CDC New Guidance For Vaccinated People

[AtlantaAlly]

3 hours ago, GA Dave said:

Governor Brian Kemp just announced this at 2:00 PM today:

 

Beginning March 15, 2021, the following populations will be eligible for COVID vaccination in Georgia:

• Adults aged 55 and over
• Individuals with disabilities
• Individuals aged 16 years and older with certain medical conditions that increase their risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Note: Pfizer is the only COVID vaccine currently approved for children aged 16 and older. Conditions include: 
  • Asthma 
  • Cancer
  • Cerebrovascular Disease
  • Chronic Kidney Disease 
  • COPD
  • Cystic Fibrosis
  • Diabetes
  • Hypertension 
  • Heart Conditions
  • Immunocompromised State
  • Liver Disease
  • Neurologic Conditions
  • Overweight and Obesity
  • Pulmonary Fibrosis
  • Sickle Cell Disease
  • Thalassemia

Welcome to January in PA... glad I don’t live in GA anymore!

[AtlantaAlly]

On 3/9/2021 at 3:35 PM, farmersfight said:

 

True, but Florida prioritized protecting the elderly (especially those with underlying health conditions) and opened the rest of the state up.

 

California on the other hand, completely locked down and is still locked down and has more cases than Florida, not to mention that California is #1 in the U.S. in cases (since Jan 21, 2020).

 

Shows that lock downs don't work.

 

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_totalcases

This is incorrect. On a per capita basis, which is the only relevant way to compare 2 states of different populations (F=21.5, C=39.5) they are neck and neck, see photos below: source financial times. Florida currently tops California in cumulative deaths per 100k and Florida also has more daily cases per 100k than CA and has since late January. But, based on multiple reports out of Miami/Orlando perhaps the Florida numbers reported by the state are not representative of the situation because more cases would look like Ben worse.

[anyman]

On 3/9/2021 at 7:37 PM, JamieLogical said:

 

If someone gave you a bowl of 100 skittles and told you one was poisonous, would you eat any of those skittles?

 

If I was vaccinated against the poison, and I really wanted a skittle, I would.

[MoCruiseFan]

On 3/9/2021 at 3:35 PM, farmersfight said:

 

True, but Florida prioritized protecting the elderly (especially those with underlying health conditions) and opened the rest of the state up.

 

California on the other hand, completely locked down and is still locked down and has more cases than Florida, not to mention that California is #1 in the U.S. in cases (since Jan 21, 2020).

 

Shows that lock downs don't work.

 

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_totalcases

 

No it does not.  While I agree that lock downe are silly and useless, the mere fact that any give state did lock down and at the same time had a high rate of disease does not in and of itself indicate a causal relationship.

[farmersfight]

9 hours ago, AtlantaAlly said:

This is incorrect. On a per capita basis, which is the only relevant way to compare 2 states of different populations (F=21.5, C=39.5) they are neck and neck, see photos below: source financial times. Florida currently tops California in cumulative deaths per 100k and Florida also has more daily cases per 100k than CA and has since late January. But, based on multiple reports out of Miami/Orlando perhaps the Florida numbers reported by the state are not representative of the situation because more cases would look like Ben worse.

 

So, the CDC is incorrect? I stated that comparing the total case count (since Jan 21, 2020), California has more total cases than Florida. I got it right off the CDC data tracker I linked. I was not incorrect.

 

I agree with you that you have to look at the per capita rate (per 100k) because the 2 states populations are different. You can also see the per capita rate for each state on the CDC data tracker I linked. Yes, the # of cases per 100k (since Jan 2, 2020) in Florida and in California are very close, with Florida having 8,924 cases and California having 8,876 cases; a difference of a mere 48 cases over a relatively long period of time (since Jan 2, 2020).

 

The point that I was making still holds true, California totally locked down and Florida protected the elderly and opened up, yet the per capita cases (# of cases per 100k) are nearly the same.  Same holds true for the per capita deaths (# deaths per 100k). This shows that California's lock down did not make a difference, hence, did not work.

[farmersfight]

1 hour ago, MoCruiseFan said:

While I agree that lock downe are silly and useless

 

That was my whole point.

[AtlantaAlly]

1 minute ago, farmersfight said:

 

So, the CDC is incorrect? I stated that comparing the total case count (since Jan 21, 2020), California has more total cases than Florida. I got it right off the CDC data tracker I linked. I was not incorrect.

 

I agree with you that you have to look at the per capita rate (per 100k) because the 2 states populations are different. You can also see the per capita rate for each state on the CDC data tracker I linked. Yes, the # of cases per 100k (since Jan 2, 2020) in Florida and in California are very close, with Florida having 8,924 cases and California having 8,876 cases; a difference of a mere 48 cases over a relatively long period of time (since Jan 2, 2020).

 

The point that I was making still holds true, California totally locked down and Florida protected the elderly and opened up, yet the per capita cases (# of cases per 100k) are nearly the same.  Same holds true for the per capita deaths (# deaths per 100k). This shows that California's lock down did not make a difference, hence, did not work.

No, the CDC is not incorrect- your interpretation of the CDC data is either incorrect or purposefully misleading. The question of lockdown is an interesting one. Who does lockdown keep home? People who can work remotely, people without jobs or people without essential jobs. What are the wages of the most common essential jobs? Lower income with very few exceptions. Is a low income worker more likely to live within a multigenerational home if their wage cannot afford individual housing in an area where rent is known to be nearly unaffordable? Yes. Are cases known to “super spread” in multigenerational housing? Yes. Does CA have more multigenerational households than Florida? Yes (CA:5.9%, FL:4.0%, source:stacker). Did CA hospitals become overwhelmed? Yes, specifically southern CA in some of the poorest areas. Did the lockdown help: likely, but it was still going to ravage those essential workers and the families of essential workers who lived in multigenerational homes. 
 

I also mentioned that it is likely that Florida is undercounting cases/deaths and refusing to make the data open/available- so can that data reported by the state be trusted? Many epidemiologists who do this professionally don’t think it can be. 
 

my points: 1) you can’t just look at the data you presented and say “see the lockdown was unnecessary. 2) the data is very nuanced and CA compared to FL won’t be relevant unless you do it at perhaps the county level. 3) you can point to other countries who did lockdowns (some in conjunction with vaccines) during their largest spikes (UK) and teamed it with vaccination and it shows that hey! They did work. 4) the data is messy.

[farmersfight]

15 minutes ago, AtlantaAlly said:

No, the CDC is not incorrect- your interpretation of the CDC data is either incorrect or purposefully misleading.

 

What interpretation? I simply stated exactly what was on the CDC data tracker I linked. O.k., I'll add the qualifier; in my honest opinion, based on the per capita data (# cases & # deaths per 100k from Jan 21, 2020), California's lock down did not make a difference over Florida's and therefore did not work. Better?

 

To state that I was purposefully misleading is an unwarranted insult and totally untrue.

[AtlantaAlly]

1 hour ago, farmersfight said:

 

What interpretation? I simply stated exactly what was on the CDC data tracker I linked. O.k., I'll add the qualifier; in my honest opinion, based on the per capita data (# cases & # deaths per 100k from Jan 21, 2020), California's lock down did not make a difference over Florida's and therefore did not work. Better?

 

To state that I was purposefully misleading is an unwarranted insult and totally untrue.

Your initial post was not-per capita, therefore misleading, whether intentional or not. if you’re going to compare two states, of 2x population difference, the only appropriate way to do it is via per capita.
 

Here is your argument comparing CA to another state that didn’t lock down: California has more cases and deaths than North Dakota.
 

But when you look at the per capita values, North Dakota has more cumulative deaths (194 vs 138/100,000) and more cumulative cases (13,000 vs 9,000/100,000). So by your logic, North Dakota did better, but by scientific/medical logic- one was less likely to die or have potentially long term health impact by living in CA. 
 

and you can’t assert anything about CA lockdown being ineffective comparatively, because you don’t know that if they hadn’t locked down, that it wouldn’t have grown even worse. 

[DCGuy64]

1 hour ago, farmersfight said:

 

What interpretation? I simply stated exactly what was on the CDC data tracker I linked. O.k., I'll add the qualifier; in my honest opinion, based on the per capita data (# cases & # deaths per 100k from Jan 21, 2020), California's lock down did not make a difference over Florida's and therefore did not work. Better?

 

To state that I was purposefully misleading is an unwarranted insult and totally untrue.

As usual, I associate my views with yours, @farmersfight.

One of the more (to me fascinating, and at some times infuriating) aspects of Covid-19 and the debate over lock downs has been the way people can pick and choose whatever data supports their point of view. I practiced some of this back when I was studying for the LSAT.

Let's say Porsche has a 2% share of the US market and in 2021 increased it by 200%. But Ford only increased its share by 10%. So, logically, Porsche sold more cars than Ford, right, because 200% is WAY more than 10. Wrong, because in my hypothetical example, Ford already commands, let's say, 25% of the US market. Or if I say that when a locality started a confidential hotline for reporting crimes and reports jumped by 50% the first year, that means more crimes got committed, right? Wrong! It just means more people are reporting them. You see where this is going, right?

 

CA and NY imposed very draconian lock downs on their respective populations, whereas SD and FL, for example, did not. More people died in NY and CA, but because their populations are greater, those who support the lock downs want you to focus on the per capita death rate, because that supports their point of view. But they leave out the fact that Florida has more seniors than CA and NY, and seniors are disproportionately likely to die from Covid-19. So the per capita number is NOT all that matters. SD could have a comparatively higher number of cases per capita, but it's much less densely populated than CA and NY, so you're less likely to be packed together like sardines as you'd be in New York City. Furthermore, focusing solely on number of deaths per capita ignores the very real and damaging effects of the lock downs. How many people in CA and NY, say, died of preventable illnesses but couldn't get to the doctor due to the high number of Covid patients jamming their waiting rooms and hospitals? How many people in FL are alive today who might have committed suicide due to job loss and other factors directly attributable to the lock downs?

Again, if you favor the lock downs, there are plenty of statistics to help you prove your point.

When I hear people say "per capita death rates are all that matter," I know where they're going with that. I just don't agree.

 

[DCGuy64]

PS And as entertaining as I find these online debates, I haven't changed my mind yet about my view that the lock downs were a disaster. Anyone who thinks my mind will be changed by attacking or insulting me should know that a) it weakens your argument when you engage in ad hominem attacks, and b) I'll still disagree with you at the end of the day. 😉

[AtlantaAlly]

43 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

PS And as entertaining as I find these online debates, I haven't changed my mind yet about my view that the lock downs were a disaster. Anyone who thinks my mind will be changed by attacking or insulting me should know that a) it weakens your argument when you engage in ad hominem attacks, and b) I'll still disagree with you at the end of the day. 😉

My goal isn’t to change your mind- my goal is to provide more balanced data. You’re welcome to disagree all you want. 

[IrieBajan54]

Well if it's any consolation, MLB Texas Rangers will have a capacity (49,115 screaming fans) on opening day April 5th at Globe Life Field. I guess there is hope for the cruise lines that would only have 2000 to 4000 on ships.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/texas-rangers-plan-to-allow-full-capacity-of-fans-for-2021-mlb-opening-day/

Edited March 11, 2021 by IrieBajan54

[graphicguy]

21 hours ago, mianmike said:

 

No, the CDC did not say it is 1.32% better with a mask.  The 1.32% was only a reflection of a mask MANDATE.  States can mandate all they want, but if people refuse to wear a mask or properly wear a mask (over their nose) or attend mask-less super spreader events you'll get minuscule improvements like 1.32% effectiveness.  We have no idea how effective properly worn masks would be in slowing covid.   

Info is out there.  The reputable sources have all chimed in.  Believe what you want.  Fact remains, if you do not have the vaccine, you ain't cruising....regardless.

 

This from the CDC, which is as reliable a source as there is in the world, especially now where their guidance is not dictated by outside sources.

 

“We are not defenseless against COVID-19,” said CDC Director Dr. Robert R. Redfield. “Cloth face coverings are one of the most powerful weapons we have to slow and stop the spread of the virus – particularly when used universally within a community setting. All Americans have a responsibility to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.”

Edited March 11, 2021 by graphicguy

[graphicguy]

On 3/9/2021 at 4:01 PM, ArthurUSCG said:

Humm, you might want to look into what data Florida makes available, it appears they have prioritized wealthy communities that have donated to the governors election committees.

The problem with the FL data is there are two sets of data.  One set is out there that was put out for public consumption.  The other data has been blocked by the FL Governor from being made public.  I think the latter probably paints a different picture about what's happening there.

[PTC DAWG]

I'm going to get the Vaccine as soon as I can...but this makes a decent point...either they work or they don't...CDC needs to make up its mind.  

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by PTC DAWG

[PTC DAWG]

24 minutes ago, graphicguy said:

Info is out there.  The reputable sources have all chimed in.  Believe what you want.  Fact remains, if you do not have the vaccine, you ain't cruising....regardless.

 

This from the CDC, which is as reliable a source as there is in the world, especially now where their guidance is not dictated by outside sources.

 

“We are not defenseless against COVID-19,” said CDC Director Dr. Robert R. Redfield. “Cloth face coverings are one of the most powerful weapons we have to slow and stop the spread of the virus – particularly when used universally within a community setting. All Americans have a responsibility to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.”

IF by powerful defenses, he means 1.32%, I agree.  🙂

Edited March 11, 2021 by PTC DAWG

[PTC DAWG]

18 minutes ago, graphicguy said:

The problem with the FL data is there are two sets of data.  One set is out there that was put out for public consumption.  The other data has been blocked by the FL Governor from being made public.  I think the latter probably paints a different picture about what's happening there.

Florida being full of older people doesn't help things...in my County, 80% of the deaths are people over 75 with underlying conditions....not many 75+ year olds don't have underlying conditions.  

[roger001]

Wear one or don't wear one, your choice....except where mandated.  But if you aren't absolutely positive that you aren't infected, don't go breathing on anyone else.  You can kill them.  And....my neighbors just two houses down, both died from Covid last week, just two days apart.  Yes, they were old.  But dead regardless.  

[farmersfight]

6 hours ago, AtlantaAlly said:

Your initial post was not-per capita, therefore misleading, whether intentional or not. if you’re going to compare two states, of 2x population difference, the only appropriate way to do it is via per capita.
 

Here is your argument comparing CA to another state that didn’t lock down: California has more cases and deaths than North Dakota.
 

But when you look at the per capita values, North Dakota has more cumulative deaths (194 vs 138/100,000) and more cumulative cases (13,000 vs 9,000/100,000). So by your logic, North Dakota did better, but by scientific/medical logic- one was less likely to die or have potentially long term health impact by living in CA. 
 

and you can’t assert anything about CA lockdown being ineffective comparatively, because you don’t know that if they hadn’t locked down, that it wouldn’t have grown even worse. 

 

Yes, my initial post was total case count and not per capita but again, it was not misleading. I simply posted the exact case #'s from the CDC tracker I linked. Then, I agreed with you that it was not a fair comparison (because of the different state populations with California being a much higher population) so you had to look at per capita. This was my earlier post;

 

"I agree with you that you have to look at the per capita rate (per 100k) because the 2 states populations are different. You can also see the per capita rate for each state on the CDC data tracker I linked. Yes, the # of cases per 100k (since Jan 2, 2020) in Florida and in California are very close, with Florida having 8,924 cases and California having 8,876 cases; a difference of a mere 48 cases over a relatively long period of time (since Jan 2, 2020)."

 

And I also don't know that if California hadn't locked down (like Florida) that it would have grown any worse. Again, comparing the # of cases & deaths per capita (per 100k) of California and Florida, they are close to being the same which in my honest opinion means that the California lock downs did not make a difference.

 

I'm done with this. Have a nice life.

[cruisin07family]

3 hours ago, graphicguy said:

Info is out there.  The reputable sources have all chimed in.  Believe what you want.  Fact remains, if you do not have the vaccine, you ain't cruising....regardless.

 

 

 

Where is this on the NCL site as a requirement?  

[ColeThornton]

1 minute ago, cruisin07family said:

 

Where is this on the NCL site as a requirement?  

 

It isn't.    It's all speculation at this point.   It may very well happen as it makes sense as an initial reopening requirement but right now...no.

[farmersfight]

7 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

As usual, I associate my views with yours, @farmersfight.

One of the more (to me fascinating, and at some times infuriating) aspects of Covid-19 and the debate over lock downs has been the way people can pick and choose whatever data supports their point of view. I practiced some of this back when I was studying for the LSAT.

Let's say Porsche has a 2% share of the US market and in 2021 increased it by 200%. But Ford only increased its share by 10%. So, logically, Porsche sold more cars than Ford, right, because 200% is WAY more than 10. Wrong, because in my hypothetical example, Ford already commands, let's say, 25% of the US market. Or if I say that when a locality started a confidential hotline for reporting crimes and reports jumped by 50% the first year, that means more crimes got committed, right? Wrong! It just means more people are reporting them. You see where this is going, right?

 

CA and NY imposed very draconian lock downs on their respective populations, whereas SD and FL, for example, did not. More people died in NY and CA, but because their populations are greater, those who support the lock downs want you to focus on the per capita death rate, because that supports their point of view. But they leave out the fact that Florida has more seniors than CA and NY, and seniors are disproportionately likely to die from Covid-19. So the per capita number is NOT all that matters. SD could have a comparatively higher number of cases per capita, but it's much less densely populated than CA and NY, so you're less likely to be packed together like sardines as you'd be in New York City. Furthermore, focusing solely on number of deaths per capita ignores the very real and damaging effects of the lock downs. How many people in CA and NY, say, died of preventable illnesses but couldn't get to the doctor due to the high number of Covid patients jamming their waiting rooms and hospitals? How many people in FL are alive today who might have committed suicide due to job loss and other factors directly attributable to the lock downs?

Again, if you favor the lock downs, there are plenty of statistics to help you prove your point.

When I hear people say "per capita death rates are all that matter," I know where they're going with that. I just don't agree.

 

 

Thanks for highlighting the collateral damage of lock downs and the fact that seniors are disproportionately likely to die from covid-19 (again, jmho but Florida did the right thing by prioritizing protecting their seniors, especially those with underlying health conditions).

 

Speaking of lock downs, teachers refusing to get back in the classroom and do their job and teach our kids in person, 5 days a week, and forcing kids to sit in front of computer monitor in Zoom calls day after day after day, is another form of lock down. And again, the collateral damage from this remote "learning" is pediatric depression, anxiety and yes, even suicide.

 

So I don't mislead anyone, I'll go back to my original honest opinion (I am entitled to my opinion, right?), lock downs don't work.

Edited March 11, 2021 by farmersfight

[HuliHuli]

Johns Hopkins professor slams 'absurdly restrictive' CDC guidelines: After you get both doses of vaccines, 'go back to normal'

Today is my two-week anniversary of my second shot.  Thus, based upon the FDA approved trial recommendations, I should be free to get on with my life, i.e., back to normal.  OK, OK...I know some of you are going to jump on and say I can still transmit the virus.  Well, it so happens that a study conducted by by the Israeli Health Ministry and Pfizer shows that "Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine greatly reduces virus transmission ... [and] found the Pfizer vaccine reduces infection, including in asymptomatic cases, by 89.4% and in symptomatic cases by 93.7%."

 

So today, Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine posted an op-ed wherein he argued that "fully vaccinated people should be able to get back to normal life despite new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines that urge a much more cautious approach."  I invite those interested to read that opinion at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/wsj-cdc-vaccine-back-normal.

 

With that backdrop, and the growing body of post vaccination evidence, I want to ask this group a fresh question:

 

As a voice (if not THE voice) of the cruise community, should we collectively encourage Cruise Critic to take a stand on the resumption of cruising and lead a petition effort to our respective government leaders to restart cruising NOW?  What say you @Host Star?  What say you fellow cruisers?

 

Our collective voices would be stronger IMHO.  Feel free to comment and/or move this to a new thread if appropriate @Host Star.  Regards, @HuliHuli.

[farmersfight]

1 hour ago, HuliHuli said:

As a voice (if not THE voice) of the cruise community, should we collectively encourage Cruise Critic to take a stand on the resumption of cruising and lead a petition effort to our respective government leaders to restart cruising NOW?  What say you @Host Star?  What say you fellow cruisers?

 

Where do I sign?