In 10 days what will it be

[boatseller]

1 minute ago, CruiseMH said:

 

To make a long story very short just a short look onto the statistics:

 

rate of positive Tests as of August 21st:

 

United states: 6,7 %

European Union: 3,3 %

 

No. of tests done per 100.000 citizens as of August 20th:

 

USA: 21021

European Union: 11800

 

Number of infected people per 100.000 citizens:

 

USA: 1728

European Union: 761

 

 

As you can see, the positive rate in the US is more than twice as high and the no. of cases in relation to the citizens is 2,3 times as high as in Europe.(although the no. of tests in relation to the citizens is only 1,78 times as high as in Europe)

 

Your feelings and wishes might be different but the statistics make it very clear: Europe simply is the better place to be in the pandemics.

 

Umm....nope.  Those are all still functions of test prevalence.  The only fix numbers are pop size and (with certain policy variations) losses.

 

Everything else is irrelevant since the actual size of the sets is completely unknown.  If Europe did 3x tests, all those numbers would be 3x higher.

 

As stated before, it's probably a good thing Tui and MSC launched in some of the worst places possible, get any scary news over with and start strong with the Caribbean season.

[CruiseMH]

23 minutes ago, boatseller said:

 

 

  If Europe did 3x tests, all those numbers would be 3x higher.

 

 

 

And that is ****.

Thats exactly why i mentioned all the statistics.

I do agree with you that the no. of cases alone is absolutely useless.You have to compare it with the number of tests done and the rate of positive tests. The positive rate is the main factor of telling how many people are really infected.

And if i test the whole population the positive rate will rather decrease than increase.Cause at the moment in Europe only people with symptoms or people coming back from vacation in "dangerous areas" are tested. If we would test all people just for fun,the positive rate would decrease significantly.(but the same would be the case in the US)

 

I know it hurts to hear the facts and it is OK if you don`t like them or if they don`t fit into your view of the world.

But at least you should accept the pure facts. No feelings, no opinions, no theories...just the pure facts.

 

But i do agree with you that it is very important that some cruise lines take the risk and try if their concepts work. I am absolutely sure that all the US cruise lines are having a close look at it to see if it works.If it does they know what they have to do to start cruising again.(of course in the US it depends also on the CDC)

 

[boatseller]

5 minutes ago, CruiseMH said:

I know it hurts to hear the facts and it is OK if you don`t like them or if they don`t fit into your view of the world.

But at least you should accept the pure facts. No feelings, no opinions, no theories...just the pure facts.

 

I'm sorry that I hurt you with facts.  Not my intention but at least I hope you learned something.

 

I case you didn't realize this, if Europe is more restrictive in their testing, all that means is there are far more asymptomatic cases than are being identified.  That is why they numbers you cite are not useful, they are again merely a function of tests.

 

Though I will agree, we should be doing a lot less 'because I want it' testing.  Fortunately our leaders, especially here in Florida, have focused on what matters, higher care capacity, protecting vulnerable populations and treatments.  Our curve is more than flat enough for cruising and will be dragging the bottom by November.

[CruiseMH]

16 minutes ago, boatseller said:

 

I case you didn't realize this, if Europe is more restrictive in their testing, all that means is there are far more asymptomatic cases than are being identified. 

 

Ok,now i understand. If the statistics don`t fit to your opinion then you just assume that europe has the numbers you would like to have so that it fits to your view. You just assume that Europe has a higher rate and more cases than shown in the statistics but the US does not.If you assume that Europe has much more cases than are actually identified(which is for sure the case),you have to do it in the same way for the US.  You have to extrapolate the figures by the same factor. Every competent expert will tell you that. No matter what you do,as long as you do it in a scientifically serious way you will get the same result.

 

I do agree with you that the curve in florida flattens rather quickly ...but if that is enough to convince CDC to allow cruises again? To be honest i hope so. the earlier you can re-start cruising the earlier we know if it works.And the earlier we know if it works the earlier i can plan my cruise to the carribbean. 😉

 

 

[zqvol]

22 hours ago, boatseller said:

Umm....nope.  Those are all still functions of test prevalence.  The only fix numbers are pop size and (with certain policy variations) losses.

 

Everything else is irrelevant since the actual size of the sets is completely unknown.  If Europe did 3x tests, all those numbers would be 3x higher.

 

As stated before, it's probably a good thing Tui and MSC launched in some of the worst places possible, get any scary news over with and start strong with the Caribbean season.

 

The only number that matters is % positive. As long as you have a large enough sample size than that is the key facotr and should be constant. If Europe did 3 as many tests the % positive should stay pretty constant.

[Trimone]

It’s simple the more you test, the more you find.

[GA Dave]

I hate that they are using that "rate of positive test" number.  Not sure about anyone else, but my DW and I will not be going to get a test unless we are running a fever or have symptoms.  I would not be allowed at work if I was testing, even if "just because".  So, why in the world would anyone test unless they had a pretty solid reason for thinking they were exposed/symptomatic??  It's like getting a hip replaced in your 20's because it might wear out in your 60's.

[oteixeira]

7 minutes ago, Trimone said:

It’s simple the more you test, the more you find.

While that may be true, the PERCENT of positive cases per tests have gone way down here in the USA with the more people we test.  I think that is what we are trying to say.  The only good data is % of tests positive, % of sick people who end up in hospital, % of sick people who sadly pass.   Just saying 100 people got it today is data without and basis. (I work in data btw)

I hope I am helping, I know this is a hot button topic.

[d9704011]

16 minutes ago, GA Dave said:

So, why in the world would anyone test unless they had a pretty solid reason for thinking they were exposed/symptomatic?? 

One reason (at least in Ontario) is if you want to visit somebody in a retirement/care residence.  There are some other travel related requirements but they don’t concern me too much at this time.

[boatseller]

1 hour ago, zqvol said:

The only number that matters is % positive. As long as you have a large enough sample size than that is the key facotr and should be constant. If Europe did 3 as many tests the % positive should stay pretty constant.

No, sorry.  That's not how it works.

 

% positive is irrelevant because it has no bearing on outcome, or rather cannot be used to predict outcome.  The test protocol can be adjusted to achieve a 90% positive, but that just means they weeded out people who don't need to be tested.  Conversely, they can cut % positive drastically by 'inviting' previous positive cases to be retested or setting up facilities in low prevalence areas.

 

This is all because, again, the number of cases is irrelevant.  That is because the number of cases does not indicate, at least for now, the number of infections.  And without knowing the actual number of infections, every other metric is just a guess.

 

The only actionable number is those requiring a higher level of care because that has a physical capacity dimension, ie Flatten the Curve.

 

And that is why cruise ship med bay requirements were way over the top.  By November, they won't be needed at all.  Probably a big reason they're waiting to re-launch.

[CruiseMH]

40 minutes ago, boatseller said:

No, sorry.  That's not how it works.

 

 

that is exactly how it works ! Cause this is the only factor that gives an impression on how much the virus is spread throughout the people. Of course this is like looking through a small window,you can only see a small part and not the whole thing. But you need to do something to be able to get an impression how the whole thing could look like. the current statistics and methods have been developed by dozens of experts over decades.So they do for sure know what to do to get the best impression of the whole thing by looking through a small window.

it is mathematically, medically and statistically absolute nonsense to say "the more tests you do the higher the rate will be". The rate will remain the same or go down the more you are testing.

We can have different opinions about the interpretation of the collected data and statistics and we can discuss about the meaning of them. But what we definitely always do is to apply the same standards for all parts of the world equally.

And that is exactly what you don`t do. You are giving the dumbest explanations just to justify that all available statistics show that the situation in Europe is much better than in the US.  But you have to use the same assumptions for the US as well if you want to be taken seriously.

And if you do so then the statistics might look different,but they will still look better in Europe.

I don`t care where in the world the situation is the best or the worst, i do only care how we can solve this "problem" called Covid-19. And if someone(in this case the cruise lines in Europe) do have an idea or do have the courage to try something out then we should all hope that it works.

But this does not automatically mean that it works everywhere.In Europe it might work,in the US not. Therefore there might be some other ideas/things that work perfectly in the US or asia, but will not work in Europe.

 

 

Edited August 24, 2020 by CruiseMH

[boatseller]

7 minutes ago, CruiseMH said:

that is exactly how it works ! Cause this is the only factor that gives an impression on how much the virus is spread throughout the people. Of course this is like looking through a small window,you can only see a small part and not the whole thing. But you need to do something to be able to get an impression how the whole thing could look like. the current statistics and methods have been developed by dozens of experts over decades.So they do for sure know what to do to get the best impression of the whole thing by looking through a small window.

it is mathematically, medically and statistically absolute nonsense to say "the more tests you do the higher the rate will be". The rate will remain the same or go down the more you are testing.

We can have different opinions about the interpretation of the collected data and statistics and we can discuss about the meaning of them. But what we definitely always do is to apply the same standards for all parts of the world equally.

And that is exactly what you don`t do. You are giving the dumbest explanations just to justify that all available statistics show that the situation in Europe is much better than in the US.  But you have to use the same assumptions for the US as well if you want to be taken seriously.

And if you do so then the statistics might look different,but they will still look better in Europe.

I don`t care where in the world the situation is the best or the worst, i do only care how we can solve this "problem" called Covid-19. And if someone(in this case the cruise lines in Europe) do have an idea or do have the courage to try something out then we should all hope that it works.

But this does not automatically mean that it works everywhere.In Europe it might work,in the US not. Therefore there might be some other ideas/things that work perfectly in the US or asia, but will not work in Europe.

 

 

Nope.  Sorry.

 

"Cause this is the only factor that gives an impression on how much the virus is spread throughout the people." --I keep saying, number of cases does not matter.  Mild to symptom free cases require no action.  Out of 100 people, it doesn't matter if 20 or 75 test positive.  It only matters that 1 needs a hospital bed.

 

"the current statistics and methods have been developed by dozens of experts over decades." --They can be wrong.  The WHO has changed their story a number of times.

 

"the more tests you do the higher the rate will be" - I did not say that.  Find the quote or apologize.

 

"But what we definitely always do is to apply the same standards for all parts of the world equally." --No.  Different jurisdictions have different standards or reporting and care.  They also have different capacities for survey, reporting and care.

 

"You are giving the dumbest explanations" -- My explanations are spot on, based numerous observed data and relevant metrics.  There's also the practical, human consideration.  New Zealand is a successful...island prison.

 

"the situation in Europe is much better than in the US"  -- It is not.  Please provide evidence.  I have, you just wish it away.

 

" i do only care how we can solve this "problem"" -- In Florida, we already solved the problem.  Our Curve peaked a month ago and even then, capacity was never outpaced.  Again, symptom free cases require no action or intervention, thus, not a problem.

 

I was very disappointed with the CDC extending the NSO.  We should be cruising out of Florida right now and it wouldn't make any appreciable difference to our situation.  The theme parks provide amply evidence supporting that.

[hftmrock]

3 hours ago, Trimone said:

It’s simple the more you test, the more you find.

the how do you explain the current situation in NY that tests more than just about anyone and has one of the least positive rates (less than 1%)

 

if the more  you test, the more you find, NY would have one of the most daily positive cases in the country right now

[Formula280SS]

15 minutes ago, hftmrock said:

the how do you explain the current situation in NY that tests more than just about anyone and has one of the least positive rates (less than 1%)

 

if the more  you test, the more you find, NY would have one of the most daily positive cases in the country right now

 

NYC positive rates are surely down.  Also, NYC is consequently economically dead; now and for decades.  To defeat the virus the city was killed.  Brilliant.  Rinse and repeat in a major urban area near you similarly governed.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Formula280SS

[hftmrock]

4 minutes ago, Formula280SS said:

 

NYC positive rate are surely down.  Also, NYC is consequently economically dead; now and for decades.  To defeat the virus the city was killed.  Brilliant.  Rinse and repeat in a major urban area near you similarly governed.

all I was doing was proving the statement "It’s simple the more you test, the more you find. " is 100% false. thanks for agreeing that it is indeed false.. the other part of your statement has NOTHING to do with the point I was making and has nothing to do with the fact that the more you test DOES NOT mean more positive results.  the testing ratio in NYC has nothing to do with the economic impact so my point is made.

 

 

[Formula280SS]

5 minutes ago, hftmrock said:

all I was doing was proving the statement "It’s simple the more you test, the more you find. " is 100% false. thanks for agreeing that it is indeed false.. the other part of your statement has NOTHING to do with the point I was making and has nothing to do with the fact that the more you test DOES NOT mean more positive results.  

1 minute ago, hftmrock said:

 

 

First, that is an opinion.  Today, globally, you can find reputable, high integrity professionals 'take one side or the other.

 

Second, nice puerile social media try; I did not agree with you.

 

1 minute ago, hftmrock said:

1 minute ago, hftmrock said:

the testing ratio in NYC has nothing to do with the economic impact so my point is made.

 

 

 

 

The current testing ratio in NYC, at this current date, has everything to do with NYC decisions since March, and the consequential epic, and later to be epoch, economic destruction.  Enjoy.

 

[hftmrock]

Just now, Formula280SS said:

 

First, that is an opinion.  Today, globally, you can find reputable, high integrity professionals 'take one side or the other.

 

Second, nice puerile social media try; I did not agree with you.

 

 

The current testing ratio in NYC, at this current date, has everything to do with NYC decisions since March, and the consequential epic, and later to be epoch, economic destruction.  Enjoy.

 

no...

 

their decision to close businesses when they did, open them when they did , etc had to do with the economy

 

the testing in and of itself has NOTHING to do with the economy..can you say that today if they stopped testing but kept all the other enforcement's in place the economy would be better? would you say if they doubled the testing the economy would be worse? Nope

 

the amount of testing in and of itself only proves that more testing does NOT mean more cases. thats all

[hftmrock]

5 minutes ago, Formula280SS said:

 

 

 

NYC positive rate are surely down

 

 

ALL my point was that NY has a high number of test... and a low number of positivity rates..

 

thats all I was saying and your quote here proves you agree.

[Formula280SS]

2 minutes ago, hftmrock said:

 

the testing in and of itself has NOTHING to do with the economy.

 

I don't find such assertion that of a reasonably prudent person observing today's governance.  Testing results are the "most significant factor) in starting or stopping office openings, restaurant dining, hotel and conferences, entertainment and museum cultural attractions, all-states' college returns, 50-state K-12 returns, etc.  

 

If the above is not understood to have economic impact, simply read or google Covid 19 economic impacts.  Not rocket science.

[Formula280SS]

3 minutes ago, hftmrock said:

ALL my point was that NY has a high number of test... and a low number of positivity rates..

 

thats all I was saying and your quote here proves you agree.

 

Again, nice puerile social media try; I did not agree with you.

[drvmywifecrzy]

Six more days

[seaman11]

On 8/22/2020 at 2:58 PM, farmersfight said:

 

 

Looks like you haven't given up this year @seaman11

Maybe they will allow me to take obe from europe.  

[boatseller]

17 hours ago, hftmrock said:

all I was doing was proving the statement "It’s simple the more you test, the more you find. " is 100% false. thanks for agreeing that it is indeed false.. the other part of your statement has NOTHING to do with the point I was making and has nothing to do with the fact that the more you test DOES NOT mean more positive results.  the testing ratio in NYC has nothing to do with the economic impact so my point is made.

Except no.  The more you test, the more you find, that's actually the point of testing.  But, another reason why this is another irrelevant metric is that it's easy to skew the results.  Is New York publishing a breakdown of first, vs second, third test?  A lot of people have to regularly test to keep working.  So you have a high number of tests, but a lower number of people.  (And no, I did not just prove your point, read carefully.)

 

"the testing ratio in NYC has nothing to do with the economic impact so my point is made." --This is utterly ridiculous.  The scary, but irrelevant, number of cases lead to the shutdown and keeps NYC shutdown leading to the economic end of NY.  This is a case of obvious causation.

 

And it the same with cruising.  An NSO from a panicking government bureaucracy too worried about their reputation to see what's not happening.

[bobsfamily]

Wow from the last page of posts you would think people had differing opinions!

My 2 cents is 6 more days!

[hftmrock]

34 minutes ago, boatseller said:

Except no.  The more you test, the more you find, that's actually the point of testing. 

 

no its not if you are talking percentage which is the only way to judge it

 

1000 people in a town

100 people tested

10 people test positive

 

10% of people tested are positive

 

 

if you test 200 people

20 people are positive

 

10% of people tested are positive.

 

the percentage is the same and we can start to see that about 10% is the positive case load. no matter how many people you test, the percentage should stay the same if you have a handle on the disease

 

 

1000 people in a town

100 people tested

10 test postive

 

10% of the people are positive

 

 

if you test 200 people

50 people test positive

 

25% of the people are positive

 

then you do not have a handle on the disease and you have no clue how infectious it is. If the percentage goes up, you are not in control of the disease.

 

more cases does mean more positive results but percentage should remain the same if you are in control.