Two Celebrity passengers test positive on first Celebrity cruise

[rabin1]

20 minutes ago, dog said:

I do not know for your government. Canada has bought up vaccines for boosters to give us within a year. I heard our PM say this. It can change. 
I read in UK news they want to give booster by the end of 2021  

 

I see your concern. 
we are still waiting for our second dose. 

Thank you. They have really said nothing here in the U.S. I think they are waiting for the CDC to tell them what to do. I don;t trust Fauci or the CDC so I may do what I said I might do

Kathy

[dickinson]

2 hours ago, LACruiser88 said:

Or Johnson & Johnson.

 

I was thinking the same thing???

 

Earlier today I was going for my morning walk and it suddenly popped into my head that I forgot to say Johnson & Johnson.  Strange the way things just pop into our heads!  I should have remembered because dd got the J&J.  

[Mary loves to travel]

2 hours ago, rabin1 said:

I wish I knew how long the vaccine lasts. I got mine in Jan and Feb. Going on a B2B that starts in December and comes back January. That will be a year. I am half tempted to go do another round of shots or at least the one dose J&J. I have 3 compromised immune issues and I will not wear a mask on a cruise unless told to.

JEEZ this thing Covid 19 is a PITA

Kathy

You have “3 compromised immune issues” and you “will not wear a mask on a cruise unless told to”.  
 

fascinating!   

[rabin1]

5 minutes ago, Mary loves to travel said:

You have “3 compromised immune issues” and you “will not wear a mask on a cruise unless told to”.  
 

fascinating!   

one because I have had the shots and two it is my choice. Happy you were fascinated

Kathy

[nocl]

20 hours ago, CI66774 said:

People have gotten sick and died from COVID after being fully vaccinated.

They have but the data shows that the vaccine reduces mortality by 98%.  or to put it another way the 600,000 deaths that have occured in the US would have been reduced by vaccination to around 12,000.

[nocl]

4 hours ago, LACruiser88 said:

Or Johnson & Johnson.

 

I was thinking the same thing???

the odds of have 2 false positives out of 600 passengers, and both being in the same cabin, would be extremely low. If they were positive with an antigen test they should do a pcr to confirm.

[nocl]

4 hours ago, PescadoAmarillo said:

My skepticism stems from the math. Let’s say the vaccine is 95% effective (likely higher). The infection rate is then .05. For two people in the same cabin isn’t the probability that they are both infected .05 x .05 = .0025 or a quarter of one percent?  That’s a remarkably remote chance. 
 

Of course, it’s been 36 years since I’ve taken a statistics class, and I could be way off on this too. But just thinking about it logically…these are some remote odds. 

Against asymptomatic infection Pfizer was about 90% according to some studies, lower against some variants. In the mid to upper 70's against b.1.351. 95% against symptomatic infection in the original trial.

 

A lot depends upon the strain if it was analyzed.

[Thrak]

15 hours ago, caribill said:

Those that cannot have the vaccine for medical or religious reasons can also be in that 5%.

 

From what I have been able to find the "medical" reasons can include: I don't want the vaccine. To me, that's not a valid medical reason.

[Ombud]

4 hours ago, LACruiser88 said:

9 hours ago, dickinson said:

If they are US citizens then it would be Moderna or Pfizer.  We don't have AZ here.

Or Johnson & Johnson.

I had J&J which has shown to be 86% effective after 1 dose even against the most common 4 varrients. 

 

But I wonder ... in that they were asymptomatic, how were they picked to be tested or did X test everyone on an independent excursion? Is this why Princess is now not allowing any unvaccinated on Alaska voyages? 

 

 

[dickinson]

4 minutes ago, Ombud said:

I had J&J which has shown to be 86% effective after 1 dose even against the most common 4 varrients. 

 

But I wonder ... in that they were asymptomatic, how were they picked to be tested or did X test everyone on an independent excursion? Is this why Princess is now not allowing any unvaccinated on Alaska voyages? 

 

 

 

I think everyone was being tested because Sint Martin required it before they could disembark the ship there.

[nocl]

2 minutes ago, dickinson said:

 

I think everyone was being tested because Sint Martin required it before they could disembark the ship there.

It is also required before anyone could fly back to the US commercially.

 

A positive test means no flight back to US via commercial aircraft for 10 days.

[matadams4u]

51 minutes ago, nocl said:

Against asymptomatic infection Pfizer was about 90% according to some studies, lower against some variants. In the mid to upper 70's against b.1.351. 95% against symptomatic infection in the original trial.

 

A lot depends upon the strain if it was analyzed.

I was a bit encouraged by an article on CNBC indicating the Pfizer vaccine is showing 90% efficacy against The Delta variant.  However, the Delta variant appears to be hitting children harder than other variants and transmission through younger is higher so causing some concern with unvaccinated.  If the US has a spike similar to Britain the CDC might tighten restrictions on unvaccinated.  The Delta variant is currently at 6% of infections in the US and the affect on areas with low vaccination rates is worth watching.  Given the high percentage of people with Pfizer or Moderna it is unlikely hospitalizations will be of concern in areas with high vaccination rates.

[KeepCalmBearOn]

55 minutes ago, Ombud said:

But I wonder ... in that they were asymptomatic, how were they picked to be tested or did X test everyone on an independent excursion?

 

As I understood the articles, every passenger was tested as an "exit test" before returning to the U.S.

[capriccio]

9 hours ago, rabin1 said:

I wish I knew how long the vaccine lasts. I got mine in Jan and Feb. Going on a B2B that starts in December and comes back January. That will be a year. I am half tempted to go do another round of shots or at least the one dose J&J. I have 3 compromised immune issues and I will not wear a mask on a cruise unless told to.

JEEZ this thing Covid 19 is a PITA

Kathy

The original vaccine trial volunteers are approaching 9 months post vaccine (assuming they had their first jab in August) and are being followed closely.  When their immunity decreases sufficiently to warrant a booster, we will have an indication of how long the vaccine lasts. 

[HaveDogWillTravel]

19 hours ago, PescadoAmarillo said:

My skepticism stems from the math. Let’s say the vaccine is 95% effective (likely higher). The infection rate is then .05. For two people in the same cabin isn’t the probability that they are both infected .05 x .05 = .0025 or a quarter of one percent?  That’s a remarkably remote chance. 
 

Of course, it’s been 36 years since I’ve taken a statistics class, and I could be way off on this too. But just thinking about it logically…these are some remote odds. 

Hi, I teach that stats class so just a kind reminder that the multiplication rule for probabilities only applies to independent events. Events are independent if the occurrence of one event does not effect the probability of the other event. With contagious diseases and a shared room these two outcomes don’t fit that description. 
 Efficacy is a point estimate (meaning it comes with a bit of statistical uncertainty) for the percent decrease in how many people would be infected with the vaccine as compared to without. Here are a couple of nicely written articles. 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/03/science/vaccine-efficacy-coronavirus.html

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiwksGpyZTxAhUYrp4KHQ7xCZ0QFjACegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F12%2F13%2Flearning%2Fwhat-does-95-effective-mean-teaching-the-math-of-vaccine-efficacy.html&usg=AOvVaw0PNJIMyd1EQdxfJ-nLnKdv
 

if the second link does not work google What does 95% efficacy mean NYT 

[ontheweb]

5 minutes ago, HaveDogWillTravel said:

Hi, I teach that stats class so just a kind reminder that the multiplication rule for probabilities only applies to independent events. Events are independent if the occurrence of one event does not effect the probability of the other event. With contagious diseases and a shared room these two outcomes don’t fit that description. 
 Efficacy is a point estimate (meaning it comes with a bit of statistical uncertainty) for the percent decrease in how many people would be infected with the vaccine as compared to without. Here are a couple of nicely written articles. 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/03/science/vaccine-efficacy-coronavirus.html

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiwksGpyZTxAhUYrp4KHQ7xCZ0QFjACegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F12%2F13%2Flearning%2Fwhat-does-95-effective-mean-teaching-the-math-of-vaccine-efficacy.html&usg=AOvVaw0PNJIMyd1EQdxfJ-nLnKdv
 

if the second link does not work google What does 95% efficacy mean NYT 

Thanks, so many have posted on the improbability of 2 in the same cabin both defying the odds when instead it should be looked at as that the 2 were in the same cabin probably increased the odds of whichever of the 2 was the second to be infected to be infected.

 

BTW, the only A+ I ever received in college was in an introductory statistics course. I was told I was being thrown off the curve and would get an A+.

[geocruiser]

19 hours ago, dog said:

I do not know for your government. Canada has bought up vaccines for boosters to give us within a year. I heard our PM say this. It can change. 
I read in UK news they want to give booster by the end of 2021  

 

I see your concern. 
we are still waiting for our second dose. 

Good to hear.  I have cousin in Canada, they got their first shot and have a 16 week wait to get their second shot. What you wrote mean that they will be able to get their second shot much sooner?  Mine were three weeks apart in the US.

Edited June 13, 2021 by geocruiser

[Tiggerontheseas]

7 hours ago, geocruiser said:

Good to hear.  I have cousin in Canada, they got their first shot and have a 16 week wait to get their second shot. What you wrote mean that they will be able to get their second shot much sooner?  Mine were three weeks apart in the US.

 

Yes, Canada decided to spread the time between doses further apart in order to use the vaccines that we had to get as many people as possible their 1st dose as soon as possible.  The original timeline was 16 weeks but at least in my province that has been reduced to about 8 weeks instead.  I am booked for my second shot exactly 8 weeks after I got my 1st.  🙂

[dog]

9 minutes ago, Tiggerontheseas said:

 

Yes, Canada decided to spread the time between doses further apart in order to use the vaccines that we had to get as many people as possible their 1st dose as soon as possible.  The original timeline was 16 weeks but at least in my province that has been reduced to about 8 weeks instead.  I am booked for my second shot exactly 8 weeks after I got my 1st.  🙂

That’s great 

My second dose is booked now. Moved up to 11 weeks. Can’t wait to get that over with!

[janice2348]

On 6/11/2021 at 6:35 PM, CI66774 said:

People have gotten sick and died from COVID after being fully vaccinated.

No vaccine is 100% effective, but being vaccinated certainly lowers your odds.  
I’m not going to debate the issue. Stats speak for themselves. If we were to cruise now, we wouldn’t do so on a cruise with unvaccinated passengers. Just our personal choice.  

Here is the CDC report:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.ht

 

 

[Redwing55]

3 hours ago, janice2348 said:

No vaccine is 100% effective, but being vaccinated certainly lowers your odds.  
I’m not going to debate the issue. Stats speak for themselves. If we were to cruise now, we wouldn’t do so on a cruise with unvaccinated passengers. Just our personal choice.  

Here is the CDC report:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.ht

 

 

You're relying on a months old data to influence your behavior?  Your choice.  And frankly, the CDC has a ways to go to re-establish credibility.  For me, I have to take all of their comments, guidelines, etc with skepticism.  Personally, I need other sources to confirm/deny anything that comes out of there.  They've allowed to much personal bias to influence their words.

[Outerdog]

10 minutes ago, Redwing55 said:

Personally, I need other sources to confirm/deny anything that comes out of there.  They've allowed to much personal bias to influence their words.

 

What other sources do you recommend?

 

[Redwing55]

25 minutes ago, Outerdog said:

 

What other sources do you recommend?

 

Whatever I can find... other hospitals, doctors, epidemiologists.  It's tough out there.  If one doesn't want to aggressively look for information, one might find themselves being wrongly influenced.  

 

I'm not saying that EVERYTHING the CDC puts out is wrong.  Frankly, a ton of it is on target.  It's usually the conclusion that they reach that is suspect.  I won't get into specifics since then THAT will be the target.  I will say, each should learn enough about a topic so they can make a comfortable choice for themselves.  I might have been a bit out of line with my remark above.  But if that link is what an individual uses for their behavior, it may not be ideal.  That link really is more of an announcement anyway.  Frankly, one could argue that it's a bit of an alarmist perspective.  I say this, as there are so many variables on that topic.

 

And for example, there have been story after story about caffeine and coffee.  So does one drink it or not?  I suspect one can find great doctors and both sides of the issue.  In the end, it'll come down to the individual.  But, some doctors might want coffee, or maybe caffeine banned.  Others would suggest that it has benefit.  One just has to make ones own choices.

 

 

[KeepCalmBearOn]

Really great info from a passenger on board the Millennium.

 

 

[OzKiwiJJ]

On 6/13/2021 at 2:02 AM, PescadoAmarillo said:

My skepticism stems from the math. Let’s say the vaccine is 95% effective (likely higher). The infection rate is then .05. For two people in the same cabin isn’t the probability that they are both infected .05 x .05 = .0025 or a quarter of one percent?  That’s a remarkably remote chance. 
 

Of course, it’s been 36 years since I’ve taken a statistics class, and I could be way off on this too. But just thinking about it logically…these are some remote odds. 

But you are assuming that the vaccines stop people from catching the virus. They don't! They do significantly reduce the severity of the illness and the likelihood of ending up in hospital with it, and they do significantly reduce the likelihood of passing it on. Although I don't have the figures to hand I have seen reports from both the US and the UK of documented cases of vaccinated people catching the virus.