If you have to wear a mask while cruising .... would you?

[evandbob]

9 hours ago, smalltimecruiser100 said:

Yes of course I would wear one. I wear one in public right now. The thing is I would rather cruise after a vaccine comes out. I can't imagine what it was like on the Diamond Princess especially if you had an inside room.

 

Exactly.  

I had said earlier in this thread that since I consider cruising a voluntary/discretionary pleasure activity, I would not cruise if masks were a prerequisite.  I would choose to wait until it becomes a safer activity and masks weren't required.

 

I just want to add to that - if I were sailing on a "safer" cruise and some sort of outbreak occurred, I would certainly mask up as soon as any announcement was made.  I would also mask up if I saw any other pax exhibiting symptoms like dry coughing, sweating/chilling, complaining of tiredness/muscle fatigue, complaining of loss of taste/smell, etc.

 

I am not anti mask and will wear one in any compromised situation.  I would bring enough disposable masks with me to last through any cruise or vacation, along with extras if ship gets "extended".

 

To me, a mask is just like a seatbelt.

Edited August 22, 2020 by evandbob

[ontheweb]

3 minutes ago, evandbob said:

 

Exactly.  

I had said earlier in this thread that since I consider cruising a voluntary/discretionary pleasure activity, I would not cruise if masks were a prerequisite.  I would choose to wait until it becomes a safer activity and masks weren't required.

 

I just want to add to that - if I were sailing on a "safer" cruise and some sort of outbreak occurred, I would certainly mask up as soon as any announcement was made.  I would also mask up if I saw any other pax exhibiting symptoms like dry coughing, sweating/chilling, complaining of tiredness/muscle fatigue, complaining of loss of taste/smell, etc.

 

I am not anti mask and will wear one in any compromised situation.  I would bring enough disposable masks with me to last through any cruise or vacation, along with extras if ship gets "extended".

 

To me, a mask is just like a seatbelt.

Do you only wear your seatbelt after you have witnessed an accident or possibly read about or heard on tv about a fatal accident? That is what it sounds like from your post and then that statement. I hope that is not true.

 

Before mandatory seatbelt laws DW wore hers. She was rear ended while stopped at a red light. In the insurance examination, she was asked was she wearing her seat belt. When she answered yes, the attorney (who was local and someone I knew) went off the record to say that was the first time he had ever got a yes answer to that question. I was still not wearing my seatbelt at that time. Our son, who was very young at the time, asked me why not. After I could not come up with a good answer, I started wearing the seatbelt, and this was before it became the law.

[sverigecruiser]

12 hours ago, smalltimecruiser100 said:

Yes of course I would wear one. I wear one in public right now. The thing is I would rather cruise after a vaccine comes out. I can't imagine what it was like on the Diamond Princess especially if you had an inside room.

 

Your post say a lot.

 

For you it's easy to say that you would wear a mask because you already wear one in public. For me it's different because I don't wear a mask, and almost noone else here does either.

 

For me it's very easy to say that I won't cruise if I have to wear a mask.

[K32682]

12 hours ago, smalltimecruiser100 said:

Yes of course I would wear one. I wear one in public right now. The thing is I would rather cruise after a vaccine comes out. I can't imagine what it was like on the Diamond Princess especially if you had an inside room.

 

That's the cruising risk.  One case among passengers or crew and spend two weeks in your cabin plus, in some cases, the potential of another two weeks under house arrest when you get home. All it takes is one self-styled freedom kook who despite knowing masks are required ignores the edict and spreads the virus.  

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, K32682 said:

 

That's the cruising risk.  One case among passengers or crew and spend two weeks in your cabin plus, in some cases, the potential of another two weeks under house arrest when you get home. All it takes is one self-styled freedom kook who despite knowing masks are required ignores the edict and spreads the virus.  

Or all it could take is one false positive test!😢

[SelectSys]

1 hour ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

... For me it's different because I don't wear a mask, and almost noone else here does either.

 

For me it's very easy to say that I won't cruise if I have to wear a mask.

 

Your comments as someone from Sweden are very interesting to me.  Sweden's approach to COVID has been different than the rest of the industrial world.  It seems like the cases are now falling based on the data.  Why is this so given the more relaxed nature of Swedish rules when compared with other nations? Do the health officials there believe that some level of "herd immunity" is being reached?  Just curious.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by SelectSys

[smalltimecruiser100]

1 hour ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Your post say a lot.

 

For you it's easy to say that you would wear a mask because you already wear one in public. For me it's different because I don't wear a mask, and almost noone else here does either.

 

For me it's very easy to say that I won't cruise if I have to wear a mask.

Your in a different country with a lot lower numbers 86,068 cases as of today. Live in the US and say that with over 5,000,000.

[TNcruising02]

25 minutes ago, smalltimecruiser100 said:

Your in a different country with a lot lower numbers 86,068 cases as of today. Live in the US and say that with over 5,000,000.

Yet, the population of the US is somewhere around 330 million.  The population of Sweden is like 10 million.  That's a HUGE difference.  It makes sense that more people would test positive in a country that has 330 million people.  Our lockdown succeeded in slowing the virus down, but it didn't and won't stop it.  It's a virus.  Every time things open up, there will continue to be more cases.

Edited August 22, 2020 by TNcruising02

[SelectSys]

10 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

...  Every time things open up, there will continue to be more cases.

 

This seems to be what is happening all over the world. If the vaccines don't work, the alternatives are to live in a bubble indefinitely or let nature take its ultimate course.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_in_the_Plastic_Bubble

 

[dogs4fun]

14 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

This seems to be what is happening all over the world. If the vaccines don't work, the alternatives are to live in a bubble indefinitely or let nature take its ultimate course.

I have considered a scenario in which there is no viable vaccine. I am praying for a vaccine because it would be impossible for me to live in a bubble indefinitely!! (although I could indefinitely forego participating in some of the things I currently enjoy - cruising among them)

[sverigecruiser]

2 hours ago, SelectSys said:

 

Your comments as someone from Sweden are very interesting to me.  Sweden's approach to COVID has been different than the rest of the industrial world.  It seems like the cases are now falling based on the data.  Why is this so given the more relaxed nature of Swedish rules when compared with other nations? Do the health officials there believe that some level of "herd immunity" is being reached?  Just curious.

 

 

Officially herd immunity has never been a part of the strategy here. I have heared herd immunity mentioned as one of the reasons why we are doing pretty good right now but the main thing seem to be that we take the social distancing serious enough to get a good result of it. 

[sverigecruiser]

4 hours ago, smalltimecruiser100 said:

Your in a different country with a lot lower numbers 86,068 cases as of today. Live in the US and say that with over 5,000,000.

 

You have more cases, even when we consider that the US is a much bigger country, but the number of cases isn't that interesting because it depends on how many tests that have been done. Test a lot a get many cases or test noone and get no cases! 

[cruisemom42]

24 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

You have more cases, even when we consider that the US is a much bigger country, but the number of cases isn't that interesting because it depends on how many tests that have been done. Test a lot a get many cases or test noone and get no cases! 

 

Comparing COVID deaths per 100,000 population is a somewhat better way to compare two countries. It's interesting (and sometimes counter-intuitive) to see these rates based on what we "think" we will see in a given country (e.g., given differences in access to health care, in poverty levels, etc.).  Other than the countries with the highest levels, I just picked a few random comparators, for interest.

 

These figures are the most recent I could find (within the last couple of weeks) but may not be totally accurate as of today:

 

Deaths per 100,000 population attributed to COVID-19:

 

Peru: 84.51 (up by nearly 20 deaths per 100k in two weeks)

United Kingdom:  70.16

Spain: 61.72

Italy:  58.27

Sweden:  56.66

United States:  53.60  (up from 49.65 just two weeks ago, not good)

Chile:  53.45

Brazil:  47.97

Mexico:  47.24  (up from about 40 just two weeks ago...)

Iran:  24.91

Russia:  11.18

Saudi Arabia:  10.62

India:  4.12

 

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Comparing COVID deaths per 100,000 population is a somewhat better way to compare two countries. It's interesting (and sometimes counter-intuitive) to see these rates based on what we "think" we will see in a given country (e.g., given differences in access to health care, in poverty levels, etc.).  Other than the countries with the highest levels, I just picked a few random comparators, for interest.

 

These figures are the most recent I could find (within the last couple of weeks) but may not be totally accurate as of today:

 

Deaths per 100,000 population attributed to COVID-19:

 

Peru: 84.51 (up by nearly 20 deaths per 100k in two weeks)

United Kingdom:  70.16

Spain: 61.72

Italy:  58.27

Sweden:  56.66

United States:  53.60  (up from 49.65 just two weeks ago, not good)

Chile:  53.45

Brazil:  47.97

Mexico:  47.24  (up from about 40 just two weeks ago...)

Iran:  24.91

Russia:  11.18

Saudi Arabia:  10.62

India:  4.12

 

 

So, should we all move to India? 

[SelectSys]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Comparing COVID deaths per 100,000 population is a somewhat better way to compare two countries. It's interesting (and sometimes counter-intuitive) to see these rates based on what we "think" we will see in a given country (e.g., given differences in access to health care, in poverty levels, etc.).  Other than the countries with the highest levels, I just picked a few random comparators, for interest.

 

These figures are the most recent I could find (within the last couple of weeks) but may not be totally accurate as of today:

 

Deaths per 100,000 population attributed to COVID-19:

 

Peru: 84.51 (up by nearly 20 deaths per 100k in two weeks)

United Kingdom:  70.16

Spain: 61.72

Italy:  58.27

Sweden:  56.66

United States:  53.60  (up from 49.65 just two weeks ago, not good)

Chile:  53.45

Brazil:  47.97

Mexico:  47.24  (up from about 40 just two weeks ago...)

Iran:  24.91

Russia:  11.18

Saudi Arabia:  10.62

India:  4.12

 

 

This is really the only way to make comparisons.  However, when it comes to Mexico, please take a look at these numbers with a "grain of salt."   A family member recently died in the COVID ward at a public hospital there.  The cause of death was listed as heart attack on the death certificate.  They did have a heart attack, but the whole family exhibited all of the symptoms.  None of them got tested except the individual that went to the hospital as tests aren't available except privately in larger cities for about 3000 pesos - which the lower classes can't afford.  Even the person that died was waiting on test results for multiple days and we never saw the result.  Note that many more people are dying at home as going to the hospital for COVID is viewed in Mexico as almost being a "death sentence."

 

Note here that positive test rate in Mexico is about 50% indicating the virus is much more widespread than reported:

https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/coronavirus/new-coronavirus-cases-lift-total-to-531239/

 

This story in the FT suggests COVID death reporting is off by a factor of 3 or more.

https://www.ft.com/content/5746d3c0-ea4c-4552-b465-ea0c491079b2

 

"Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/5746d3c0-ea4c-4552-b465-ea0c491079b2

One study by independent researchers Mario Romero and Laurianne Despeghel shows at least 3.5 times more deaths in Mexico City than the official data, an undercount of some 22,705 deaths in the capital alone. In another, Raúl Rojas, a Mexican professor of artificial intelligence at Berlin University, calculated that Mexico could have as many as 6m cases and nearly 78,000 deaths — almost three times the official count. “I find it incredible that instead of giving numbers, they’re hiding them to conceal the seriousness of the situation,” he said."

 

  

Edited August 22, 2020 by SelectSys

[SelectSys]

7 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

 

So, should we all move to India? 

 

India is just really getting started on COVID and will likely end up being an incredible tragedy as its enormous population overwhelms its public health system.  

 

 

[cruisemom42]

7 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

This is really the only way to make comparisons.  However, when it comes to Mexico, please take a look at these numbers with a "grain of salt." 

 

I agree, but I suspect there are not ever going to be any numbers that are 100% accurate. In the US as well I suspect COVID deaths are under-reported by far.

 

However, these at least provide a baseline for comparison.

[SelectSys]

11 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I agree, but I suspect there are not ever going to be any numbers that are 100% accurate. In the US as well I suspect COVID deaths are under-reported by far.

 

However, these at least provide a baseline for comparison.

 

I agree that they are useful for comparison unless the data is just blatantly wrong.  Likely being off by a factor of 3 suggests the reports from Mexico are all but useless for comparison to anything. 

 

I realize my personal experience is anecdotal, but everyone I know with family in Mexico has people dying and many more sick.  Maybe it's like that in NY, but where I live I only have heard of a couple of people getting sick in my extended circle.

 

I am also somewhat suspicious of the reports from places that don't have a free press or any form of civil rights.  

Edited August 22, 2020 by SelectSys

[evandbob]

12 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Do you only wear your seatbelt after you have witnessed an accident or possibly read about or heard on tv about a fatal accident? That is what it sounds like from your post and then that statement. I hope that is not true.

 

Before mandatory seatbelt laws DW wore hers. She was rear ended while stopped at a red light. In the insurance examination, she was asked was she wearing her seat belt. When she answered yes, the attorney (who was local and someone I knew) went off the record to say that was the first time he had ever got a yes answer to that question. I was still not wearing my seatbelt at that time. Our son, who was very young at the time, asked me why not. After I could not come up with a good answer, I started wearing the seatbelt, and this was before it became the law.

 

Sorry if I gave you that impression.  I always wear a seat belt when I'm driving or in the front seat since 1967, sometimes when a pax in the rear maybe not.  Perhaps that is the best way to describe it.

 

If there does not appear to be a need to wear a mask, say bicycling or outside walking, I don't.  Inside a store shopping, yes. Walking down a crowded street, yes, it's on, walking by myself, nope. I won't eat in an indoor or outdoor restaurant yet, and I won't go cruising if a mask is required to board.  I'll just avoid the hotspots.  If I happen to wind up in one anyway, I'll wear it immediately.

 

Stay safe!

 

 

[evandbob]

36 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

This is really the only way to make comparisons.  However, when it comes to Mexico, please take a look at these numbers with a "grain of salt."   A family member recently died in the COVID ward at a public hospital there.  The cause of death was listed as heart attack on the death certificate.  They did have a heart attack, but the whole family exhibited all of the symptoms.  None of them got tested except the individual that went to the hospital as tests aren't available except privately in larger cities for about 3000 pesos - which the lower classes can't afford.  Even the person that died was waiting on test results for multiple days and we never saw the result.  Note that many more people are dying at home as going to the hospital for COVID is viewed in Mexico as almost being a "death sentence."

 

Note here that positive test rate in Mexico is about 50% indicating the virus is much more widespread than reported:

https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/coronavirus/new-coronavirus-cases-lift-total-to-531239/

 

This story in the FT suggests COVID death reporting is off by a factor of 3 or more.

https://www.ft.com/content/5746d3c0-ea4c-4552-b465-ea0c491079b2

 

"Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/5746d3c0-ea4c-4552-b465-ea0c491079b2

One study by independent researchers Mario Romero and Laurianne Despeghel shows at least 3.5 times more deaths in Mexico City than the official data, an undercount of some 22,705 deaths in the capital alone. In another, Raúl Rojas, a Mexican professor of artificial intelligence at Berlin University, calculated that Mexico could have as many as 6m cases and nearly 78,000 deaths — almost three times the official count. “I find it incredible that instead of giving numbers, they’re hiding them to conceal the seriousness of the situation,” he said."

 

  

Under reporting of COVID cases is alleged in the USA with California and FLsupposedly the biggest violators.  Other countries are alleged to under report, among them Korea and India.  It's not just Mexico, there are many guilty parties here.  Just google COVID under reporting and pages of references come up.

 

But it's undeniable that COVID mitigation sees its worst performance here in the USA.

[TNcruising02]

So, the US death rate is just under Sweden and Sweden didn't ruin their economy.  Maybe they did something right in Sweden after all.

[SelectSys]

4 hours ago, evandbob said:

'Under reporting of COVID cases is alleged in the USA with California and FLsupposedly the biggest violators.  Other countries are alleged to under report, among them Korea and India.  It's not just Mexico, there are many guilty parties here.  Just google COVID under reporting and pages of references come up.

 

But it's undeniable that COVID mitigation sees its worst performance here in the USA.

 

When you post very strong claims, you should try and back them up with at least some data.  As far as I can tell, the only evidence to support your assertion that the USA is the worst are the use of italics and underlying of your core assertion.

 

Why not start by showing me a story from a reputable source, similar to FT,  that suggests undercoating of COVID is off by a factor of 3 anywhere in the US.  Yes, CA had/has a problem with test result counting in their system but that's different in not really wanting a comprehensive count.  Since the new stories have died down, I tend to think the problems in counting have largely been solved.

https://www.governing.com/now/Tech-Issues-Have-Hindered-Californias-COVID-Case-Counting.html

 

I would think Korea is pretty good on counting but I haven't looked into it.   I could see India having big problems keeping tabs on the  1 billion people at the low end of their society from an economic perspective.  They could really have a devastating experience ahead.

 

https://time.com/5880585/india-coronavirus-impact/

"As of Aug. 18, India has officially recorded more than 2.7 million cases of COVID-19, putting it third in the world behind the U.S. and Brazil. But India is on track to overtake them both. “I fully expect that at some point, unless things really change course, India will have more cases than any other place in the world,” says Dr. Ashish Jha, director of Harvard’s Global Health Institute. With a population of 1.3 billion, “there is a lot of room for exponential growth.”

Edited August 23, 2020 by SelectSys

[sverigecruiser]

7 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

So, the US death rate is just under Sweden and Sweden didn't ruin their economy.  Maybe they did something right in Sweden after all.

 

I said a few months ago that I was hoping that the US shouldn't pass Sweden when it comes to Covid-19 deaths but it now seems rather clear that they will pass us unless something really dramatic happen here.

 

What have we done wrong? Right? Only time will tell. 

[sverigecruiser]

9 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 It's interesting (and sometimes counter-intuitive) to see these rates based on what we "think" we will see in a given country (e.g., given differences in access to health care, in poverty levels, etc.).  Other than the countries with the highest levels, I just picked a few random comparators, for interest.

 

 

There are probably several reasons why most of the countries with many deaths are rich countries. For example we travel more and more people are old.

 

When it comes to Covid-19 it's better to be young and poor than old and rich. India has a very young population and that is probably one reason why they have so few deaths.  

[nosapphire]

19 hours ago, K32682 said:

 

That's the cruising risk.  One case among passengers or crew and spend two weeks in your cabin plus, in some cases, the potential of another two weeks under house arrest when you get home. All it takes is one self-styled freedom kook who despite knowing masks are required ignores the edict and spreads the virus.  

 

Masks alone do not stop the virus. They are considered by the majority of professionals to slow the spread, but even if everybody always wears a mask (correctly) that alone is no guarantee of a clear voyage,

And since so many people pull their mask down every time they want to talk to somebody...........