue we are discussing.  The national and state health authorities are numbers driven as they have been from the beginning.  Positives.  Positivity rates. Hospitalizations.  Deaths.  Percent hospital or ICU beds available.  None of these categories will be zero maybe for years.  Vaccines are having the intended impact on all of them.  If 20-25% of all seniors over 65 refuse to be vaccinated and continue to die at this point that is a consequence of their personal choice.  But of course everybody will report the death rate and make the case that the virus is still here and deadly.  And keep the restrictions in place for activities like cruising.  Even for the rest of us who choose to be vaccinated.  It is close to the time to acknowledge in the USA that we have readily available vaccines and if you choose not to get one or for your kids not to get one that is your choice and consequence.  Not mine.  I am not hiding from life anymore because you made the wrong choice.  

[ipeeinthepool]

Celebrity seems to be ignoring some of the benefits from a vaccine by not requiring vaccinations for future cruises from the US.  Cruises could get back to normal faster if they would mandate vaccinations for passengers and crew.

[ipeeinthepool]

1 minute ago, TeeRick said:

I think the best focus for me now is forward.  So much has changed since many of these poor Americans perished from the virus when it was unknown and there were no vaccines.  But getting us back to cruising and living more normal lives is now the issue we are discussing.  The national and state health authorities are numbers driven as they have been from the beginning.  Positives.  Positivity rates. Hospitalizations.  Deaths.  Percent hospital or ICU beds available.  None of these categories will be zero maybe for years.  Vaccines are having the intended impact on all of them.  If 20-25% of all seniors over 65 refuse to be vaccinated and continue to die at this point that is a consequence of their personal choice.  But of course everybody will report the death rate and make the case that the virus is still here and deadly.  And keep the restrictions in place for activities like cruising.  Even for the rest of us who choose to be vaccinated.  It is close to the time to acknowledge in the USA that we have readily available vaccines and if you choose not to get one or for your kids not to get one that is your choice and consequence.  Not mine.  I am not hiding from life anymore because you made the wrong choice.  

 

Best post ever.

[Bluewake]

Because of the contagion potential (about 3x more contagious than the common flu by some estimates), a person who is infected with Covid-19 doesn't typically pass it on to only one other person.  According to a late 2020 study by the WHO, the average person infected with Coronavirus infects between 2 and 3 others.  And, some researchers suggest an even higher transmission rate.  Sounds like no big deal.  However, it's the exponential dynamic that is concerning.  If one person does, indeed, infect three others and each of them goes on to infect three others, 5 levels later, that one person could lead to the infection of almost 2200 people. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200812-exponential-growth-bias-the-numerical-error-behind-covid-19

 

Of course, that is only a hypothetical and with the combination of vaccines, masking, and social distancing precautions, the transmission ratio today probably is (hopefully!)  much less than 1 to 3.  And, one also has to take into consideration the time between  being infected and being contagious...the  estimated range being 2 to 14 days.   If it takes several days between being infected and being contagious, perhaps that is underlying the thinking of restricting cruises to 7 days. 

 

 

[TeeRick]

4 minutes ago, Bluewake said:

Because of the contagion potential (about 3x more contagious than the common flu by some estimates), a person who is infected with Covid-19 doesn't typically pass it on to only one other person.  According to a late 2020 study by the WHO, the average person infected with Coronavirus infects between 2 and 3 others.  And, some researchers suggest an even higher transmission rate.  Sounds like no big deal.  However, it's the exponential dynamic that is concerning.  If one person does, indeed, infect three others and each of them goes on to infect three others, 5 levels later, that one person could lead to the infection of almost 2200 people. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200812-exponential-growth-bias-the-numerical-error-behind-covid-19

 

Of course, that is only a hypothetical and with the combination of vaccines, masking, and social distancing precautions, the transmission ratio today probably is (hopefully!)  much less than 1 to 3.  And, one also has to take into consideration the time between  being infected and being contagious...the  estimated range being 2 to 14 days.   If it takes several days between being infected and being contagious, perhaps that is underlying the thinking of restricting cruises to 7 days. 

 

 

Ok all well known for transmission rates for Covid.  But the transmission rate to and amongst fully vaccinated people on a fully vaccinated ship is the relevant thing that we are talking about.

[Ride-The-Waves]

18 hours ago, D C said:

Let's say there are 2500 people on a ship

5% of those unvaccinated = 125 unvaccinated people on the ship

1/1000 people with covid = 0.125 people with covid expected on the ship if we assume a random sample of people in the US today and do nothing in the way of screening.  

2499.875 out of 2500 aren't infected, so a 99.995% chance that nobody on the ship is infected.

 

That isn't good enough?

 

 

 

You really need to go back to university and take a course in statistics and Boolean logic.

 

All it takes is ONE on a cruise ship to infect the passengers and crew.  ONE!