COVID Being brought under Control

[Zach1213]

1 hour ago, Mary229 said:

@CruiserBruceand @Hlitner  Now that I think about it perhaps my confusion stems from where I received the vaccine.  I went to a drive through hub with paramedics.  Likely those vaccines were pre-filled by pharmacists then administered by paramedics.

 

Generally, yes. I had a meeting with the head of the pharmacy at a major hospital in the Kansas City area, and he said the vaccines were getting filled by pharmacy technicians, reviewed/signed off on by pharmacists, and then administered by paramedics, nurses, pharmacists, etc. 

Edited March 22, 2021 by Zach1213

[clo]

1 hour ago, clo said:

I really drives me rather nut(tier) when someone writes a long, long post and says 'this is how it is' but gives the rare citation. I've come to just not reading those. I've said that on important issues "I don't care who people think/feel/believe; I'm only interesting in the facts." And without citations it could be anything.

Should read I DON'T care.

[ldubs]

6 hours ago, Mary229 said:

Covid being brought under control - anecdotal evidence

 

My sister is a hospital nurse in New Orleans who has worked with Covid patients exclusively since last year.  Her hospital was ground zero for the New Orleans outbreak.  She reported that today was the first day in over a year that she did not have to go through a line at the door to have her temperature checked.  Gone are the temperature stations!

 

That is a pretty big deal.  I had to have my temp checked today just to enter a veterinarian's office.   

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, CruiserBruce said:

Due to the volume most places are trying to do, someone loading and a different person injecting is a very efficient way to do it.

 

By the way, you don't need to be a doctor or a pharmacist to draw injections. RNs,  paramedics and others, like pharmacist techs can all draw meds. In my case, my first dose was drawn by one nurse, injected by another. The drawing nurse was sitting at the other end of the table from the injecting nurse.

 

I received the vaccine in my primary Doc's office so the nurse I've known for years gave me the shot.  Mrs Ldubs got her's at a local community college campus that was doing mass vaccination processing.  She was surprised that she got hers from a medical doctor.  Though I'm sure there were plenty of other skilled folk involved at the other tables.   There would have to be to process such large numbers of people.   

[lenquixote66]

2 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

I received the vaccine in my primary Doc's office so the nurse I've known for years gave me the shot.  Mrs Ldubs got her's at a local community college campus that was doing mass vaccination processing.  She was surprised that she got hers from a medical doctor.  Though I'm sure there were plenty of other skilled folk involved at the other tables.   There would have to be to process such large numbers of people.   

Until last year I always had vaccinations in a doctors office.Last October I had a flu shot in a pharmacy and was planning to get the Covid vaccine in a pharmacy as well but opted for our local hospital where only RN’s administered the shots.

 

[Pizzasteve]

7 hours ago, Hlitner said:

We also read the story this morning.  What it shows is that the vaccine data is likely pretty accurate and about 1 out of 20 vaccinated (with Pfizer or Moderna) may still contract COVID after being fully vaccinated.   The good news is that none of the 3 cases in Hawaii involved serious symptoms....i.e. they were mild COVID cases.  This is also consistent with the vaccine claims that there were zero hospitalizations  (from COVID) in the Phase 3 vaccinated groups.   But that does leave us with two choices.  The vaccinated can simply live their normal lives with the knowledge that they might get a mild case of COVID.  or..... Vaccinated folks can continue to take mitigation measures (i.e. social distancing, masks, etc) to further minimize their risk.

 

What does this mean for cruises?  We again have the issue what happens on a ship when there are one or more cases of COVID?  Both RCI and Celebrity have made it clear their is a risk that their cruises will be cut short and immediately return to port and there might be delays in folks getting back home.  Given that COVID will likely be with us for a long time (perhaps forever) how we deal with these occasional cases is something that needs to be discussed and resolved.  

 

Hank 

Very good points and why, once the majority of populations in ports being visited are fully vaccinated, I expect cruises to continue, without masks.  What seems improper is for vaccinated people on ships spread disease to countries behind on vaccinations.  Hence the ideas for portless cruises or bubble excursions being fielded. I think this is the rationale as to why Canada and so e other countries have closed their ports to cruising for this year.

 

To Ldubs, we've been working as volunteers at mass vac sites and many MDs are giving shots because they are volunteers too, who want to get this under control having seen the suffering (and maybe seeing less traditional appointments this year if a specialist).

Edited March 23, 2021 by Pizzasteve

[Hlitner]

1 minute ago, Pizzasteve said:

Very good points and why, once the majority of populations in ports being visited are fully vaccinated, I expect cruises to continue, without masks.  What seems improper is for vaccinated people on ships spread disease to countries behind on vaccinations.  Hence the ideas for portless cruises or bubble excursions being fielded. I think this is the rationale as to why Canada and so e other countries have closed their ports to cruising for this year.

So let me think out loud and you can react.  Let us assume that the vaccines are as advertised and pretty much prevent (100%) serious illness from Covid.  But about 5% of vaccinated folks might still get a mild form of Covid.  As a mile disease COVID is likely no worse then mild flu or even a bad cold (which can also be caused by a Coronovirus).  If the new standard is to stay "closed" until we can be 100% sure that nobody gets COVID that will likely never happen and the cruise lines can stay closed forever as can the ports.  If, on the other hand, we accept that sickness is part of life and as long as the sickness is under control....life goes on and folks need to deal with their own risk tolerance.  If one is not very risk tolerant then they probably should wear a N95 mask 24/7 (perhaps not when in their own bed).  

 

So why should a controlled COVID (with few to no hospitalizations or deaths) be treated any different then flu, common cold, Noro, etc?  Because our politicians and health officials (around the world) have discovered a new power which is enhanced by simply saying "it is a public health issue or it is in our best interests."  The history of the world should have taught us that once power is ceded to a few officials they are not going to give it up without a fight.  And I fear we are getting to a place now where the people will need to take back control over their own lives or forever be following the dictates of a few who will constantly say, "it is in your own best interests."

 

Consider that cruises involving the USA were always subject to both health and coast guard inspections.  If a serious health problem on a cruise (this has happened with bad Noro outbreaks) an occasional cruise would need to end.  But we never had a situation where an entire industry is shut down and waiting for a few health officials to issue technical guidelines.  If the CDC were to never issue those technical guidelines there could never be another cruise out of a US port.  And what is to force the CDC to issue those technical guidelines and ultimately OK cruising?  Absolutely nothing.  Kind of scary isn't it?

 

Hank

 

 

[Pizzasteve]

34 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

So let me think out loud and you can react.  Let us assume that the vaccines are as advertised and pretty much prevent (100%) serious illness from Covid.  But about 5% of vaccinated folks might still get a mild form of Covid.  As a mile disease COVID is likely no worse then mild flu or even a bad cold (which can also be caused by a Coronovirus).  If the new standard is to stay "closed" until we can be 100% sure that nobody gets COVID that will likely never happen and the cruise lines can stay closed forever as can the ports.  If, on the other hand, we accept that sickness is part of life and as long as the sickness is under control....life goes on and folks need to deal with their own risk tolerance.  If one is not very risk tolerant then they probably should wear a N95 mask 24/7 (perhaps not when in their own bed).  

 

So why should a controlled COVID (with few to no hospitalizations or deaths) be treated any different then flu, common cold, Noro, etc?  Because our politicians and health officials (around the world) have discovered a new power which is enhanced by simply saying "it is a public health issue or it is in our best interests."  The history of the world should have taught us that once power is ceded to a few officials they are not going to give it up without a fight.  And I fear we are getting to a place now where the people will need to take back control over their own lives or forever be following the dictates of a few who will constantly say, "it is in your own best interests."

 

Consider that cruises involving the USA were always subject to both health and coast guard inspections.  If a serious health problem on a cruise (this has happened with bad Noro outbreaks) an occasional cruise would need to end.  But we never had a situation where an entire industry is shut down and waiting for a few health officials to issue technical guidelines.  If the CDC were to never issue those technical guidelines there could never be another cruise out of a US port.  And what is to force the CDC to issue those technical guidelines and ultimately OK cruising?  Absolutely nothing.  Kind of scary isn't it?

 

Hank

 

 

I think my reaction to your statement is that it is looking from the perspective of the person who is ill, with acceptable symptoms, which is natural.  People who feel personally safe want to do what they want.

 

What is lacking is the perspective of protecting the person who is unvaccinated or vulnerable that that person may infect.  In many countries the vaccine availablity may not be good, or still pretty far off, like many of countries our cruises visit.  Colombia or Panama on a canal cruise, Peru on a SA cruise, etc.  Many of these places also have less medical care available or large populations in densely crowded housing with poor education levels, so the disease brought by tourists may become issues.  In fact, this has been a global issue with tourism from wealthy countries pre Covid.

 

In a prior post I mentioned a friend of my sister who died because she was infected due to a very brief exposure, was unvaccinated and had a medical vulnerability.  Some, like her, cant take the vaccine, so while the risk to healthy adults may be low some people may be put at risk.

 

My personal feeling is with you, that the risks will soon be acceptable.  But I dont think it is a power grab.  Real issues exist.  Cruises impact huge ecosystems of dock workers, waste disposal, crew, increase flying, etc.  When I helped run a large regional public transit I learned many health issues I never imagined I would need mitigation strategies for (e.g. design lighting in restrooms to discourage use of needles for drugs).  

 

I think my point is that I defer to those professionals who spend a lifetime studying disease.  They are not perfect, but much better informed than I am.  They are still learning about this disease, so maybe the humble and right thing to do is wait patiently rather than assume they have poor motives for pausing cruising.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Pizzasteve

[cruisemom42]

7 hours ago, kirtihk said:

Yes, and at certain age every day becomes the "ground hog day" for the majority.  For 0 - 40, however, every day is a new discovery; so, "steeling" over 365 of them and counting is a crime.

 

A year out of someone's life is a year lost, whether they are 5 years old or 85 years old. That said, sometimes it is necessary to make a sacrifice. 

 

Do you think someone who spent a year serving in the armed forces somewhere like Afghanistan or Iraq (or Korea or Vietnam) didn't feel like they were missing a year of seeing their family and living their lives?

 

 

[Hlitner]

9 minutes ago, Pizzasteve said:

I think my reaction to your statement is that it is looking from the perspective of the person who is ill, with acceptable syptoms, which is natural.  People who feel personally safe want to do what they want.

 

What is lacking is the perspective of protecting the person who is unvaccinated or vulnerable that that person may infect.  In many countries the vaccine availablity may not be good, or still pretty far off, like many of countries our cruises visit.  Colombia or Panama on a canal cruise, Peru on a SA cruise, etc.  Many of these places also have less medical care available or large populations in densely crowded housing with poor education levels, so the disease brought by tourists may become issues.  In fact, this has been a global issue with tourism from wealthy countries pre Covid.

 

In a prior post I mentioned a friend of my sister who died because she was infected due to a very brief exposure, was unvaccinated and had a medical vulnerability.  Some, like her, cant take the vaccine, so while the risk to healthy adults may be low some people may be put at risk.

 

My personal feeling is with you, that the risks will soon be acceptable.  But I dont think it is a power grab.  Real issues exist.  Cruises impact huge ecosystems of dock workers, waste disposal, crew, increase flying, etc.  When I helped run a large regional public transit I learned many health issues I never imagined I would need mitigation strategies for (e.g. design lighting in restrooms to discourage use of needles for drugs).  

 

I think my point is that I defer to those professionals who spend a lifetime studying disease.  They are not perfect, but much better informed than I am.  They are still learning about this disease, so maybe the humble and right thing to do is wait patiently rather than assume they have poor motives for pausing cruising.

We do generally agree.  But where I see a huge issue is this new idea, pushed by some healthcare experts, that we need a zero risk environment.  Until COVID most accepted the health risk that we considered part of life.  If a new standard is zero risk from COVID that will likely never be achieved....ever!  It is just like influenza which is never zero risk (we have been on cruises with flu outbreaks).  So if we all accept this new zero risk scenario then, what next?  Does every country stay locked down forever, borders closed forever, schools closed forever?  

 

When DW and I decided to spend our usual winter in Puerto Vallarta we were aware that the risk of COVID was increased when we went to Mexico.  After a lot of thought and discussion we decided that we would do our best, using common sense, to minimize our personal risk but we were not going to stop living our life because of COVID.  So we did go to Mexico (for 10 weeks), lived our life with some COVID mitigation strategies, and returned safely home.  All of our friends who are in Mexico are also doing quite fine and following their own COVID mitigation strategies.  All of us decided that the increased risk of living our normal life outweighed the "joy" and less risk of staying home for the winter.  Like just about everything we do in life it was a calculated risk.

 

Some "experts" now preach a strategy which says, if there is any risk you must say no.  That is not a world where I choose to live.  I accept that taking an unreasonable risk is not wise, but living a life with zero risk is true folly.

 

Hank

[Pizzasteve]

10 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

We do generally agree.  But where I see a huge issue is this new idea, pushed by some healthcare experts, that we need a zero risk environment.  Until COVID most accepted the health risk that we considered part of life.  If a new standard is zero risk from COVID that will likely never be achieved....ever!  It is just like influenza which is never zero risk (we have been on cruises with flu outbreaks).  So if we all accept this new zero risk scenario then, what next?  Does every country stay locked down forever, borders closed forever, schools closed forever?  

 

When DW and I decided to spend our usual winter in Puerto Vallarta we were aware that the risk of COVID was increased when we went to Mexico.  After a lot of thought and discussion we decided that we would do our best, using common sense, to minimize our personal risk but we were not going to stop living our life because of COVID.  So we did go to Mexico (for 10 weeks), lived our life with some COVID mitigation strategies, and returned safely home.  All of our friends who are in Mexico are also doing quite fine and following their own COVID mitigation strategies.  All of us decided that the increased risk of living our normal life outweighed the "joy" and less risk of staying home for the winter.  Like just about everything we do in life it was a calculated risk.

 

Some "experts" now preach a strategy which says, if there is any risk you must say no.  That is not a world where I choose to live.  I accept that taking an unreasonable risk is not wise, but living a life with zero risk is true folly.

 

Hank

I think this is a false straw man.  Nowhere are health officials pushing zero risk.

 

In fact, those people who doubted the models and suggested Covid was 'no worse than the sniffles' were absolutely wrong.  People trying to pressure health officials to not impact fun or economic wealth creation have clear agendas.

 

I can't agree that missing out on that buffet is worth someone's life.  We are so far from a zero risk policy at a political level, it is laughable to suggest we are.   The US with sensible policies like mandating masks and limiting travel when this first hit could have led to much fewer deaths, but they refused to accept the science.  The experts models of policy and outcomes were quite accurate actually.  I have nationally leading data scientists as friends and policy was not based on science (not that Americans do the right and sensible thing anyway, sadly).

 

PS  That said I respect your views and wish you health, happiness and wellness.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Pizzasteve

[ilikeanswers]

2 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

We do generally agree.  But where I see a huge issue is this new idea, pushed by some healthcare experts, that we need a zero risk environment.  Until COVID most accepted the health risk that we considered part of life.  If a new standard is zero risk from COVID that will likely never be achieved....ever!  It is just like influenza which is never zero risk (we have been on cruises with flu outbreaks).  So if we all accept this new zero risk scenario then, what next?  Does every country stay locked down forever, borders closed forever, schools closed forever?  

 

When DW and I decided to spend our usual winter in Puerto Vallarta we were aware that the risk of COVID was increased when we went to Mexico.  After a lot of thought and discussion we decided that we would do our best, using common sense, to minimize our personal risk but we were not going to stop living our life because of COVID.  So we did go to Mexico (for 10 weeks), lived our life with some COVID mitigation strategies, and returned safely home.  All of our friends who are in Mexico are also doing quite fine and following their own COVID mitigation strategies.  All of us decided that the increased risk of living our normal life outweighed the "joy" and less risk of staying home for the winter.  Like just about everything we do in life it was a calculated risk.

 

Some "experts" now preach a strategy which says, if there is any risk you must say no.  That is not a world where I choose to live.  I accept that taking an unreasonable risk is not wise, but living a life with zero risk is true folly.

 

Hank

 

To be honest you sound like you are catastrophizing😳. I have not heard anyone in any country preaching zero risk but the reality the risk level is different around the world. Now America is doing great with vaccination rates so that might be colouring your view to what is happening in the rest of the world, but other countries are further behind. It seems right they might want to keep themselves closed of till their vacination levels are at least the level of the countries with the highest vaccination rates. The world is bigger than the USA and countries all have unique problems and circumstances they need to take into account. There is no one size fits all solution and to suggest because America is doing better every country should open up is a little arrogant.

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, Pizzasteve said:

.

 

To Ldubs, we've been working as volunteers at mass vac sites and many MDs are giving shots because they are volunteers too, who want to get this under control having seen the suffering (and maybe seeing less traditional appointments this year if a specialist).

 

That is outstanding.  Thank you and thanks for sharing!! 

[clo]

6 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

Due to the volume most places are trying to do, someone loading and a different person injecting is a very efficient way to do it.

 

By the way, you don't need to be a doctor or a pharmacist to draw injections. RNs,  paramedics and others, like pharmacist techs can all draw meds. In my case, my first dose was drawn by one nurse, injected by another. The drawing nurse was sitting at the other end of the table from the injecting nurse.

I've wondered if given in a pharmacy, does someone need to be trained in CPR in the rare instance that someone is allergic (one can be allergic to anything) and goes into anaphylactic shock. We had both of ours in a huge tent at a local hospital. Then we were directed to an adjacent area to park for 15 minutes. I don't know what other sites do.

[clo]

32 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

To be honest you sound like you are catastrophizing😳.

He rarely give citations so I tend to be skeptical.

[Hlitner]

15 minutes ago, clo said:

I've wondered if given in a pharmacy, does someone need to be trained in CPR in the rare instance that someone is allergic (one can be allergic to anything) and goes into anaphylactic shock. We had both of ours in a huge tent at a local hospital. Then we were directed to an adjacent area to park for 15 minutes. I don't know what other sites do.

Great question.  But I think my first question should have been "do you have an "epipen" and know how to use it?  CPR is not a very effective way to treat anaphylactic shock and "epi' can be a true lifesaver.   Our own experience (inside a medium size pharmacy) was to get our shot and then be told to hang around the store for 15 minutes.  We were free to sit in available chairs or just browse the store.  Both DW and I were very comfortable with the procedure and service and thought it was "well done."  Nobody monitored that folks actually waited 15 min so this was one of those increasingly rare situations when some personal responsibility was expected.

 

Hank 

[clo]

18 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

But I think my first question should have been "do you have an "epipen" and know how to use it? 

IMO that goes without saying.

[2wheelin]

1 hour ago, clo said:

I've wondered if given in a pharmacy, does someone need to be trained in CPR in the rare instance that someone is allergic (one can be allergic to anything) and goes into anaphylactic shock. We had both of ours in a huge tent at a local hospital. Then we were directed to an adjacent area to park for 15 minutes. I don't know what other sites do.

I guess I would rather be in a pharmacy if I were concerned where a pharmacist would certainly have quick access to an epi pen than a parking lot. How many cars were how many trained people watching over for instance.

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

Great question.  But I think my first question should have been "do you have an "epipen" and know how to use it?  CPR is not a very effective way to treat anaphylactic shock and "epi' can be a true lifesaver.   Our own experience (inside a medium size pharmacy) was to get our shot and then be told to hang around the store for 15 minutes.  We were free to sit in available chairs or just browse the store.  Both DW and I were very comfortable with the procedure and service and thought it was "well done."  Nobody monitored that folks actually waited 15 min so this was one of those increasingly rare situations when some personal responsibility was expected.

 

Hank 

We were asked if we wished to stay or not. Optional at a huge medical facility.

[CruiserBruce]

1 hour ago, clo said:

I've wondered if given in a pharmacy, does someone need to be trained in CPR in the rare instance that someone is allergic (one can be allergic to anything) and goes into anaphylactic shock. We had both of ours in a huge tent at a local hospital. Then we were directed to an adjacent area to park for 15 minutes. I don't know what other sites do.

In California,  and I suspect elsewhere,  anybody with "medical " in their job description, must be current in CPR. Doctors,  nurses, techs, medical assistants,  you name it. I guarantee all police and fire will be. Plus lots of other people. 

[Ashland]

Where we got our 1st & 2nd dose of Moderna in Ventura County it was not only staffed by nurses but a paramedic as well. Certain areas sectioned off for those that had to wait 15 min and an additional area where some that needed the additional observation of 30 min were sat. Also a curtained off area where I could hear a few people that were actually having their blood pressure monitored.

It was also one of the places that our governor toured as he went to different counties throughout the state.

Very well staffed and organized...very impressed !!!