Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

If Royal Requires A Covid-19 Vaccine Before Cruising Will You Get It???

julesbeara
 Share

If Royal Requires A Covid-19 Vaccine Before Cruising Will You Get It???  

1,014 members have voted

  1. 1. If Royal Requires A Covid-19 Vaccine Before Cruising Will You Get It So You Can Cruise Again?

    • YES
      795
    • NO
      220

Recommended Posts

NJ&Ozzie

NJ&Ozzie

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

Why on earth would we ignore the possible long term impacts?  Have we learned nothing from past vaccine disasters?   We SHOULD be cautious and SHOULD do our due diligence.

 

 

You're using emotive language to try and support an argument that concerns science and fact.  The two do not mix. 

 

You also need to look properly at the Pfizer trial because you seem ill-informed about it.

 

The trial involved 44,000 participants not "hundreds of thousands".   And about that 95% figure . . .

 

If I said I could increase your chances of winning the lottery by 100% do you think that sounds good !

It certainly makes for a sensational statement doesn't it, much like "95% effectiveness", but what does it really mean in real life?

 

It means you buy an extra lottery ticket so now you have double the chance of winning but because your chances were utterly abysmally small from the outset, they remain utterly abysmal even after buying a 2nd ticket and increasing your chances by 100%.   It's the difference between a RELATIVE increase and an ABSOLUTE increase.

 

So let's look at that Pfizer trial

 

There were 44,000 people, of which 22,000 were vaccinated and 22,000 got placebo

 

NOBODY was deliberately infected with Covid.  Understand this from the outset.  So once people had their jabs they were simply left, back to real life, to see if anyone subsequently got exposed to Covid and if so how many were in the placebo group and how many in the vaccine group.

 

The results?

 

Out of 44,000 people, only 170 ended up coming into contact with Covid of which 162 were in the placebo group and 8 in the vaccine group.  Pfizer naturally present that as a 95% effectiveness.

 

But just like the lottery tickets, we must assess the reality of the situation.

 

The reality was that those that did nothing, who were not vaccinated saw just 162 cases of Covid in 22,000 people.   That means they saw a 0.74% rate of getting Covid. Simple maths.

 

In turn that means those people had a 99.26% chance of NOT getting Covid

 

So that's the baseline the "background radiation" if you like. 

 

I don't know about you but I very much like those odds.  99.26% of NOT getting Covid at all! 

 

Now the vaccinated group saw 8 cases in 22,000 people which means they saw a 0.04% rate of getting Covid.

 

Or to put it the other way, they had a 99.96% chance of NOT getting Covid

 

So the difference in terms of getting Covid between the 2 groups was actually less than 1%.  It was in fact just 0.7%

 

Now call me Mr Picky but the rational logical side of me says that it is more relevant and important to look at that actual 0.7% difference than the more sensational headline of 95% effectiveness.

 

For me, a test for such a vitally important vaccine, on which not only lives hang, but more importantly on which the entire future of the vaccine industry lies, should really have involved a great deal more than a lousy 170 cases of Covid.  imho.

 

The UK is about to begin something far more useful and accurate which is a set of "Challenge Trials" in which participants will be DELIBERATELY infected with Covid.  Hopefully they will be able to do this, as safely as possible with a much bigger quantity of people in order to get a better picture of any of the vaccine's efficacy.

 

I think in the context of Covid we really do have to go down that route of deliberately infecting people.

 

So at the moment I am not at all inclined to take the vaccine on offer because I'm not personally convinced by those trial results and because of the other unknowns that remain which include:

 

- Not knowing whether those vaccinated can still transmit Covid to other people

 

- Not knowing how long any derived immunity will actually last

 

- Not knowing which specific Covid strains the vaccine has actually been proven to cover

 

- Not knowing what the long term impacts are (if any)

 

 

I believe it's important for my health to be able to make an informed decision and at this stage, the data just is not there to be able to make any kind of informed decision. 

These are some interesting facts & info.  Normal time to come up with a vaccine is between 4-10 years.  How was the covid vaccine done in approx. 7 months?  Wondering - have you read what Dr. Fauci says about the PCR tests?  The tests are being run between 35-40 cycles which is way higher than normal, the results are guaranteed to show a positive & pick up any old virus particles in your system, even tho you are not sick.  Thus lots of positive cases. 

 

Fauci says the PCR tests should be run below 35 cycles to be truly accurate.  So curious why don't hospitals run the tests at the lower cycle?  And why wouldn't this info be available to people?

NJ 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
xpcdoojk "Live from...." Rare

xpcdoojk

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, M&A said:

He should've mentioned that it took place in 1932 !!  

 

I wonder if soldiers have a cultural memory of being put in the desert near nuclear blasts?  They probably fear democrats to this day.  😂  Pretty easy to play the stupid gotcha game.  No culture is free of what are perceived today as crimes.  

 

We could all try to be good to each other now and forgive others for things they didn’t do.  But then how can you control people without reasons to hate others.  

Edited by xpcdoojk
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soremekun

soremekun

Posted
Posted
On 12/22/2020 at 4:30 PM, HaveWeMetYet said:

About 35 percent of Black Americans said they probably or definitely would not get the vaccine if it was determined to be safe by scientists and widely available for free.

 

Sign me up.  As soon as I'm allowed to, I'll be vaccinated.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NJ&Ozzie

NJ&Ozzie

Posted
Posted
I don't know about "awake".  But I like researching stuff.  And seem to have a bit of time on my hands right now!  Here's some info on PCR.  FYI, I use duckduckgo search engine.   
 
1983 - Inventor of PCR test - Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize winner).  PCR revolutionized forensic science to amplify & isolate dna/rna.  Mullis had strong opinions about Toni Fauci.  Mullis said Fauci was using PCR testing for fraudulent purposes.
 

Mullis stated PCR test is flawed, dangerous and should never be used to test for pathogens because it only amplifies certain RNA in DNA samples.  If PCR run at cycles over 35 - we all have retro virus in our bodies.  Mullis said you can find anything in anybody.  Fauci admitted PCR is being run at over 35 cycles for covid testing.  https://www.wnd.com/2020/12/fauci-admitted-widely-used-covid-test-picks-harmless-dead-virus/

 

Mullis was an independent thinker.  He was often censored as he spoke out about the shady pseudo-corporate-funded pharmaceutical/pandemic machine that was using his science to build a deceitful pandemic web of corporations and charities.  (199) Kary Mullis, Inventor of PCR Test – “PCR is not a reliable test for viruses” - YouTube

 
Mullis died Aug. 7, 2019 (some say suspiciously).   Shortly after Mullis' death, Bill Gates, Fauci & John Hopkins University held Event 201, in October 2019, a pandemic simulation event.  https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/about  
You hear virtually nothing about Kary Mullis now.  
 
NJ
 
 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yogimax

yogimax

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, NJ&Ozzie said:
I don't know about "awake".  But I like researching stuff.  
 
Mullis was an independent thinker.     
 
You hear virtually nothing about Kary Mullis now.  

If you truly believed in "researching stuff," you would have learned that Mullis believed in astrology. 

 

In addition,  Mullis "reported an encounter with a 'standard extraterrestrial raccoon' at his cabin in the woods of northern California around midnight one night in 1985.

 

It's no wonder you don't hear about his goofy theories anymore.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Etta1213

Etta1213

Posted
Posted
On 12/23/2020 at 1:48 PM, KnowTheScore said:

 

Why on earth would we ignore the possible long term impacts?  Have we learned nothing from past vaccine disasters?   We SHOULD be cautious and SHOULD do our due diligence.

 

 

You're using emotive language to try and support an argument that concerns science and fact.  The two do not mix. 

 

You also need to look properly at the Pfizer trial because you seem ill-informed about it.

 

The trial involved 44,000 participants not "hundreds of thousands".   And about that 95% figure . . .

 

If I said I could increase your chances of winning the lottery by 100% do you think that sounds good !

It certainly makes for a sensational statement doesn't it, much like "95% effectiveness", but what does it really mean in real life?

 

It means you buy an extra lottery ticket so now you have double the chance of winning but because your chances were utterly abysmally small from the outset, they remain utterly abysmal even after buying a 2nd ticket and increasing your chances by 100%.   It's the difference between a RELATIVE increase and an ABSOLUTE increase.

 

So let's look at that Pfizer trial

 

There were 44,000 people, of which 22,000 were vaccinated and 22,000 got placebo

 

NOBODY was deliberately infected with Covid.  Understand this from the outset.  So once people had their jabs they were simply left, back to real life, to see if anyone subsequently got exposed to Covid and if so how many were in the placebo group and how many in the vaccine group.

 

The results?

 

Out of 44,000 people, only 170 ended up coming into contact with Covid of which 162 were in the placebo group and 8 in the vaccine group.  Pfizer naturally present that as a 95% effectiveness.

 

But just like the lottery tickets, we must assess the reality of the situation.

 

The reality was that those that did nothing, who were not vaccinated saw just 162 cases of Covid in 22,000 people.   That means they saw a 0.74% rate of getting Covid. Simple maths.

 

In turn that means those people had a 99.26% chance of NOT getting Covid

 

So that's the baseline the "background radiation" if you like. 

 

I don't know about you but I very much like those odds.  99.26% of NOT getting Covid at all! 

 

Now the vaccinated group saw 8 cases in 22,000 people which means they saw a 0.04% rate of getting Covid.

 

Or to put it the other way, they had a 99.96% chance of NOT getting Covid

 

So the difference in terms of getting Covid between the 2 groups was actually less than 1%.  It was in fact just 0.7%

 

Now call me Mr Picky but the rational logical side of me says that it is more relevant and important to look at that actual 0.7% difference than the more sensational headline of 95% effectiveness.

 

For me, a test for such a vitally important vaccine, on which not only lives hang, but more importantly on which the entire future of the vaccine industry lies, should really have involved a great deal more than a lousy 170 cases of Covid.  imho.

 

The UK is about to begin something far more useful and accurate which is a set of "Challenge Trials" in which participants will be DELIBERATELY infected with Covid.  Hopefully they will be able to do this, as safely as possible with a much bigger quantity of people in order to get a better picture of any of the vaccine's efficacy.

 

I think in the context of Covid we really do have to go down that route of deliberately infecting people.

 

So at the moment I am not at all inclined to take the vaccine on offer because I'm not personally convinced by those trial results and because of the other unknowns that remain which include:

 

- Not knowing whether those vaccinated can still transmit Covid to other people

 

- Not knowing how long any derived immunity will actually last

 

- Not knowing which specific Covid strains the vaccine has actually been proven to cover

 

- Not knowing what the long term impacts are (if any)

 

 

I believe it's important for my health to be able to make an informed decision and at this stage, the data just is not there to be able to make any kind of informed decision. 

I appreciated reading your interpretation. The 95% effective claim has nagged me a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ipeeinthepool

ipeeinthepool

Posted
Posted
On 12/23/2020 at 2:48 PM, KnowTheScore said:

 

Why on earth would we ignore the possible long term impacts?  Have we learned nothing from past vaccine disasters?   We SHOULD be cautious and SHOULD do our due diligence.

 

 

You're using emotive language to try and support an argument that concerns science and fact.  The two do not mix. 

 

You also need to look properly at the Pfizer trial because you seem ill-informed about it.

 

The trial involved 44,000 participants not "hundreds of thousands".   And about that 95% figure . . .

 

If I said I could increase your chances of winning the lottery by 100% do you think that sounds good !

It certainly makes for a sensational statement doesn't it, much like "95% effectiveness", but what does it really mean in real life?

 

It means you buy an extra lottery ticket so now you have double the chance of winning but because your chances were utterly abysmally small from the outset, they remain utterly abysmal even after buying a 2nd ticket and increasing your chances by 100%.   It's the difference between a RELATIVE increase and an ABSOLUTE increase.

 

So let's look at that Pfizer trial

 

There were 44,000 people, of which 22,000 were vaccinated and 22,000 got placebo

 

NOBODY was deliberately infected with Covid.  Understand this from the outset.  So once people had their jabs they were simply left, back to real life, to see if anyone subsequently got exposed to Covid and if so how many were in the placebo group and how many in the vaccine group.

 

The results?

 

Out of 44,000 people, only 170 ended up coming into contact with Covid of which 162 were in the placebo group and 8 in the vaccine group.  Pfizer naturally present that as a 95% effectiveness.

 

But just like the lottery tickets, we must assess the reality of the situation.

 

The reality was that those that did nothing, who were not vaccinated saw just 162 cases of Covid in 22,000 people.   That means they saw a 0.74% rate of getting Covid. Simple maths.

 

In turn that means those people had a 99.26% chance of NOT getting Covid

 

So that's the baseline the "background radiation" if you like. 

 

I don't know about you but I very much like those odds.  99.26% of NOT getting Covid at all! 

 

Now the vaccinated group saw 8 cases in 22,000 people which means they saw a 0.04% rate of getting Covid.

 

Or to put it the other way, they had a 99.96% chance of NOT getting Covid

 

So the difference in terms of getting Covid between the 2 groups was actually less than 1%.  It was in fact just 0.7%

 

Now call me Mr Picky but the rational logical side of me says that it is more relevant and important to look at that actual 0.7% difference than the more sensational headline of 95% effectiveness.

 

For me, a test for such a vitally important vaccine, on which not only lives hang, but more importantly on which the entire future of the vaccine industry lies, should really have involved a great deal more than a lousy 170 cases of Covid.  imho.

 

The UK is about to begin something far more useful and accurate which is a set of "Challenge Trials" in which participants will be DELIBERATELY infected with Covid.  Hopefully they will be able to do this, as safely as possible with a much bigger quantity of people in order to get a better picture of any of the vaccine's efficacy.

 

I think in the context of Covid we really do have to go down that route of deliberately infecting people.

 

So at the moment I am not at all inclined to take the vaccine on offer because I'm not personally convinced by those trial results and because of the other unknowns that remain which include:

 

- Not knowing whether those vaccinated can still transmit Covid to other people

 

- Not knowing how long any derived immunity will actually last

 

- Not knowing which specific Covid strains the vaccine has actually been proven to cover

 

- Not knowing what the long term impacts are (if any)

 

 

I believe it's important for my health to be able to make an informed decision and at this stage, the data just is not there to be able to make any kind of informed decision. 

 

I don't think this is a fair comparison of the of the vaccine and placebo groups.  It's true that the placebo group only had a 0.74% chance of contracting Covid but they were doing what everyone else has been doing, staying at home, social distancing, wearing a mask and effectively shutting down their lives.  Perhaps a better way to interpret the statistics is that all of the measures that many of us are doing are almost as effective as a vaccine, but we can't shut everything down and go on like this forever.  The hope is that the vaccine will provide this protection and we can resume our lives.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheMastodon

TheMastodon

Posted
Posted
On 12/23/2020 at 4:16 PM, KnowTheScore said:

 

You are clearly "awake" Ozzie. 

 

How was a vaccine magically developed in months and how have the authorities suddenly got so much confidence in the safety and efficacy with such limited trials that only saw a meagre 170 cases of Covid?   The answers imo are very obvious but would fall under the defacto "close down any debate" using the term "conspiracy theory". 

 

All possible answers lead to very worrying scenarios and very worrying implications for what the "powers that be" intend to bring into play in the near future.

 

And yes I am very well aware of the utter farcical PCR tests and their blatant misuse and how their results have been used to over inflate the number of positive Covid cases.   Again all indicative of some very worrying implications.

 

I note too that the internet has begun to be closed down.  Site by site, search result by search result.   I now use DuckDuckGo for searches rather than Google which for me has become massively biased and filters out search results that I used to faithfully see.   In the end I think Orwell was right and must have been a time traveller.

 

 

 

 

I personally think PCR tests are being used to inflate #'s so more people will be willing to get vaccinated.  

 

The venerable population should get the vaccine - I however don't really want to get the vax.  My body doesn't need it - more than capable of getting Covid and recovering fine.  Unfortunately, might be a requirement to cruise or fly... We'll see. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Milwaukee Eight

Milwaukee Eight

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TheMastodon said:

 

I personally think PCR tests are being used to inflate #'s so more people will be willing to get vaccinated.  

 

The venerable population should get the vaccine - I however don't really want to get the vax.  My body doesn't need it - more than capable of getting Covid and recovering fine.  Unfortunately, might be a requirement to cruise or fly... We'll see. 

 

If it was required to cruise, would that change your mind?  The boss, a Neurologist, wanted to wait but decided it was the start of our ticket to travel and vacation. She has been seeing CV19 patients since the beginning. I signed up with the VA to get mine. 
 

M8

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheMastodon

TheMastodon

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Milwaukee Eight said:

If it was required to cruise, would that change your mind?  The boss, a Neurologist, wanted to wait but decided it was the start of our ticket to travel and vacation. She has been seeing CV19 patients since the beginning. I signed up with the VA to get mine. 
 

M8

 

I just want to wait and see.  For all we know this could be a one and done sort of virus - why would I get a vaccine if I can just get covid19 and fight it off naturally?  However, if the science tells us this will be happening the rest of our lives I will get the vaccine eventually.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yogimax

yogimax

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, TheMastodon said:

 

why would I get a vaccine if I can just get covid19 and fight it off naturally?  

How can you be so certain you can "fight it off"?  There are no guarantees.  Too many people lying on their deathbeds saying, "I should have taken this seriously."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cruising sister "Live from...." Rare

cruising sister

Posted
Posted

I truly believe people have become numb to the death counts. They want to believe there is another reason for the cases and deaths. If 3,000 people a day died from plane crashes we would be horrified. Hundreds of thousands of healthcare workers have had their first vaccine and I am one of them. We have seen the horrific sites and will do anything to get this under control. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OnTheJourney

OnTheJourney

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TheMastodon said:

The venerable population should get the vaccine - I however don't really want to get the vax.  My body doesn't need it - more than capable of getting Covid and recovering fine.  Unfortunately, might be a requirement to cruise or fly... We'll see. 

 

First of all, I think you mean "vulnerable" as opposed to "venerable". Secondly, saying your body is more than capable of recovering is boasting without any supportable facts. Purely wishful thinking. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OnTheJourney

OnTheJourney

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TheMastodon said:

most people experience minor symptoms.  

The operant word being "most"....but surely doesn't imply all. I'm not willing to roll the dice on it and so have been as cautious as possible. Could well be thousands+ people who are gone who also may have thought that they'd be strong enough to fight it off and perhaps didn't take precautions. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: Set Sail Beyond the Ordinary with Oceania Cruises
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: The Widest View in the Whole Wide World
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...